Cuban's Blog - Doesn't He Have a Valid Point???

[LEONARD]

Forget that the blog was posted after game 1.

Forget that he's a whiner.

Forget that most of you hate him.

Doesn't he have a valid point??? I don't see why he was fined for his blog? Running on the court and complaining, absolutely!! (give him a $200k fine for that!) But the blog??? He didn't call out any specific ref's or a specific game. He just pointed out how the playoff crews are put together and that there is a flaw in that system...

----------------

From his blog:

Refs miss calls. Its part of the game. Better refs that approach the game objectively miss fewer calls.

During the regular season new refs will come into the league and as might be expected, there will be ups and downs that come with new officials.

The playoffs are different. The playoffs are where teams and the NBA itself earn their money. Its where team profits are made, its where TV ratings are made and when TV ratings are good, the league makes more money.

In other words, the playoffs are our money product. As with every business, the best people should be on the job with the money products. Thats not the way the NBA does it when it comes to officials.

In the first round, the NBA reduces the number of officials elgible to officiate games from about 60 to 33 (give or take a couple). The first question is how did they arrive at that number ? I dont know, but I can calculate how many officials are actually needed.

In the first round, there 4 series in each conference or 8 series in total.

But the thing about the first round is that the games are spread out. There rarely if ever are 4 games in a single night. ( it hasnt happened since i have been here). The most I have seen is 3 games in a night. 3 games in a night is 9 officials.

But when you look at the schedule further, you realize that because of time zones and TV needs, you never get more than 2 games in the same time zone. Which means that its not unreasonable to ask officials to work games on back to back nights in the first round of the playoffs. THey can travel to the next assigned game in the same or at worst adjoining time zone. Because of the spread out schedule, its unlikely they would work back to backs more than twice in the first round.

So in the first round alone, the number of officials that should be assigned could be as few as 9, plus 3 alternates.

Would the officiating improve if the top 12 officials worked the games instead of the top 33 or so. There is absolutely no question about it.

Would it strain the officials more to possibly work a back to back ? Yes. So pay them a bigger bonus for being selected for the playoffs. Its certainly no more a strain on the officals than it is the players and we have no problem asking players to work back to back.

The numbers get better for the 2nd round. 4 series. 2 games in a day. Sometimes 1 game in a day. Thats 6 officials plus alternates. If the league was absolutely convinced we have 12 finals quality officials, then use 12

But the NBA has a huge problem. It doesnt view the playoffs as a place where the very best of the best of officials go to work. It views the playoffs as part of a reward system for officials. YOu get promoted to the playoffs. Its not unusual to see an official work a single playoff game in the first round . In fact, if the info i have is correct, there are officials who havent even been promoted to full time crew cheif who get playoff assignments. How crazy is that ?

Thats also a huge, huge, huge business mistake. The playoffs are our most important, most visible product. They should never be used as a stepping stone for promotion.

Instead, the NBA should rank its officials, seed them if you will. Top 12 get playoff assignments. Thats it. If an official does a great job and rises to the top 12, he or she gets the reward. If not, not.

Giving less qualified officials an opportunity to officiate playoff games as a reward gives the official a nice attaboy, but it risks the quality of our product.

It makes absolutely no sense to do it the way it is currently done. If the league wants the best officiating in every game, only use the best officials. Anything less cheats us all.

[cheguevara]

WGAF what Cuban thinks.

when he speaks basketball, usually shit comes out of his mouth.

[MoSpur]

He needs to shut up period.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't think so. I posted this in an earlier thread and will re-post it here. Cuban's argument might have some merit in the short-term, but it overlooks significant issues that exist in the long-term. Here's my counter:

Notwithstanding any relationship to the game played yesterday, I think the merits of Cuban's argument here are poor. With as many as 56 first round games, the notion of having only 12 or so officials calling those games is ridiculous. The notion of having 12 or so officials calling as many as 28 conference semifinal games is only slightly more plausible.

What Cuban misses in his argument is that the playoffs become a development ground for younger officials who will someday be in the 12 Finals-level officials. It's not just about rewarding, it's about training. Who does Cuban expect to call the big games when Joey Crawford, Dick Bavetta, Jack Nies, Bernie Fryer, and some of the other older officials retire? Does he expect that if guys like, say, Derrick Stafford or Greg Willard -- officials who are now on the cusp of being Finals-level officials -- are just suddenly going to be thrown into a Finals environment without having any previous playoff experience, that they'll be ready to call that game the way it should be called? Does he expect that the experience gained in one playoff season will be enough? It's ridiculous.

Cuban's argument also ignores the way the league assigns officials to playoff games in the here and now. Yes, there are 30+ officials who work first round games, but many of them work 1 game and are done. Others work several games until each series reaches Game 4 and then they are done. The officials in those groups are always surrounded by 2 officials who will end up working deep into the playoffs. For instance, in Game 2 of the Spurs/Kings series, the crew was Dick Bavetta, Joe Forte, and Bill Kennedy. Kennedy didn't call a game after that one, but when he did get to call a game, he was embedded with two guys who've called Finals games. By the time the league is at Games 5, 6, and 7 in a first round series, the only officials working are those who will be calling games in Round 2.

The same thing applies to each subsequent round. In Round 2, when 24 or so officials are working games, a guy like Sean Corbin will work games until each series reaches Game 4, and then he and several others will be done. The officials calling Games 5, 6, and 7 of those series will be guys who will be working into the Conference Finals (and the Game 7 officials will only be guys who will work the Finals). There are 18 or so officials in the Conference Finals and Games 5, 6 and 7 of that round will be left exclusively to the Finals-level officials.

I think the NBA's system is actually quite sensible in that it provides experience in big environments in the early stages of series. It allows younger officials who've shown themselves to be sufficiently competent to work in a playoff environment and develop a feel for the intensity of playoff games while working with the top officials in the league. It ensures that when the guys who are the top officials retire, that there will be a group of younger, experienced officials who can step in and maintain the level. I can see an argument related to the identities of those who are allowed to officiate playoff games, but I don't see an argument for limiting how many officials work playoff games any further than it's already limited.

[A-Train]

The drama queen needs to hang it up. What kind of owner in pro sports carries himself as he does? He makes Jerry Jones seem downright dignified.

[cheguevara]

Did you READ his blog??

Cuban might be a jackass, but he's not an idiot....

nah, he's not a complete idiot. I've heard him speak about business, telecommunications, etc he's smart.



But when it comes to basketball, he is a damn retard and embarrases himself.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

He makes a valid point. The problem is that he makes this "valid point" whenever he feels like his team isn't getting calls. And his solution is idiotic. 12 refs working the entire playoffs? If fatigue is a factor for professional athletes who don't have to do B2B's in the playoffs then it would probably take a serious toll on 40+ year old men and women. Not only that but as FWD is probably pointing out in his post right now, how would he like to train refs for the future? I say let the league implement his plan on the condition that he has to STFU in five years when 6 of the 12 refs in the playoffs are calling their first postseason game.

[picnroll]

What if every owner acted like Cuban? Ran to the press constantly, usually, directly or indirectly, bitching about the unfair treatment his team receives. Complainig constantly about the incompetency of league refereeing. Running out on the court during timeouts to harangue referees. Should Cuban get a pass to act like an asshole, after all "he's good for the game", while other owners act responsibly, take up issues in private with each othr and league officials? Or should they all act like public jerks like Cuban does and reduce the NBA to a mirror image of the WWE?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

While he makes a good point (and quite frankly, like him or not, he has business experience and the time to analyze these things, so his opinion is just as good if not a little more informed than the average fan), I don't think the lowball number of officials is a good thing.

While he's correct in the fact that players are asked to travel and the like, officials don't have a bench to sit out the last few minutes of a quarter. IIRC, don't the officials have to watch the game and go over what they do after every game. The logisitics would be crazy.

I think coming up with 24 officials (plus alternates) would still be able to reward officials but not dilute the pool as much. Those who perform the best in the first round could ascend to the second round and continue on to the CF and the NBAF.

I don't agree with the blog fining, but I do agree with the on-court antics.

I've always respected Mark Cuban and I do recognize that he's one of those guys you'd love to have on your side, but hate to go up against.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

What if every owner acted like Cuban? Ran to the press constantly, usually, directly or indirectly, bitching about the unfair treatment his team receives. Complainig constantly about the incompetency of league refereeing. Running out on the court during timeouts to harangue referees. Should Cuban get a pass to act like an asshole, after all "he's good for the game", while other owners act responsibly, take up issues in private with each othr and league officials? Or should they all act like public jerks like Cuban does and reduce the NBA to a mirror image of the WWE?

What if every player were like Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki?

What if every player were like Ron Artest and Nick Van Exel?

Personalities make the sport interesting. Personalities give the sport a reason to be watched. I think Cuban's a guy that if he were on your side, he'd fight to the death for you.

He takes the heat off of his players and organization by putting himself in the crossfire - and at many times, creating it - and I have a feeling that most in the Mavericks organization appreciate Cuban going to the mat for them.

[LEONARD]

I don't think so. I posted this in an earlier thread and will re-post it here. Cuban's argument might have some merit in the short-term, but it overlooks significant issues that exist in the long-term. Here's my counter:

Notwithstanding any relationship to the game played yesterday, I think the merits of Cuban's argument here are poor. With as many as 56 first round games, the notion of having only 12 or so officials calling those games is ridiculous. The notion of having 12 or so officials calling as many as 28 conference semifinal games is only slightly more plausible.

What Cuban misses in his argument is that the playoffs become a development ground for younger officials who will someday be in the 12 Finals-level officials. It's not just about rewarding, it's about training. Who does Cuban expect to call the big games when Joey Crawford, Dick Bavetta, Jack Nies, Bernie Fryer, and some of the other older officials retire? Does he expect that if guys like, say, Derrick Stafford or Greg Willard -- officials who are now on the cusp of being Finals-level officials -- are just suddenly going to be thrown into a Finals environment without having any previous playoff experience, that they'll be ready to call that game the way it should be called? Does he expect that the experience gained in one playoff season will be enough? It's ridiculous.

Cuban's argument also ignores the way the league assigns officials to playoff games in the here and now. Yes, there are 30+ officials who work first round games, but many of them work 1 game and are done. Others work several games until each series reaches Game 4 and then they are done. The officials in those groups are always surrounded by 2 officials who will end up working deep into the playoffs. For instance, in Game 2 of the Spurs/Kings series, the crew was Dick Bavetta, Joe Forte, and Bill Kennedy. Kennedy didn't call a game after that one, but when he did get to call a game, he was embedded with two guys who've called Finals games. By the time the league is at Games 5, 6, and 7 in a first round series, the only officials working are those who will be calling games in Round 2.

The same thing applies to each subsequent round. In Round 2, when 24 or so officials are working games, a guy like Sean Corbin will work games until each series reaches Game 4, and then he and several others will be done. The officials calling Games 5, 6, and 7 of those series will be guys who will be working into the Conference Finals (and the Game 7 officials will only be guys who will work the Finals). There are 18 or so officials in the Conference Finals and Games 5, 6 and 7 of that round will be left exclusively to the Finals-level officials.

I think the NBA's system is actually quite sensible in that it provides experience in big environments in the early stages of series. It allows younger officials who've shown themselves to be sufficiently competent to work in a playoff environment and develop a feel for the intensity of playoff games while working with the top officials in the league. It ensures that when the guys who are the top officials retire, that there will be a group of younger, experienced officials who can step in and maintain the level. I can see an argument related to the identities of those who are allowed to officiate playoff games, but I don't see an argument for limiting how many officials work playoff games any further than it's already limited.

Good points...

Maybe a better solution is somewhere in between 12 and 33...

[FromWayDowntown]

I think another significant problem with Cuban's notion is the fact that the current system builds out concerns for the human factors that are associated with officiating. Whatever we might think, the officials -- including Steve Javie -- are humans. They have biases and prejudices. It's quite obvious that certain officials have problems with certain players for any number of reasons.

As the system works now, it is almost impossible to have an official work more than 1 game in any First or Second round series. This is actually a useful protection mechanism, for the reasons noted. In the Conference Finals and the NBA Finals, officials will work more than 1 game in a series if the series goes long (usually only if the series goes 7 in the WCF/ECF; always in the Finals, so long as there isn't a sweep). But in that circumstance, you have the biased official(s) surrounded by other strong officials who can keep control of the game. Besides, in the pressure cooker of the biggest games, few officials want to go down in history as the guy who corrupted a big game by making biased calls.

What Cuban suggests would require that officials work multiple games in a series, which would be fine until he gets an official that is biased against his team -- at that point, Cuban would be livid.

[FromWayDowntown]

Good points...

Maybe a better solution is somewhere in between 12 and 33...

I'd dispute that, too. The impact of officials 24-33 is minimal in any playoff season, other than that it saves the best officials from having to call one more game. Why exhaust those officials (who call more regular season games than any others) in an early First Round game when you know that they'll be calling games through the end of June?

There are other nuances, too, that Cuban doesn't account for. The league has a policy that after an official works a game in a particular city, he or she cannot work a game in that city again for 2 weeks. As the incidents on Tuesday night in San Antonio might illustrate, this is to protect all parties. As far as I can tell, the only exception to that rule is in the Finals, and even then the exception applies more often than it doesn't thanks to the scheduling formula the league uses for Finals officials -- in 2005, the only violation of the rule occurred in Game 6 of the Finals, and then only with two officials (Dan Crawford and Bernie Fryer). In a first round series, you might necessitate putting an inexperienced official in a Game 7 if you have to stay true to the current scheduling rules. Cuban obviously doesn't concern himself with those rules in his proposal, but, again, I think those rules exist for good reasons and protect all parties.

[ShoogarBear]

I don't take Cuban seriously because he could have posted this previously-written blog anytime he wanted and chose to wait until after an important Mav loss to do so.

If he had posted it after game 2, maybe I'd believe he didn't have a hidden agenda. Until he can prove he's voicing honest opinions and not just being manipulative, he's full of crap.

[picnroll]

Good points FromWayDowntown. I think if Javie showed up in SA again in the next week or so and put on the same performance he wouldn't get out of town alive. Seriously I think some very ugly incidences would occur in some cases that would mae the Pacers - Pistons brawl look like a tea party.

[mabber]

I don't think so. I posted this in an earlier thread and will re-post it here. Cuban's argument might have some merit in the short-term, but it overlooks significant issues that exist in the long-term. Here's my counter:

Notwithstanding any relationship to the game played yesterday, I think the merits of Cuban's argument here are poor. With as many as 56 first round games, the notion of having only 12 or so officials calling those games is ridiculous. The notion of having 12 or so officials calling as many as 28 conference semifinal games is only slightly more plausible.

What Cuban misses in his argument is that the playoffs become a development ground for younger officials who will someday be in the 12 Finals-level officials. It's not just about rewarding, it's about training. Who does Cuban expect to call the big games when Joey Crawford, Dick Bavetta, Jack Nies, Bernie Fryer, and some of the other older officials retire? Does he expect that if guys like, say, Derrick Stafford or Greg Willard -- officials who are now on the cusp of being Finals-level officials -- are just suddenly going to be thrown into a Finals environment without having any previous playoff experience, that they'll be ready to call that game the way it should be called? Does he expect that the experience gained in one playoff season will be enough? It's ridiculous.

Cuban's argument also ignores the way the league assigns officials to playoff games in the here and now. Yes, there are 30+ officials who work first round games, but many of them work 1 game and are done. Others work several games until each series reaches Game 4 and then they are done. The officials in those groups are always surrounded by 2 officials who will end up working deep into the playoffs. For instance, in Game 2 of the Spurs/Kings series, the crew was Dick Bavetta, Joe Forte, and Bill Kennedy. Kennedy didn't call a game after that one, but when he did get to call a game, he was embedded with two guys who've called Finals games. By the time the league is at Games 5, 6, and 7 in a first round series, the only officials working are those who will be calling games in Round 2.

The same thing applies to each subsequent round. In Round 2, when 24 or so officials are working games, a guy like Sean Corbin will work games until each series reaches Game 4, and then he and several others will be done. The officials calling Games 5, 6, and 7 of those series will be guys who will be working into the Conference Finals (and the Game 7 officials will only be guys who will work the Finals). There are 18 or so officials in the Conference Finals and Games 5, 6 and 7 of that round will be left exclusively to the Finals-level officials.

I think the NBA's system is actually quite sensible in that it provides experience in big environments in the early stages of series. It allows younger officials who've shown themselves to be sufficiently competent to work in a playoff environment and develop a feel for the intensity of playoff games while working with the top officials in the league. It ensures that when the guys who are the top officials retire, that there will be a group of younger, experienced officials who can step in and maintain the level. I can see an argument related to the identities of those who are allowed to officiate playoff games, but I don't see an argument for limiting how many officials work playoff games any further than it's already limited.

Well said and I agree.

[samikeyp]

Fined for the blog no, on the court yes. Actually this is not the first time he has done that. The NBA suspends players who are repeat offenders. (strictly playing devils advocate here...)Shouldn't all their employees be held to the same standard?

Mark Cuban, IMO, saved that franchise. He treats his players well and does a lot for the community up in the Metroplex. I think its great that he answers some fan emails.
He can't answer all of them but he does try to get to some. He screams and yells during games like any of us would do and if I owned the Spurs, I would be front and center doing the same thing. I wouldn't run on the court though and I wouldn't be in the players huddle. I have no problem with him challenging the NBA on their refs. They need to be as accurate and consistent as possible. The only issue I have ever had with Mark Cuban is his derogatory comments about the city of San Antonio and Spurs fans. Aside from that, no problem with the guy.

[LEONARD]

While he makes a good point (and quite frankly, like him or not, he has business experience and the time to analyze these things, so his opinion is just as good if not a little more informed than the average fan), I don't think the lowball number of officials is a good thing.

While he's correct in the fact that players are asked to travel and the like, officials don't have a bench to sit out the last few minutes of a quarter. IIRC, don't the officials have to watch the game and go over what they do after every game. The logisitics would be crazy.

I think coming up with 24 officials (plus alternates) would still be able to reward officials but not dilute the pool as much. Those who perform the best in the first round could ascend to the second round and continue on to the CF and the NBAF.

I don't agree with the blog fining, but I do agree with the on-court antics.

I've always respected Mark Cuban and I do recognize that he's one of those guys you'd love to have on your side, but hate to go up against.

You definitely can't argue with his business smarts...

There is NO DOUBT that if I was a Spurs fan it would chap my ass everytime they showed his goofy ass cheering on the sideline, yelling at the refs, or doing anything actually. He would annoy the hell out of me...

BUT, as a Mavs fan I think he's great. When they show him I just laugh, regardless of what he's doing. Partly because I know how much the non-Mavs fans can't stand the guy and can't stand that he's on the screen...

He's a good guy too...a friend of mine emailed him asking about a specific piece of Mavs clothing that he couldn't find in stores. Cuban mailed him the clothing for free...

[JamStone]

nah, he's not a complete idiot.


"Complete" being the operative word.

Actually, I agree that he shouldn't be fined for what he writes in his blog. It's a freaking blog!

[boutons_]

Diop "put a body" on Manu when Manu was driving, "no easy layups in the playoffs", and drew a non-flagrant foul, the biggest Mavs' benefit being that Manu fell badly and paid painfully for attempting a layup. It's only natural that Tony and Manu would be in-timid-ated by punishment received when driving. Diop did is exactly what many people here wish a Spurs "enforcer" would do, if the Spurs had such an enforcer.

The Spurs play finesse basketball, not physical basketball. So far, so good.

The Spurs got beat up and pushed around pretty good in Game1 and 2. They are being "aggressed", and paying for it. An escape W and an ugly blowout L, and tied series to take on the road.

The Spurs haven't been able to counter the Mavs defense, while not countering the Mavs layups and aggressive offense.

Spurs tired? It's the playoffs, the Spurs don't have the luxury of playing the "tired" card. "tired" is just another aspect of "feminization" of American culture. Spurs, our dear little boys, can't play well because they are "tired"? GMAFB.

[Melmart1]

Better refs that approach the game objectively miss fewer calls.

So, do refs who go into Dallas knowing that you will ultra-scrutinize every call and send a tape of blown/missed calls to the NBA offices- do they approach the game objectively?


Refs miss calls. Its part of the game.

This seems to contradict what he 'says' when he sends those tapes to the NBA, no? You can't make the argument that refs are only human if you are going to skin them alive for being so.

[LEONARD]

Diop "put a body" on Manu when Manu was driving, "no easy layups in the playoffs", and drew a non-flagrant foul, the biggest Mavs' benefit being that Manu fell badly and paid painfully for attempting a layup. It's only natural that Tony and Manu would be in-timid-ated by punishment received when driving. Diop did is exactly what many people here wish a Spurs "enforcer" would do, if the Spurs had such an enforcer.

The Spurs play finesse basketball, not physical basketball. So far, so good.

The Spurs got beat up and pushed around pretty good in Game1 and 2. They are being "aggressed", and paying for it. An escape W and an ugly blowout L, and tied series to take on the road.

The Spurs haven't been able to counter the Mavs defense, while not countering the Mavs layups and aggressive offense.

Spurs tired? It's the playoffs, the Spurs don't have the luxury of playing the "tired" card. "tired" is just another aspect of "feminization" of American culture. Spurs, our dear little boys, can't play well because they are "tired"? GMAFB.

hehehe, wrong thread?? :drunk