I'm sorry, Cat. I don't mean to be making fun of you here. I was just joking around. Like I said, I haven't even read this thread, so for all I know, you might have kicked everyone's ass in the debate. For some reason, the idea of posting a lot of crying babies just appealed to me, so I started doing it. To put it another way, I've nothin' against ye, Cat. I just heard thar was gold in yer belly. Har har har!
I really don't want to revisit this topic, but I think you make an interesting statement in your post, Cat. Looking at your claim that if the kings were down 3-2, then they probably would've received the same calls to help them get to a game 7, even if game 6 was played in LA (as it was.) If you truly believe this, and i assume you do because you said it "outloud" for us all to hear, then i see NO MERIT in the rest of your argument, and your feeling like the kings were robbed. My logic behind it is this....if you feel like the NBA execs and officials were going to do anything possible to get that series to go 7 games, REGARDLESS of how the first six games were decided (meaning who won each game, as long as each team won 3 games), then you can't be pissed at the outcome. If it's fixed so that the series goes 7 games, then it basically becomes a 1 game playoff for the finals. A one game playoff that is played in Sacramento...a one game playoff that most everyone agreed was pretty well officiated....a one game playoff in which the lakers stepped up and made plays while doug christie and his wife clanked three pointers off backboards, Peja threw up critical airballs, and chris webber played hot potato with the game on the line. In essence, if it was fixed to GO 7, rather than fixed for the Lakers, as i thought your original stance was, then the lakers win the one game to advance, the kings don't. Even with homecourt advantage. You can give it up now....There has to be other things to talk about....didn't the rockets get a top 3 pick in the lotto or something??
GB: if 27 free throws in a quarter isn't proof, I'm not sure what is. jungle: the point is that the NBA championship is supposed to be decided on a series of wins, not a single game. It's not pro football. They (LA) had to actually earn less playoff victories than other historical teams. Since the asterisk talk is so frequent on this BBS, there's a whole lot more merit to having an asterisk by a team that didn't win as many playoff games as the standard instead of less regular season games.
It isn't. In the series as a whole theres only 1 FT difference in the FT's shot. This must mean that without that quarter the refs were really trying to give it to Sac-town, right? Nope. Give it up...it's an opinion (a bad one) and opinions can't be proven right or wrong.
Gee the finals have been boring though. For the first time ever, I actually FORGOT to tune in today... Just checked the score now. LA by a mile. Glad I missed it.
so then when the lakers won in 2000, and the kings series went to five, the league fixed that too, right cat? and the league also fixed it so that portland managed to push it to seven? and why didn't the league fix the games last season so that the series went to full? the lakers swept through, except for one game they lost due to rust. your argument really makes no sense. if the league wanted to fix a year for better ratings, last year would have been it. the tv contract has already been decided, it would make no sense for the league to fix it now. last season's playoffs, however, were BEFORE the new tv contract was signed. wouldn't it have made a hell of a lot more sense for the league to have "fixed" the playoffs then to generate higher ratings and thus give themselves a better negotiating stance? explain that will you.
Let the debataholic have his whine. Hmm that 1 FT disparity in the whole series is interesting. And I wonder why there wasn't a game 7 in New Jersey where the chance of a Boston-Lakers rivalry would get more ratings than the sleepfest that was played today and a couple days ago. Oh I see, the refs at Boston were uncorruptable while the refs in LA were greedy sell out slime.
Hey Cat, the Spurs suck. Conspiracy theories suck also. So there! Return of the hate... Calm down man. It may be hard to see a lot of guys supporting the Lakers right now but if you keep opposing them at every turn no one's going to listen. You're agruing a little too frequently (thus all the crybaby pictures). If you want your opinions to actually be listened to and actually change some minds you have to pace yourself. Be more judicious in picking you spots. Your arguement has a lot of thought out, valid, points. Don't waste them. Btw, I really don't trust anyone with power so I can see where you're coming from.
This must mean that without that quarter the refs were really trying to give it to Sac-town, right? No, it means the Kings were the more aggressive team in going to the basket. But, no matter how aggressive you are, there is no excuse for 27 free throws in one quarter. your argument really makes no sense. if the league wanted to fix a year for better ratings, last year would have been it. the tv contract has already been decided, it would make no sense for the league to fix it now. last season's playoffs, however, were BEFORE the new tv contract was signed. wouldn't it have made a hell of a lot more sense for the league to have "fixed" the playoffs then to generate higher ratings and thus give themselves a better negotiating stance? explain that will you. No, this doesn't make any sense. The Lakers were so dominant last year that it wouldn't matter if the other team shot 27 free throws in every quarter. You have to have two closely matched teams for officiating to make the difference. If one team is miles ahead the other, like the Lakers were with the rest of the league a year ago, there's nothing the league can do. The league would've done better to have this series a year ago, I agree, but it's better late than never. There's nothing anyone could've done to put the Lakers in a competitive series last year. so then when the lakers won in 2000, and the kings series went to five, the league fixed that too, right cat? and the league also fixed it so that portland managed to push it to seven? and why didn't the league fix the games last season so that the series went to full? the lakers swept through, except for one game they lost due to rust. As I've said before, just because one game in one series is fixed doesn't mean every aspect and every game in league history has been fixed. I don't recall either of those teams shooting 27 free throws in one quarter (of an elimination game), but if they did, then that was fixed as well. Hey Cat, the Spurs suck. If you want your opinions to actually be listened to and actually change some minds you have to pace yourself. Be more judicious in picking you spots. Your arguement has a lot of thought out, valid, points. Don't waste them. Agreed. I don't think I'll ever change any minds, but I need a break from this. It's just hard to watch everyone proclaiming the Lakers latest dynasty and totally forgetting how they won this year's game 6. I suppose I will stay out of a lot of these threads from now on, I hope..
better late than never? how the hell does it help the league, at all? why would they risk their credibility for almost no gain? THE LEAGUE WILL NOT GET MORE MONEY IF THE RATINGS FOR THE GAMES ARE BETTER. the new tv contract is signed, and done. the money is set. if abc/espn/tnt get more advertising dollars, none of that money goes to the nba. and why the hell would the nba care to "fix" series so ratings go to full for nbc now, when nbc isn't even in the picture anymore. your argument MAKES NO SENSE. if there was ANY time the league needed to fix ratings, it was last season. and they didn't.
It's not all about RIGHT NOW. This league has sagged with ratings ever since Jordan retired in 99. It's not all about immediate dividends and payouts. A game 7 goes beyond pure ratings. It pumps life into a league that has been in decline with fans over the last four years. It boosts enthusiasm among casual sports fans, and potentially helps ratings down the line. It boosts merchandise sales and ticket sales. When casual sports fans see a brilliant game 7 between two spectacular teams, it's going to help raise the NBA's popularity, which in turn affects merchandise sales, ticket sales, fan interest, etc. There's more to revenue than broadcasting.
Hey Cat, wouldn't all this talk of a conspiracy be counter productive to whatever buzz a Game 7 actually brought? Besides people from LA, most of the sentiment I've seen has been for the Nets. Mostly because they're underdogs or because they hate the Lakers. And if Game 7 was so inspiring, wouldn't it make sense that those same people would tune into Game 1 of the finals? But the ratings were down 15% for that game. It wouldn't make sense that people would buy Bibby or Lakers jerseys right after Game 7 and then just forget about the NBA right after. And if you're saying they're doing this just for next year, how would you have reacted if the Kings had won? I could imagine the ratings for the Kings-Lakers rivalry be just as high if the Lakers made a run to snatch back the title from the Kings. We probably wouldn't have this debate right now if the Kings were playing, and if I understand your principle correctly, the conspiracy would still be there.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not even going to get into the rest of this - I can see points on both sides - but I seem to remember, GB, a post written by you that admitted the Kings were the better team. What happened with that? Was it just insurance in case your Lakers ended up losing? It's like you feel safe retracting that now that you can breathe easier...
I fail to see the issue here. The Kings were the better team through six games. I genuinely thought they were on their way to the finals. They were probably the best team in these playoffs. But the best team doesn't always win. LA showed mammoth will, unbelievable poise, and the heart of champions and won the victory. The Kings didn't help by being dismal from the free-throw line, but I never felt game seven would go to the Kings. All series long the refs had determined Shaq's effectiveness. He wasn't allowed to back players down, he wasn't allowed to fight for position deep in the low-post. The refs pulled back on that in game seven (champs who were shown up as frauds when the refs stopped wearing skirts for them to hide in) and thus the subsequent whining by unAbleman that "Shaq is over the free throw line when he shoots" "The Calls changed" and blah blah blah. I don't hear Scott crying nearly the way unAbleman did. unAbleman is the coach of whiners, not Kings. I lump TheCrap in with that bunch too.
