The games aren't 100% decided by refs, as who would want to watch that. Most regular season games probably have zero outside pressure, as even for the craziest gambler it would be just too much work to fix a lot of games. Still, it's not hard to affect games. And the league has a clear interest in doing so in some cases (mainly to extend series). In fact, if the league didn't plan ways to make series go longer, it wouldn't be acting as a business. Still, there are things that the league really should not do. Like in the 2005 Mavs/Rockets series, it came out that Mark Cuban sent info directly to the league after games 1 and 2 about ways he was unhappy with the officiating, and voila the officiating changed. At the least there should be a communication wall between the refs and teams during the playoffs.
Even better. If the Rockets win a title, should we hold a parade for the franchise or for the league office? Let's go back 15 years and look at how many games the NBA Finals has taken in each: 2000 - 6 2001 - 5 2002 - 4 2003 - 6 2004 - 5 2005 - 7 2006 - 6 2007 - 4 2008 - 6 2009 - 5 2010 - 7 2011 - 6 2012 - 5 2013 - 7 2014 - 5 That is 84 games out of a possible 105 or only 80% of the potential. Only 29 games out of a possible 42 (less than 70%) for Finals involving the Lakers who have among the highest viewership of any team in the league. If the league is manipulating the Finals to squeeze as many games out of their big $$$ NBA Finals, they sure are doing a poor job at it. (Let me guess, you actually meant all of the OTHER rounds of the playoffs, not the Finals)
I don't see logically how certain games could NOT be rigged or at least manipulated. It's not so much about what's the incentive to manipulate games; it has everything to do with what are the safeguards to NOT rig games. There are none. 1) As people have mentioned, a major scandal was already brought up with details provided by a ref who admitted to being one of the riggers. Nothing happened from it. It's more of a scandal than PEDs in baseball, and nothing happened. 2) Coaches have no recourse to challenge fouls. This is a problem in the NFL with penalties, too. Fouls and penalties probably affect a game more on average than boundary decisions. There's no system to call the refs out when an obvious flop occurs or when a player doesn't come within a foot of the player he "fouled." The means there's unlimited potential to sway games with just a few fouls. 3) There's no system to play a game under protest, demand that it be reviewed, and have any sort of corrective action afterwards. All sports suffer from this, and I think it's just laziness and/or corruptness that no system has ever been tried for the sake of correcting egregious mistakes after the fact. Also as an aside, the flopping aspect, even though that's mostly a player thing, is another one of those things that people get away with because there's no legitimately punishing system in place for doing it. Forget piddly fines. Suspend anyone for two games who gets caught. If those next two games are playoff games, oh well. Oh, and back to the refs. As long as the internal ref evaluations are private, there's absolutely no accountability whatsoever. Pissed-off owners, players, unions, whatever should demand that those reports be fully publicized as a first step. It is amazing that a spectacle that's broadcast nationwide with a million cameras can have such an unexposed underbelly, but when there's no consequences, then that's exactly what you get.
Other than one pass, the Cowboys had 80 yards of offense yet trailed by only 10 at half time. A game is called legitimately until something needs to be done. Holding and Pass Interference can be called on almost every play and can be used to enhance or hurt a drive as needed. Had the PI on Dallas stood, the Lions are in FG range and could score and possibly put the game out of reach. Everyone already knows what they let happen and "apologized" for to keep the Cowboy drive alive. Even worse was the no-call where Romo was about to be strip sacked on the touchdown pass yet Tyron Smith hooked the Detroit player around the throat and rode him to the ground giving Romo just enough time to get the pass off. Watch the replay. Had Smith not grabbed on it was a blind side hit on Romo who was holding the ball around his waist with one hand. Had Smith not held, roughing the passer could have been called had the play hurt the Cowboys. Had Romo and Williams not connected, a late hold or PI call could have been thrown against the defense. Key stat in most playoff games...First downs by penalty. Whose getting them and who are they called against.
Interesting. You certainly imply that there is an overt message guiding referees to a particular outcome. You say, based on your experience, as a college official, that "it" is "not on the up and up." How is that message conveyed? Subtle comments between refs... winks and nods from... WHOM? There has to be a feedback mechanism to have personnel understand what is desired of them. I'm not doubting what you are saying in the least. I don't think you would have a reason to exaggerate this. I am wondering why you stopped just short of giving particulars to explain how you "came to know" that things aren't/weren't on the up and up. It is logical that the more playoff games played the more revenues generated. This implies that it is the networks, ultimately, that would be the "masters" in this chain, since they benefit the most from "extended" revenues. But, since professional teams have contracts to share in those revenues, all teams benefit from the overall TV revenues, not just those playing the playoff games. Player salaries are quite high compared to the fans salaries watching the games. I don't remember when salaries jumped so much, but I know even in the Bird/Magic era, player salaries pale in comparison to today's. Money being so awash affects the whole product, for sure. How can that be changed? Fans, have accepted the salaries of these players. And who can blame the players for demanding their fair share in the hundreds (likely) of millions of dollars being generated by TV revenues? Even if their salaries had never been raised so much, the TV revenues would still be there. All the players did was to make it more visible to the public/fans just how much money is generated by TV. I imagine TV revenues are the bulk of the profits for professional sports teams. It is likely one reason the players had to threaten strikes in the first place. Networks, probably, didn't want the huge profits being made to become a central topic of discussion. Because of this, fans should really be the ones feeling manipulated. Why we aren't more incensed is a good question. The Dallas-Detroit game certainly is an example of how "bad" referring can leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth, not just the "loser's." Fans certainly don't like to think their team won off a bad call. At least, I don't. Or do they? As long as the team advances, do fans of the advancing team, rationalize, as mentioned in my earlier post, and just forget about it? Chalking it up to "Hey, it happens in sports." Short of boycotting the product, it seems there is little that fans can do to change this. The fact that fans returned to baseball after the 1994 strike shows the insults, accompanying being a fan, don't run deep enough to alter the partnership between professional sports and TV broadcasting.
1) False. The NBA increased background/security checks, reduced the announcement of refs for a game to 90 minutes, implemented statistical analysis of game outcomes vs gambling trends, among other changes. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3079309 2) Not sure what you're asking for, here. Coaches in the NBA spend more time in the ref's ear than in any other sport. The ABSOLUTELY have the ability to call out a ref when a flop occurs and do it with great frequency. If you're asking to allow replays on foul calls, then I don't know what to tell you. That simply can't happen during a game due to how long it would take. The league already put in a procedure to review flops and punish offending players. Furthermore, teams have a way to formally request that certain plays be reviewed and the NBA now publishes its mistakes publicly. Referees have always been evaluated, but that is now being made much more transparent to the players, owners, and fans. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/03/06/adam-silver-mark-cuban-joey-crawford-dick-bavetta-officiating-referees-analytics/6133967/ 3) False. In 2008 the Hawks and Heat replayed the last 51.8 seconds of a game due to getting wrong how many fouls Shaq had (he was incorrectly disqualified). It happened in 1982 as well, when the Spurs and Lakers replayed a portion of a game. It doesn't happen often because: A) There really aren't that many calls that are such egregious errors that they directly change the result of a game http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3192421 It isn't perfect. I'm not disputing that. It is, however, a far cry from the doom and gloom that you think it is.
To increase the number of playoff games played, thus increasing revenue for the league. Tell me again how the league taking a legitimate step to increase revenues helps your argument that they "rig" the playoffs to extend series? Is this really the best you can muster in the face of some actual data?
You would think the "crazies" who believe it's rigged would be the ones to post the most in this thread. When does it stop being crazy to believe something? I think it is when that something becomes what the majority believe.
I forgot I was going to link to an article about home-court advantage. It comes to the conclusion that it is statistically significant, but not by much. Being brought up earlier, it is relevant to the topic. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1520496-how-important-is-home-court-advantage-in-the-nba
I don't think there's any kind of league mandate enforcing fixed games or anything like that, but I do think that NBA officials are the most emotional, least objective referees in all of American sports. They allow all kinds of external factors to dictate the way they are making calls, and that's a major problem. Personal vendettas against players, teams, and coaches are far too obvious. The biggest issue in all of this is that there isn't enough of an influx of new talented blood coming into the system, so you've got a bunch of refs who have been around for 30 years making these calls. That's 30 years of forging relationships with the same players, and coaches, for better or for worse. The NBA HAS to do something about getting new, young, OBJECTIVE officials into the mix, otherwise we're going to continue to see guys like Tony Brothers and Joey Crawford botching games.
The "crazies" are the ones that both believe that it is rigged and still root for/support a team as if it weren't. If it is rigged and the outcome is predetermined, why invest any time and energy in to cheering for a team, congratulating a player on a good game, and brainstorming roster moves to improve the team? That is what is crazy. The ones who believe that the NBA is rigged and don't watch/support/invest any time, money or emotion because of it? I disagree with the premise that the league is rigged, but I wouldn't call them crazy.
We will probably never have clear cut evidence. But I do believe the league tries to control certain games or place certain teams in positions to win games. They also put certain players (their cash cows) in positions to be successful. Certainly not every game or every superstar player. But it is definitely done. It comes down to $$$. However, that Hawks game we played seemed personal between Brothers and Mchale. The refs DEFINITELY screwed us, and anybody can see that. The last few games I get the feeling we've been purposely not getting calls. I remember that call against Ariza a few games back, forgot what it was but made me
All very good and interesting articles. I particularly like the one about an independent entity tracking officiating. Still, the comment by Ball, "I don't know to what extent the numbers should be published or made available, but I do think that having some information is useful." lessens the potential for that information to provide maximum impact. I would like to know if the analytics include, how many "bad calls" were in "important" games. Of course, they are all important - a win is a win. And the W/L record determines playoff status. But sometimes as the season progresses, some games, especially between division rivals, are important for tie-breaking decisions, and outright leadership of the division. Replaying minutes of games that ended with disputed calls is better than nothing at all, but there is no way to recapture the feeling in the arena, or the players adrenaline at that moment in the original game months later. This is why bad calls in in crucial games and at crucial instances are so important. There is the need to find more satisfactory remedies. There may be no one remedy to satisfy everyone. Actually, fandom is a curious phenomenon. What, really, do any of us get from it? The teams we follow do not know the vast majority of individuals following them. They do like to sell us memorabilia. That could be a whole other thread. A couple of articles about it are here and here. A more philosophical inquiry is here.
What did you see in that video I posted? The one with Stern and the draft. Please quickly describe it. On most nights they just rig the spread and make sure one team covers. It takes a lot more work to make sure a team like the Lakers beats the Rockets, or to make sure the Bulls or Hawks win against the Rockets. That is why they usually manipulate the score and you see a lot of games where there are bad calls up until the last few minutes and then they "let them play" and "the whistle stops." It would be too obvious if they had a set winner for every game, and the risk simply isn't worth the reward. However, things get a little more serious in the playoffs and that is why you see a lot of "poorly officiated" games in the last minute like we did. It is not rigged. But I do think the score gets manipulated, along with the outcome occasionally. Also, people watch WWE and that is rigged. Are all of them crazy? Anyways, the reason I left this thread is because I am chill and you are so defensive. You admit you would not watch it if the officials influenced the game on some nights. That's probably why you get so defensive. Also, the reason I hate posting in these threads is because no one knows how Vegas works and it's like teaching kids the alphabet.
Count me in the crazy crowd. The NBA is less rigged than lots of the other things, e.g. reality. I'm happy with that!
An academic study of NBA officiating found little to no evidence that referees favor teams from large media markets in the playoffs, a favorite conspiracy theory of skeptical fans. But the same study found that NBA referees tend to favor home teams, teams trailing in a game and teams trailing in a playoff series. The study, conducted by three economics researchers, fuels the perennial debate about the influence of NBA officials on games. It suggests that forces ranging from league executives to simple human psychology can influence calls in a measurable way -- though not always enough to affect a game's outcome. The researchers looked at six seasons of turnover statistics. They used ones where referees wield relatively little influence, such as a bad pass or steal, as a "control" group, and compared them with ones where referees wield greater influence, such as traveling and offensive fouls. The researchers found that each type of favoritism -- home, trailing in a game and trailing in a series -- resulted in a 5 to 10 percent advantage in "discretionary" turnovers, or ones over which referees have the most influence. The researchers do not attempt to explain what the percentages could mean in actual wins and losses. Still, the study concludes that the detected referee biases, though probably unintentional, could increase the league's revenues through additional ticket sales and television appearances by reducing the number of blowout games and making televised games more compelling. "We can say with fairly high confidence that the results are not just due to randomness or (statistical) noise, that even teams facing elimination have an additional advantage in these referee-based turnovers, discretionary turnovers," said Daniel F. Stone, assistant professor of economics at Oregon State University and one of the study's authors.
I saw the Knicks win the 1985 draft lottery. I'll address which "truth" you are alluding to, but you'll have to let me know if you are one of the "the card was bent", "the card was frozen/cold", or "all the cards were the same" truthers. I can't remember what the prevailing conspiracy is at the moment. As for rigging scores, do you have any data to support this claim or just a gut feeling that you have? What percentage of games cover the spread and how does it fit in your theory that games are being systematically rigged in favor of the house? I'm keenly aware of how Vegas and sports betting works. Lines and odds are set to encourage betting in a fashion that increases returns and minimizes risks for the house. A team being a 5.5 point favorite is equal parts the team being better than their opponent and setting a line that brings in bets that give the house a slight edge. You shouldn't be surprised that the house wins more than they lose. Every single bet made in Vegas comes with an edge for the house. Good to have you back. Or are you out of this thread again?
The real hilarity of the whole thing is that the Rockets lost a game and immediately (well, within a day, anyways) a thread pops up about how the entire league is rigged. Not a few corrupt refs, players, or the like. The NBA is rigged. Best part? Over 3/4ths (156 people) have jumped right on board with it! I though the J-Smith knee-jerk reactions were bad....
