A lot of stuff has been said. 1) I loved the article. I may not agree with every single point, but it was very well written and well researched. 2) While there is a difference between point shaving and changing the outcome, we do not know the full scope of this scandal yet. The mob could have had the official graduate to changing the outcomes of games if possible. Besides, a well-meaning crooked official (oxymoron I realize) could make an isolated call here and there and expect it to only affect the winning differential. As we know, basketball is a game of momentum and you never know when a call will change that. 3) Thank you to the person that finally brought up the difference between NBA conspiracies and mob conspiracies. The mob only cares about cash in this instance. TV ratings usually don't factor into point spreads. 4) Why would the mob risk a high profile game? You could argue this both ways. A high profile game will have more action, so you could argue that it would be easier to get away with it. After all, if you see a lot of action when Colorado Tech plays Arkansas P&Q it makes you wonder. Like I said above, we don't know if this is ONLY point shaving or actual game throwing. Mobsters aren't necessarily the most intelligent people on the planet and Donaghy might not have been that savvy at blowing calls. 5) Asterisk? Bruce Bowen notwithstanding, I respect the Spurs and what they've done. I thought their series victory was questionable in light of the suspensions. The rule is there, but it is completely asinine (at least in how it is enforced). To me, the NBA was most culpable in virtually guaranteeing a series victory for San Antonio. I have to admit that I stopped watching the playoffs when the Rockets were out, so I'm not commenting on Game 3 specifically. I get the point Icehouse is making. I can still remember a play in the 1986 NLCS when Craig Reynolds beat out a play at first base that would have scored a run in Game 5. We would have won that game if the call were right. Does that mean the Mets should have an asterisk by their title? Nope. Mets fans can remember bad calls that went in our favor I'm sure. A large part of being a fan is acknowledging that bad stuff will happen. Officials make mistakes even if they have instant replay to help them. However, these mistakes are made honestly. Even the suspensions following Game 4 were done honestly. The NBA felt that was the best thing to do even if it probably was a misguided decision. I feel for Suns fans because this whole notion is blown for them. They will never know what would have happened with an honest officiating crew. It could have turned out exactly the same, but knowing that someone had their own agenda is disheartening to say the least.
Not to open old wounds but do you guys remember Van Gundy Gate? The 100,000 fine from Stern on JVG for calling out the integrity of the NBA refs? For all the noncalls and stupid foul calls on Yao? This recent scandal brings all this back and then some and makes you wonder if JVG was right? That he had an inside source in the NBA who called him and told him that the refs were targeting Yao. STERN MUST STEP DOWN Van Gundy Gate: 10 questions, 10 answers By Marc Stein ESPN.com (Archive) Updated: May 5, 2005, 6:34 PM ET Email Print Let's do the very last thing I want to do as an NBA observer. As an NBA lover, really. Let's assume for a moment, much as I wish we could all finally drop this conspiracy fixation, that there really is a sinister plot in the league office favoring one team over the other in the Dallas-Houston series. Now ... Is Mark Cuban behind a vast, sinister conspiracy in the NBA? Uh, probably not. Do you really think it would favor Dallas? Seriously now. Do you really think the commissioner, or anyone who works for him, wants to make it tougher for Yao Ming to advance as deep in the playoffs as he possibly can? Do you really think the commissioner wants to keep one of the most treasured marketing properties in the history of the sport from competing on the grand stage of the NBA Finals? Do you really think the commissioner is telling his referees to call more fouls on Yao because the owner who has challenged and annoyed him more than any other owner has asked for special treatment? The answer, sadly, is affirmative for some of you. Judging by the e-mails that have been flooding in since Jeff Van Gundy was fined $100,000 on Monday, there are lots of folks out there who believe Van Gundy was punished so harshly by Stern because he is the first guy who has the proof to back up years and years of conspiracy theories. If any of the above describes you or your thinking, I feel for you. Because I can't help you and probably no one can. If you really believe the Rockets are one loss away from sending their coach to Investigation Season because the league wants Yao in foul trouble every night, chances are you're not going to listen to reason. For those of you interested in the answers to 10 legit questions surrounding Van Gundy Gate, read on. Q: What is any different about the criticisms Van Gundy levied and the usual public protests lodged by coaches in the playoffs? A: Van Gundy didn't merely complain about the treatment of his player from referees. Intentionally or not, Van Gundy questioned the integrity of the league by suggesting referees are cracking down on Yao because Mavs owner Mark Cuban specifically requested a crackdown. That inevitably rankled Stern far more than the (also expensive) norm of coaches' blaming a loss on the refs or naming specific refs they don't like. Van Gundy likewise introduced the notion his secret source – a referee he has "known forever" and who's not working in these playoffs – called him to tell him the league office has given playoff referees a directive to be "looking at Yao harder because of Mark's complaints." Make an allegation that strong and you better be able to prove it, and Van Gundy declined when the league asked him to prove it. Stern says Van Gundy can't prove it because there is no proof, and he's determined to keep applying pressure until Van Gundy recants. Stern obviously sees this as an opportunity to send the trend of players and coaches' raising conspiracy theories – which has reached "a new low," in Stern's words – in the other direction, so it starts happening less rather than more. Q: How can we be so sure Van Gundy doesn't have proof? A: If Van Gundy – or anyone else – could corroborate his claim Yao is being specifically targeted, lots of us would owe him an engraved apology ... and, of far greater importance, the NBA's credibility would suffer immeasurably from one of its biggest scandals ever. But it's not going to come to that, and here's why. The pregame "Points of Emphasis" memos from referee supervisors to officiating crews – which were the initial source of Van Gundy's exasperation here – are not player specific, according to sources familiar with the content of such memos. These memos never include instructions in the following form: "Watch Yao for moving screens." An e-mailed directive, sources say, would put referees on alert to watch for moving screens from both teams. The closest link to individual players are the video clips referees are asked to watch from previous games that spotlight missed calls. Besides, it's far more important to note that what the Mavericks have complained about (moving screens) and what Van Gundy is upset about (the amount of punishment his big man takes) really have nothing to do with each other. The Mavericks have been open about the fact they've called the league to complain about moving screens by Yao and Dikembe Mutombo. Such calls are a standard practice for every team in the league. But moving screens are not why Yao has been in foul trouble in this series. Trying to take charges against smaller drivers has been a much bigger problem for Yao. Of his 24 fouls in this series through five games, I can remember Yao being whistled for two moving screens, one each in Game 4 and Game 5. Q: So why, then, would Van Gundy make such a controversial claim? A: I do have a theory. Van Gundy admitted Monday, after getting hit with the six-figure fine, it's not one or two games in this series that sent him over the edge. He plainly says, "This is how I feel," after coaching Yao for two seasons, just as his brother Stan – and every other coach Shaquille O'Neal has had – feels Shaq absorbs more physical abuse than he deserves because he's so much bigger than everyone else. The Van Gundys, in essence, feel their centers are victims of their own size, are expected to take extra punishment because they're so huge, and are punished too harshly, conversely, for the contact they make at the defensive end. Instinct, then, suggests Van Gundy used the very public knowledge about Cuban's protests as a means to make his case even more dramatic. Van Gundy has been admittedly frustrated by his attempts to lobby on Yao's behalf through the proper channels, such as sending tapes to the league for review or making his case to Ronnie Nunn, the league's referee chief. "Yao all year," Van Gundy insisted Sunday, "has had a target on his back for whatever reason." It was the Mavs, in fact, who volunteered the news they called in to protest the screens set by Yao and Mutombo, just as they never denied calling the league in previous years to argue that Chris Webber was shuffling his feet illegally, for instance, and that Shaq was crossing the line as he shot free throws. So Van Gundy went for the dramatic here and realizes now he went too far. The worst part? He probably would have escaped with just a hefty fine – while still bringing plenty of national attention to his cause – had he simply avoided mention of his secret source. "If I had one do-over," Van Gundy said Wednesday, "I would not have spoken with great emotion and brought [the referee] into it." Q: What is the "Article 24" that Van Gundy says he violated? A: Article 24 is a lengthy section in the league's constitution that details the powers of the commissioner, powers that are best summed up in one word: absolute. One element of Article 24 is a mandate stating any coach, player or team official must cooperate fully in a league investigation. Van Gundy himself conceded Wednesday he now faces the choice "between two rights – the right of helping the commissioner with his investigation, which I wasn't aware I was bound to do, and the right of being a man of my word." Q: So how will the investigation play out once the season ends? A: As laid out in this cyberspace Monday, sources indicate Van Gundy is facing one of three outcomes from here: 1. Van Gundy goes against his convictions and reveals the name of the referee who allegedly told him of a league directive to its playoff referees to be stricter when assessing Yao's movements. That's probably the only way Van Gundy can avoid further punishment, which would obviously get his source fired. 2. Van Gundy tells league officials he made up the story. There is considerable suspicion in NBA circles that's really what happened, even though Van Gundy has a sterling reputation leaguewide for integrity. If he were to choose this course, Van Gundy would still earn a suspension of some severity to start next season. Having long since exhausted his patience shooting down conspiracy theories, Stern is unsurprisingly fuming at the idea that one of his most high-profile coaches – who earns nearly $5 million annually working in this league – would claim to have detailed knowledge of a conspiracy. 3. Van Gundy maintains his refusal to tell Stern's investigators anything, which is his preference. He joked before Monday's tip-off he "felt like I was in Watergate or something" when pressed to reveal his sources, but you can be sure the penalty stemming from this scenario won't generate any laughter from the Rockets. Q: Why did Stern postpone the investigation until after the Rockets' season ends? A: By levying the $100,000 fine, Stern hoped to send the sternest possible message to make his statement ... but also to allow the focus to shift back to the actual playoffs. Problem is, the threat of additional serious punishment for Van Gundy once the season ends – and Stern's even stronger warnings when asked to explain his position – ensures the focus will remain squarely on Van Gundy Gate. At least for as long as the Dallas series lasts. Q: Yao and even Rockets super fan Jim McIngvale have offered to pay part or all of the fine. Can they? A: Not directly. League rules state that official payment of the fine has to come from Van Gundy, typically taken out of a standard paycheck. Outsiders can offer to help Van Gundy recoup his lost wages but, knowing Jeff, he'd never accept such offers anyway. Q: How does the league communicate with its officials? A: NBA referees have to file reports to their supervisors after every game and then read an online review of their performance (with video clips) from each game. The video clips obviously feature individual players, but directives from Nunn's office or Nunn's boss (NBA vice president Stu Jackson) are not player-specific. Q: Is Van Gundy an employee of the Rockets or an employee of the NBA? A: Both. Which means, just as for players, Stern has jurisdiction in disciplinary matters for coaches. Arbitration would likely be Van Gundy's only recourse – if any – to appeal any further punishment. Q: Has Stern simply gotten carried away with power? A: Not in my view. As a fan, I'd rather have the strong commish who makes it clear he has the ability (and willingness) to police every team as opposed to the weak commish (Bud Selig) whose league seems to have just as many image problems, if not more. It's no secret Stern, starting with the penalties he assessed after the Indiana-Detroit melee in November, has been swinging his hammer harder than ever. But I'm fine with it. I've long believed two of my favorite sporting enterprises – England's soccer Premiership and the world of tennis – need a Stern type to keep order. Not that I expect the good folks of Clutch City to agree with me at the moment. Van Gundy fined $25,000 for criticizing officials November 17, 2006 NEW YORK (AP) -- Houston Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy was fined $25,000 by the NBA on Friday for publicly criticizing the officials. Van Gundy complained about the treatment of center Yao Ming in a story that appeared in the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday. He said he was irritated by the way the Rockets' victory at Miami last Sunday was officiated, and also said what was being tolerated inside was both "reckless" and "mayhem." ADVERTISEMENT Yao had a cut on his arm after the game, which Van Gundy noted in his comments. "It just irritated me," Van Gundy said. "The whole game irritated me the way he was officiated. 'There was no contact,' (officials said) yet there was blood streaming down his arm. They tell you there's no contact and you're watching blood flow, unless he's so self-hurtful he's taking his own nails to his skin and ripping it open to draw attention to himself, you have to ask yourself, 'What am I seeing? Why can't what I'm seeing and he's obviously feeling and seeing be seen?"' Van Gundy was fined $100,000 by the league in May 2005 -- the largest assessed against a coach -- after saying that an official who was not working the playoffs told him that Yao was being targeted following complaints by Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Houston's first-round opponent in those playoffs.
Stern says Van Gundy can't prove it because there is no proof, and he's determined to keep applying pressure until Van Gundy recants. Stern obviously sees this as an opportunity to send the trend of players and coaches' raising conspiracy theories – which has reached "a new low," in Stern's words – in the other direction, so it starts happening less rather than more. _____ Hmmmm...
The smoking gun has been found thus backing up Van Gundy. He should get his money back and then some.
two different issues. van gundy lost his mind because he let his team blew a lead and then accused the league of a conspiracy against yao which is stupid because of all the revenue in china
Spelling it out - The smoking gun is the corrupt officials that JVG alluded to and now has been proven by this latest scandal.
No, what has been "proven" in this scandal is that one official was likely corrupt over the past two years. It doesn't show anything about multiple officials or anything to do with that particular series. So again, where is the smoking gun?
I don't think anyone ACTUALLY believes (okay, well, scratch that) Stern had anything to do with this. It was a rogue individual or group of individuals working for an organized crime family. No one believes Stern was sitting behind a desk laughing maniacally as this was going down.
This is not what Van Gundy said. He said that the "Officials" plural were gunning for Yao. He got his information from an inside source which he refused to divulge and took a $100,000 hit for his refusal. Which implies that the officiating crews were in on it..not just one individual. Anyway..we'll know in the following days how this will play out as more information becomes available.
What's really sad is that aside from one or two of those blown calls, the rest of them are calls that we see blown all the time, no matter what game it is. I too think that this game was just one where their incompetancy showed through a little more than normal. Seriously though, what can you expect since the NBA is chalked full of judgement calls? I can see a ref letting something go because he felt like he made a mistake on the previous trip down the court. Again, that's a judgment call. Good refs are hard to come by, and they don't ever get any praise for doing their job correctly. Only when they make mistakes do they get negativity heaped upon them. Tough job. Maybe they can come up with some kind of payscale where they start out getting $1m per year and each game they ref is reviewed. If they miss a call, then X amount of dollars is taken out of their salary. NBA is the toughest sport to referee, there are just too many things to factor in.
I know what he said. You said there was smoking gun proof of it. My point is that there isn't. What JVG was talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with this mob/gambling scandal and nothing in it suggests that what JVG said is right or wrong.
Two words - INSTANT REPLAY. If in fact there is no conspiracy - which personally I believe there is: ever since Clyde was ejected in the '95 playoffs. I personally felt Stern was behind it, since the dreadful ratings vs. the Knicks in '94. However, it's easy to see that maybe he wasn't and maybe an outside force like the mob influenced the games more than Stern would have ever risked. I felt at the time that the calls against H-Town were worse than anything that I had ever seen before and I believed that the league didn't want to see Houston in the Finals again because of the low ratings the year before. But maybe it wasn't Stern; maybe it was someone else, but if the league truely wants to be unbiased then why not implement an "Instant Replay" ala the NFL? If there really is nothing to hide, and if the league really wants to improve it's credibility, especially after last weeks events; why not implement a challenge system similar to the NFL. Had the NFL had instant replay in 1980 the Oilers (thanks to Mike Renfro) and not the Steelers likely would have been in the Super Bowl. It's time the NBA graduated from Jr. High and eliminated the possibility of league officials with their own agenda (or league agenda) influencing the outcome of games...
