Appealing a suspension should not be a negotiation

Carmelo Anthony was suspended for 15 games, and now he may appeal his suspension. He must be thinking like Cher in Clueless: "Well, some teachers are trying to low-ball me, Daddy. And I know how you say, 'Never accept a first offer,' so I figure these grades are just a jumping off point to start negotiations."

I once had a professor that told his students that a request for a regrade would open the exam up to any re-evaluation, not just on the issue for which the student thought he was unfairly graded. The insinuation was that a student could end up with a lower score after the regrade.

A 15-game suspension is not inherently unfair. What Anthony's representatives would argue is that it is unfair in the context of the collective bargaining agreement and case law (the league's past disciplinary measures). As the appeal should be handled by a neutral party -- thanks, AP writer, for failing to mention who would handle a prospective appeal -- the NBA Office of Discipline (that would look so great on a business card) would present its own argument. Who's to say whether 15 games is actually an insufficient punishment, and that the arbiter of the appeal could order a longer suspension? [*cough*Stephen Jackson*cough*] I get the feeling this would never happen in the NBA, but we don't hear anything from the players that think, "You know, I got off light, I'll shut my mouth and do the time."

Maybe the NBA could end up where the English Premier League is. On a corner kick in the waning moments of Saturday's match against Sheffield United, Wigan's Lee McCulloch freed himself from his defender with a punch below the right eye. The referee didn't catch it, but the TV cameras did. The FA charged McCulloch with violent conduct, meriting a three-game suspension, and he accepted the suspension. Perhaps this is because the FA gives players under 48 hours to respond. Good luck drafting an argument based on case law in that time. And the FA deals with more extreme cases in the same way: "This is what you did. It was bad. If you can possibly justify it, tell us now, but...I mean, come on."

I know little about NBA case law, but I do remember Michael Barrett clocking A. J. Pierzynski and getting only 10 games (6% of the MLB season...and he didn't appeal). Hockey players fight all the time and usually end up with just a game misconduct. But basketball is different. Closer. More intimate. And case law may not be as applicable here. Fighting is bad, and David Stern wants it out of the game. Why shouldn't Carmelo's actions cost him 18% of the NBA season? Why shouldn't it be more? Is there anything in the CBA that actually supports fighting? What Carmelo did was bad. I know he was egged on, but if fighting is bad, how can he possibly justify what he did?

[Update: Carmelo decided not to appeal, and Marc Stein did mention who handles which appeals.]