- 763
- 15
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
As much as all of you and I don't care, I bet much of the older NBA viewers (i.e. the ones buying the season tickets and purchasing all the merchandise) do. So this guy may be correct. I bet the NBA WOULD appeal to more people if the players weren't tattooed and were friendlier. Not saying the NBA should implement any sort of tattoo rule, but this guy has a point.
I totally fail to see that point...first off, where are the statistics of the NBA's declining popularity? Also, look at the jersey sales (you mentionedmerchandise purchases) from 06-07.
1. Kobe = tattoos, questionable character
2. Dwayne Wade
3. LeBron James = Tattoos
4. Allen Iverson = Tattoos, questionable character
5. Steve Nash
6. Carmelo Anthony = tattoos, questionable character
7. Stephon Marbury = tattoos, questionable character
8. Dirk
9. Gilbert Arenas = Tattoos
10. Vince Carter
Since Whitlock is generalizing, I'll do the same...go to ANY NBA arena, and you will see fans of all ages, races, etc rocking various jerseys. The body inkand decisions these guys make off the court seem to hardly matter in the grand scheme of things as long as they continue to perform at a high level. I do agreewith the dress code. That was in correlation to what happened in Detroit a few years back. The league needed a slight make-over and it did the right thing byhaving guidelines on what you wear to games, and also on the bench. The whole issue Whitlock brings up about the tats is stupid and there is little basis forhis argument other than saying a parent has to explain to their child the deeper meaning/psyche one has when getting ink, because it is clearly a way for oneto hide their various insecurities.
Like Gritty said....NO ONE would want to pay top dollar to watch Larry Huges or Delonte West. However, he failed to mention the fact that the 1st and 2nd bestplayers in the league (Kobe/Lebron) BOTH have tattoos, piercings, etc. Hmmm...to me it just sounds like he is writing with the sole purpose to stir the pot. Ican't honestly sit here and think that he BELIEVES what he is typing.
Shoot, the whole Italian soccer squad that won the WC was inked up...where was the outrage from Whitlock then? Bottom line is, Whitlock takes "issue"(quotations becaue I don't think he truly believes what he says) with anything involving young african-americans. There is a pattern in his topics/writing,and I can see why ESPN let him go. He will make the occasional good point, but that gets clouded in the grand scheme of things due to how off the wall hisstance is on a lot of topcis pretaining to race.
I bet he is writing his next editorial on the negative effect of black athletes who wear headbands.