FILE - In this March 12, 2020, file photo, the national office of the NCAA in Indianapolis is shown. The NCAA Board of Directors greenlight one of the biggest changes in the history of college athletics when it cleared the way for athletes to start earning money based on their fame and celebrity without fear of endangering their eligibility or putting their school in jeopardy of violating amateurism rules that have stood for decades. | Michael Conroy, File, Associated Press
By opening up athlete rights to earn money off their fame, the NCAA entered a landmark decision for college sports on Wednesday
The high and mighty castle of NCAA hypocrisy crumbled on Wednesday when the organization’s board of directors suspended age-old rules that prevented athletes from earning money.
Oh, the NCAA is still holding onto the strings of amateurism. You can’t give money to recruits to lure them to campus. A guy can’t receive a salary to play for a school. What a male or female athlete can do is hire an agent to help market their name, likeness and image.
They can create a name brand, monetize their social media presence, sell calendars with their own photoshoot product. They can generally work and earn money while in college, utilizing their fame, just like regular students who have some talent to market.
They can endorse a product or company and get paid.
You can compare it to Title IX more than 50 years ago, which opened the door to equal opportunities for both men and women in sports.
After major lawsuits and an argument before the Supreme Court in which the NCAA lost, the board of directors relented.
The NCAA ran out of committees, studies and blowhard speeches.
Reality hit.
And hit hard.
For decades, Americans have watched universities make mega-money TV and endorsement deals with shoe and clothing companies, build multi-million dollar athletic arenas and stadiums, enjoy lavish offices and construct world-class workout digs. We’ve seen the NCAA make billions of dollars off the annual NCAA basketball tournament and taking TV money and divvying it out to conferences and schools like pirate booty.
Athletes got none of the cash.
Oh, sure, players were rewarded with outstanding educations; nice scholarships, books, tuition and lodging paid for, and a nice stipend. That’s far more than most students.
It’s nothing to discount.
But really, it was a huge one-sided deal when it came to the actual coin. During the last few years, the disparity between the NCAA/university and the student-athlete take became a joke.
The education offered, while weighty and valuable, is a pittance to what the schools and the NCAA have hauled in over the years. We’ve watched as coaches made million-dollar salaries and schools raced to build the latest and best facilities.
You can plug in any number of college superstars over the years who’ve watched silently as schools sold their jerseys with special licensing rights. You’ve seen schools print posters with their stars, selling season tickets, promoting games, hauling in the dough using the athlete as the marketing meat.
I remember during Jimmermania when things in Provo went nuts as he climbed to the national spotlight. Under the old rules, BYU was more than right to ride Jimmer’s wave and market No. 32 like a Kentucky Derby racehorse.
But none of the riches found their way into Jimmer’s coffers as direct payments.
Those days are over.
A guy like Jimmer could represent a car dealership. He could do videos and market his image, have YouTube pay him for views and subscriptions, do a radio or TV show of his own instead of appearing “gratis” on somebody else’s broadcast, while they pocketed sponsorship money for putting it on the air.
It’s a whole new world.
And that’s a good thing if you are a student-athlete with name and fame.
It gets a little sticky if you are a player in an underpublicized Olympic sport and the juice just isn’t there for a marketed gig. But that’s the free market — demand and supply.
Obviously, the superstar will be in demand.
Schools still cannot pay athletes directly. But players can establish their own sports camps, seminars and lecture or speak for pay.
Somehow this feels like some new kind of rights have hatched out of our college athletics.
Once upon a time, before the digital age, the internet, the Vietnam War, Walmarts and Costcos, student-athletes basically played for the spirit of the game and competition. Sidelines were manned by low-paid glorified gym teachers and cheerleaders screamed chants for fun. The whole thing was mostly an exercise in gleaning warm, fuzzy feelings; loyalty to a school, its colors, mascot and song.
Within a few days, you’ll see some college stars announce partnerships and endorsement deals.
Look for Joe Blow to be a spokesman for Jake’s Jerky and Sausage.
We’ll see Suzy Striker help sell Marty’s Windows and Doors.
It won’t be long until we hear an athlete give testimony about the meaty attack of his new SUV on overland hills, singing the praises of the customer service department and friendly sales at Acme Off-Road.
In this age of “me” and “I” and what can the individual get out of it, we’re now racing down a freeway.
The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for a well-ordered government of laws, and not of men
George Washington was perhaps the first to use the word miracle in describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In a 1788 letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, he said: “It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well-founded objections.”
It was a miracle. Consider the setting.
The 13 colonies and 3.5 million Americans who had won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should reaffiliate with the British crown. Among those who favored continued independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United States should have a strong central government to replace the weak “league of friendship” established by the Articles of Confederation.
Under the Confederation of 1781, there was no executive or judicial authority, and the national Congress had no power to tax or to regulate commerce. Congress could not even protect itself.
In July 1783, an armed mob of former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to take Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When Pennsylvania declined to provide militia to protect them, the congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was something of a laughingstock, wandering from city to city. No wonder the first purpose stated in the preamble of the new United States Constitution was “to form a more perfect union.”
That they accomplished it was indeed miraculous.
After I began teaching law at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, an older professor asked me a challenging question about Latter-day Saint beliefs regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Earlier in his career this professor had taught at University of Utah’s College of Law. There he met many students who were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “They all seemed to believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired,” he said, “but none of them could ever tell me what this meant or how it affected their interpretation of the Constitution.”
I took that challenge personally.
I believe the Constitution is divinely inspired because it contains principles and rights that bless not only this nation but also the world. That’s not to say that the document is perfect, but from its attributing sovereign power to the people, and its vital Bill of Rights, to its application of the separation of powers and balancing of powers between the federal government and the states, the Constitution is the foundation for a well-ordered government of laws, and not of men.
I have studied the U.S. Constitution for more than 60 years.
As a law clerk to the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court; as a professor of law for 15 years; and as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court for three and a half years, the Constitution was a central focus of my work. And as an apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I’ve spent 37 years studying the meaning of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to my own faith and how it protects diverse religious traditions in America.
To facilitate moral agency — the power to decide and to act — is an important divine purpose for the Constitution. The most desirable condition for the exercise of moral agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices. Then, as it says in Latter-day Saint scripture, “every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78) The scripture continues: “Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:79)
This obviously means that human slavery is wrong. And according to the same principle, it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.
The U.S. Constitution is one of the oldest written constitutions in the world. It has enhanced freedom and prosperity during the changing conditions of more than 200 years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export.
After two centuries, every nation in the world except three have written constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution was a model for nearly all of them. The U.S. Constitution is unique because God revealed that he “established” it “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77)
The original impetus for what became the Constitutional Convention was to discuss amendments to the Articles of Confederation. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two farsighted young statesmen still in their 30s, favored a strong national government and promoted the meeting. They persuaded a reluctant George Washington to attend and then used his influence in a letter-writing campaign to encourage participation by all the states.
As the delegates assembled in Philadelphia, there were already ominous signs of disunity. The states were in debt. The national treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various currencies were nearly worthless. Rebelling against their inclusion in New York state, prominent citizens of Vermont had already entered into negotiations to rejoin the British crown. In the Western territory, Kentucky leaders were speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances with the Old World.
Instead of reacting timidly because of disunity and weakness, the delegates boldly ignored the terms of their invitation to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead set out to write an entirely new constitution. They were conscious of their place in history. For millennia the world’s people had been ruled by kings or tyrants. Now a group of colonies had won independence. They had a unique opportunity to establish a constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would later describe as “of the people, by the people and for the people.”
The success of the convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable wisdom of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention: “There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.”
My belief that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired does not mean that divine revelation dictated every word and phrase, such as the provisions allocating the number of representatives from each state or the minimum age of each.
The Constitution was not “a fully grown document,” said J. Reuben Clark, who served as the U.S. undersecretary of state and as a leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “On the contrary,” he explained, “we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.” For example, inspired amendments abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote.
The nation struggled to live up to the lofty principles espoused in the nation’s founding documents, including the words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” But, thankfully, the Constitution has over time inspired citizens to treat each other on a more equal basis.
As a young lawyer in Chicago during the late 1950s, I observed a pattern of employment among large law firms in which Jewish law graduates were hired by Jewish firms, and non-Jewish graduates were hired by non-Jewish firms.
The firm where I worked, Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters (known today as Kirkland & Ellis) followed that same pattern. My colleague, Robert H. Bork, who was later nominated to be a justice on the Supreme Court, sought to change that.
In 1957, Howard G. Krane, who was Jewish, interviewed for a job at Kirkland. On his merits, Krane — who had been a classmate and on the law review with me at the University of Chicago — should have received an offer. Instead, he was brushed aside because he was Jewish.
When Bork learned about Krane’s rejection he was incensed. He talked to me about his intention to change the firm’s practice of excluding Jewish graduates from employment.
I assured him that Krane was an outstanding prospect, and I promised my support.
We went together to the managing partner of the firm, Howard Ellis. Though only young associates, we took a strong position: Failing to hire Krane because he is Jewish was not only extremely shortsighted for a firm that was interested in top talent but was also deeply offensive to some young lawyers the firm was obviously grooming for future leadership. Krane was immediately hired and much later became that large firm’s managing partner.
America has been blessed by an inspired Constitution that aims at equal justice and the advancement of all on the basis of merit. In addition to equal justice, in my judgment the U.S. Constitution contains at least five divinely inspired principles.
First is the principle that the source of government power is the people. In a time when sovereign power was universally assumed to come from the divine right of kings or from military power, attributing sovereign power to the people was revolutionary. Philosophers had advocated this, but the U.S. Constitution was the first to apply it. Sovereign power in the people does not mean that mobs or other groups of people can intervene to intimidate or force government action. The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives.
A second inspired principle is the division of delegated power between the nation and its subsidiary states. In our federal system, this unprecedented principle has sometimes been altered by inspired amendments, such as those abolishing slavery and extending voting rights to women. Significantly, the U.S. Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers granted expressly or by implication, and it reserves all other government powers “to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Another inspired principle is the separation of powers. Well over a century before our 1787 Constitutional Convention, the English Parliament pioneered the separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king. The inspiration in the American convention was to delegate independent executive, legislative and judicial powers so these three branches could exercise checks upon one another.
A fourth inspired principle is in the cluster of vital guarantees of individual rights and specific limits on government authority in the Bill of Rights, adopted by amendment just three years after the Constitution went into force. A bill of rights was not new. Here the inspiration was in the practical implementation of principles pioneered in England, beginning with the Magna Carta. The writers of the Constitution were familiar with these because some of the colonial charters had such guarantees.
Without a Bill of Rights, America could not have served as the host nation for the establishment of my own faith tradition, which was founded just three decades later. There was divine inspiration in the original provision that there should be no religious test for public office, but the addition of the religious freedom and anti-establishment guarantees in the First Amendment was vital. I also see divine inspiration in the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech and press and in the personal protections in other amendments, such as for criminal prosecutions.
Fifth and finally, I see divine inspiration in the vital purpose of the entire Constitution. We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any officeholder. In this way, all persons are to be equal before the law. These principles block the autocratic ambitions that have corrupted democracy in some countries. They also mean that none of the three branches of government should be dominant over the others or prevent the others from performing their proper constitutional functions to check one another.
Despite the divinely inspired principles of the U.S. Constitution, when exercised by imperfect mortals their intended effects have not always been achieved. For example, people of faith need not view every Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution as inspired.
And important subjects of lawmaking, such as some laws governing family relationships, have been taken from the states by the federal government. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech has sometimes been diluted by suppression of unpopular speech. The principle of separation of powers has always been under pressure with the ebb and flow of one branch of government exercising or inhibiting the powers delegated to another.
There are other threats that undermine the inspired principles of the U.S. Constitution. The stature of the Constitution is diminished by efforts to substitute current societal trends as the reason for its founding, instead of liberty and self-government. The authority of the Constitution is trivialized when candidates or officials ignore its principles. The dignity and force of the Constitution is reduced by those who refer to it like a loyalty test or a political slogan, instead of its lofty status as a source of authorization for and limits on government authority.
We have a unique responsibility in these times to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and principles of constitutionalism. We should trust in God and be positive about this nation’s future.
We must pray for the Lord to guide and bless all nations and their leaders, even when we might oppose individual laws or policies. We must exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.
There are other duties that are part of upholding the inspired Constitution. We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution. We should seek out and support wise and good persons who will support those principles in their public actions. We should be knowledgeable citizens who are active in making our influence felt in civic affairs.
In the United States and in other democracies, political influence is exercised by running for office, by voting, by financial support, by membership and service in political parties, and by ongoing communications to officials, parties and candidates. To function well, a democracy needs all of these, but a conscientious citizen does not need to provide all of them.
There are many political issues, and no party, platform or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then we should seek inspiration on how to exercise influence according to individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election.
Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve. We should never assert that people of faith and goodwill cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate. The Constitution of the United States is inspired. Through embracing its principles, we can enhance unity and tranquility among citizens, and we can continue to face the future with faith as one nation, under God.
President Dallin H. Oaks is the first counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This essay draws on previously published articles and addresses by President Oaks.
Utah ranks No. 3 in the U.S. when it comes to checking emails, according to a recent study
When’s the last time you checked your email?
If you live in Utah, there’s a good chance it wasn’t that long ago.
A recent study from the eCommerce agency TaskHusky reveals that Utah ranks No. 3 in the country when it comes to checking emails. Based on the research, which had more than 2,300 respondents reporting their email habits, people in Utah check their email an average of 23 times a day — substantially above the national average of 14.
In Utah ...
According to the study — which was emailed to the Deseret News — 76.47% of people in Utah reported checking their email when bored (slightly above the national average of 75.7%).
Just over 70% of Utah respondents said they check their email while on vacation, which was slightly above the national average of 69.3%.
Nearly 65% of Utah respondents said they feel pressure to respond to emails in a timely manner (higher than the 57% national average), and just over 47% said they check their email after work hours, including on nights and weekends, according to information sent to the Deseret News.
Maine and Iowa ranked ahead of Utah as the two states most addicted to emails, with an average of 35 and 22.8 email checks per day, respectively. Washington was the least email-addicted state, with an average of 9.1 email checks daily (due to a lack of responses in certain regions, the study did not include Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming).
Other general takeaways ...
In general, the average person keeps up with three different email accounts and spends 1.69 hours a day checking and responding to emails, according to the study, which was conducted in April 2021 (that number is significantly lower than the findings of Adobe’s 2019 email usage study, which found that people spend approximately five hours a day checking various email accounts).
Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported feeling pressured to respond quickly to emails; however, women were more likely than men to feel that pressure.
Frequent email use is getting younger by the generation — millennials started regularly checking their emails at age 20, compared to Gen Z respondents at age 17, according to the study.
How to reduce email use
To reduce email use going forward, TaskHusky recommends setting aside two or three times a day to sort through emails. The study recommends closing your email tab once you have checked your inbox during those designated times.
The study also suggested removing push notifications from your devices so you’re not notified every time you receive an email.
A 2015 study from University of British Columbia researchers found that when people limited checking their email to just a few times a day, their stress levels decreased significantly.
Ethan Hunsaker | Layton Police Department via Associated Press
A 25-year-old Utah man has admitted to killing a woman without provocation on the first date.
Ethan Hunsaker pleaded guilty and mentally ill Tuesday in Farmington's 2nd District Court to the May 2020 murder of Ashlyn Black.
If a judge agrees that Hunsaker is currently mentally ill, the plea allows him to receive treatment at the state's psychiatric hospital before he begins serving out his sentence in the Utah State Prison. He faces at least 15 years and up to life for the first-degree felony.
Second District Judge David Connors is set to review an evaluation and make a ruling following a hearing Aug. 27.
Hunsaker's mental health at the time of Black's murder isn't a factor. Rather, Connors will make a decision based on his current status.
After meeting on Tinder last year, the pair went to a bar and returned to Hunsaker's home, where he choked and stabbed Black hours later while they were cuddling, court documents say.
Hunsaker called police early on May 24 and reported that he had killed someone he'd met on social media. Theirs was a "normal date," with no argument, Hunsaker told police. Attorneys say Hunsaker has mental illnesses but haven't provided details.
Joshua Egan, an attorney representing Black's family, said Hunsaker's guilty plea provided "tremendous relief" for her loved ones.
Black adored working with children with disabilities, was quick to speak up for others and dreamed of starting a family of her own, according to her family. They have described her as a lover of camping, the band Nirvana, and vintage clothing.
Prosecutors say Hunsaker had thought up ways to kill and kidnap others shortly before Black's death and expressed a desire to have police kill him.
His plea was not part of an agreement with prosecutors and didn't require their approval, deputy Davis County attorney Jason Nelson emphasized after the hearing held via videoconference.
"We never offered a plea deal in this case," Nelson said.
A sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled.
The Utah Department of Health offers suicide prevention help on utahsuicideprevention.org/suicide-prevention-basics. The National Suicide Prevention Hotline is 1-800-273-8255, and help is available through the SafeUT app.
Free and confidential help and support for victims and survivors of domestic violence is available 24/7 at 1-800-897-LINK (5465) or at udvc.org.
Philadelphia 76ers incoming Chief Executive Officer Scott O’Neil speaks to reporters at the team’s NBA basketball training facility in Philadelphia on Monday, July 8, 2013. | Matt Rourke, Associated Press
Scott O’Neil will seek new opportunities outside the Philadelphia 76ers
Philadelphia 76ers CEO Scott O’Neil will no longer be a part of the process, as he plans to leave the team and seek out other opportunities.
“I’m leaving because it’s time,” O’Neil told CBS Philadelphia. “I remember what it was like when we first walked in here, and to think we’ve grown this business, over $2 billion in value over six times in eight years, that’s what I do. Hypergrowth, super growth. I think that the right person coming in here will be a wonderful steward of this brand for years. But I think I’ve done what I came here to do.”
Scott O’Neil’s history with 76ers, faith and HBSE
O’Neil landed the job back in 2013. He helped bring the NBA its first jersey patch deal back in 2016 and helped the Sixers have the highest regular-season attendance in 2019, according to CNBC.
O’Neil said working for HBSE brought him immense challenges, according to CNBC. But, he said, the job was “the most fun I have ever had, because every day brought a new opportunity to learn and develop.”
“I think a total transformation in growth of the business, brand and relevance in the city, the country is probably the biggest thing,” O’Neil said, according to CBS Philadelphia.
“The book ... it’s not a pat-yourself-on-the back, victory lap, Lego Guy ‘Everything is awesome.’ It’s the opposite of that,” O’Neil said. “It’s essentially like a vulnerable peek behind the curtain look at life, and life can be messy. I’m kind of OK with messy. ... This book is about purposeful living.”
Portland Trail Blazers guard Damian Lillard gestures after hitting the winning basket with .3 seconds remaining in overtime of an NBA basketball game against the Denver Nuggets on Saturday, Oct. 29, 2016 in Denver. Portland won 115-113. | David Zalubowski, Associated Press
What would the Blazers want in return for an All-NBA player of Lillard’s caliber who has four years left on his contract?
NBA trade machines were already being put to use with people concocting deals for former Weber State star Damian Lillard of the Portland Trail Blazers, but that’s gone into overdrive this week after Yahoo’s Chris Haynes reported that Lillard could request a trade.
But what would the Blazers want in return for an All-NBA player of Lillard’s caliber who has four years left on his contract? Certainly Portland’s asking price will be high, but it could take a few forms.
The Blazers could be thinking they want to remain relevant in the short term and ask for quality, established players in exchange for Lillard. This would open up just about every team in the league to try to come up with some sort of deal to land him.
More likely, though, Portland will decide that if it’s going to lose one of the best players in the league, it will move into rebuild mode and primarily want future draft picks in return for Lillard.
This would lessen the number of potential suitors for Lillard if it’s just a two-team trade, as not many teams own a bunch of future first-round picks beyond their own (and teams are not allowed to trade their own first-round pick two years in a row).
Deals could definitely get complicated if more than two teams are involved, as combos of players and picks sent out and received in deals could be countless, but here’s a look at the teams that own at least one future first-round pick beyond their own that could get involved in a trade for Lillard, whether it be to acquire him or facilitate a deal for another team.
Teams are listed in alphabetical order, and draft pick information is according to RealGM.
Atlanta Hawks
The Hawks barely qualify for this list, as they own just one extra future first-round pick, one in 2022 from the Oklahoma City Thunder. That’s probably not enough draft capital to get a deal done unless Atlanta includes Trae Young in the deal. That would certainly be an all-in move for a Hawks team that is in the Eastern Conference Finals since Lillard is better than Young right now, but it’s surely not happening. In other words, the Hawks really probably won’t be a player in Lillard talks, at least as far as trading picks for him.
Golden State Warriors
Oh, boy. The former juggernaut Warriors have two lottery picks this year, Nos. 7 and 14. Will they look to make a splash by centering a deal around those picks, last year’s No. 2 pick James Wiseman and some other stuff (expect that phrase numerous times throughout the rest of this) for Lillard, who would help them make another run at a title? Too bad the Warriors just moved to San Francisco from Oakland, Lillard’s hometown. That would have been fun.
Houston Rockets
The Rockets have picks on picks on picks to use in trades. According to RealGM, they’ve got 11 extra first-round picks or pick swaps between now and 2027 (they do owe first-round picks in 2024 and 2026 to the Oklahoma City Thunder). The thing is, Houston should have no intention of trying to acquire Lillard. They are in full rebuild mode and need as many draft picks as possible to rebuild correctly. Landing Lillard would do them basically no good. It’s possible they could send picks as part of a multiteam deal, but doubtful.
Memphis Grizzlies
This one is moderately fun given that the Grizzlies are an up-and-coming team. They own the Utah Jazz’s first-round pick in 2022 and a Golden State pick in 2024. Neither of those picks should be very high, which the Blazers wouldn’t like. Memphis would also likely have to include a young player it really likes, and it’s got a great young point guard, Lillard’s position, in Ja Morant. Fun to think about, but the Grizzlies probably aren’t in position in their rebuild right now for a huge move like this.
New Orleans Pelicans
This might be the most realistic draft pick-related trade involving Lillard. The Pelicans have seven picks or pick swaps between 2022 and 2027, along with a bunch of young players they could include to create a duo of Lillard and Zion Williamson that would be pretty scary. New Orleans is trying to make a leap into playoff contender, and consolidating players and assets into someone like Lillard makes a lot of sense in that regard. Then even if they trade a bunch of picks, they’ll still have quite a few in their pocket for the future.
New York Knicks
The Knicks surprised just about everyone by finishing the 2020-21 season strong and getting the No. 4 seed in the Eastern Conference under first-year coach Tom Thibodeau. New York doesn’t have a ton of extra draft capital, but it’s got an extra first-round pick this year and another one in 2023, both from the Dallas Mavericks. Would the Knicks be interested in sending those picks plus some other stuff to Portland for Lillard? It would certainly be fun to see him in the Big Apple.
Oklahoma City Thunder
If you thought the Rockets’ 11 extra first-round picks was a lot, check this out: The Thunder have 13 extras between now and 2027. It’s become a running joke that Oklahoma City general manager Sam Presti won’t deal with teams who won’t give up a first-round pick in a trade. Like the Rockets, though, the Thunder are in the beginning stages of a rebuild and should have no interest in acquiring Lillard right now. Could they get involved as a third team with Portland and someone else though? Perhaps. For now, though, the Thunder name will be called out a lot over the next few drafts.
Orlando Magic
The Magic have three extra first-round picks between now and 2025, but they signaled earlier this year that they’re entering a full rebuild when they traded Nikola Vucevic, Aaron Gordon and Evan Fournier. At the very least, they should hold on to the picks they have if not add more over the next few years. In other words, they shouldn’t be getting involved in a Lillard deal.
This rounded ass busty babe is shaking her ass and slowly taking off her shirt showing off her nice big juicy tits. She then lies on her bed and get naked rubbing her pink pussy making it all wet and ...
Gov. Spencer Cox speaks during the PBS Utah Governor’s Monthly News Conference at the Eccles Broadcast Center in Salt Lake City on Thursday, June 17, 2021. Following a May decree by Cox, pandemic-related unemployment benefits for some 24,000 workers ended over the weekend, but results from a new Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll show Utahns are overwhelmingly supportive of the changes. | Laura Seitz, Deseret News
Following a May decree by Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, pandemic-related unemployment benefits for some 24,000 workers ended over the weekend, and results from a new Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll show Utahns are overwhelmingly supportive of the changes.
Most respondents also said they believe people on unemployment rolls were not returning to work because of the higher benefits available to them through federal COVID-19 relief funding that was set to expire in early September.
The findings are from a survey conducted by independent pollster Scott Rasmussen of 1,000 registered Utah voters from June 18 to June 26. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Overall, 74% of those surveyed said they strongly or somewhat agreed with Cox’s decision to curtail those benefits, along with other programs, on June 26.
Of the 20% of respondents who indicated they knew someone receiving unemployment, 52% said those recipients were delaying a return to work because of the additional $300 per week provided through federal aid. But 25% said the unemployment claimants they knew were still drawing benefits because of challenges finding new jobs, and 17% believe delays in returning to work were due to unemployed workers’ fears related to COVID-19 or ongoing responsibilities in caring for family members.
Five things we learned about Cox’s decision to end pandemic benefits
“This is the natural next step in getting the state and people’s lives back to normal,” Cox said in May when announcing the move. “I believe in the value of work. With the nation’s lowest unemployment rate ... and plenty of good-paying jobs available today, it makes sense to transition away from these extra benefits that were never intended to be permanent.”
He also noted other “safety net programs” such as assistance with rent, utility, food and medical bills will still be available.
Cox is among some two dozen Republican state governors across the U.S. who have made similar decisions about ending federal pandemic benefits early, saying the added benefit is keeping people from wanting to work.
Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News
The Utah Department of Workforce Services’ South County Employment Center in Taylorsville is pictured on Friday, March 19, 2021.
A frustrating disconnect?
Labor experts say the shortage is not just about the $300 payment. Some unemployed people also have been reluctant to look for work because they fear catching the virus. Others have found new occupations rather than return to their old jobs. And many women, especially working mothers, have had to leave the workforce to care for children.
Following Cox’s announcement in May, Utah House Minority Leader Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, pointed to those factors while expressing his frustration with the governor’s decision to end the benefits in Utah.
“I mean, this is the perfect example of a disconnect between people in regular lives and people who are struggling to get back on their feet,” King said. “There are many, many people who are concerned — afraid — about returning to the workplace.”
What “frustrates me the most,” King said, is Cox’s decision “reflects this thinking of many on the other side of the aisle that people don’t want to work. That’s fundamentally wrong.
‘It’s affecting us personally’
In a Deseret News interview, St. George resident Barry Brumfield said he is a lifelong Republican who also voted for Cox in Utah’s 2020 gubernatorial election but felt the governor’s decision on curtailing federal pandemic benefits early was a bad call.
“We’re very unhappy with this decision,” Brumfield said. “We really believe in individual rights and benefitting by your own hard labors, but we’ve gotten to the point where it feels like our hard labors have been lost.
“We support the other things (Cox) is doing but this is our one argument because it’s affecting us personally.”
Brumfield, who is retired, said his wife lost her 13-year position with SkyWest last year as the airline travel industry was brought to a near standstill by the pandemic. While Stacey Brumfield continues to seek work, Barry Brumfield said the only offers she’s had so far are for minimum wage jobs and that, at 63, she’s not in a position to start over on a new career path.
Utah’s booming economy can take it
Phil Dean, former state budget director and current public finance senior research fellow with the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, said Utah’s economy is well situated to absorb the $50 million-a-month that will be lost in the suspension of federal pandemic benefits.
“I just think we’re at a point in the economic recovery where it really does makes sense to do it,” Dean said. “In aggregate, elimination of the benefits will have a negligible impact on the economy ... though it remains the case that certain pockets are recovering more slowly than others and some households will feel these changes.”
Dean said it’s important to remember that the standard unemployment insurance benefit programs will remain in place and those unable to find a job will still have access to the standard claims process.
He said that while the programs launched by the federal government to mitigate the worst of the COVID-19 economic impacts on individuals and families was the right response at the time, current circumstances no longer require the additional benefits.
“The scope of the challenge we had in the midst of the pandemic as well as the government’s involvement in restricting the private sector made the initial response entirely appropriate,” Dean said. “And it is entirely appropriate now to pull back those enhanced benefits and go back to the traditional programs and system.”
Losses go beyond $300 a week
As of early June, the Utah Department of Workforce Services reports that just over 24,700 residents were drawing some type of unemployment benefits with about 12,000 getting traditional benefits plus the federally funded $300 per week pandemic stipend. Another 11,000 or so were still getting unemployment insurance benefits under federal extensions also created to blunt COVID-19 economic impacts on U.S workers. And about 1,200 Utah gig workers — people employed by companies like Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and others that are classified as contractors who are exempt from typical unemployment benefits — have also been receiving benefits under federal emergency mandates.
While federal deadlines for most pandemic-related benefits for unemployed workers are set to expire in early September, Cox’s order brought them to a halt 10 weeks ahead of schedule.
The nation’s well-being must be valued over personal interests
I am a political junkie. My ancestors have roots in the Washington, D.C., area that go back generations. It’s perhaps an understatement, then, to say I’ve been shaped by living in the nation’s capital. Indeed, much of my career as a lawyer on the Hill or as a judge on the federal bench has given me a front-row seat to a few fairly dramatic political contests.
From that vantage point, politics can sometimes feel like a blood sport driven by partisan contempt. But there is a better way, and as Matthew Holland points out in his book, “Bonds of Affection: Civic Charity and the Making of America,” a vital part of the DNA of this nation is “civic charity,” a deliberate decision to set aside personal interests and seek the well-being of others and the nation. The transformative progress the United States has made in creating “a more perfect union” has most often come when citizens recognize, in the words of one religious leader, “that we are in this together, we need each other, and we can resolve our differences through mutual respect, mutual understanding, and ... collaboration (in which) both sides ... seek a balance, not a total victory.”
The success of our republic is never guaranteed, and our divisions today bring us perilously close to transgressing Benjamin Franklin’s charge to “keep it.” Yet, a careful student will recognize civic charity as the hopeful, animating spirit of the U.S. Constitution. The document itself was born out of reasoned deliberation and compromise, and it demands the same for its continued vitality.
When civic charity is at work, the goal of our reasoning and discussion should be, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, not “to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding.”
Certainly, the nation has not always lived up to the full measure of civic charity. But, if we look closely, we can all see breathtaking flashes of goodness when Americans have come together to make history. In our darkest days, we should look to such moments. Even today we have not altogether squandered the capacity to call upon these “bonds of affection.” In fact, whether we choose to do so in our own time may be our generation’s greatest test of patriotism.
Here we reflect on six notable moments of civic charity in history:
‘A city upon a hill’
One hundred and forty-five years before the first shots of the Revolution, a band of English Puritans sailed in search of freedom aboard the ship Arbella. Their destination was the trading outpost of Massachusetts Bay Colony, but they viewed their mission as much more than an economic enterprise.
In what has been described as the most fundamental expression of what would become the American experiment in self-government, John Winthrop told the group that the eyes of the world would look to them as a “city upon a hill.” They were founding their society not on the legal structures of their homeland but on the covenant of “brotherly affection,” and they would be “knit together” in unity and “uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality.”
Winthrop’s lofty ideals — which were by no means easy to live by — would nonetheless set the stage for a revolutionary experiment in self-government that was to follow, a project that derived its power, first and foremost, from mutual trust in one another.
Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address
The political contest of 1800 birthed the nasty electioneering all too familiar to voters today. Federalist John Adams was seeking a second term in the White House while his friend-turned-rival Thomas Jefferson led the Democratic-Republicans in their contrasting vision of government. Both campaigns traded barbs, slandered the other and spread rumors in the press. It wasn’t until a tense, tiebreaking vote cast in the House of Representatives that Jefferson became the country’s third president.
After the ordeal, Jefferson had every justification to skewer his opponents and capitalize on the momentum that won him the White House. Instead he used his inaugural address to bind the nation’s wounds and set in place a norm that has become the hallmark of the republic’s success: the peaceful transfer of power, even by a losing president upset by the outcome of the election.
“Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things,” he said. “We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”
Abraham Lincoln’s presidency
Abraham Lincoln entered the White House with rumors of civil war about to spill onto the battlefield. The burden clearly weighed on his mind, as he spent ample portions of his first inaugural address outlining legal arguments against secession and urging Southern states to “think calmly and well upon this whole subject.” Beyond the legal arguments, however, Lincoln made an appeal to the hearts of his fellow countrymen, reminding them of their “bonds of affection” toward one another. “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.”
Still, the war came, taking the lives of more than 600,000 Americans. Lincoln’s entire presidency was consumed with bloodshed and dissension, but when the time came to address the nation at the start of a second term, he rejected the calls for retribution and vengeance against the rebellious states and reaffirmed his commitment to unity. “With malice toward none; with charity for all,” he promised to work at reconstructing a government energized by a “new birth of freedom” that extended to all. Lincoln asked of Americans the most radical challenge: that enemies embrace as friends to “achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace.”
Civil rights movement
The social climate of the Reconstruction quickly suppressed the constitutional gains afforded African Americans after the Civil War. Racism embedded itself into public laws and private hearts.
Yet, across decades, the perseverance of those who clung to a brighter future chiseled through the lynchings, segregation, distorted juries and denial of the right to vote to help America once more reach toward its ideals. Far from repudiating America’s founding ambitions, Martin Luther King Jr. embraced them and called upon all Americans to work for their realization. “All men are caught up in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny,” he wrote from a Birmingham jail.
A year later, legislation codified protections for equality in employment, schooling, civic and political life. Slowly the cultural tide inched toward Lincoln’s charge given 100 years earlier: “Let us strive on to finish the work we are in,” and to do so with an abundance of charity.
Americans with Disabilities Act
It’s difficult to imagine a society in which, a little more than 30 years ago, a qualified job applicant could be denied employment because of blindness or a paraplegic couldn’t readily enter a museum if it didn’t have a ramp.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 rectified those legal gaps for people with disabilities in an effort to help pull them from the margins of society. When once it was assumed that poor educational or employment opportunities were an inescapable result of disability, Americans started to make good on John Winthrop’s admonition to “make others’ conditions our own.”
Much of the opposition to the ADA’s mandates hinged on the cost of transforming structures or systems to reasonably accommodate all Americans. When contextualized within the dignity of life that a virtuous society ought to uphold, such arguments seem small. Civic charity won the day.
Utah compromise
While the nation’s pundits fought about the merits of a Christian baker declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding and speculated on the forthcoming Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Utah lawmakers, religious groups and LGBT community leaders convened to announce a one-of-a-kind nondiscrimination law that achieved a balance between certain legal protections for LGBT Utahns and tailored religious exemptions.
Most called it a compromise, but curiously others didn’t. “We didn’t compromise,” said Stuart Adams, a Republican state senator. “We found a way forward where each entity was given additional rights and protections, but no one’s core values were compromised.”
It flummoxed national observers. One of the country’s most contentious logjams was broken. Regardless of where one stands on the particulars of the law, it illustrates the bridges civic charity can build and demonstrates the indispensable role this strand of America’s DNA must play if we are to continue to do the hard work of trying to create “a more perfect union.”
Thomas B. Griffith is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
George and Nita Lutes speak through a window of their assisted living center in Millcreek with their nephew Tim Chambless and his wife, Cathy, on April 29, 2020. They were allowed inside shortly before the Lutes died five days apart in December. Now a bill before Congress seeks to let residents name “essential caregivers” who would not have to stay outside in a health crisis. | Laura Seitz, Deseret News
Families kept from loved ones in COVID-19 say public health crisis shouldn’t trump close relationships. Bill before Congress agrees
When the coronavirus pandemic hit long-term care facilities hard and they slammed their doors shut to reduce exposure, Ron Von Ronne, 78, was among those denied personal contact with the outside world and the family that loved him.
Von Ronne, of Albany, New York, has Alzheimer’s disease and was transferred to a nursing home from the hospital just before the pandemic.
At least one of his relatives had visited him almost daily. Then COVID-19 struck, said his daughter Mikko Cook, of Ventura, California. In the pandemic, the family found themselves cut off for more than 100 days with no word on how he was faring beyond “He’s fine” in response to their frantic queries.
Lack of access to older adults and disabled individuals of all ages in long-term care and assisted-living facilities drove thousands of families to seek help on social media and birthed a movement dedicated to ensuring loved ones cannot be kept apart. They’ve been pushing federal and state lawmakers to see that forced physical separation of family and friends never happens again in a health crisis. With contacts made on social media, Cook co-founded the Essential Caregivers Coalition and is a member of a national group of state grassroots advocates called the “Essential Caregivers Movement.”
Their movement may bear fruit.
Reps. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and John B. Larson, D-Conn., along with eight co-sponsors so far have introduced The Essential Caregivers Act, HR3733, which is to be discussed at a news conference and roundtable in Washington on Wednesday. The bill would ensure that facilities receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding could never again completely bar residents from having visitors because of a public health emergency. Instead, each resident could name two “essential caregivers” who could come into a facility for up to 12 hours a day to help with care and provide comfort and companionship. Those caregivers would be required to follow the safety precautions required of staff.
Why the doors first closed on family caregivers is no mystery. The pandemic’s impact on nursing homes was shocking. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported 656,336 cases of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities and 132,882 deaths among residents. Staff infection numbers were high, too: 585,666 facility staffers tested positive for COVID-19 and 1,938 died.
But the harm of forced separation for families has also been substantial, with a steady stream of stories from distressed friends and relatives cut off from elderly and disabled residents. Those visitors had prior to the pandemic often been valuable to facilities not only for their personal ties to residents, but as an extension of professional staff. They clipped nails, cut hair and helped with feeding and hygiene, not just comfort and cheer, freeing staff for more in-depth care. Many facilities have struggled with the increased burden on staff.
Birth of a movement
Before the pandemic, residents in facilities had the legal right to see family/friend caregivers whenever they wanted. But when facilities were proving to be a reservoir for circulating the disease, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a waiver in March 2020 that let states suspend outside access, said Cook.
Family photo
Mikko Cook, of Ventura, California, snuggles with her dad, Ron Von Ronne, of Albany, New York. He was transferred from a hospital to a nursing home just before COVID-19 hit and being unable to visit him during the pandemic lockdown led Cook to co-found the Essential Caregivers Coalition in hopes of preventing facilities from locking families out.
“The 1135 waiver said to every governor of every state, ‘Look, there’s an emergency going on. And there are all these rules and regulations that you don’t have to abide by, during our emergency.’ One of those rules was, you can decide who goes into a long-term care facility,” she said.
Not only did residents lose their right to have visitors, but ombudsmen and many inspectors could be kept out, too.
Later, when even restaurants and bars started opening up again as COVID-19 cases dropped, when people started going to baseball games and playing golf, Cook said many states and care facilities were slow to pivot and the ban on outside visitors dragged on.
By that time, concerned family members and friends who hadn’t been allowed in to see loved ones in facilities were posting their stories, commiserating and strategizing on Facebook and other social media and groups began to form.
“We all began to come together and educate ourselves on what is happening and how can we bond to create a voice that would be heard by others in the same situation and by officials,” Cook told the Deseret News.
She said advocates have documented problems for residents stemming from isolation, including failure to thrive, not eating or communicating, and even cases of some who’d been able to walk before the crisis and who now rely on wheelchairs, among others. Reports of depression shot up, too.
The impact was not confined to residents.
Tim Chambless, of Salt Lake City, said his heart still breaks over the last year of his beloved Aunt Nita’s and Uncle George’s lives. He and his wife, Cathy, regularly visited the assisted living facility where George Lutes, 83, and Nita Lutes, 91, lived. The short visits had to be arranged in advance so that staff could get the Lutes by a window. They all peered through the glass while they tried to talk by cellphone.
The Lutes had met during the 1960s push to put Americans on the moon; both worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They were inseparable, even at the end. She died Dec. 11 in the facility, her husband five days later, the pandemic still ongoing. Tim and Cathy Chambless were allowed to visit them in their room before they died — dressed in full personal protective gear and speaking through facial shields. They were lying in bed together, calling each other “Babe,” Chambless said.
Even under those circumstances, “Meeting face to face was far more intimate and meaningful than talking through a glass window while holding cellphones,” Chambless said. After their deaths, he found among their possessions a note George had written to Nita that indicated they had “lived a good life together and would depart this world together.”
The Lutes were also lucky because they were together in assisted living. Many of their neighbors had lost their spouses before the pandemic and were even more isolated.
Congresswoman Tenney called removing access to loved ones “an absolute injustice,” that forced many seniors to suffer in isolation. She earlier proposed a bill specific to the COVID-19 crisis, but then opted for legislation aimed at public health emergencies in general.
Twenty states are at various stages of considering similar statewide measures, and Texas and Arkansas are among those that have passed one. The bipartisan bill in Congress, if passed, would apply nationwide.
According to “the Essential Caregiver Movement,” which has chapters in 18 states so far, the fight is not just for the rights of the elderly, but for those of any age living in congregate facilities.
The group says since 1987, a Nursing Home Bill of Rights has promised residents they can have visitors, make care choices and use their own property. It promises them freedom from abuse and neglect and access to medical, psychological and social care, among other things. Bill proponents note outside visitors who advocate on their behalf are essential to ensuring those rights. The restrictions, they say, are a “direct violation” of those rights.
Gathering speed
Advocates say the push to ensure access has momentum. Bill co-sponsor Tenney has been gathering stories of families who have a loved one they couldn’t see in long-term care. She’s posting some on her Facebook page and plans to read some on the House floor. Wednesday morning, she and Larson plan a press conference on the Capitol steps, then will host a roundtable in the afternoon. Families and advocacy groups nationwide are holding rallies and letter-writing campaigns. Groups have sprung up using the website WeAreNotVisitors.com, among others. Some of the groups’ leaders, who have been “fighting shoulder to shoulder for months,” will meet for the first time on the Capitol steps, Cook said.
Facility compliance would be overseen by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If a facility denied access, it would have to justify it in writing within 24 hours. The department would have to create a “process to adjudicate all complaints in a timely manner.”
The bill has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees.
A national membership group representing more than 14,000 long-term care and assisted-living facilities told the Deseret News it supports the bill.
“We applaud this bill, as the engagement of loved ones are critical to the wellbeing of our residents,” wrote the American Health Care Association/National Center for Assisted Living by email. “Many states have developed Essential Caregiver programs to help bring additional comfort and aid to residents, amidst the enormous challenges exacerbated by the pandemic. We welcome and support family members and friends taking an active role in the care of their loved ones.”
The group also emphasized the importance of appropriate training and following facility procedures during a public health crisis, calling it “critical” for anyone providing care in a facility.
As for Von Ronne, Cook says a new social worker assigned to him started letting them see him some via video conference on her cellphone. They were so grateful, but it’s not the same as being there, she said. And in dementia care units, residents sometimes are injured by other residents. Von Ronne had his clothes stolen and has twice been physically assaulted. When he came home for 24 hours at Christmas, he had an unexplained and unreported black eye, Cook said.
She lives far away and most of the day-to-day personal battle for her dad belongs to other relatives, including her mom. “I can’t save my dad,” she said simply. Instead, she’s fighting to ensure that what he’s lived through means something by pushing for change and more access for all families.
Cook said advocates expect some opposition. Some facilities may balk at having to provide personal protective equipment for essential caregivers so they can comply with the need to take the same precautions as staff. It’s not clear who will pay for testing if it’s needed.
Regardless, she’s hoping that some of the humanity that was “scraped away” will be restored.
Utah Jazz guard Joe Ingles (2) blows a kiss to his family in the stands as he and Utah Jazz forward Bojan Bogdanovic (44) walk off the court after a game with the Indiana Pacers at the Vivint Arena in Salt Lake City on Friday, April 16, 2021. The two Jazz players, along with teammate Rudy Gobert, are eyeing gold medal runs in the Summer Games for their respective teams this July. | Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News
Fatigue and injuries are always a worry for NBA teams whose players compete in international play
The postponed 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo open on July 23. But on Tuesday, Olympic qualifying basketball tournaments kicked off, and most of the already-qualified teams have begun assembling for training camp.
Three Utah Jazz players are among those hoping to help their prospective home countries win a medal in Tokyo: Bojan Bogdanovic with Croatia; Joe Ingles with Australia; and Rudy Gobert with France.
Additionally, Jazzmen Miye Oni and rookie Udoka Azubuike have been invited to join the Nigerian national team’s training camp in California. The Nigerian training camp roster includes 46 players, although the roster will be whittled down to 15 before the team plays in three exhibition games beginning on July 10 in Las Vegas.
Last season, NBA players didn’t get the opportunity to play internationally because of the massive shutdowns, the timing of the NBA bubble in Orlando, and the postponement of the Olympic Games due to the COVID-10 pandemic.
Olympic competition and playing for a national team is a point of pride, especially for international players. Many leave the States shortly after the NBA season concludes and go right into playing for their national team, despite the fatigue that sets in when they come back and gear up for NBA training camp.
Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News
Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert dunks against the LA Clippers during Game 5 of their NBA playoff series in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, June 16, 2021. Gobert is one of three Jazz players eyeing Olympic glory this summer.
“I will be so focused on the goal of trying to win a gold medal for Australia, which we’ve never done, or trying to win a medal full stop, which we’ve never done,” Ingles said. “That’s something that’s been a goal of mine since I made the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and we haven’t been able to do it in a World Cup or Olympics. It’s something that our older core of Patty (Mills) and (Aron) Baynes and Delly (Matthew Dellavedova) and that group has been together for a little while, it’s been a goal of ours since we started.”
This year in particular though, it’s hard not to wonder, is it wise for these NBA players to play in the Olympics?
There’s no doubt that the glory and satisfaction of attaining an Olympic medal cannot be replicated, but the NBA is looking at one of its shortest offseasons. The lack of rest from the condensed 2020-21 NBA schedule has already taken a toll.
A large number of injuries, many suffered by some of the top players in the league, had a huge impact on the NBA playoffs this year, and it’s difficult not to draw a line connecting the lack of a normal offseason and the condensed schedule.
Even so, that hasn’t stopped players that are currently healthy from immediately heading off to get ready for an offseason full of more basketball.
“There’s no question, there’s not a general manager or a head coach in the league that can say that he isn’t holding his breath,” Dennis Lindsey, then-executive vice president of basketball operations, said the day after the Jazz’s postseason run ended. “We’re all holding our breath that nothing happens, and that if something does happen the national team appropriately reports it to us.”
That’s a fear NBA teams have every year when players opt to play in international competition. What if a team’s star suffers a major injury while playing for their national team and then isn’t able to play to start the upcoming NBA season? What if they have to miss the upcoming NBA season altogether?
In that situation it would not only be disappointing for the player; one injury could upset an NBA team’s chances at a playoff berth or title run.
“And then there’s just overall fatigue, right?” said Lindsey, now an adviser and consultant for the Jazz. “And yet, if a player is healthy it’s been collectively bargained between the NBA and USA Basketball and the FIBA agreement that if he wants to play basketball, who am I to stand in his way? We want that for our guys. You just hope that they’re not tired and certainly that they don’t have a traumatic injury.”
The fatigue is particularly of interest this year. The NBA season, which began Dec. 23, 2020, ran for 72 games through May 16. There was a shortened All-Star break and the playoffs are still underway with a last possible date for a Game 7 of the NBA Finals set for July 22.
While the Jazz’s season ended earlier than they wanted, that doesn’t mean that Bogdanovic, Ingles and Gobert have a ton of time on their hands.
“We are playing in seven or eight days,” Bogdanovic said after the Jazz’s season came to an end. “So basically I’m heading right to the training camp from here.”
Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News
Utah Jazz forward Bojan Bogdanovic (44) celebrates a 3-pointer during Game 5 of their NBA playoff series against the LA Clippers in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, June 16, 2021.
Bogdanovic has even less time than his two teammates since Croatia did not directly qualify for the Olympics. Croatia is one of the teams taking part in a qualifying tournament, of which there are four. The four winners from those tournaments will join Japan, Nigeria, Argentina, Iran, France, Spain, Australia and the U.S. in the 12-team Olympic tournament, which begins July 25, two days after the opening ceremonies, and concludes on Aug. 7.
Bogdanovic is coming off a season in which he played in every one of the Jazz’s 72 games following rehab from surgery on his right wrist. He had the shortest amount of time off of the Jazz’s players, with Croatia’s first qualifying tournament game Wednesday, June 30.
Ingles has joined his Australian teammates in Las Vegas for their training camp, and Gobert is not far behind in heading to France.
Ingles played 67 of the 72 regular-season games and the 33-year-old was clearly fatigued at the end of the Jazz’s playoff run after needing to take on even more ball-handling duties at the end of the regular season with Mike Conley and Donovan Mitchell sidelined by injuries.
Gobert played in 71 of the 72 regular-season games and finished off the Jazz’s postseason run with a hard fall in the first quarter of Game 6 against the Los Angeles Clippers. The fall caused a major contusion and made it hard for Gobert to move properly throughout that final game.
Though Gobert was hurt and fresh off a disappointing end to the NBA season, it didn’t even cross his mind to take time off from international play.
“It’s a great goal that I have, that we have as a team, to play for a medal in the Olympics,” he said. “For me it’s going to be another great opportunity to keep getting better and at the same time try to accomplish something great for my country. It’s pretty soon, but at the same time, because we lost in the second round, I have a little time to recover.”
The Jazz, like many NBA teams with players heading to Tokyo, will be sending members of their training staff with each of their players to make sure that their training does not deviate too much from what is expected of them by the Jazz and to monitor their health and progress.
But, no matter how many people monitor the situation, there’s no way of getting around fatigue and the increased likelihood of injury that comes along with fatigue.
Whether it’s the right decision or not, the decision has already been made and Bogdanovic, Ingles and Gobert will be in the throes of competition during one of the shorter NBA offseasons in history.
After the conclusion of the Olympic Games in Tokyo, players will have just a few short weeks before they assemble back in their NBA markets in mid-September to get ready for the 2021-22 NBA season.
Could Bogdanovic use a breather? Yes. Could Ingles afford to take time off so that he isn’t burned out by the time the NBA season begins? Yes. Could Gobert use the offseason to get his body right and perhaps work on some offensive moves that would have benefitted him and the Jazz in the playoffs? Yes.
But three of the Jazz’s best players won’t be taking that breather, won’t be getting extra rest and won’t have time to expand on their games much this offseason. No matter the risks, the prospect of a reward in the form of an Olympic medal are too great to pass up.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22687249/Poll_6_28_21_2.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22688941/merlin_2860112.jpg)
Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22686586/mikko.jpeg)
Family photo
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22664234/merlin_2874393.jpg)
Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22664440/merlin_2874403.jpg)
Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News
