OT: Why I Hate the NBA

by jrose643 on Jun 10, 2008 11:23 PM EDT Comment 31 comments

Let me preface this by saying I was a Sacramento Kings fan as I grew up in NorCal. Now, I dont even really root for the Kings nor do I watch much of any NBA. Its all about March Madness.......I remember back in '02 we (NorCal) were crying and wailing about how game 6 was fixed when the Lakers beat the Kings to force a game 7 and then the Lakers won game 7 and went on to win the championship. Well, it appears that was the case, as this was the only playoff series that year that went 7 games....

In one of several allegations of corrupt refereeing, Donaghy said he learned in May 2002 that two referees known as “company men” were working a best-of-seven series in which “Team 5” was leading 3-2. In the sixth game, he alleged the referees purposely ignored personal fouls and called “made-up fouls on Team 5 in order to give additional free throw opportunities for Team 6.”

“Team 6” won the game and came back to win the series, the letter said.

Coincidentally, thats the last time I cared about the NBA. Now I can rest easy tonight knowing that the NBA really is worthless!

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

+1

Totally agree. I have always felt that way.

by shark on Jun 11, 2008 8:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+2

It was pretty clear before the playoffs started we were going to see a Boston/LA finals. Ratings have been slipping, why not see if they can boost them by trying to rehash an old rivalry?

It’s not just this year, historically the more popular players/teams have been given an unfair FT advantage to ensure intriguing matchups later in the playoffs.

I lived in the Bay Area during that Sacramento/LAL series. Nothing short of awful officiating.

The NBA is dead to me. I am proud to say I have not watched an entire playoff game and I have not (and will not) watched a single second of the Finals.

by bl on Jun 11, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sacramento/L.A.

I stopped watching the NBA after that game. The officiating was blatantly corrupt that game-there was no doubt. I just laugh when people refer to it as “bad” officiating, when it was so obviously designed to help one team. I say this as a fan of neither team. It was 10-times worse than the USSR-U.S. travesty where the Soviets were given several opportunities to make the last shot in the Olympics. The sad thing is that I love basketball, but just can’t watch the NBA. All the things they do to increase revenue, drive me away-I don’t like that stars have a different set of rules, I don’t like that traveling and other violations are only rarely called, I don’t like “illegal defense” or “defensive 3-second violations” or even the 24-second shot clock, but worst of all, I don’t like it when there is no integrity to the game and games are fixed.

I find it particularly telling that nobody seems to be denying that it took place. The statements coming out of Stern are non-denial denials (“The FBI looked into it” is not the same as saying “it didn’t happen”), two of the officials involved are “not available for comment”, numerous players have more-or-less said that it probably happened and I heard a former official yesterday, who is a representative of NBA officials, say on the radio that “he doesn’t know the specifics about that particular game”.

There is only one conclusion, the NBA fixed the game and probably many more.

by DenverBears on Jun 12, 2008 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still love the NBA

But if true, these allegations are pretty damning for the sport and it will take years to heal the damage. I was a big Kings fan at the time too, and I remember thinking how unlucky they were in all the calls (that and Peja airballed that 3 point attempt!!!!!)

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jun 11, 2008 11:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I used to be a HUGE fan of the NBA growing up by since 2000 or so just can’t get into it. I agree with most of your points and to go further, they don’t even enforce their own rules. It’s like the league thinks calling walks, carries, double dribbles, etc stop the action so they shouldn’t call them unless it’s blatant. I’ve also though the league fixes things for ratings for some time. The Lebron to the Cavs thing just seemed fixed to me. They knew Jordan was done, ESPN was exploiting James before he was even in the league…I know they had like a 20% chance to end up with the pick but it just smelled fishy to me.

I’ve watched the first 3 games of the series so far this year because KG was my favorite player when I was a fan but things haven’t changed much. I doubt I’ll be tuning into games next year either.

by jfish26101 on Jun 11, 2008 12:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Disagree on Lebron

If the league fixed the Lebron draft he would have went to a much larger market than Cleveland.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 11, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a great story. Home town kid.

by jfish26101 on Jun 11, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't fly

You put the fix in for guys to go to major markets (i.e. L.A., New York, Chicago). Cleveland was tied with Denver for the worst record in the NBA (17 wins, 65 losses). The fact that they won the lottery is likely due to them having the greatest odds of winning.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 11, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I don’t remember them having the best odds of winning the first pick but I could be wrong. There is nothing really you can say that makes me think the pick wasn’t staged. This whole thread is about speculating, maybe none of it is right. If you don’t think a hometown kid is a good story, OK. I’m welcome to my own opinions on the matter.

by jfish26101 on Jun 11, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They did...

They did have the highest odds of winning the lottery that season. But, I believe, no matter what, that LeBron would be going to Cleveland because he was from Ohio.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jun 11, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

this year it was really evident.

The Hawks/Celts game 7 just disgusted me. just blatant favoritism throughout that series… because of course it was going to be a Celts/Lakers final

by daveh33 on Jun 11, 2008 12:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

home / road

The refs were just as pro-Atlanta on the road as they were pro-Boston at the Garden.

The NBA refs in the playoffs have strongly favored home teams.

The NBA can make a “story” out of every finals matchup. They have no interest in forcing Celtics/Lakers. TV ratings for Game 1 were in the toilet.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Jun 11, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

8.7 Rating

I wouldn’t say they were in the toilet.

Story

The Lakers-Celtics matchup gave the NBA Finals’ television ratings a big boost.
Game 1 on Thursday averaged an 8.7 rating on ABC, the network said Friday. That’s up 38 percent from the 6.3 during last year’s Cavaliers-Spurs series.

It’s the highest Game 1 rating since Lakers-Pistons in 2004 drew a 9.8.

Joe Morgan: (On Jay Bruce) I think he will. He brings energy to the team, and besides that, he is a pretty good hitter.
Ken Tremendous: I like that the #1 reason he will help his team is: "energy," and the distant #2 reason is: "ability to hit baseballs."

by TheBZA on Jun 11, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pistons

“It’s the highest Game 1 rating since Lakers-Pistons in 2004 drew a 9.8.”

Which should squelch the Boston conspiracy theories.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Jun 11, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That rating...

of the Det-LAL series had nothing to do with the Pistons, it was driven by Malone, Payton, Bryant, and Shaq on the Lakers team. Four sure thing HOFers.

Now, I will admit that I think the NBA and ABC both wanted an LA-Boston series here. And that calls were favorable for that to happen. But, I also think those were two of the best teams all season long. They were a 1 and a 2 seed going into the play-offs for a reason.

As for the refereeing, I think NBA refs are the worst of any of the major sports. They are protected more by the league than any other sport (even hint at bad calls and players/coaches/owners get fined). They are the most arrogant refs I believe, showing up players and coaches. And also I think they are more influenced by the crowd than any other league’s referees. I don’t have any stats in front of me, but I am guessing that hometown teams have a significant free throw attempt advantage over visiting teams in the regular season, and probably even more in the post-season which is caused by a more hyped up crowd. I also think NBA Refs play favorites more than any other sport, with MLB being a close second.

I haven’t been a real NBA fan for about 10 years now. I’ll watch bits and pieces of occasional games, and I will keep up with what’s going on (usually because Bill Simmons refuses to let me ignore the league lol). But I am a Seattle fan… and the way the league is handling this whole situation is sickening. Charlotte had a team and lost it because they couldn’t support it. So what does the NBA do? It gives them another franchise. But the Sonics, who are supported well and loved thoroughly by the citizens in Washington can be hijacked by some lying businessman who is good friends with the commish. Damnit, I need to stop writing now or I am going to kill someone lol.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jun 11, 2008 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Sonics

It’s all because the city of Seattle won’t pony up to build a new arena. Since the team ownership and league think the Sonics need a new venue (they don’t, but…) then of course the city has to foot the bill. If the league didn’t punish Seattle severely for not cowing to its threats, then the next city might decide they don’t want to pay either. And the next one. And so on.

Taxpayer-funded arenas are a HUGE source of free money for the NBA owners and the league itself. Anything that jeopardizes the current situation (where cities have to drop $500M every decade or two or lose their sports teams) is going to be dealt with the same way the Sonics have been. I hate to see them go, but I couldn’t be happier that the city of Seattle has stood up for what’s right.

by DrunkIrish on Jun 11, 2008 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1/2

I admire what Seattle did here but isn’t this the same city that ponied up for football and baseball stadiums? If I was the owners of the Sonics I wouldn’t be happy that the Mariners and Seahawks get free rides, while the Sonics are left to pay for themselves.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 11, 2008 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

but the Mariners and Seahawks actually needed new venues. How long had they been playing in the Kingdome? It was built in 76, so those teams were playing there for nearly 25 years. The roof was literally caving in on it.

Key Arena was built (re-built) in the mid 90s, it’s barely 13 years old and is still in great shape. And you can’t tell me that you believe that if Seattle had voted to build them a new arena that the Sonics would be staying. The proof is coming out that the owners never intended on keeping the Sonics in Seattle. They would have found some reason to move the team. Some loophole or excuse.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jun 11, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not the point

Cities should NOT pay for stadiums. They are used for private purposes and it isn’t as if the Mariners and Seahawks were not extremely profitable at the time their stadiums were built. When a city builds two buildings for two major sport franchises, I can see why the third franchise would want a new stadium built.

Secondly, while the stadium has been renovated it was built in 1962. Renovations are not the same as a new stadium. I am not sure what their luxury box situation is but the stadium only seats 17,098. The Sonics were likely ready to leave, but the city of Seattle helped make that decision easy by showing favortism.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 11, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cities should NOT pay for stadiums. They are used for private purposes
On the other hand, professional sports teams help a city’s economy—think about all the business that restaurants and hotels and shopping centers receive whenever there is a sporting event or concert or business conference.

by jonk1982 on Jun 11, 2008 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

very good point

not sure where I sit on this (prolly in the middle), but I remember when I lived in Dallas, there was ALWAYS something going on at the AA Center. 41 Mavs games but about 200 other events during the year. That is revenue right there no doubt….

The Giants need to sign Harry Doyle.

by jrose643 on Jun 11, 2008 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is actually a lot of researching being done on this in the last 10-20 years and most of it comes back that a sports franchise does not help a local economy. You can look it up if interested but most reports early were done by league officials or people working for league officials. You now have people with no ties either way looking into the subject and finding there are really no gains outside intangible effects like community pride and spirit.

by jfish26101 on Jun 12, 2008 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

balderdash

Why wouldn’t a city want to support its franchise? The whole profitability issue is a terrible argument, especially since about 80% of sports franchise are only profitable on paper, not in real money. Who cares what the appraised value of a team is unless it’s for sale? Nevermind that no career (and that is absolutely no career) has had the percentage wage growth that a major league athlete has had in the 21st century thus far. Owners to remain competitive are spending money out of their own pocket to keep the roster full of solid players.

Sports stadiums do not simply support that sport. Ask the town of Bloomington, MN what happens when a stadium move happens. When the Twins were forced into the Metrodome financially, the town of Bloomington had numerous business closes in the decade between the team moving and the Mall of America being built on the old stadium site. When I lived in the twin cities of Minnesota, I rarely attended Timberwolves or Wild games, but I was probably in the Xcel Energy Center or Target Center at least 30 times a year, usually incorporating dinner or drinks at a nearby establishment, plus parking fees. Stadiums are a definite financial blessing for an area, and anyone who denies this simply has not done their research.

by biggentleben on Jun 12, 2008 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hogwash

It is precisely researchers—you know, actual (gasp) economists, who do this sort of thing for a living—who have proved pretty much beyond any shadow of a doubt that stadiums are dismal investments. Go read anything Andrew Zimbalist has written on the issue. Or just read the essay in Baseball Between the Numbers. It’s probably shorter.

I don’t even know where to begin with your first paragraph… let’s just say that it’s profoundly incorrect.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 12, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

National Boredom Association

What the NBA has become is the result of trying to promote stars instead of worrying about the quality and integrity of the game.

by LogicRules on Jun 12, 2008 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Home court advantage

In my opinion, the NBA stacks the deck for the home team with the referees because their fan base is much more casual. I don’t have any proof for this, but it just seems to me that NBA games are more like events than baseball games are. And casual fans come to see the home team win. They’re much more likely to shell out dollars to see a team that finishes 30-11 at home than a team that finishes 20-21, so the NBA creates this artificial home-court edge.

They justify it with the idea that, well, every team has a home-court edge, so it’s fair, but really it just makes a mockery of the sport. There’s no way any team goes 40-1 at home, even with Larry Bird. It’s a joke.

by Flynn Blake on Jun 12, 2008 10:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree

The ref bias is much more Home vs Road than it is Big Market vs Small Market.

It just so happens that the #1 seeds with home field advantage happen to be Boston and L.A..

The two best teams made the finals. This happens occasionally.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Jun 13, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One more thing...

Beat L.A.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Jun 13, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Paging Senator Comcast

Well IMO, the team you are referring to, the 1985-86 Celtics just happens to be one of the all-time teams in NBA history. Three Hall of Famers in the starting lineup. One coming off the bench. Not to mention you could make a case that Dennis Johnson should be in the HOF too, but that’s an entirely different argument. So even with that collection of talent they couldn’t put up a historic season without some type of fixing? That is what you are alleging here correct? I find that a little hard to believe.

Unless the league was fixing games since the time Jordan had hair. Where oh where could Senator Spector be? Is he still looking at Patriots game tapes? Where is his outrage at these scandalous accusations of corruption in another professional sports league?

In case anyone was wondering the first downfall to the NBA’s popularity occurred in the late 80s when they expanded way past competitive balance allowed and then expanded again in 95. Adding six teams in less than 10 years. Way to water down the product while adding tons of cash to your pockets. Good job NBA.

Same guy, new name.

by stillredsoxfan on Jun 14, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I don’t think it’s been going on that long but I do think it’s been going on since early-mid 90’s and especially since Jordan began to show signs of aging. I have no idea what the league is like now since I haven’t watched for the past 7-8 seasons but I remember thinking things seemed fishy often the last few seasons I watched.

by jfish26101 on Jun 14, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's A Super Star League

It seems to me one of the main problems the NBA has had for years, besides too many crappy teams is the refs. Whether they are just straight up incompetent, too easily swayed by a home court crowd or even corrupt (Is Donaghy the only one?) the one thing the refs have in common is their preferential treatment of star players. Stars get the calls, rookies/scrubs do not.

Now this is nothing new and even happens in baseball to an extent. Say when a rookie comes up and never gets a borderline call in his favor for example. But when it happens in the extreme cases, like the previously mentioned 2002 playoffs well what happens? The entire leagues credibility is called into question.

Who knows what really happened in that game 6? Did the league assign refs that they knew would deliver the hoped for outcome either willfully or just through incompetence? Does it even matter either way? Or were those refs swayed by all the bitching and moaning that was going on in that series, the whole we aren’t getting any calls mentality. Was that game one big make up call? Again, does it even matter what really happened? I think not, because shouldn’t the best refs be working the playoffs so that type of thing doesn’t happen?

Since perception is reality, and the perception is that the NBA is not quite on the level, bye bye fans. Personally, even though I’m not a huge basketball fan I would at least watch the Finals every year. Well, not last year. Why? Take a look at the box scores from the 2006 Finals. Particularly game five. Can anybody explain to me why Dwayne Wade took 25 free throw attempts that game? The same amount the entire Mavs team took that game. Yup, that wasn’t the least bit out of the ordinary. Nope the fact that Dwayne Wade broke the Finals free throw record that year was just one big coincidence.

Same guy, new name.

by stillredsoxfan on Jun 14, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs