Referees assert NBA is allowing Mark Cuban to wield power over them 'via threats and intimidation'

Hey man,

I appreciate the time you took to write up this response. Your premise is strong. Admittedly, I wasn't thinking along those lines when I responded to OP. If I had to put money on it, I would say that the scheme you have laid out here (while certainly plausible) is not a reality.

Even if the league were earmarking Cuban's fine money, what benefit is he reaping from it? Obviously there are countless areas where the league could line the pockets of an owner that I am not aware of, but if this were truly happening I am sure we would see more than just one or two mouthy owners collecting fines.

Also, if the owners are able to just pay the league for their own benefit (as you are saying Cuban does with the fines), they would just do so behind closed doors, forgoing the possible public exposure. (which they may well do). I don't think the league would collect fines at the expense of the morale of the NBPRA when they could just as easily collect the money in other, less public ways.

Lastly, if we find out the OP was thinking along these lines when he posted this, I'll buy you a drink next time i'm in H-Town =)

 

Typically in those situations, employees will either directly or indirectly begin understanding that the boss and the person paying the fine are friends and they shouldn't disturb that friendship. In this case, refs might have started acting favorably towards Cuban's teams. In this case it sounds like Cuban had the balls to flat out tell refs they can get fired like other refs got fired.

As far as other owners go, it makes sense that some owners just wouldn't like to participate in something like this, and most owners are more frugal about their money to do something like this. In the case of NBA teams, the likelihood that refs favoring you would generate extra revenue is limited to the possibility that you win a title. Refs can't outright win a title for you.

No, no they wouldn't and that's the whole point. It is 100x better to not do it behind closed doors because:

A) You don't have to do anything illegal, therefore it is practically impossible to show solid tangible evidence of anything illegal happening. In this case, Cuban screwed it up by pissing the refs off, making obscene statements, etc. In the real world, the person playing the Cuban roles stays in the background. I can totally see Cuban being the idiot that screws himself this way.

Also, this has a far better outcome. NBA fans other than the Mavs are ecstatic to see the league "holding to principles" and fining him big money. Cuban becomes a hero to his fanbase. Helps ratings, generates stories for reporters. The PR is priceless.

B) The league doesn't give a F about the morale of the NBPRA, it only cares about money via ratings. Refs are highly replaceable.

Again, I don't know if this is what's going on here, but I assure you this happens all the time. It is important to note that it does NOT have to be a good idea for it to happen. There is no logical reason The Wolves and Joe Smith colluded in secret given what was at stake all those years ago, but the morons did it anyway.

In big business all over the world, what happens is most people don't do the things that are illegal to get ahead. They do the things that are not yet illegal. This is exactly that type of thing, and I tell you this with 7 years of first hand experience with supervising and punishing big businesses that this happens all the time, all over the world, and it wouldn't surprise me that it happens with a large, private business like the NBA.

 

Oh, and @T for 3 , never forget:

 

\

I understand where you are coming from, but why not pay a fine related to some business expense that nobody knows/cares about. That way it is completely discreet and still completely legal. I don't buy that Cuban puts on some unnecessary sideshow, just so that he can pay into the league office? My point is, your views are completely legitimate from a business standpoint, but in this case I think there would still be more efficient (and legal) ways to accomplish the same goal.

 

Because you lose the PR side.

Cuban is not acting. In the scenario I describe, he would be paying to act that way and get his way.

Less controversial fines don't have the same ratings effect, the same PR advantages, and can look far more suspicious. I don't know what you mean when you say a fine related to a business expense. Could you give an example?

 

I don't know man, I don't want to pretend to be an expert here...but let's just say for instance, he pays a fine due to the untimeliness of certain contracts reaching the league office by a given date. something that seems relatively innocuous.

If you are just saying he pays the fine so he can act like an ass and generate PR I agree with you. I thought you meant that he used those fines as payment for some other special treatment?

 

The question Cuban asks is the same question I've been asking for years. Why are the bad refs still working? Why aren't the league doing more to find better refs?

They spend billions of dollars getting better players. Yet it's the bad refs on the floor year after year. Not saying there aren't good refs. But there are obvious bad ones.

 

The NBA doesn't receive money from fines. It's donated to charity. It's designed to not incentivize the league from fining players or owners to make a profit. This is true of all the sports leagues, I believe.

 

The problem is that Cuban is not a "person of power" in this case. He has no authority over the refs. He's one of 30 owners. If he were to do something to influence a ref to favor him, then the owner of the other teams would be opposed to it because it would negatively affect them. Cuban is nowhere in the chain of command over the refs and has no influence on their individual job status.

What Cuban *does* have is influence over the ownership group and over how they negotiate with the union each time they get a new contract. So I ask you the same questions he asks: why do refs have lifetime jobs no matter how bad they are? Why do half the refs never crack the top half of the league and also never get replaced? Basically, where is there no element of meritocracy in the in ref union?

Do you think these are questions worth asking? Or do you think the current set up is perfectly reasonable and should not be challenged? The Union doesn't like Cuban for the same reason any union doesn't like a person - he's loud and public as the face of the opposition to the structure they have in place and like.

 

I think posters here are clouded by emotion. It's not about the Rockets getting screwed by the refs against the Mavericks. It's about the big picture of NBA officiating. I can bet the vast majority of posters here would cheer for Cuban's complaint if it was said by someone like JVG.

 

Anyone know the list of NBA charities and how much the NBA donates to it's top charities? This would be interesting considering Tfor3s theory about Cuban bribing the league with fines.

Is NBA Cares like some umbrella charity or something?

 

People like Cuban serve an important role. There must be pressure to improve the system. Otherwise we would still be back then where refs were gambling on games.

 

Counterpoint: Cuban is trying to bring accountability and responsibility to the doorstep of the referees.....something the league hasn't done in a long, long time. While his tactics might be questionable, perhaps his end game isn't. Putting onus on the refs to be BETTER is never a bad thing.

 

I mean, they are both white and annoying. Good enough.

 

One of them is Cuban.

 

I am all for accountability and responsibility. What bothers me is Cuban does it inappropriately as an owner right on the floor during game action. He needs to be more adult in his approach. His response tweet brought up some salient points. If that was the sort of thing he was known for, I would be supportive of what he is trying to do.

In other words, I recognize the same problems you and he does. Where I object, is the manner in which he does it...in the moment on the floor and in anger and which this article is primarily about. If that sort of accountability were done elsewhere, the person doing the criticism would be quickly shown the door. That type of criticism can actually be counterproductive in many ways towards improving officiating.

 

I'll refer you to my answer above to Fyreball. That explains my position.

 

to make the nba great again