I feel a little silly talking about headbands two days in a row,
And with any luck, this will be the last time we talk about what Ben puts on his noggin, unless he gets a hell of a lot more creative than just a headband.
Why does Scott Skiles hate headbands so much in the first place?
Apparently Skiles is merely enforcing a rule laid down by general manager John Paxson. KC Johnson of the Chicago Tribune explains:
[The] reason was to stop the practice of former Bulls such as Eddie Robinson from wearing a headband around his neck or Eddy Curry, in town Tuesday, from wearing one crookedly.
“That rule was borne out of some things I saw when I first got the job that didn’t look good,” Paxson said. “It was more out of uniformity than anything else. It’s not meant in any way to stifle anybody’s individuality or creativity. It was just simply part of a structure we were trying to create.”
Fair enough. The Bulls were in really bad shape when Paxson took control of the front office, and instilling a sense of professionalism sounds pretty reasonable.
But why can’t they make an exception for Wallace?
Maybe they would have if he simply asked first.
“I told [Wallace] the only thing that’s a problem is the way he made his feelings known,” Paxson said. “That obviously comes across poorly. That’s what we have to address. We have rules. We don’t have too many. Every team does.
“We have to be a little careful in terms of changing something for one player at this time. If I knew this was going to be an issue a month or two ago and Ben had expressed that to us, that might’ve been a way to handle it. Right now, we’re in a tough position. We have the rule for the right reasons.”
But why do they make him tape his ankles if it’s uncomfortable?
That was overblown.
The Tribune also reported Wallace had difficulty running during the first practice of training camp because he was unaccustomed to having his ankles taped, a Bulls team rule. Paxson and Skiles responded Monday by saying Wallace and Adrian Griffin haven’t had to have their ankles taped since that day because they expressed their dissatisfaction privately.
Aren’t the Bulls being a little hypocritical here?
Yeah, I think so, at least when you consider the Bulls use pictures of Ben wearing a headband in their promotional materials.
But this whole incident has never been about the validity of the rule, has it? The way I see it, it’s about the fact that Ben knew what the rule was but went ahead and broke it anyway — twice. He purposefully put Skiles in a position where Skiles would either a) cave in and lose some degree of his authority, or b) put a less talented lineup on the court and risk losing the game. Either way, the integrity of the team was put at risk.
So what now?
I’m guessing everything is water under the bridge, especially the way Skiles is trying to spin this as some kind of team-building experience. Maybe Ben gets fined, maybe he doesn’t, but anything like a suspension — which columnist Sam Smith called for yesterday — seems unlikely.
What still rubs me the wrong way, though, is that Ben is still too stubborn to admit he’s wrong, let alone show any remorse.
“I knew that we weren’t allowed to wear the headbands,” Wallace said. “If you know the rules and break them, you expect to be punished. I can’t try to put myself above the team or anybody else and wear a headband like I did. I’m man enough to take the punishment. But I’m not sorry.”
Wallace was blunt when asked why he wore the headband on Saturday night in New York.
“I just felt like wearing it,” Wallace said.
I know Ben is a proud guy, but what the hell is wrong with manning up and admitting when you’re wrong? I’m not surprised — he never apologized for refusing to re-enter the Orlando game last year, and that was by far a more serious offense than this. But it’s still disappointing. I know some of you are extremely sensitive about any criticism lobbed Ben’s way, but this is simply about being a decent human being.
Sadly, I don’t think Ben senses the irony is his rationale for wearing the headband in the first place:
Wallace said ex-Pistons teammate Clifford Robinson helped him start his practice of wearing a headband.
“He told me I should try it and that’s a reminder not to let my head get too big in this league,” Wallace said.
Too late, guy.
you half-wit punks just don’t get it.
here, let scoop jackson will educate you.
[MW — edited to substitute the full-text of the column with a link. Not being racist, just a copyright thing.]
and by the way, yeah, you should feel silly talking about this shit two days in a row. silly and white and stupid and ignorant, all at once.
Sigh.
so scoop jackson can write all about it, but apparently, he has the only correct view? and why exactly is he the only one allowed to have an opinion? grow up. stop insulting people just because you disagree with them, and present an argument in your own words.
I beg your pardon g, but I’m not ignorant. Just stupid. Please remember that from now on.
scoop jackson is the bill o’rielly of sports reporting.
I think the point you miss is that the rule is treating Ben like a child. Its insulting to suggest that he should have to go through some sort of formal team channels in order to wear a head band. Hes an adult and the headband rule treats him as something less than that. Though I havent heard Ben express it as such, it seems that by saying, “I just felt like wearing it”, he was more protesting the childlike treatment than he was fulfiling a true desire to wear a headband.
By going through team channels and perhaps getting authorization to wear a headband, he wouldnt be addressing the true problem of the team exercisin parental control over him, he would just be covering up the symptom.
I’m much more inclined to blame Skiles/Paxson for putting the integrity of the team at risk, than I am Wallace for calling him out on it.
People like Scoop Jackson look for all the wrong in everything. Take his remark “too black, too wrong” when referring to the way Eddie Robinson and Eddy Curry wore their headbands.. first off, Eddie Robinson wore his headband around his neck. head…band… around his neck. Eddy Curry just looked flat out ignorant with his cocked headband as if he was promoting some sort of new style when everyone else was wearing them the way they should be worn. Take Scoop’s other statement.. his thought to have Ben say to the GM “Ok, I’ll abide by the headband rule if you stop letting (or giving away, as the Bulls did during the home opener to welcome him) fans to ear those back-to-slavery Buckwheat wigs during games”. Talk about an ignorant thought to have… and to put that into a column for others to read is absolutely wrong.
How are they back to slavery wigs? For years Ben has made himself the center of attention by blowing out his hair and celebrating the fact that others around him pay attention to him when it’s blown out. Why make it into a racial thing by referring to the toy wigs as buckwheat back to slavery wigs?
Another thing, it’s the bulls fault for promoting Ben’s arrival with posters and billboards showing him with a headband on… but it’s Ben’s hardheadedness that admitted to knowing it was a rule and not asking if he could wear one. Instead, he just wore it. That’s where Ben is wrong… If my boss tells me I can’t use a blue pen to write things with, no matter how dumb it sounds, and I use a blue pen I deserve to be punished…
Matt and Ian- You guys are solid, and I am pretty darn sure you’re not racist AT ALL. I happen to agree with Ben on this one, but I TOTALLY disagree with Scoop.
I appreciate this blog, and I know you(s) put tons of work into it. Sorry you’re being insulted by trolls.
We can disagree and still be cool to each other. Sheesh.
I understand where you fellas are coming from when you dog Ben about this issue. Although I disagree, you both get high marks from me for the way that you’ve handled yourselves.
Respect,
the Allrights
Boney, I think your comments support Scoop’s points (at least on the “too black too wrong” part). Why does wearing a headband crooked look “ignorant”? I will have to admit, I agree with you, I think it does too, but why do we think that? Seems to me that is probably because its something the black hip-hop culture does, and not something that has been traditionaly done. He looks like some sort of street thug when he wears it like that. But I think that because thats not how it was done in the little piece of suburbia Im familiar with, if I was from somewhere else my perception would likely be different.
People want to get offended when they hear the word racist, and think that is has to mean dawning the white hood and burning a cross, but there are much less extreme forms of racism. Like seeing a cultural symbol Im not familiar with and associating it with “ignorance”. I never made any judgment on him being black, but when he acted in some manner that is more a part of black culture than it is mine, I judged him for it. Sounds like a racist act to me. That doesnt change the way I view the black people I go to school with, work with, and hang out with, I view and treat them the sameway I view and treat all people, but when I see some cultural symbol that Im not familiar with, I have an intial reaction that judges it. I dont think that equates me with a Klan member, but its still a racist act.
Here’s a link to an article just posted on FoxSports thatbreaks it down simple like– I couldn’t agree more.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6219708
Winning provides context. If the 2002 Bulls were NBA champs, Eddy Curry’s crooked headband might have been considered stylish. But the 2002 Bulls were one of the two worst teams in the NBA, and had been for the third year in a row. When a team is that bad for so long, I don’t see anything wrong with a coach or GM instilling more discipline, no matter what form it takes.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the rule is still relevant. But it exists (probably for not much longer) nonetheless.
Alientating your 60 million dollar man isn’t going to help win games. This dead horse is fun to ride, huh?
LOL
Re: dead horse — I hear you. Four days between games is brutal.
well, here are my blows to this very sad horse:
I agree that the rule is ridiculous, but I think the thing that is annoying is that the rule was there well before Ben came to Chicago (and the decision to create the rule and why is obviously a very long discussion– did the previous head-band wearers get benched for wearing it anyway?). For some reason Ben followed this rule for a while and then decided not to follow it anymore. It didn’t appear that there was any build up to it other than losing games. And again, I do not agree with the rule, but you shouldn’t change rules on the basis of a highly paid player not liking it, you should change it because it’s stupid. Everyone always complains how star players should be treated the same when comes to fouls, etc., why shouldn’t they be treated the same across the board? How does it build team morale to provide an exception for one player?
And to add to what Julie said above, how does it benefit the Bulls (in terms of winning or otherwise) to undermine the authority of the coach and GM by bowing to the tantrums of one star player?