Reply With Quote
The amount of money the NBA makes off the playoffs is already determined.
Folks, you're getting upset over the wrong thing. This is not about the refs! This is about the money. Here you have 2 low money markets, so, what do you do? You don't want the non-season ticket holders of Memphis not showing up because their team is proven not as good as they originally thought. So you remember how the NBA makes it's money: 1. Sales in & around the game from as many people as possible and 2. Advertisers. It all requires people to show up. People got excited about that 1st game win and more people tuned in just to watch what the spurs would do in the 2nd. So, how do you, if you're NBA money strategy guys, keep that interest going in 2 low money markets? Simple! You even up the game, make it easier for the losing team to look better than they actually are against a better team. Bingo, your advertisers stay cool and your money keeps flowing as the losing teams' city keeps showing up for the games. The Spurs just need to do what they are good at: Beat the other team so badly that the refs nor Stern can change the outcome. So don't get upset, folks, it's all about the moolah! Just ENJOY!
The amount of money the NBA makes off the playoffs is already determined.
Teams make more money with every home game they have. The NBA also gets more exposure with every game in a series and gets te best ratings for a game 7 usually. Definitely incentive to make series go longer, but there is only so much a ref can do. They can screw you over on calls to an extent but can't make the ball go in or out of the basket. Last night was an obvious screw job similar to 2006 vs Mavs but Memphis couldn't put the ball in the basket enough to take advantage of the gift and the Spurs pulled it out.
The NBA knows how to slant games toward one team without looking 100% crooked. There's a fine line they don't cross but they'll edge close to it when they want.
I heart spurfan conspiracy theories.
lol game 6 vs okc last year, they didnt even try to make that game not look rigged, they just wanted us out
I'm not buying the conspiracy theory, in any way. But that statement is less than the whole story. I'm not going to spend a half hour on it, but if every series went to Game 7 there would be a lot bigger pie for the teams and the league to divide. There are plenty of articles available for the curious - this is just the first one on my search http://www.osmguy.com/2011/06/142-mi...-is-not-fixed/
I will say this much: when huge amounts of money are in play, there are people actively looking for a way to get a piece. And people have done a lot worse things for a lot less money. I used to hear the argument about online poker, "They are making so much money, they wouldn't risk it by cheating." It's a stupid argument, and many of the online sites have, in fact, cheated. The idea that someone making millions would be content doesn't have any hold in the real world. If it did, our politicians wouldn't all be such greedy, corrupt bas s. I don't think the NBA is rigged, but I'm absolutely certain that people have tried and are still trying.
The big problem, I believe, isn't in overt, conscious efforts to affect the outcome of games, but in bias created by the NBA's own hype machine. Kevin Durant is unstoppable, therefore the refs don't see his constant stiff-arms to get space the same way they would another player. Memphis is big and physical, so Zach Randolph grabbing and pushing is expected. The reputations become self-fulfilling. And then there were the referee "film sessions" a few years back, where the league announced a certain behavior they wanted to crack down on - and then showed the refs a reel of clips of a single player doing that thing. The result was always that the player singled out got numerous calls in upcoming games - way out of proportion to other players. That was about as blatant of a way to install bias as you could think of, but the league did it. Why? I don't know, but they're not that stupid. And they didn't quit until after the Tim Donoghy scandal.
If it's too threatening to look at basketball that way, it is easy to compare it to figure skating. It's well do ented that skaters with the best reputation also receive higher marks, even when they blow a routine. It's convenient that those are also the headliners who draw the crowds. The NBA has cultivated a culture of super-s om. They've been looking for "the next Michael Jordan" since the original one retired. The crowds don't come to see those players foul out of games, or get called for travelling repeatedly. Does the league tell the refs to go easy on those guys? Not a chance. But is there bias, just the same? Damn betcha. Does money have anything to do with that, even if it's at a subliminal level? It's a pretty easy case to argue.
The advertising money goes to the broadcasters.I'm not buying the conspiracy theory, in any way. But that statement is less than the whole story. I'm not going to spend a half hour on it, but if every series went to Game 7 there would be a lot bigger pie for the teams and the league to divide. There are plenty of articles available for the curious - this is just the first one on my search http://www.osmguy.com/2011/06/142-mi...-is-not-fixed/
There's more to it than advertising money. What's a playoff game worth to the home team? Half a million? Probably a lot more by now. That all goes into BRI.
But the main thing is that the advertising money that goes to the broadcasters determines the size of the next television contract. And that's huge money. But you know those things, don't you? And, like I said, your statement didn't tell the whole story.
I don't believe that the league is intentionally rigging games. Never have. But all the things I said are true. Bias exists - it's part of the human condition. And it's easier to be biased towards something that is going to reward you. That's also part of the human condition. The league has skated a pretty thin line a few times. And they've built a hype machine that has to be fed.
NBA is a business of selling games to networks and advertisers, of selling tickets and stuff to fans, duh.
Eh, too subjective to buy into that much. I understand your point of view, but it could lead to as much bias as you claim exists in the NBA.
Between the money and the fact that the ECF hasn't even started, I'm quite sure this series will go at least 6 games, no matter what.
the troll shat on, again
I never made any claims about how much bias I believe exists. I gave a couple of examples of superstar players getting different treatment, and I can't believe you would even try to deny that. Listen to any ex-player commentator, and it's understood that rookies don't get the same "respect" as veteran players. It's understood that playoff games are called differently than regular season games. And the fourth quarter of playoff games are called differently than the first three. And that "You're not gonna get that call against a star player like ******."
We could argue about why the home team gets the benefit of more calls - not exclusively, but consistently. Some people say it's because the home team responds to the crowd, but that doesn't explain foul calls. I think it's pretty obvious that the refs respond to the crowds, but it would be a difficult thing to prove conclusively. But, like it or not, bias exists and affects the outcome of games.
Look, I know you know a lot about the game. You remember when the league was putting the refs in those film sessions. They would tell them, "We want you to start calling three seconds a little closer". And then they would show a half dozen or more video clips of Yao Ming (for example) staying in the paint for more than three seconds. No other players... just Yao. And the next game, Yao gets called for three seconds, three times in the first half. And anyone with a brain would have known that was going to happen. The league didn't actually say the words, but they still told the refs to make calls against a specific player the next game. Does that qualify as skating a fine line, to you? It does to me. Jeff Van Gundy thought so, and outed them for that practice, and they fined him $100K for it, even though what he said was demonstrably factual. You can debate whether something on the floor is a foul... but you can't debate whether the league showed directed film clips to the referees.
Do I think the NBA is inherently corrupt? With the amount of money floating around, I think it's amazing that they aren't. Do I think the league is conspiring to extend playoff series? Not even a little bit - not now, not ever. But do I think that superstar hype affects the way certain plays are seen by the officials? Do I think that San Antonio's reputation for being boring, and not having "colorful" superstars works against them? Yep. Do I think the Mavs 1-16 record in games with Dan Crawford officiating is bias and not coincidence? Yep. Do I think that Joey Crawford has a hard-on for Timmy, and it affects his judgment? Yep. I could give a lot more examples, but the bias I'm talking about is out there. It's not ins utionalized, but not all of it is discouraged either.
My point about the revenues was just that it gives the conspiracy theorists fodder, because it's a lot of damn money. And that's why you're never going to talk down the conspiracy theories, because too many people know that they would rig a coin toss just to win the quarter.
Memphis home games 1 and 2 went on sale on Saturday, and were instantly sold out. Its kinda laughable that you'd expect a team who reaches WCF for first time in franchise history isn't going to sell out, specially with relative cheap pricing that the Grizz have.
But were all the other players committing that violation continue to be called at the same rate? That's what you have to prove if you are saying Yao was being treated differently from the other players. I can agree that bias may have been caused by the film, but a lot of information is missing.Look, I know you know a lot about the game. You remember when the league was putting the refs in those film sessions. They would tell them, "We want you to start calling three seconds a little closer". And then they would show a half dozen or more video clips of Yao Ming (for example) staying in the paint for more than three seconds. No other players... just Yao. And the next game, Yao gets called for three seconds, three times in the first half. And anyone with a brain would have known that was going to happen. The league didn't actually say the words, but they still told the refs to make calls against a specific player the next game. Does that qualify as skating a fine line, to you? It does to me. Jeff Van Gundy thought so, and outed them for that practice, and they fined him $100K for it, even though what he said was demonstrably factual. You can debate whether something on the floor is a foul... but you can't debate whether the league showed directed film clips to the referees.
But then the Grizzlies can move to Seattle, and their name will make sense again.
It's empirical - I can't argue with you about that. I think they crossed the line with the practice, but it's just one opinion. But it drew a lot of criticism, and they sort of admitted it wasn't the best practice when they finally stopped it. To me, it's sort of like the police showing a picture of their favorite suspect to a witness, rather than putting the photo in with a group of others. There have been enough studies that show doing things that way skews the results badly. People tend to say, "Yes, that's the guy" because they assume the cops are showing that picture to them for a reason. Telling refs to step up a certain call, and then showing one player committing that violation over and over? Well... what would you be thinking about the next time you saw that player? I don't need a controlled study to convince me that it's going to create some bias. But I'm not going to argue that my opinion is proof, either.
[Before anyone nails me - the $100K fine on JVG was actually over some film clips that Cuban sent to the league. The stories about the referee film sessions came out during the Donoghy scandal. The reason I remembered it was because there were comments that the clips the league showed to the refs were a result of certain coaches and GM's sending clips to the league office. Van Gundy suggested that the league used Cuban's film clips to encourage the refs to make calls on Yao. Same principle, but not the same incident. My bad.]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
