Reply With Quote
oh and congratulations to the Lakers for their 2nd championship in a row. Once again winning it over a tired/broken/injured Celtic team or an unprepared/undeserving Magic team.
The NBA league office noticed many ppl were complaining that these were the most boring playoffs in a while, Stern had to step in and advised his refs to extend the series.
Especially the Orlando one. Sending his main man Joey Crawford was a masterful move.
what a joke these playoffs are
Lakers will prevail and if Celtics don't completely run out of fuel, which they appear to be doing, they will prevail too but that is not so sure anymore.
regardless... David Stern will be pleased
oh and congratulations to the Lakers for their 2nd championship in a row. Once again winning it over a tired/broken/injured Celtic team or an unprepared/undeserving Magic team.
Short Playoff Series and the Salary Cap
By LARRY COON
David Stern, the commissioner of the N.B.A., projected last month that the league’s 2010-11 salary cap would be about $56.1 million when figures were released in early July, but he admitted they “might have to hustle to get it.”
His disclosure came just before the start of the playoffs — and since that time, things might not have gone quite the way he expected. Six of the 12 playoff series in the first two rounds ended in four or five games, and the Celtics-Magic series looked for a while as if it would end in a sweep.
The league expanded the first round to seven games from five in 2003, and since that time the playoffs have lasted as few as 79 games and as many as 89, with an average of about 85. This year’s edition can finish in as few as 78 games or as many as 84 — although 84 would be a stretch. A more likely total is 80 — which would rank this year’s playoffs among the shortest since the first round expanded.
It is commonly believed that the league wants playoff series to go as long as possible — that’s only logical, since more games mean more revenue. But some even go so far as to suggest the league manipulates games (via the officiating) to ensure six- and seven-game series. This year’s playoffs fly in the face of such grand conspiracy theories.
But how do so many short playoff series affect the league’s salary cap outlook? The revenue generated by a single playoff game varies widely, depending on the playoff round and the city in which the game is played. One playoff game can take in as little as $500,000 or as much as $2.5 million, according to one league executive, who also noted that “Milwaukee couldn’t charge as much for a finals game as the Lakers charge in the regular season.”
If we assume this year’s playoffs will finish in 80 games, then we will have about five fewer games than average. Taking the worst-case loss of $2.5 million per game, it means the league will have to contend with $12.5 million less coming in than Stern might originally have expected.
How will this affect next year’s salary cap? $12.5 million less revenue means the 2010-11 cap will be about $212,000 lower. In other words, instead of a $56.1 million cap, we might have one that is about $55.89 million.
That’s not enough of a difference to get too excited about.
An earlier version of this post erroneously stated the Cavs-Celtics series looked for a while as if it might end in a sweep.
holy crap... no Perkins for game 6. This is worst that I thought....
Thu May 27, 2010 10:20 am EDT
Did Kendrick Perkins deserve his ejection?
By Trey Kerby
With 36 seconds remaining in the first half of the Boston Celtics' Game 5 loss to the Orlando Magic, Kendrick Perkins(notes) got called for a pretty bad foul. He then proceeded to act like Kendrick Perkins acts after every single one of his 1,440 career personal fouls. Then he got a technical, his second of the night — see ya, Perk. Peep it.
Immediately following Perkins' ejection, a lot of people rushed to call it the worst technical ever, and some even said that the refs had swung the series. Come on, guys. You get technical fouls for untweetsmanlike conduct, because Perkins probably deserved the call.
As the NBA's rule book states, players are allowed "heat of the moment" reactions, so that's fine. However, they aren't allowed to "air punch, wave off or direct any other similar gesture directly at an official." You could argue that Perkins' air punch wasn't directly at an official, but neither are the rule book's video examples. It's kind of ambiguous, but it's easy to see how an official could make the call.
Furthermore, according to Hoopworld reporter Alex Kennedy, the Celtics' bench had just been warned by officials right before Perkins swore at the officials. So basically, Perkins' tech was textbook officiating — warning, player swears after a call, technical. It happens all the time.
Unfortunately for the Celtics, the two technicals were the sixth and seventh for Perkins in this year's playoffs. Seven technicals means an automatic one-game suspension, plus another game for each technical after that. However, the NBA will be reviewing both technicals today, and will have a decision on whether or not either will be rescinded. If you want to say Perkins didn't deserve the first one the two — caused by a slip of the hand and inadvertent elbow to Marcin Gortat(notes) — I'm with you there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the second one is upheld.
On the bright side, Perkins' ejection cleared the way for Rasheed Wallace(notes) to have an excellent game. 21 points in 18 minutes, with two blocks for the bald-spotted big man. And if Perkins is suspended, more Wallace means more smiling. Stan Van Gundy may hate the guy, but when he's playing hard, he's fun for the whole family.
Bill Simmons twitter:
FYI: that was Perkins' 7th tech and he's suspended for Game 6. We just potentially saw a ref swing a playoff series. Congrats, NBA.
As of now he is suspended but the NBA still has the choice to rescind one of his T's
the conspiracy stuff has officially gotten crazy on internet message boards. no matter what happens, it is David Stern's conspiracy.
it's unfortunate that one of the things the internet does is bring together morons so they can support each other in their weak-mindedness.
Ever thought that it might not be fixed?
Boo hoo if Perkins is suspended for game 6. The ref didn't make him get his first 6 technicals.
The series isn't fixed.
The only people that are saying it is, are the general morons of the board that nobody pays attention to anyways (hater, BRHornet, etc.)
I bet his pouty-ass face is really whining now.
Kendrick Perkins: Because Somebody Pisses in His Cheerios Every Day
Perkins got a T because he swung his arms & said "Thats bull mannnnn". Just look at the guy, he es about EVERY call he gets thinking hes a superstar or some hahaha..And Sheed thinks he can still push with 2 hands in the post & wrap up whoever he wants. Its hilarious that he argues his calls when 90% of them blatant fouls with todays rules.
Absolutely. Curiously, Joey Crawford was likely scheduled to call Game 5 of the ECF several weeks ago and without regard to where that game would be played, who would play in that game, and what the situation would be.
(For example, Scott Foster was the crew chief for Game 1 of the WCF and Game 4 of the ECF, and Joey Crawford was the crew chief for Game 2 of the WCF and Game 5 of the ECF. Monty McCutchen was the crew chief for Game 3 of the WCF and will likely be the crew chief for Game 6 of the ECF. Obviously, the league is just arbitrarily deciding which officials will call games on the eve of games, hoping to obtain particular results)
So, when Joey Crawford happens to call Game 5, when Orlando plays well and manages to win that game, and when a series that looked to be over is now heading into a Game 6, the explanation can't be better play by Orlando; it has to be a top-down conspiracy that put Joey Crawford in place to ensure that the series would be extended.
I agree. I suspect that the league will rescind at least one of the techs, but I wonder if there would even be a review of them if these were his 5th and 6th technicals and not his 6th and 7th technicals.
Whenever the Spurs lose in the playoffs, suddenly the league is fixed. But when the spurs win the championship-- in a sweep against LeBron!-- David Stern is...what? On vacation? Not paying attention? Disinterested?
Actually, the Spurs are just THAT good. So great, in fact, that they could even overcome the vast conspiracy meant to ensure that they didn't succeed.
you sound like that Galileo idiot.
I probably should have written that in blue. The internets tend to leave one's sarcasm prone to sarchasm.
I figured you were joking I just found it funny because people on this site actually say stuff like that seriously.
Players are dumb asses for arguing with the refs anyway. When has it ever helped them?
I'd bet all my money that is a player would simply acknowledge his foul, give the ref the ball and keep walking without jawing his mouth, the next time the ref just might be a little more friendly towards him when he officiates him.
Well, you pinpointed one of the sources for my approach (though there are many, many others). You're right, though, about the pervasively held (and patently ridiculous) belief that the Spurs should be exalted above all champions for having overcome some ambiguously-defined and easily-refuted NBA conspiracy. I guess now that crew has it's idol to worship -- All Hail Convicted Felon Tim Donaghy!
I've seen it work for exactly two players: Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. Each of them seems to have the innate ability to not just challenge a call, but to intimidate officials (particularly younger or more inexperienced officials) through those challenges.
Maybe it's just me, but the conspiracy crew seems to overlap with the fire Popovich crew. I guess they're just the dumbass crew.
+1
I understand if a player wants an explanation of the foul, or at the very most asks them to review it later. I don't see how anything more can be very beneficial.
Like it or not, refs are there to control the game and have a hard job to do. I know when I'm doing my job, I don't like people telling me how I'm doing it wrong. Whiny, y people are the least likely to draw any favors from me, and I think most feel the same way. Players who constantly are probably putting more of a target on their back than anything else.
I could see the justification for the second tech, even though I don't like the call. But I thought the first was bs.
All the video shows was Perkins turning away and it made him seem innocent. What if he dropped a dozen F-Bombs on the referee as he was turning away? Who knows. But I agree the first T was unnecessary.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
