"We" would be fans rooting for a particular team. And no, not all fans of teams fall into the category that I found myself in. Having a laissez-faire attitude towards the team in regards to their acquiring and/or retaining players. I don’t like it as an economic policy so why should I like it in regards to the players. (Treatment of players by team)
On the macro level, they are. The last time there was parity in the league, the Finals were airing on tape delay. The closest thing we've seen to parity in the modern NBA was 2004-05, which I believe was the lowest-watched Finals, pre-COVID, in the lottery era. The only people who actually want parity are the people who root for teams that they believe will never have a "fair" shot, because of a lack of parity.
This is just you making stuff up.
Nothing about Durant going to Golden State resembles any moves that LeBron James has made in his career.
What "credit" do you think LeBron James gets, that he hasn't earned? And whom do you think ought to get it, instead?
Okaaaaay... I mean, I guess it's better that you got there late, than never got there, at all. So, congrats?
Big thing is, talk is cheap. Am I going to keep the double standard next time a player flexes their muscles? Only time will tell on that. Old habits and all.
This tells me there is something broken with the All Star selection. The 90s were a pretty weird time as the hyper expansion actually left a pretty big gap of haves and have nots in the league and the Bulls had arguably the two best players and Pippen's team the first year of MJ's absence should have beat the Knicks - they were guilty of some very questionable officiating. Was there a rule during this time that every team gets a guy at all star weekend?
Thank you for mentioning expansion (which I've mentioned, at least a half dozen times, I think, doesn't get contextualized properly, when discussing Jordan's greatness), but yeah, there's something wild about the way that All-Stars are selected, when you can say that Jordan somehow played with two Hall of Famers (technically three, if you count Parish), but only one All-Star? That math don't math.
Tribalism? How about the teams are allowed certain things based on the CBA that the Players Union agreed to. That is a given. When the players use this same CBA to their advantage, also accept that as a given. Both parties agreed to the terms. The players being talked about aren't ones that would come to the team I root for, hell, neither would I if I had their God given abilities. So I am not certain Tribalism comes into play, what does is simple hypocrisy.
Yeah, tribalism. All that "name on the front is more important than the name on the back" stuff? The mentality that makes it easier for many fans to compartmentalize or otherwise rationalize the way that teams and organizations use players, but get in their feelings when players use teams, to the point where they go on emotional screeds about "loyalty" when a player exercises their agency, but will fall back behind "It's a business" when the team spits out a player, after they've used them up? That's all rooted in tribalism.
Is that what makes it easier to compartmentalize? Is it a "He ain't really that fine, anyway!" thing?
Nope. Just from a business standpoint. Why I rejected the Tribalism term. I was being a hypocrite holding one party to a different standard than the other. It has nothing to do with the team I root for because at this time it is not applicable.
I'm going to have to ask for a clarification on terms, at this point, because I have no idea what you could possibly be meaning, when you talk about "a business standpoint," and in what possible context, that I would not consider to be synonymous with tribalism, when talking about sports? From my point of view, you are actually describing an aspect of tribalism, as it applies to the consumption of sports-as-entertainment, while insisting that what you're talking about is not tribalism, and I can't make that make sense.
Simple, these players have nothing to do with my team or in your sense, my tribe. Both sides work in the confines of the CBA. There is no "Gentleman's Agreement," just each side doing what is best for themselves. I wasn't giving the player's motives the same respect.
Yeah... that's still tribalism, to me. On two different levels:
It's pretty uncomfortable on some level to acknowledge all this, and how counter it runs against how I feel about labor rights for people with under 7 figure net worths.
No. My only mistake was not giving the same latitude to the employees (i.e. players) as I do management. In the world I live in, management holds the cards. I am held to follow the employee handbook and can be disciplined for violations. The company reserves the right to change it at their discretion. There is a process for that but doesn't change the fact that it is very one sided. Now if you want to call that tribalism then we can agree to disagree.
What you call "bandwagon," I call exercising his power as a player, and empowering other players to exercise their power. And I am One. Hundred. Percent. here for it.
I neither agree that it looked bad at all, nor do I stipulate to any impression or appearance of collusion. I thought that The Decision™ was corny and self-aggrandizing, but I had no problems whatsoever with the decision, itself. If LeBron had gone to Boston in 2010, I would understand why you think it looked bad. As it is, all he did was leave a dumpster fire of a franchise, because he wanted to win, and I don't see the point in holding that against him.
You appear to ascribe a level of sentiment and nobility to the concept of "loyalty" to a sports team that I do not believe in, and cannot co-sign.
Nailed it
Nailed it.
