Would The NBA Favor Teams?

I hope not.

 

I would not be surprised.

 

Well I just don't happen to enjoy Detroit basketball too much. They play hard D.

I would enjoy a La vs Boston the most
or a San Antonio vs. Boston

If Stern was doing this stuff the last 4 years, he was doing a bad job, he would have wanted the Suns to make the Finals. Stern could have probably ruled off the stand up off the bench rule, which got Diaw and Amare suspended for a very crucial game.

 

Games aren't rigged by Stern.

There is no way in hell would he ever put that much trust into anyone outside the inner circle. If he was telling refs these things, it only takes 1 ref to mention it to someone and Stern goes to jail and the league itself implodes. This conspiracy theory has never made any sense and is nothing more than tool for whiners to blame losses on.

NBA doesn't rig teams. Deal with it.

 

Any sort of conspiracy theory shouldn't be linking Stern and the NBA with the referees. Those two sides just plain don't like each other and are pretty antagonistic. I could never see referees willing to go along with that sort of rigging especially since they'd be the first to be thrown under the bus if it ever got out (eg: the whole Donaghy fiasco).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ May 21 2008, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Games aren't rigged by Stern.

There is no way in hell would he ever put that much trust into anyone outside the inner circle. If he was telling refs these things, it only takes 1 ref to mention it to someone and Stern goes to jail and the league itself implodes. This conspiracy theory has never made any sense and is nothing more than tool for whiners to blame losses on.

NBA doesn't rig teams. Deal with it.</div>


I think your a little naive if you think the NBA doesn't want to see LA and Boston in the finals. It is the most storied rivalry in the history of the league and the NBA stands to make quite a bit more money from a LA/Boston Finals match up than it would LA/Detroit or SA/Boston.

 

There's a huge step from wanting to see a matchup to actively rigging games to achieve it. I'm fairly certain the NBA hasn't ever taken that step.

 

personally I think the NBA had done itself a diservice by promoting the big market teams more than the smaller markets.......just look at the NFL....your superbowl champs can be the Colts one year and the Giants next, and either way you're going to have high ratings....... we were forced to see chicago bull games and a few knick games this year, because they are from big market cities......I always thought the NBA could do a better job of showing the smaller market teams like New Orleans, Orlando, etc. so that people can become familiar with them also........

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Dream @ May 24 2008, 05:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>personally I think the NBA had done itself a diservice by promoting the big market teams more than the smaller markets.......just look at the NFL....your superbowl champs can be the Colts one year and the Giants next, and either way you're going to have high ratings....... we were forced to see chicago bull games and a few knick games this year, because they are from big market cities......I always thought the NBA could do a better job of showing the smaller market teams like New Orleans, Orlando, etc. so that people can become familiar with them also........</div>While you are correct, another factor that influenced which games are televised is the success of the said team. For example, during NJ's miraculous turnaround season with Kidd 01-02, Nets had something like 3 or 4 games on national television. The following season they had 7 or so, and later on I think they even have double digit games on national TV.

It's obvious that more people will watch big city teams, but they also promote winners a lot. It's just good business sense. Honestly, if instead of Miami vs LA on Christmas day they had Memphis vs. Minnesota, would you watch it? I wouldn't.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>But the fact that people think it is a testament to how terrible the NBA refs are. Theres some damn good ones but the majority are incompetent asses. In what other sport are "veteran" calls expected? Isn't the game supposed to be fair for everyone? Why do successful teams get all of the close calls go their way? Rookies and young players who haven't established themselves are at an even bigger disadvantage. The rule of vertically is basically abolished.</div>
You know, I used to think the same way. But during recent playoffs when my team either got eliminated or didn't make the playoffs, I started watching teams to which I have the same feelings, for example I like them both. What I'm noticing is that there are a lot of bad calls made by the refs... but they barely ever REALLY favor one team over another. I'm not saying that each team gets the same amount of bad calls in every game.. but the same calls are made for them and against them as well.
From what I see, it's unfair to say that successful teams get all their calls go their way. It's not even close. We're humans, and we expect the wrong to be done to our favorite team.
Sometime, try rooting against your favorite team. You'll see that they get plenty of calls to go their way that shouldn't have.

I think you're also exaggerating the calls for superstars vs. new players. There definitely is a difference, and superstars get more calls to go their way. But a LOT of the time, the absolute vast majority, they get the calls because they know what to do... they know how to fall, how they're supposed to react to that hit... how a ref typically treats the call.. how the ref looks at the call, etcetera. It's very rare when it's "well, it was Kobe Bryant so he'll get the call to go his way". There is a reason that veteran players and superstars get calls to go their way. They know how to get them to go their way.
As an example of this, in recent LA vs SA game, Duncan had the ball 10 feet away from the basket facing the basket, holding the ball near his midsection with both hands. Ronny Turiaf is defending him, and he sticks his hand out close to the ball. Duncan moves the ball left, and when Turiaf 's hands follows him, he moves his hands right.. dragging his hands and the ball across Turiaf's hand. The ref calls foul on Turiaf even though Turiaf didn't really foul him.. Duncan caused it.
These are small nuances that separate veterans from rookies.

 

I think shape brings up a really good point about why we shouldn't necessarily assume the NBA favours big market teams over small market ones. When you stop and think about it, there's really not much to back up that assumption but it seems like everyone has gotten this impression at some point or another. I honestly think it has more to do with media coverage than the actual NBA. Television, print, radio, internet, etc. all stand to benefit tremendously when bigger market teams make it far into the playoffs, because those teams draw more casual interest and bring in more guaranteed viewers. The Lakers don't necessarily have to be the most exciting team in the league for a huge number of people to be interested/excited when they're a relevant team at this stage of the playoffs. ESPN, more than the NBA, wishes for bigger markets to be in the Finals.

One thing that we can all agree on is that the NBA does consistently promote individuals over teams and strongly desires for certain individual matchups to take place. Its a formula that worked well during the Magic, Bird, and MJ days but has failed miserably since then IMO and really ruined the quality of the game. Its trickled down into the officiating to the point where everyone expect "superstar calls." In turn, that's influenced how GM's/coaches build and run offenses. And it also just creates a sense of entitlement and arrogance among star players (there's a reason why the biggest whiners in the NBA were the top options on a team at some point).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I think they've done a dis-service by jamming LeBron James down our throats.</div>

I do to. This might sound weird, but I actually think Lebron would be more popular and more well liked if they just let his game speak for itself. A lot of casual fans don't like the idea of having anyone proclaimed as the "next jordan". Although Jordan looked up to Dr. J, the NBA allowed him to make his own persona and be himself, and I think that's really why he was as popular as he was. Personally I don't want another Jordan, I'm fine with Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Paul, Howard, etc. being who "they" are.......Seriously we look back at Mike and remember him as "Mike". We look at Kobe and Lebron and think "it's Mike's descendent", lol......

 

u don't think bron is fun to watch??? I understand not wanting to watch the cavs, but his passing ability, ability to get to the lane, and the ability to yam on somebody makes him pretty entertaining imo..............

 

I don't know...I hope not, but I sometimes think the Lottery is rigged, like last year for example, how are they going to put Durant & Oden in the West? That just set the East back another 20 years