ESPN: NBA adopts 'business casual' dress code
- Thread starter Warhawk
- Start date
back to regular programming...
Why didn't they go the "whole nine" then. Outlaw corn-rows, and the Afros. Outlaw the large diamond studs and the diamond dripped out watches. Outlaw the tatoos that shows all up and down a players arms in their real dress coded uniforms? NO, they did not want to do that because all hell would break out. But they came out with this superficial half-way code that does not address the issue, that Corporate White America and the bigshots that buy the $75-150 tickets that regular people can not afford is scared to death and can not relate to these athletes and the way that they dress. If they wanted to do what was best for the league, put a better product on the floor!!! For Phil Jackson to say "The players have been dressing in prison garb the last five or six years. All the stuff that goes on, it's like gangster, thuggery stuff. It's time", it is way out of line and out of place.
These guys are not salesmen, they are entertainers, they are of the left side of the brain like singers, actors, dancers, athletes. And to put the responsibility upon artist to sale a product outside of the hardwood floor is not fair, that is what the marketing department sould do. Please do not make these guys more than what they are. They come from all walks of life including Serbia/Montenegro, rural Indiana, East Oakland, South Central LA and Bed-Stuy/Brooklyn, and the way that they dress reflects the culture they have learned.
Again let me specify, I do not have a problem with them cleaning this up. But as soon as you place a mandate upon a particular act, speech or image, it singles out an individual, group or a learned behavior. It is history.
This is all "window dressing" not dealing with the real issue.
These guys are not salesmen, they are entertainers, they are of the left side of the brain like singers, actors, dancers, athletes. And to put the responsibility upon artist to sale a product outside of the hardwood floor is not fair, that is what the marketing department sould do. Please do not make these guys more than what they are. They come from all walks of life including Serbia/Montenegro, rural Indiana, East Oakland, South Central LA and Bed-Stuy/Brooklyn, and the way that they dress reflects the culture they have learned.
Again let me specify, I do not have a problem with them cleaning this up. But as soon as you place a mandate upon a particular act, speech or image, it singles out an individual, group or a learned behavior. It is history.
This is all "window dressing" not dealing with the real issue.
Then the team should address the issue not a league mandated edict.
The reason why this bothers me so much is that I have kids that dress just like this, and I get sick and tired of society ultimately defining them based on clothes that makes some corporate suit very rich. I bet that if the players that took a stand on this and decided to go get another job, Stern would be begging them to come back because of the negative P.R.
The reason why this bothers me so much is that I have kids that dress just like this, and I get sick and tired of society ultimately defining them based on clothes that makes some corporate suit very rich. I bet that if the players that took a stand on this and decided to go get another job, Stern would be begging them to come back because of the negative P.R.
Once again, you say its universal, but more and more today it's not how it used to be. There are a great good deal of individuals and or companies of which I know of(and yourself) which consider a mark for success the output of the individual, team, Management, and employees. Dress has nothing to do with that at all. "Wow we just offloaded a cluster of 40,000 units to an overseas company, it must have been how we dressed". I mean come on now ? One of the bigwigs for my company, just recently sold a pretty hefty server farm to a well known company : He was in jeans and a t-shirt. I know what you're saying about overly baggy jeans, or t-shirts today that look like sun dresses, they should all be burned. Trust.. by the way I dress to and from work, you'd have no idea that as of now I've become VERY successful. If ever a note came into Redmond for individuals to start wearing ties, and business attire to / from and at every even which applied to the company.. you can bet your *** there would be an uproar. So that statement which you made is very loose.
But it is against the youth, freedom of expression? Economics is one of the main determining factors, but you cant deny the entity which eats up your media advertising day in and day out. So in any case, we're both wrong - and right. Understand, I do agree with the action the NBA has taken to a point. My main disagreement with all of this is, looking at the terms most are absolutely overboard.
I couldn't agree with you more.
But it is against the youth, freedom of expression? Economics is one of the main determining factors, but you cant deny the entity which eats up your media advertising day in and day out. So in any case, we're both wrong - and right. Understand, I do agree with the action the NBA has taken to a point. My main disagreement with all of this is, looking at the terms most are absolutely overboard.
I couldn't agree with you more.
It is a league mandated edict becuase it is a league wide problem.
The fact of the matter is that "you are what you wear" can be all too true. And naturally enough when you think about it. Its no different than thinking that somebody looks tough, or sweet, or whatever upon first seeing them. You size people up upon appearances when you don't have much else to go on. Its natural. You see somebody in a suit, you assume he/she is successful. You see somebody in baggy jeans and a stained t-shirt, you're not so sure. Nor is it entirely unreasonable -- many people use their clothing to try to express who they are, or at least who they want you to think they are.
As an aside, when I was in law school there was a CVS drug store just a block up from my apartment. One of my first real realizations of the impact of clothing came there the first time I walked in wearing a very nice lawyeresque suit fully accessorized, after having been in and out of the place for 6 months in shorts and a t-shirt every day on the way back from classes. Night and day how they treated me. Not even sure they recognized me, and all of a sudden it was "sir" this and "sir" that. I hadn't changed. Just the clothes. And it made all the difference in the world for the people I was interacting with.
P.S. As for your kids -- obviously none of my business, but depending on what they want to do in life, they would be well served with at least learning how to wear nice clothes sometimes, no matter what their preferences at home.
The fact of the matter is that "you are what you wear" can be all too true. And naturally enough when you think about it. Its no different than thinking that somebody looks tough, or sweet, or whatever upon first seeing them. You size people up upon appearances when you don't have much else to go on. Its natural. You see somebody in a suit, you assume he/she is successful. You see somebody in baggy jeans and a stained t-shirt, you're not so sure. Nor is it entirely unreasonable -- many people use their clothing to try to express who they are, or at least who they want you to think they are.
As an aside, when I was in law school there was a CVS drug store just a block up from my apartment. One of my first real realizations of the impact of clothing came there the first time I walked in wearing a very nice lawyeresque suit fully accessorized, after having been in and out of the place for 6 months in shorts and a t-shirt every day on the way back from classes. Night and day how they treated me. Not even sure they recognized me, and all of a sudden it was "sir" this and "sir" that. I hadn't changed. Just the clothes. And it made all the difference in the world for the people I was interacting with.
P.S. As for your kids -- obviously none of my business, but depending on what they want to do in life, they would be well served with at least learning how to wear nice clothes sometimes, no matter what their preferences at home.
Last edited:
Like Brick already said, society has always judged people by how they dress. Society has also set standards on what is appropriate business dress code, and it will always be that way, whether we like it or not. Your kids may dress like that now, but would you send them out on a job interview dressed like that?
Last edited:
I had a feeling you might be computer industry. A couple of interesting notes there:
Whether you realize it or not, your industry has a "uniform" too, certain standards and things you do and do not like (in fact so do the hiphoppers -- what A.I. is objecting to is different from what Duncan is objecting to. For Duncan it is a question of comfort, for A.I. it is a question of turning in his own uniform for one of the league's choosing). A few years back at the height of the dotcom boom, there was a dress down wave that swept out from the Silicon Valley and eventually washed ashore on the East Coast. And what powered it initially in the legal industry was two things .
1) there was a different clothing paradigm with the dotcomers. There was a ton of legal work being done in that field, but the dotcom magnates were younger and cmae from a much looser almost collegesque culture than the major corporate clients the big law firms were used to dealing with. And it was discovered that in dealing with this new breed, a suit was actually a DISadvantage. Just like the corporations, the new breed wanted the people they dealt with to dress like THEM. And this eventually led to not only a relaxation of some of the dress codes around New York, but also to comical things such as a "how to dress" memo I received once before a West Coast business trip. I was from the West Coast, my dad was a computer engineer, and my brother had been in the busines for a while, so it was not exactly news. And the suggestion was that we wear jeans and a casual button down shirt. Which was no biggee for me since that was a very common winter outfit for me in law school. But the point being -- there was "a book" on the dotcom "uniform" just as there was one for the corporate world. In fact most of the objections in this thead not from hiphop people feeling attacked are from computer industry people who have long had their own alternative uniform to the suit uniform and have a refelexive distaste for it.
2) the second factor was simply that the legal market was very hot at the time. Economy in the late 90's was great, and the legal business was booming. Salaries were shooting up, and there was a lot of competition for the best law school grads. And the result of this was that young lawyers fresh out of school had a lot more bargaining power than they usually did, and were still working off of college standards of dress. So the firms loosened the rules a bit in an effort to aid recruitment -- i.e., see, we're looser than Simpson Thatcher, so you should choose us! But once the economy cooled, (and thus so did the demand for and power of young attorneys) the dotcoms crashed, the standards began to get more conservative again. Which is just to again illustrate this significantly being an age issue.
Whether you realize it or not, your industry has a "uniform" too, certain standards and things you do and do not like (in fact so do the hiphoppers -- what A.I. is objecting to is different from what Duncan is objecting to. For Duncan it is a question of comfort, for A.I. it is a question of turning in his own uniform for one of the league's choosing). A few years back at the height of the dotcom boom, there was a dress down wave that swept out from the Silicon Valley and eventually washed ashore on the East Coast. And what powered it initially in the legal industry was two things .
1) there was a different clothing paradigm with the dotcomers. There was a ton of legal work being done in that field, but the dotcom magnates were younger and cmae from a much looser almost collegesque culture than the major corporate clients the big law firms were used to dealing with. And it was discovered that in dealing with this new breed, a suit was actually a DISadvantage. Just like the corporations, the new breed wanted the people they dealt with to dress like THEM. And this eventually led to not only a relaxation of some of the dress codes around New York, but also to comical things such as a "how to dress" memo I received once before a West Coast business trip. I was from the West Coast, my dad was a computer engineer, and my brother had been in the busines for a while, so it was not exactly news. And the suggestion was that we wear jeans and a casual button down shirt. Which was no biggee for me since that was a very common winter outfit for me in law school. But the point being -- there was "a book" on the dotcom "uniform" just as there was one for the corporate world. In fact most of the objections in this thead not from hiphop people feeling attacked are from computer industry people who have long had their own alternative uniform to the suit uniform and have a refelexive distaste for it.
2) the second factor was simply that the legal market was very hot at the time. Economy in the late 90's was great, and the legal business was booming. Salaries were shooting up, and there was a lot of competition for the best law school grads. And the result of this was that young lawyers fresh out of school had a lot more bargaining power than they usually did, and were still working off of college standards of dress. So the firms loosened the rules a bit in an effort to aid recruitment -- i.e., see, we're looser than Simpson Thatcher, so you should choose us! But once the economy cooled, (and thus so did the demand for and power of young attorneys) the dotcoms crashed, the standards began to get more conservative again. Which is just to again illustrate this significantly being an age issue.
Last edited:
There are these bizarre moments in life where I find I am NOT the liberal person in the room and that just makes me smile. J Besides having bucked dress codes as a kid, and both enforced and ignored them as an adult I also teach communication for a living. When I teach basic public speaking classes part of the lesson is “Appearance.” I understand the old argument about racism and the suite but in the 21st century, that story has no legs. Anyone who thinks that they should not have to wear a suite or tie for cultural or ethnic reasons needs to ask them selves some basic questions first. What did or will I wear to my wedding, my Mother’s funeral, my child’s wedding or to court? If you can honestly say that a suite is NOT appropriate for those occasions (when in doubt ask your wife, mother, fiancé and or daughter these questions) then proceed, but if you think that they even MIGHT be appropriate attire guess what… like a few billion other humans you are part of a culture that decided that the jacket and tie are professional wear. Now you have a choice. You can either dress however you like and accept the judgment and consequences. OR you can follow the norms and add a little of your own flair to look. But please don’t waste my time telling me how unfair or fascist it is for you to have to look professional when you ARE a professional. If Brad Miller wants to look like he just got off the tractor that is just fine assuming he did NOT just walk off a basket ball court where he earned a PROFESSIONAL salary.
From time to time we hear ball players (usually retiring ones) talk about what a privalage it is to be allowed to play in the NBA. If a player believes he is privileged to play in the NBA then perhaps he will view a professional dress code as the least he can do for that privilege. On the other hand if he views playing as just a job and that the NBA ought to be grateful to him for all he has done for it then I can see how he might feel further imposed upon by the dress code.
Brick hit the nail on the head in his discussion about maturity. Case in point Bill Walton. In his day he frankly looked like crap. And had the NBA tried to impose a dress code on the 25-29 year old Walton he would have complained. By the time he retired he had not only made a lot of money and won a couple rings he also matured. Now Bill adheares to dress code for the network… BECAUSE it’s his job. I’m not sure what Bill has to say about dress code but I’d be interested. The truth is I don’t really care what a lot of 20 year olds do say about it, but I would LOVE to hear Barkely, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird and other greats address the issue… their opinions would impress me.
From time to time we hear ball players (usually retiring ones) talk about what a privalage it is to be allowed to play in the NBA. If a player believes he is privileged to play in the NBA then perhaps he will view a professional dress code as the least he can do for that privilege. On the other hand if he views playing as just a job and that the NBA ought to be grateful to him for all he has done for it then I can see how he might feel further imposed upon by the dress code.
Brick hit the nail on the head in his discussion about maturity. Case in point Bill Walton. In his day he frankly looked like crap. And had the NBA tried to impose a dress code on the 25-29 year old Walton he would have complained. By the time he retired he had not only made a lot of money and won a couple rings he also matured. Now Bill adheares to dress code for the network… BECAUSE it’s his job. I’m not sure what Bill has to say about dress code but I’d be interested. The truth is I don’t really care what a lot of 20 year olds do say about it, but I would LOVE to hear Barkely, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird and other greats address the issue… their opinions would impress me.
Is it just me or is anyone amazed at Tim Duncan's response to this?
"I think it's basically retarded"
Nice going Tim...very smart.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5009466
IMO, Charles B has had the smartest and most unselfish response to this so far - that it sets a good example for kids that emulate NBA players that there are times in life that you look professional to make a good impression/get a good job. Then you dress how you want on your own time. That is how the world works when you don't make millions playing a game.
Amazing how hard it is for some of these players to look beyond themselves.
"I think it's basically retarded"
Nice going Tim...very smart.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5009466
IMO, Charles B has had the smartest and most unselfish response to this so far - that it sets a good example for kids that emulate NBA players that there are times in life that you look professional to make a good impression/get a good job. Then you dress how you want on your own time. That is how the world works when you don't make millions playing a game.
Amazing how hard it is for some of these players to look beyond themselves.
Could you please refrain from shouting?
We understand what you're saying, even though a great number of us don't agree with you. Making the statements in larger type doesn't change anything.
If you still really think it's about wearing a suit (which is patently false since suits are NOT required) stopping players from doing anything wrong, you obviously haven't paid any attention to what the discussion has been. Either that, or you're simply ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your opinion.
I liked Kobe's comment from the news last night:
"What's the big deal?"
Some of these athletes - including Bibby - need to grow up. And David Stern is making it happen. As has been pointed out frequently, if the protesting athletes feel that strongly about having to wear business casual clothing, then perhaps they should also feel strongly about how much they make and how much fans have to pay for the privilege of watching them PLAY A GAME. You don't hear that, do you?
It's not about hip hop vs. rap vs. gangsta...or whatever else you want to call it.
Personally I agree 100% with Phil Jackson. The players brought this on themselves by purposefully adopting a mode of dress that is so closely associated - right or wrong - with a certain lifestyle (i.e. thuggery, guns, shooting each other in the street, etc) that they were driving away a segment of their audience. And they were tainting an already rocky image of the NBA.
I personally don't see anything "hip" or "cool" or "bad" or "sick" or whatever else you want to call it about obscenely rich athletes affecting a mode and style of dress. It's almost as if AI and some of the others are trying to say, "Hey, look at us! We're not obscenely rich! We don't make more in a couple of hours that most of you will make in a year. We're just like the other guys from the hood."
We understand what you're saying, even though a great number of us don't agree with you. Making the statements in larger type doesn't change anything.
If you still really think it's about wearing a suit (which is patently false since suits are NOT required) stopping players from doing anything wrong, you obviously haven't paid any attention to what the discussion has been. Either that, or you're simply ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your opinion.
I liked Kobe's comment from the news last night:
"What's the big deal?"
Some of these athletes - including Bibby - need to grow up. And David Stern is making it happen. As has been pointed out frequently, if the protesting athletes feel that strongly about having to wear business casual clothing, then perhaps they should also feel strongly about how much they make and how much fans have to pay for the privilege of watching them PLAY A GAME. You don't hear that, do you?
It's not about hip hop vs. rap vs. gangsta...or whatever else you want to call it.
Personally I agree 100% with Phil Jackson. The players brought this on themselves by purposefully adopting a mode of dress that is so closely associated - right or wrong - with a certain lifestyle (i.e. thuggery, guns, shooting each other in the street, etc) that they were driving away a segment of their audience. And they were tainting an already rocky image of the NBA.
I personally don't see anything "hip" or "cool" or "bad" or "sick" or whatever else you want to call it about obscenely rich athletes affecting a mode and style of dress. It's almost as if AI and some of the others are trying to say, "Hey, look at us! We're not obscenely rich! We don't make more in a couple of hours that most of you will make in a year. We're just like the other guys from the hood."
T
I live in Long Beach, so every school here wears uniforms when at school. Those uniforms sure helped to stop three shootings huh? It doesn't matter how you dress a "gangsta", he's still a gangsta.
So now that everyone is all dressed up, they can just start committing white collar crimes. Those Enron guys sure dressed nicely.
VF21- I've stated this before, the players should just follow suit and obey the dress code. My complaint lies with the thought that putting these guys in suits is going to clean up the leagues image. It was never the way the dressed that gave the league it bad rep, it was the way they acted.
So now that everyone is all dressed up, they can just start committing white collar crimes. Those Enron guys sure dressed nicely.
VF21- I've stated this before, the players should just follow suit and obey the dress code. My complaint lies with the thought that putting these guys in suits is going to clean up the leagues image. It was never the way the dressed that gave the league it bad rep, it was the way they acted.
T
VF21- since when does wearing jewlery and baggy pants associate you with thugs, guns, and shootings? I've been to many "hoods" as I've grown in the L.A./So Cal area my whole life, these "gangstas" aren't wearing diamond encrusted watches, huge pendants, and flashy bling. I don't see where this association comes from, maybe I haven't watched enough MTV lately.
The certain lifestyle I'm referring to is the one most commonly perceived about rappers/gangstas/etc.
I'm not going to argue about the perception because it's there, whether you realize it or not. Where did you first see the baggy pants and EXCESSIVE jewelry? On rappers, at least that's what I remember first - not being from the hood please excuse me if I don't have all the facts.
It's not about FACTS anyway. It's about perceptions. I don't know how else to try and explain it. You pick and choose among my comments, which is fine, but not really accurate.
I'm not going to argue this any further. I'm going to go out and bang my head on a Ponderosa Pine. I think it would be easier...
I'm not going to argue about the perception because it's there, whether you realize it or not. Where did you first see the baggy pants and EXCESSIVE jewelry? On rappers, at least that's what I remember first - not being from the hood please excuse me if I don't have all the facts.
It's not about FACTS anyway. It's about perceptions. I don't know how else to try and explain it. You pick and choose among my comments, which is fine, but not really accurate.
I'm not going to argue this any further. I'm going to go out and bang my head on a Ponderosa Pine. I think it would be easier...
Good point, but Stern has been trying to clamp down on the bad actions with fines already.
The appearances absolutely affect the image of the NBA as well though. Even if you don't agree, look at this thread and you will see that it does for many other people. The NBA is trying to bring in as many of those people as possible into their audience by trying to eliminate this kind of thing. It makes good business sense. Good example for the kids too...
The appearances absolutely affect the image of the NBA as well though. Even if you don't agree, look at this thread and you will see that it does for many other people. The NBA is trying to bring in as many of those people as possible into their audience by trying to eliminate this kind of thing. It makes good business sense. Good example for the kids too...
Not the NBA's job.
Despite all the sad whining, asking somebody to wear a different set of clothes is just about the LEAST invasive thing you can do. And that is of course what the NBA opted for. The least invasive option. Requiring the very simple civilized universally recognized act of dressing up a bit. Not changing your life. Not getting an education. Just dressing nicely on company time. The horror. Almost as fascist as McDonald's requiring you to wear shirts and shoes before they will serve you.
What the players, or at least some of the players, are objecting to is not being allowed to promote THEMSELVES and THEIR image on company time. Gee, that's terrible. Its the NBA's time. Its the NBA's money. Its the NBA's image. The NBA wants to spin its image to gain a larger audience. And to do so it is requiring NOTHING out of the ordinary. Nothing that raises the slightest eyebrow in the adult world anywhere but the NBA, where indolence and privilege have badly spoiled a whole generation of 30 yr old children.
A generation ago players from the exact same background WILLINGLY dressed up to help sell the league. They weren't rich suburban kids. Same impoverished backgound. But less selfish and less coddled and more aware of the realities of life. The fact that things aren't just given to you without you having responsibilities in return.
Despite all the sad whining, asking somebody to wear a different set of clothes is just about the LEAST invasive thing you can do. And that is of course what the NBA opted for. The least invasive option. Requiring the very simple civilized universally recognized act of dressing up a bit. Not changing your life. Not getting an education. Just dressing nicely on company time. The horror. Almost as fascist as McDonald's requiring you to wear shirts and shoes before they will serve you.
What the players, or at least some of the players, are objecting to is not being allowed to promote THEMSELVES and THEIR image on company time. Gee, that's terrible. Its the NBA's time. Its the NBA's money. Its the NBA's image. The NBA wants to spin its image to gain a larger audience. And to do so it is requiring NOTHING out of the ordinary. Nothing that raises the slightest eyebrow in the adult world anywhere but the NBA, where indolence and privilege have badly spoiled a whole generation of 30 yr old children.
A generation ago players from the exact same background WILLINGLY dressed up to help sell the league. They weren't rich suburban kids. Same impoverished backgound. But less selfish and less coddled and more aware of the realities of life. The fact that things aren't just given to you without you having responsibilities in return.
T
So now we have generalized and lumped together "rappers" and "gangstas"? I'm sorry, but that is absurd. So MC Hammer must have been a gangsta huh? Or Will Smith (fresh prince)..........baggy pants, check. lots of jewelry, check. Must be a gangsta.
Baggy pants and excessive jewelry have been around. I've come to the conclusion that our arguments come mostly from a difference in our age, because not many people my age would consider baggy pants and bling to be "gangsta"
Baggy pants and excessive jewelry have been around. I've come to the conclusion that our arguments come mostly from a difference in our age, because not many people my age would consider baggy pants and bling to be "gangsta"
And your argument, whatever its merits, is entirely beside the point. It doesn't matter what the turth IS. All that matters is the perception, erroneous or not, that the NBA's audience has.
And as an aside, it doubly doesn't matter because for as long as I've been watching NEVER before has ANY generation of NBAers, gangsters or saints, decide it had the God given right to dress for work the way it does at home. In many ways its irrelevant not only whether they are in fact gangsters or not, but also even whether anybody THINKS they are gangsters or not. All that matters is that are dressed "down" relatively speaking. And their employer wants them to dress "up" to look respectable. I don't look respectable in what I wear around the house either.
And as an aside, it doubly doesn't matter because for as long as I've been watching NEVER before has ANY generation of NBAers, gangsters or saints, decide it had the God given right to dress for work the way it does at home. In many ways its irrelevant not only whether they are in fact gangsters or not, but also even whether anybody THINKS they are gangsters or not. All that matters is that are dressed "down" relatively speaking. And their employer wants them to dress "up" to look respectable. I don't look respectable in what I wear around the house either.
Last edited:
who knows? And aside from being argumentative, who cares?
The clothes are a first step, an easy step, a non-invasive step. They help, even if they don't completely solve the image problem. A guy in a suit using gangsta slang is still more palatable to many than a guy in gangsta gear using gangsta slang. Its a step in the direction the NBA needs to go to recapture Middle America and the glory years of the late 80's to mid 90's.
The clothes are a first step, an easy step, a non-invasive step. They help, even if they don't completely solve the image problem. A guy in a suit using gangsta slang is still more palatable to many than a guy in gangsta gear using gangsta slang. Its a step in the direction the NBA needs to go to recapture Middle America and the glory years of the late 80's to mid 90's.