Kgun5

Totally agree. I thought we'd be 7-9 this year, so 9-7/10-6 would be something. Of course it always sucks to be the "best loser", espeically when draft day rolls around. To be honest, Ws and Ls are much less important to me than correcting the mistakes we make on a game to game basis. I'll say it, I want Losman in there ASAP, but if it makes MM feel more comfortable to wait until the calculators have billsfanone us, then I'm ok with that. In this business, I can't blame a coach for being scared to quit on a year (even justifiably) and look ahead...Even a guy like MM who knows he'll be back next year.

I wouldn't feel like you have to defend yourself, C22. What you are saying makes sense, and the holier than thou, "there's absolutely no possible scenario where we should want the team to lose, even if it helps the very thing we love so much", is what's really mind boggling. I'm not saying that losing this week necessarily would do that, but those weeks do exist, and you shouldn't be ashamed to point them out.

Really? So if I told you a loss this year would mean a SB championship next year, you'd still want to win? Obviously, I'm not saying that, but It'd be tough for me to understand why you'd never want to trade a win on a given week for the long term good of the Bills.

Depends on your point of view, I guess. Do you think computer models that the Discovery Channel uses to make a case for or against the single shooter theory show disrespect? One could make the case that this is the same thing in an interactive form. That being said, I'm sure this isn't being done for education so much as it is being done for money. I'd sooner buy that it was disrespectful to make money off a terrible act of violence, but hollywood has been doing that for years.

Even then we'd need a ton of help. A collapse from three of the teams in front of us. The Jets will clinch a tiebreaker over us with one more AFC win, Baltimore and Jacksonville already have. So either the Jets or Ravens would have to go 2-4 or worse. PLUS, we'd need Jacksonville or Indy (who may be our best chance with a 4-3 conference record,) AND Denver or San Diego, to collapse as well.

In a perfect world, maybe he does. Between the NBA being a business, the public's demand for a swift resolution to everything, and the media's willingness to jump on anything that could be construed as weak leadership, I don't think it was possible. As I mentioned to Kelly about Artest's salary, I think the discussions behind closed doors will be a lot more sympathetic to Ron and his needs.

You're not just whistling dixie. $10 million is a ton of money, even to an NBA star (though I heard he was losing $5 million, not that it matters.) I guess my only thought on this issue is that we often see fines handed out that barely gain the notice of a player. This one will, although I know that's not the point you were getting at. I'm guessing that there will be a settlement through the player's association involving some of the money Artest is to lose. The NBA doesn't want to go to court over this any more than Artest does. It was able to make it's strong stance to the public, so I'm guessing they'll be willing to deal with Artest's money situation behind closed doors. I have to claim ignorance here. I'm not aware of the Maxwell occurance, as I'm more of a college basketball fan. I DO remember the Rodman issue, and I remember thinking that he should have gotten more than 11 games. Rodman hit a guy unprovoked, plain and simple. I wish Artest had taken care of things the way the cameraman did...Get your justice through the law. I think the fact that Rodman's kick was short and sweet, and started no chain reaction, came into play. I don't think it should have, however. I see a slight difference between a cameraman and a fan, but certainly not 62 games worth.

I tend to agree with this, but only if it's consistant. A thug is a thug whether he's white, black, a superstar, a sixth man, etc...I'd be really angry if the NBA wavered on someone's suspension due to their status or some other self-serving reason.

Maybe...I'm not really sure if the NBA's policy is to take that into account or not. What I mean is, have they used prior transgressions in the past to lengthen suspensions, (I think Spreewell may have suffered in a similar way). If they have, do they pick and choose, or are they consistant. I would guess that Stern's comments would be Artest's best chance in an appeal scenario.

I understand what you're saying Kelly, and to an extent, I think you're right. Artest should have gotten zero to one game(s) for everything that happened before he went into the stands depending on what the league thought of the foul Wallace took offense to. That doesn't change that he DID go into the stands, however. I don't even care that he got the wrong guy (whether or not that's true -- I'm not sure how that could be proved at this point), as it doesn't make his actions any better or worse in my view. Also, whether he punched the guy or not is really a legal matter. Artest went into the stands andd got physically involved with a fan, and that's what I think he was nailed for (the severity of said nailing seemingly altered by the league's view of his past conduct). I'll bet if Jackson, (or any other Pacer for that matter,) hadn't followed Artest into the stands, that security would have been allowed to get in and diffuse the situation. Had that happened, does Artest still get (or deserve) the season long ban? I think he does. Jackson and co. made a huge mistake following Ron into the crowd, especially since it seems that at least Jackson was not there to break it up, but to get involved. As for the fan on the court, he didn't belong there at all, and it's his fault for being so stupid. Despite the fact that he didn't seem to threaten Artest at all (physically,) I think Artest's cold cocking him, while wrong, was much more forgivable than the trip into the seats.

Just to play devil's advocate, how many 12 year old girls are hurt by half full cups of water? I also think that Artest was about to get a shot off at that fan when he was bear hugged from behind. Still, I tend to agree with you about Jackson being the biggest offender. It seems clear that this is the area in which Stern looked at Artest's prior offenses. Unless Artest got a stiffer penalty due to being the first one into the crowd. That would be a kind of weak reason to give Jackson a lesser penalty IMO.

I certainly agree that the fans need to be dealt with...and severly. What I don't understand is what, if anything, fan behavior has to do with what Artest did. Yes, Artest was the victim of a classless and arrest-worthy incedent by a fan from Detroit. That fan deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What Artest did in response to that action, however, is ALSO totally unacceptable. It doesn't matter that he was a victim of "fan violence, there are clear guidelines that his profession demands he adhere to. He did not...That is his perogative...but he broke the rules of his profession, and it suspended him accordingly. He turned one fan's despicable act into something that involved several fans, many of whom were innocent. Artest could have gotten up and gone to the locker room and been none the worse, but he didn't. Secondly, I know as fans we've all felt like we were victims. I would guess (though I can't possibly know,) that most of us felt more wronged by the "Just give it to them" call or the "No Goal" call, than any cup of liquid ever could. I'm also pretty sure that no one here would condone jumping onto the field and attempting to hurt the refs in those cases though. Yes, they wronged us and did something totally unfair that hurt us (emotionally rather than physically), but most people realize (consciencely or unconsciencely) that certain guidelines need to be respected in sports, and without them, the system collapses. For better or worse, referees are held accountable (or should be) by their governing bodies. A Fan's behaviors are held accountable (or should be) by the law. It was not Artest's job to punish the wrong against him, it was the law's. Lastly, I can understand some of the criticism over security's handling of the situation, but what exactly was security supposed to do in the 3 seconds between the time the cup was thrown, and the time Artest was on top of that fan? Was Superman working the game Friday night? I'd like to think that the idiot who threw the cup would have been dealt with if security had been given time to react. The fact is that they weren't. As for security as it relates to other issues, it's tough to say. I've been told many of them were standing around watching. I'm sure that's probably true, but most of them are rent-a-cops after all. There's no way the NBA could afford to have a large police force at every game. The security at those games is used to breaking up small fights and tossing people who act like morons. It's tough to believe they knew how to handle the mess that developed. Still, they are not without blame. No way people should get on the court to continue the brawl that started in the stands. There should have been some disaster procedure that locked down the court (like the one near the end of football games where the goalposts are deemed to be in danger...but without the horses.) All in all, there's a lot of fault here. Stern can only punish the guys in the league, and even though the Detroit fans were as bad or worse with regard to their behavior, that doesn't change how bad Artest's behavior was. Whether you think a season long ban is warrented or not, I don't understand how the fan's behavior somehow makes what Artest did "less" wrong.

Amen...These announcers so often miss half the game while babbling self importantly in the name of "analysis". The other half of the time they can't seem to figure out what's going on when it's clear to even the casual football fan.

Well gant, at least we can agree that the fans should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately, David Stern doesn't have any juresdiction over them (though as tough as he is, it's too bad he doesn't). All Stern can do is punish the players in his league.

I've heard a lot of people say this will encourage the fans. If anything, security will be beefed up and penalties for infractions by the fans will be stiffer. I think both fans and players will think twice about this kind of thing from here on out. We'll have to see how many fans they can identify and what the local DA charges them with.

Stupid to you, meaningful to rational human beings. Perhaps you can explain how being in front of 19 thousand people gives someone the right to break the rules of his profession. Or...you can just fire more insults and profanity.

Insults...The last defense in a losing arguement. Your posts don't address the points being made by others. You don't explain how what you say relates to what happened. So go ahead and say that I'm just too stupid to understand your points, because that, after all, makes your case. Enjoy!

and this has to do with the price of which tea in China?

So by that logic, it's too bad Artest wasn't killed by the fans? Perhaps then players would keep their stupid ass out of the stands.

I don't get paid millions of dollars at my job. If my job was to sit in a dunk tank at the carnival, I'd probably be fired for attacking a person that threw the ball that dunked me into the water. Artest's profession is one that puts him in hostle situations and forbids that he react with violence. He broke the rules, and now he's paying for it.

I'd say it was a mixture of alcohol and Xanax...Just a guess.

Saw it...and was sickened. Is it too much to ask for ANY team in this town not to choke when they finally have a chance at a breakthrough? Unreal. You don't get chances like the one they had last night, to start off a mid-major's season of promise with a huge road win over a big conference foe on national TV, more than once in a blue moon, and they pissed it away. I know they're just kids, but you just have to grab the opportunities life presents you with. Instead they'll just be one of the 99% of mid-majors that need to win their conference tourney to dance. And judging by recent performances, Niagara may very well choke there too. Sad for Buffalo...Again. At least UB's season of promise opens up at UConn, where they probably wont be able to tease us like this.

While I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion, I find the presumption of guilt in this and many other cases, disturbing. What we know about this case comes through the media that is oft villified here. I had to watch someone I knew, who did absolutely nothing wrong, get raked over the coals by people that had never met him. Even after the court case (it was a sexual abuse charge) concluded with a 'not guilty' verdict after only 1 hour of deliberation (the woman had been in and out of mental institutions, and her testimony had more holes than the Pats secondary), the majority of those who had heard little more than the indictments continued to assume that he'd "gotten away with rape". It's sad, and it's unfair. If he "walks", it's because a jury of his peers found a resonable doubt of his guilt. That used to be enough in this country.

A stoned Chris Farley character (who in the movie was the brother of a gubenatorial candidate) got ahold of a microphone at a concert and yelled "kill whitey" in "Black Sheep"

My two cents as a longtime member, infrequent poster. njsue is self-rightous, and thinks nothing of telling anyone where they can go with their opinions when they don't mesh with hers. During the brief time that I both lived in Buffalo and had internet access, I was able to watch the games while in TBD chat. Whenever there was a criticism of ANYTHING Buffalo had done, she would jump down the throats of those making the points analyzing the game and defend, to the point of complete irrationality, the actions of whomever was being criticized. When she couldn't win the arguement with logic, she quickly resorted to name calling, threats, and other morally bankrupt/immature methods of attack. It was her rose colored way or the highway. It made objective analysis of the game impossible through chat, which is the only reason I was there. As for the thread about money exchange calcs, I saw the same pattern. Someone(s) had a legitimate point about how it seemed she was being lazy and/or seeking attention by posting what she did rather than doing a simple net search, and they called her on it. Once again, instead of offering a rational explanation or even ignoring the issue, she launched into holier than thou attacks on those who had the audacity to question her. Even still, the "jerks" that were "attacking" her stuck mostly to their original point about wanting an explanation for her behavior. After which, Sue began the name calling, threats of violence, and calls for others to leave board (basically for not agreeing with her). Never once did she come up with a reasonable response to the initial inquery. There was so much indirection from her, (you'd think she was auditioning for a job with the number of times she posted resume items,) that I'm betting her true calling is running a campaign for President. She did nothing to hide her blatent misandry, and yet, as is common in today's society, she is considered the victim by many here. God forbid those involved should expect a logical exchange of views and/or the ability to express their opinions without being called names and threated because they disagree with njsue's. We must protect her right to act irresponsibly and have no burden of accountability for it because, hey, only jerks would expect her to act like an adult.