How do these owners let their players tattoo their bodies

BRIGGS · Post #1 » by **BRIGGS** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:07 am

as if they were walking graffiti signs? It's an absolute awful projection for the fans. George Steinbrenner won't let his players have facial hair--how about a body full of markings? If I owned a 300mm $ franchise I would not allow it--would make a stand against it--It really is low class and it reflects a lot of the problems in today's society with the standard of morals dropping yearly. Forget the 20 year old rule--how about no visable tattoos from here on in. Have the guys grand-fathered in but stop this now.

Dunkenstein · Post #2 » by **Dunkenstein** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:49 am

I totally understand what you mean. First it's tattoos. Then it's fights outside strip clubs. Then it's carrying loaded weapons in glove compartments of their cars. It's just like we all know that smoking marijuana leads to smoking crack and finally shooting heroin.

I'll pass on your suggestion to David Stern. He can bring it up in the next CBA negotiation. What about players who have tattoos before they enter the league? Do you want to force them to have their visible body art surgically removed before they can play in the NBA?

Post #3 » by **Three34** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:34 pm

I hadn't thought about rape until I got a dragon tat on my left forearm. Ohhh boy, did that change things!

Oh, and on a more serious note, your idea that someone's tattoos are somehow a reflection of their morals is really, really bad.

raleigh · Post #4 » by **raleigh** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:00 pm

It really is low class and it reflects a lot of the problems in today's society with the standard of morals dropping yearly.

Nah, they're just tacky, that's all.

But who am I to hold tackiness against someone?

Post #5 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Let's simply not allow players to get tattoos. If they already have them, no one should sign those players.

Oops. Looks like the season is cancelled.

Seriously, I'm not a fan of tattoos. I don't like 'em. However, many of these players get them in college or even in high school. Are you going to force them to get them removed before they play for your team?

deanx · Post #6 » by **deanx** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:51 pm

i dont like it either, but like half of the league has it and are ganster wannbes so if you set this kind of rule then you will be unable to draft or sign half the players available.

Duiz · Post #7 » by **Duiz** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:30 am

mrhonline wrote:Nah, they're just tacky, that's all.

+1

It would be great if the league would say that starting from players that born in 1992, anyone who has a tattoo anywhere on their body will be subject to penalties, which might in change motivate to have players wait until they are retired to taint their bodies. I doubt the players association would go down on this without a fierce fight.

shrink · Post #8 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:11 pm

I agree with the original poster, but can't the market decide?

These guys want to be considered professional entertainers, and if families don't go to games if the players are covered in tattoos, or buy basketball merchandise, then the owners are fully within their rights to find better money-making employees.

However, right now I think that winning basketball games trumps all of that, and while I personally find tattoos extremely shallow, the bottom-line of sports always gets back to winning. Finding playerers that can win games can show up as a good thing (breaking the color barrier) or bad (hiring rapists, animal abusers, druggies, etc). In the end though, the market will decide.

JonathanG · Post #9 » by **JonathanG** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:04 pm

Tim Duncan has a tattoo. Is he low class?

Tekkenlaw · Post #10 » by **Tekkenlaw** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:46 pm

Dunkenstein wrote:It's just like we all know that smoking marijuana leads to smoking crack and finally shooting heroin.

Is that sarcasm? I can't really tell.

Benjamerica · Post #11 » by **Benjamerica** » Tue May 6, 2008 4:41 am

I really don't understand how you can say tattoos are a reflection of society's supposed downward spiral. Maybe you live a sheltered life in some rural farm town but the fact of the matter is tattoos are huge now as well as widely accepted. My 11th grade English teacher had a visible tat on her foot. . .ya know. . Cops have 'em haha. It's just another form of expression. I'm gonna say the original post is completely ridiculous. Eat it.

BRIGGS · Post #12 » by **BRIGGS** » Wed May 7, 2008 6:04 pm

Benjamerica wrote:I really don't understand how you can say tattoos are a reflection of society's supposed downward spiral. Maybe you live a sheltered life in some rural farm town but the fact of the matter is tattoos are huge now as well as widely accepted. My 11th grade English teacher had a visible tat on her foot. . .ya know. . Cops have 'em haha. It's just another form of expression. I'm gonna say the original post is completely ridiculous. Eat it.

Tattoos are one example of decaying morals and attitude in our society. When someone marks up their body with tattoos--what exactly are they expressing? That they don't have notebook paper handy? This is not addressed to someone who might have the intials of a loved one on their ankle or arm--I'm referring to the people who use their body as sketch work. It makes the individual look like a low-class punk. And of course I'm not saying that every individual who has more than two tattoos is some kind of bad person--but I don't like the path it is taking.
I don't think Little House on the Prairie would make it in these times and that is kind of sad. The world is changing each day and as I see it it's headed south.

Post #13 » by **Three34** » Wed May 7, 2008 6:07 pm

That post is 150 times better when read in conjunction with your signature.

BRIGGS · Post #14 » by **BRIGGS** » Wed May 7, 2008 8:02 pm

I do have a sense of humor:)

Twinkie defense · Post #15 » by **Twinkie defense** » Mon May 19, 2008 1:32 am

And rock and roll is corrupting the youth! This must all be stopped.

Dunkenstein · Post #16 » by **Dunkenstein** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:40 pm

From Jason Whitlock on Fox:
But there's one issue driving improved ratings that likely won't be touched by all the NBA talking heads on TNT and ESPN.

Tattoos. Or rather the lack of tattoos in the conference finals.

Part of the reason more people are watching these playoffs is because the average fan isn't constantly repulsed by the appearance of most of the players on the court. Most of the key players left in the playoffs don't look like recent prison parolees.

The only accurate way to describe Garnett, Pierce, Duncan, Allen, Manu, Parker and even Kobe is "clean cut." Yeah, there are a couple of tattoos in that group

Twinkie defense · Post #17 » by **Twinkie defense** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:46 am

Yeah, clearly it's not because it's another in a long line of storied Lakers-Celtics matchups. Or current MVP Kobe v.s. former MVP KG. Or interest in how the huge trade for KG/Celtic chemistry experiment will pan out, in the end.

Nothing to do with two major metropolitan areas (with their millions of eyeballs) squaring off. Or that last year's Finals was a sweep and no one expected that this time.

Nothing to do with Jackson potentially surpassing hated Celtic Legend Red Auerbach in the ring count.

Nothing to do with the increased international appeal of the game and foreign-born players like Pau Gasol, Vladimir Radmanovic, Ronny Turiaf, and DJ Mbenga suiting up for the Finals.

Nothing to do with the nice story that is Leon Powe.

It's because of the tattoos... or I should say, lack of tattoos.

Rodman had a lot of ink, and I know all those finals games he played in with the Pistons and Bulls were very unpopular.

Do I want to spend my time watching an alleged rapist ball, or a guy with a lot of ink? Rapist, no question.

For the same reason that other people with tattoos are so unpopular - like Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, Clint Eastwood, Dale Earnhardt, David Beckham, Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Drew Barrymore, Johnny Depp, and maybe a musician or two - similarly, no one wants to spend time or money watching athletes with tattoos.

It's so obvious, I don't know how anyone can doubt it. And if you doubt it, just look at all of the research Whitlock has done on the issue.

What?

Oh, never mind.

DIEHARD_005 · Post #18 » by **DIEHARD_005** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:56 pm

BRIGGS wrote:
Benjamerica wrote:I really don't understand how you can say tattoos are a reflection of society's supposed downward spiral. Maybe you live a sheltered life in some rural farm town but the fact of the matter is tattoos are huge now as well as widely accepted. My 11th grade English teacher had a visible tat on her foot. . .ya know. . Cops have 'em haha. It's just another form of expression. I'm gonna say the original post is completely ridiculous. Eat it.

Tattoos are one example of decaying morals and attitude in our society. When someone marks up their body with tattoos--what exactly are they expressing? That they don't have notebook paper handy? This is not addressed to someone who might have the intials of a loved one on their ankle or arm--I'm referring to the people who use their body as sketch work. It makes the individual look like a low-class punk. And of course I'm not saying that every individual who has more than two tattoos is some kind of bad person--but I don't like the path it is taking.
I don't think Little House on the Prairie would make it in these times and that is kind of sad. The world is changing each day and as I see it it's headed south.

You sir, have serious mental issues if you can reasonably draw the conclusion of the world "heading south" by more people getting tatoos.