duncan228
06-12-2008, 12:50 PM
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/wilbur/2008/06/12/fixing_for_the_inevitable/
Fixing for the inevitable
Eric Wilbur
You've got to hand it to David Stern. At least the NBA makes it easy to plan ahead.
Still any lingering doubt that this series won't go the distance? Sure, it will look sorta conspicuous, but if Stern has proven one thing, it's that the league will do anything to make its broadcast "partners" happy.
Seven games brings maximum advertising revenue, which indeed makes Mickey grin.
Now I'll know where I'll be the next two Thursday nights. Here's to fixin'.
It's easy to yell "conspiracy" in any crowded stadium in any sport in America and get looks normally associated for the Yisrayl Hawkins's of the world. In every instance in every game there are those "huh?" moments that make you wonder how the officiating is so completely inept or, worse, subsidized. In most cases, it's just sports fans thinking irrationally about the teams they follow, how something so inexplicable could possibly happen at the worst opportune moment.
Then there is the NBA, where we already KNOW that such shenanigans exist.
I find it funny listening to commissioner David Stern try to dumb down the claims of disgraced referee Tim Donaghy, who has put Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals under more scrutiny than it began with six years ago. This, of course, after Game 3 of this year's NBA Finals, which was previewed as such locally: The Lakers will get the calls, Kobe Bryant will live at the free throw line, and the refs will do what they can to put LA back in this series.
Hey, guess what happened? THAT. All of it.
What a league.
"Pretty much he's a singing, cooperating witness who's trying to get as light a sentence as he can," Stern said in response to Donaghy's allegations. "He turned on basically all of his colleagues in an attempt to demonstrate that he was not the only one who engaged in criminal activity.
"We said it in July and we'll say it again on the first anniversary: There's one criminal here."
Fine. Keep singing that line, Mr. Stern. But know you're on thin ice.
What's in the best interest for Stern and his league right now; making broadcast "partners" ESPN and ABC happy by squeezing every bit of revenue they can out of paying corporations, or trying to rebuild the feeling across the country that what fans are watching isn't something out of Vince McMahon's closet? This Celtics-Lakers series could go seven games legitimately, as many people predicted. But if it does, you know there are still going to be fingers pointed viciously in the direction of the league office. To fully expect this thing to go seven because it's what is monetarily best for the league rather than expecting it to go seven because of the even nature of the two teams might just be step one to admitting you have a problem. And yet, this very idea has become a running joke, much like Stern's now-debated tenure.
Hey, if the NBA is lucky enough to have the Celtics and Lakers, the two most historic teams in the league's non-fixed history, in the Finals, well then you hold onto that for as long as you can.
You don't hope to. You do.
There's too much at stake otherwise, what with raking in the cash for Bristol, Conn. OK, the Celtics could win the next two and end this thing in five. Honestly, that would be the best thing for the NBA's perception, in that it wouldn't have one more conspiracy theory hanging over its head heading into the long summer.
On the other hand, two more games of "Hancock" ads can buy an awful lot of conveniently placed ping-pong balls.
Stern can try to wipe the Donaghy mess off his face all he wants, but until he does something other than label him as a singing canary, there's going to be serious doubt in a league long-seen as one where the fix was thought prevalent far before the disgraced ref's name became a familiar one. Besides, are we to believe that he was indeed a lone gunman?
Jason Whitlock, for one, suggests the refs be accountable for their actions. Novel.
Sports have become too lucrative to operate under customs developed before there were billion-dollar TV contracts at stake. This problem isn't limited to the NBA. I still remember Super Bowl XL and the one-sided officiating that sabotaged Seattle's chances of beating the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Stern talked about "transparency" and how his league has nothing to hide. If that's the case, then he should be the first commissioner to make his refs accessible to reporters after every game. I think we would be less likely to see another Tim Donaghy if refs knew they had to immediately answer for their suspicious actions.
That would help, for sure. But in a league in which making corporations happy might just be more important in the long run than running a clean ship, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Stern would like you believe that Donaghy is doing all he can to lighten his sentence. Fine. But then one wonders why he doesn't use the San Antonio Spurs dynasty in his defense. Why would Stern want a small-market team to dominate the headlines in the NBA the past decade? Not sure. Why did the NBA want them to have Tim Duncan so badly more than a decade ago? Maybe he doesn't want to have to answer that question either.
Conspiracies arise in every major sport at one time or another, but never do they seem so consistent as in the NBA, from the inane draft lotteries right up to the NBA Finals. And while this Boston-LA matchup might even be seen as, let's say, convenient, let's not forget that they were the two best teams that the league had to offer over the course of the regular season. Not too much to argue there.
The history, the drama, the story lines, they all can't be compacted into a four-game sweep. Nor can the phone calls from Sprite. Yet despite the improved ratings for this year's Finals, which two percent of New England kids under the age of 12 have seen (Hey, they're not buying anyway), there is a major concern for the league in regards to ad dollars going forward.
One network executive tells Newsday's Bob Raissman:
"The sensitivity of the advertiser is often greater than the average fan… "If advertisers perceive the sport has a credibility problem, if they are spooked by even the chance, or smell, of scandal and don't want their products associated with the NBA, well, that's a major problem…
"There's precedent here. Boxing did well on network TV [in terms of ratings], but Madison Avenue wanted nothing to do with it. There was too much chicanery - perceived or otherwise - attached to the sport."
In other words, make them really happy now. Otherwise, they might not be back in the fall.
See you in a week for Game 7.
Fixing for the inevitable
Eric Wilbur
You've got to hand it to David Stern. At least the NBA makes it easy to plan ahead.
Still any lingering doubt that this series won't go the distance? Sure, it will look sorta conspicuous, but if Stern has proven one thing, it's that the league will do anything to make its broadcast "partners" happy.
Seven games brings maximum advertising revenue, which indeed makes Mickey grin.
Now I'll know where I'll be the next two Thursday nights. Here's to fixin'.
It's easy to yell "conspiracy" in any crowded stadium in any sport in America and get looks normally associated for the Yisrayl Hawkins's of the world. In every instance in every game there are those "huh?" moments that make you wonder how the officiating is so completely inept or, worse, subsidized. In most cases, it's just sports fans thinking irrationally about the teams they follow, how something so inexplicable could possibly happen at the worst opportune moment.
Then there is the NBA, where we already KNOW that such shenanigans exist.
I find it funny listening to commissioner David Stern try to dumb down the claims of disgraced referee Tim Donaghy, who has put Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals under more scrutiny than it began with six years ago. This, of course, after Game 3 of this year's NBA Finals, which was previewed as such locally: The Lakers will get the calls, Kobe Bryant will live at the free throw line, and the refs will do what they can to put LA back in this series.
Hey, guess what happened? THAT. All of it.
What a league.
"Pretty much he's a singing, cooperating witness who's trying to get as light a sentence as he can," Stern said in response to Donaghy's allegations. "He turned on basically all of his colleagues in an attempt to demonstrate that he was not the only one who engaged in criminal activity.
"We said it in July and we'll say it again on the first anniversary: There's one criminal here."
Fine. Keep singing that line, Mr. Stern. But know you're on thin ice.
What's in the best interest for Stern and his league right now; making broadcast "partners" ESPN and ABC happy by squeezing every bit of revenue they can out of paying corporations, or trying to rebuild the feeling across the country that what fans are watching isn't something out of Vince McMahon's closet? This Celtics-Lakers series could go seven games legitimately, as many people predicted. But if it does, you know there are still going to be fingers pointed viciously in the direction of the league office. To fully expect this thing to go seven because it's what is monetarily best for the league rather than expecting it to go seven because of the even nature of the two teams might just be step one to admitting you have a problem. And yet, this very idea has become a running joke, much like Stern's now-debated tenure.
Hey, if the NBA is lucky enough to have the Celtics and Lakers, the two most historic teams in the league's non-fixed history, in the Finals, well then you hold onto that for as long as you can.
You don't hope to. You do.
There's too much at stake otherwise, what with raking in the cash for Bristol, Conn. OK, the Celtics could win the next two and end this thing in five. Honestly, that would be the best thing for the NBA's perception, in that it wouldn't have one more conspiracy theory hanging over its head heading into the long summer.
On the other hand, two more games of "Hancock" ads can buy an awful lot of conveniently placed ping-pong balls.
Stern can try to wipe the Donaghy mess off his face all he wants, but until he does something other than label him as a singing canary, there's going to be serious doubt in a league long-seen as one where the fix was thought prevalent far before the disgraced ref's name became a familiar one. Besides, are we to believe that he was indeed a lone gunman?
Jason Whitlock, for one, suggests the refs be accountable for their actions. Novel.
Sports have become too lucrative to operate under customs developed before there were billion-dollar TV contracts at stake. This problem isn't limited to the NBA. I still remember Super Bowl XL and the one-sided officiating that sabotaged Seattle's chances of beating the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Stern talked about "transparency" and how his league has nothing to hide. If that's the case, then he should be the first commissioner to make his refs accessible to reporters after every game. I think we would be less likely to see another Tim Donaghy if refs knew they had to immediately answer for their suspicious actions.
That would help, for sure. But in a league in which making corporations happy might just be more important in the long run than running a clean ship, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Stern would like you believe that Donaghy is doing all he can to lighten his sentence. Fine. But then one wonders why he doesn't use the San Antonio Spurs dynasty in his defense. Why would Stern want a small-market team to dominate the headlines in the NBA the past decade? Not sure. Why did the NBA want them to have Tim Duncan so badly more than a decade ago? Maybe he doesn't want to have to answer that question either.
Conspiracies arise in every major sport at one time or another, but never do they seem so consistent as in the NBA, from the inane draft lotteries right up to the NBA Finals. And while this Boston-LA matchup might even be seen as, let's say, convenient, let's not forget that they were the two best teams that the league had to offer over the course of the regular season. Not too much to argue there.
The history, the drama, the story lines, they all can't be compacted into a four-game sweep. Nor can the phone calls from Sprite. Yet despite the improved ratings for this year's Finals, which two percent of New England kids under the age of 12 have seen (Hey, they're not buying anyway), there is a major concern for the league in regards to ad dollars going forward.
One network executive tells Newsday's Bob Raissman:
"The sensitivity of the advertiser is often greater than the average fan… "If advertisers perceive the sport has a credibility problem, if they are spooked by even the chance, or smell, of scandal and don't want their products associated with the NBA, well, that's a major problem…
"There's precedent here. Boxing did well on network TV [in terms of ratings], but Madison Avenue wanted nothing to do with it. There was too much chicanery - perceived or otherwise - attached to the sport."
In other words, make them really happy now. Otherwise, they might not be back in the fall.
See you in a week for Game 7.