NBA SHOOTS A BIG BRICK

So the NBA has had some problems in the last few years. So the NBA went ahead and tried to address them. The brawl, the hip-hop image, reviews of last-second shots. Psychologists stress that for every problem there is solution, but for every solution there is also a problem. But what if the problem was never a problem to begin with, and now it's a problem? That brings us to the NBA's decision to change the game ball this year.

From what I read, I saw no complaints from any player about the leather ball that had been used since 1970. So why would the NBA go ahead and get rid of it, and introduce a new composite ball made by Spalding? Not only that, why wouldn't the league test the ball with its players and get their reactions before introducing it to the game? The simple answer is that the new ball is similar to what most high schools and colleges use. But isn't the point of professional sports to test players with new obstacles and situations?

I'm disappointed that the NBA alienated its athletes, especially when usually all the negativity is pointed directly at them as the league's ratings have dropped significantly. I'm not sure if this even happened, but the NBA should have consulted with each team and player individually to get their feedback on the new ball. Seeing players come out this week and complain about the change and say things like "it sucks" or "that was a bad decision," puts David Stern and his management at a serious disadvantage. It's not just the NBA's marketers and equipment executives who work for the league, the players are employees too.

Where were they in all this? Definitely not in the meeting room. For the NBA, this problem is not like steroids. Just get rid of the new ball, and let's move on. Sometimes it's best to leave a good thing alone.