Instead of battling sweaty Italians and Croatians on the court and mingling with anti-birth control groupies in Italy off it this year, it appears Shawn Kemp will be taking on ... middle-aged Americans desperate to prove they can hang with former NBA superstars.
Yep, the Reign Man will be competing in Spike's "Pros vs Joes" this season, alongside Alonzo Mourning, Robert Horry, Glen Rice, Antoine Walker, and Steve Francis.
Rice, Walker and Kemp were previously booted from their earlier deal with "The Biggest Loser" after the trio managed to boost the weight of not only the competitors, but the cameramen, cleaning staff, producers, and these freaks.
Monday, March 2
Dear Mr. Shinn
You could really just use this article from Hornets Hype as a template for all NBA fans who are facing an uncertain future for their favorite teams.
And while the article is enjoyable in and of itself (providing a nice insight into the oft-ignored passion of Hornet fans), I found this tidbit from the comments as, if not more, interesting:
"[The Hornets] can’t [leave] because the lease is now ironclad thru 2014, with only a practice facility as a potential sticking point. As I understand it, the state of Louisiana could be stuck with giving bonuses to the Hornets in some of these upcoming years on the lease should attendance drop below thresholds (however, the early out clause no longer applies)."
-commenter chefcdb
Certainly a different take on things than what we've grown accustomed to with the Hornets and their possible relocation to other cities (such as, well, Seattle). When you take what is happening to Sacramento, add it to New Orleans, and multiply it times New Jersey, at what point do you, as a Sonic fan, start to feel just a twinge of guilt about coveting these franchises?
I hate to slit the throat of NBA basketball in Seattle, and I know this goes against the league's current franchise-go-round method of economic stability, but I'm growing less and less enamored with the idea of swiping someone else's club.
And while the article is enjoyable in and of itself (providing a nice insight into the oft-ignored passion of Hornet fans), I found this tidbit from the comments as, if not more, interesting:
"[The Hornets] can’t [leave] because the lease is now ironclad thru 2014, with only a practice facility as a potential sticking point. As I understand it, the state of Louisiana could be stuck with giving bonuses to the Hornets in some of these upcoming years on the lease should attendance drop below thresholds (however, the early out clause no longer applies)."
-commenter chefcdb
Certainly a different take on things than what we've grown accustomed to with the Hornets and their possible relocation to other cities (such as, well, Seattle). When you take what is happening to Sacramento, add it to New Orleans, and multiply it times New Jersey, at what point do you, as a Sonic fan, start to feel just a twinge of guilt about coveting these franchises?
I hate to slit the throat of NBA basketball in Seattle, and I know this goes against the league's current franchise-go-round method of economic stability, but I'm growing less and less enamored with the idea of swiping someone else's club.
Not Sure What Stern Means
I missed this the first time reading about the NBA's new line of credit with Bank of America, but it struck me as odd the second time around. Here's the pertinent quote from Commissioner Stern, courtesy of the AP:
“They told us there’s no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league, and indeed, the credit facilities that had come up for other leagues were being termed out rather than renewed."
Here is what I am struggling with as I read that quote: To which league(s) is Mr. Stern referrring? Is he claiming that the NBA is more financially stable than the NFL? That the banks would rather loan money to his league than to Bud Selig's?
I don't pretend to have in-depth financial information on those leagues, but even a cursory look at the figures would tell you that's a bit odd, no? Ask yourself the question - you have unlimited funds and are looking to loan money to a professional sports league, with no emotional attachments to accompany the purchase, what league are you looking at first? Who's more likely to pay you back, the owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, or the owner of the Oklahoma City Thunder? The Tampa Bay Bucs or the Orlando Magic?
Hey, if Stern is referring to the NHL, I've got no quibble with that. Or, if he's talking about the PGA Tour, or the Arena League, fine, I can accept that. NASCAR, sure, I can see it. But to throw out a blanket statement like "no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league," then paint yourself as the only league that's worthy of getting those funds, well, I've got to question that kind of a statement.
Maybe there's something I'm not seeing here, but it sure seems as though we're just being fed some more well-seasoned NBA BS by the King of BS himself.
“They told us there’s no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league, and indeed, the credit facilities that had come up for other leagues were being termed out rather than renewed."
Here is what I am struggling with as I read that quote: To which league(s) is Mr. Stern referrring? Is he claiming that the NBA is more financially stable than the NFL? That the banks would rather loan money to his league than to Bud Selig's?
I don't pretend to have in-depth financial information on those leagues, but even a cursory look at the figures would tell you that's a bit odd, no? Ask yourself the question - you have unlimited funds and are looking to loan money to a professional sports league, with no emotional attachments to accompany the purchase, what league are you looking at first? Who's more likely to pay you back, the owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, or the owner of the Oklahoma City Thunder? The Tampa Bay Bucs or the Orlando Magic?
Hey, if Stern is referring to the NHL, I've got no quibble with that. Or, if he's talking about the PGA Tour, or the Arena League, fine, I can accept that. NASCAR, sure, I can see it. But to throw out a blanket statement like "no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league," then paint yourself as the only league that's worthy of getting those funds, well, I've got to question that kind of a statement.
Maybe there's something I'm not seeing here, but it sure seems as though we're just being fed some more well-seasoned NBA BS by the King of BS himself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)