If the NBA is fixed, why weren't the Knicks in the playoffs this year? It was very close and they certainly could've rigged a couple losses for Atlanta if they needed to. If the NBA is fixed, why have LeBron and Kobe never met in the Finals? Kobe was in the Finals 2008-10 and LeBron's Cavs had the best record in the NBA in 2 of those seasons. Why couldn't the NBA hook them up? If the NBA is fixed, why isn't the Miami/OKC Final that conspiracy theorist NateBishop foretold happening? If the NBA is fixed, why have the San Antonio Spurs made it to 6 NBA Finals while other bigger market teams are at home? If the NBA is fixed, how did the 2011 Dallas Mavericks SWEEP the two time defending champion Los Angeles Lakers? I'm always hearing how the league fixes series to go longer. Why couldn't the NBA have fixed to at least have a 5th game? And finally.. If the NBA is fixed, why has Cleveland won three of the last 4 NBA Draft Lotteries? Why didn't Boston or LA finish in the top 3 at least. The answer is the NBA is not fixed. I'm sick of hearing otherwise.
Agreed with OP. You could argue that the league may refrain from rigging constantly so that there is no detectable pattern, but there isn't a strong case for that at all.
If the NBA isn't fixed, why do star players get favorable calls so much more than any other sport? If the NBA isn't fixed, why does playing on your home court give so much more of an advantage than any other sport? The answer: NBA is a star driven league and they want to make sure the stars shine and home teams frequently win.
I don't think the league is fixed, but there is a coincidence in the NFL and NBA (at least) where teams from cities that have great economies seem to win. That would be any team in Texas right now, or the 49ers during the dot com era, etc...
First, there are different levels of "fixed". No one that I know of claims the NBA successfully controls every single permutation of every outcome. The league may not be fixed, there may have been ancient aliens, and a rich man may get into heaven, but your examples are lame and presuppose both that the things in your list are the things the league would want, and that they can control those outcomes 100 percent without a Senate investigation. Both assumptions are most likely false to some degree.
No stats, just watch a lot of sports. Baseball, Hockey and Football . . . just don't see the home court advantage coming into play like basketball. Seems like the home team gets the benefit of the call much more in basketball than the other sports. I don't recall athletes complaining about the calls in other sports as much as basketball. Watched hockey this weekend with a hockey nut who agreed home ice is nice, but not a huge advantage. Don't see it in baseball. Football the general rule is a 3 point advantage to be home, so maybe football. To me it seems like it is much harder to win on the road than at home in basketball . . . but no stats, just a sports junkie's off the cuff response.
I think that the officiating and rules are more meticulous, and more judgement based in basketball. Fouls for example are based on so many factors including the force of the foul or where the defenders feet were which players momentum caused the contact to occur, was it offensive or defensive. This is all being evaluated while 10 players are running around on the floor. Compare that to Offsides calls in football where the players are stationary. Or baseball where judgement calls are about timing for plays at bases. Strike zones are a bit subjective.
I don't think the NBA scripts out every single possession, but I think they try to make a series go seven games and maximize the profits. I do not believe we were supposed to win game 6. I think the series was supposed to go seven games. The refs tried very hard to give it to Houston at the end of game six, and if it wasn't for a miracle shot, we would have lost that game. The league can help teams out, but they can't magically make players hit shots. They can't literally call a foul every time down the floor (although sometimes it sure feels that way.)
Exactly, and different definitions, and different sources. For sources, the Fix can emanate from the top of the league, laterally from the side (e.g. organized crime), or odiforously up from the cesspool of local home team bias. It would be interesting if everyone listed all the stinky Fix forms they can think of.
Saying there is star treatment and home court advantage (which I agree exist) isn't the same as thinking the league is fixed. I think the proximity to fans plays a role in the home court advantage compared to sports like the MLB or NFL, or even the NHL since there's a barrier. The refs probably try to be fair but they're only human. I think a lot of "stars" want to go to larger markets for various reasons, so if a bias exists in that regard it's due to the players themselves more than the league. I think it's silly to think the NBA actively schemes to get the largest markets further into the playoffs, or fixes series in the hopes of extending them to 7 games to maximize profits.
Valid points. But in basketball there seems to be a bias of getting calls at home and stars getting the benefits of the calls. Is it because the refs feel the pressure of the crowds or is there a subtle message sent down from the league office this is how they want the league refs to be. I don't think the second possibility is silly, in fact I think it is likely (or the refs aren't doing a good job by letting fans influence their calls) I also think there is a possibility that the home court calls and star treatment might be exaggerated in fans heads (that obviously includes me) Edit: Sorry to those that read my posts, I know often they don't flow, sometimes I'm literally talking to someone about business issues or am on the phone while typing these posts . . . . . . yes I need help.
I don't think, and never have thought, that the NBA was fixed or rigged or biased towards big-market teams. There might be a bias towards star players, but it's hard to tell because star players tend to be faster, stronger, and/or more active with the basketball so they put themselves to be in a position to be fouled more. There is, of course, the possibility of individual ref biases (more than a possibility, in some cases) towards or against certain players or coaches--refs are humans, and most humans occasionally don't like some other humans--but I don't think there's much real evidence of systematic bias. Ed O.
There's an inherent bias towards big markets, but that comes in the form of better players wanting to play in those markets because there are more money opportunities, brighter lights for a player to showcase his skills, more things to do, etc. If you think about it, the league has done everything that can reasonably be expected to level the playing field through the CBA and the salary cap and luxury tax penalties. It seems to me that the league is closer to parity than it's ever been before. The question is whether the league can really afford the cost in viewership lost when small market teams gain more success. It's all right when it happens once in a while, but if it becomes a common event where a San Antonio or Portland plays an Indiana or Milwaukee in the finals, it could hurt the profitability of the league.
