that lakers kings series was a little sketchy, but like others said... san antonio winning just debunks this theory
the calls they made last night have to be proof that they dont call what they see, maybe it's not fixed, but like i posted, they try to keep things as even as possible and then let the start duke it out to decide the outcome. Shane's ghost foul to start the game....meant to make him less aggressive in guarding roy Brooks' foul on blake... shane's block on roy the final minute? Kept us from stealing it, that would have been 2 pts less for them and our posession.. the goal tend on 3 blazers when they slapped the backboard and lowry's layup spun out.... they wanted portland to take this and make it a series...
does stern want to see every series go to game 7? absolutely. why the heck not? if you were the commish, you'd wish the same, wouldn't you? but i have no evidence to say stern does something to make that happen. take this year's playoffs so far, yes many series are tied at 1 apiece. but la, the team of the largest market, lead 2-0. boston won game 2 on a last second ray allen 3 - do you think stern and his crew could plot that? if anything, the mafia in vegas might be able to do something about a given game or even a series. thus we've caught rigged refs. but that's not the point.
Yeah Stern created 3 years of boring Spur basketball just to hide the other games he fixed. Good lord
Ultimately Stern needs money. And therefore the league is compromised. Notwithstanding mobs, gambling and refs, would Stern force/allow the league complete fairness through and through, if he could make more money cheating and fixing? Of course not. In the end, fair play does not win
This sort of argument shows explicitly why some people are oblivious to logic. If the league is fixed to maximize revenue it doesn't matter who wins the Finals but rather who PLAYS in the Finals and that they go on for as long as possible. There's no rebate that people give back money if the Spurs win. If people simply tune in for every game of a Cavs/Spurs series for Lebron versus Timmie then Stern wins. It doesn't matter if the Spurs win. Advertisers dont give back money because "a small market" team wins. Whether you believe it nor not, it's all gut instinct since there's no smoking gun. More skeptical, logical people will tend to think it's fixed. More emotional, gullible people will tend to think it's not. Because logically speaking it's difficult to account for such discrepancies in officiating that are obvious. It's very difficult in a capitalistic society to account for worse officiating in the NBA than in college ball... when revenue is much larger for the NBA and thus there's more incentive for hiring and training the best refs. On the other hand emotional/less analytical types will be happy with the storylines that develop and will go out of their way to deny any discrepancies. There's a reason why professional wrestling was the highest rated thing on cable. Most people who say "the Spurs" are somehow the counterbalance to Stern rigging the Finals totally miss the fact that the one strike against the Spurs (small market) are outweighed by many many other factors that makes the Spurs the perfect "offyear" team to win. First of all, in the context of Stern's international drive Parker and Manu's enormous profiles in their own countries have tremendous leverage in terms of expanding the game internationally and in terms of viewership abroad. Tim Duncan's emergence was extremely important during the late 90s during an era of "knuckleheads" and thugs and the fact that Tim Duncan existed helped the reputation of the league tremendously. Of course both of these factors have diminished. Most teams now have international players and Tim Duncan's good old boy image has been taken by Lebron (ironic how HE was essentially passed the torch in that Spurs/Cavs series and since that time Lebron has totally overtaken Tim Duncan as the NBA's ultimate team player). Basically... due to these factors the Spurs wont be winning any more championships since their utility for Stern is finished. Finally people who talk about small market teams are totally oblivious how TV revenue is calculated. Deals are not done year to year. This is not some bus league from the 70s that lives and dies year to year on that year's ratings. The only thing that could possibly hurt Stern's bottom line is if there's a longterm trend of declining ratings every year. The only way the Spurs argument could work is if the Spurs won 3-4 championships in a ROW and as a consequence of that ratings declined every year. Bouncing ratings from having one "all star" year like last year and a lower rated one with a Detroit or San Antonio every couple years is no problem. In fact a bounce gives the league a chance to hype and work new deals every couple years. Flat ratings with no chance for increase (say if Boston played LA every year) would be very very bad for revenue even if they started out strong... the league would be "stagnant" which would be bad news for both sponsorships and TV.
If David Stern was fixing NBA games, he woulda been whacked by the mob out in Vegas years ago. Unless the mob is in on it, which happened in baseball but it got discovered right away I think. And if the goal was higher ratings and revenue, only an idiot would fix four titles for a team in San Antonio, a Spurs/Detroit finals, etc. If things were fixed, Lebron wouldn't be in Cleveland, New York wouldn't suck for several years straight, the Clippers and Golden State would be playoff teams every year, etc. Not to mention the fact that if fixing games could be proven, the NBA would probably be breaking some major laws. And if somehow there was a conspiracy to get the highest ratings possible, the NBA would want the Rockets in the finals. If the Rockets made it to the finals, it would be the highest rated worldwide audience for the NBA ever. They'd make tons of money off the finals in China and gains millions of new fans in that country who they can sell Yao jerseys to, NBA League Pass Broadband subscriptions to, etc.
hey ralph nader tells it like it is, take a listen... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k7thPDNNEvQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k7thPDNNEvQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> The NBA is a corporate dictatorship. Once the contracts, however lucrative, are signed with the players it’s dictatorship-land. There is a provision in the contracts with the players called the “antidisparagement provision” where they give up their free-speech rights. So if they complain publicly or criticize a referee or David Stern, they can be fined five-thousand, ten, fifty, a hundred thousand dollars! Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks has already paid $1.5-plus million in fees, in penalties. Now, the government can’t fine you for free speech. Most corporations can’t fine you–they can fire you, but they can’t fine you if you speak your mind. So my recommendation is the following: I understand that it’s very disruptive while the teams are actually playing each other during the season to have people spouting off about managers, coaches, players against players and so on. But the anti-disparagement clause should stop after the season, and there should be a free speech period in the off-season so that any potential cover-ups can be exposed. - nader
League is fixed in favor of. Superstars Superstars Superstars No traveling calls against, no fouls call against, Phantom calls in their favor, etc.
There is only one reason the NBA has the least legitimacy among all the major US sports: David Stern. 'Nuff said.
The thing is in most other sports, the rules are more strictly drawn (and for the most part, enforced the same way)...in the NBA, you won't see a foul called when its a simple touch or other things like...and depending on the refs, there are multiple definitions of a foul. Another thing is other sports don't have as many of these "penalties", therefore allowing them to review almost every one of them. If the NBA had a review system for every call, games would take 10 hours... I personally would like to see a more definite rule book, with more homogeneous rulings from the refs. Maybe even throw in a "challenge system" where the coach can challenge in exchange for a timeout or something along those lines.
Answer these questions... Does Stern want to globalize the game? Where is Tony Parker from? Where is Manu Ginobili from? EDIT: Looks like bloop beat me to it.
The same reason why US are in the economic crsis, and eventually vital crsis for the whole freedom world. Capitcalism are always money driven, you cant stop being greed, free trade makes non-freedom world stronger and freedom world weaker. General public are always short-sight, democratic goverment cant impose their will. sorry, that is all crap.
My only Gripe with the league As far as marketing and waht not. Is that the league markets players more than teams. The NFl is team driven and look how well they do.
Prolonging series is a definite YES. Just think of all the additional revenue the NBA makes with an extra game or two. That's the reason the Blazers HAD TO win Game 2 yesterday. The league made sure they did. Joey Crawford made sure it happened. B/c if we won it, then we'd be up 2-0 and thus pretty much guaranteed to win this series within 5 games. Stern cant risk losing $$ on those hundreds of millions of Chinese fans who tune in to Yao.
2008 NBA Champions, Boston Celtics 7 games in the first round against the Hawks? All home game wins? Blow-out wins?
I think it's fixed, at least to some extend. How ironic it is that last year Lakers and Celtics both rise at the same time? What's even more funny is how Donaghy started singing, and Stern started defending. Donaghy claims the games aren't fixed, and Donaghy claims the refs deliberately drag it to 7 games. When the conspiracy of playoff games being dragged to 7 games arise, it so happens that Celtics beat the Lakers in 6 games. Whats even more funny is how the celtics made the biggest comeback in playoff history (if I remember) to beat the Lakers on road in game 4. Also, lets look at Chicago Bulls. 1.7% chance of winning first pick, and they get it? Why am I not surprised if David Stern is planning to bring back the Bulls legacy, once the Celtics vs Lakers rivalry is used up. The fact that flopping has yet to be banned already tells you how much Stern cares about the game
I don't think it's rigged, because that's too much of a cover up over the years to accomplish. But I do think refs are very biased, and they are undoubtedly encouraged by the league. In any system, openly advocating different treatment for different roles is a big no no. But in NBA, they come out proudly to admit they are giving post players and perimeter players different calls. In any sports, flopping is considered cheating and will be consequences (not saying everything is caught), only in NBA, there is no punishment for such thing. The league is proudly announcing they are working hard not to be cheated by flopping. Are you serious? Instead of punishing the offenders, you do this to claim you are fighting flopping? In any sports, officials decisions can be discussed after games, and players/coaches can offer their opinions openly, although refs and in-game decisions need to be respected. But in NBA, they can fine anyone says anything negative about the refs. It's not rigged, but it's power corrupted, and NBA has lost its integrity long time ago.
