OT: Is the NBA rigged? Now with poll! With Donaghy writing a tell all book I want to hear it from you guys. Do you think it's rigged by Stern and co? A few refs and players cheat/gamble? Donaghy was just one bad apple? Lay it out there. If you think the League is straight and the only thing suspicious to you is Donaghy and superstar calls then lets hear it. All opinions are valid just tell us why you believe what you do.
The league can't stop a team like Orlando from shooting 62% from the field. The league can't stop Fisher from making those two big threes. I don't think it's rigged at all. If the league was rigged, how do explain Orlando in the Final? Or Spurs/Nets in 03? Or Spurs/Pistons in 05? Or any Spurs series really. If the league was rigged, LeBron would have a ring now, having beaten the Lakers in seven ratings record breaking games.
Right on but the question remains do you think Donaghy is an anomaly? What about Superstar calls do they tilt the game at all? I'm just curious what people think. It could easily be incompetence. Clearly you don't think it's a tightly controlled thing but do you think refs give big market teams more calls anything like that? Home teams only? Perfectly fair but not always right?
I do not believe the league is "rigged" because I think that would be extremely difficult to pull off. To rig the league it would take the involvement of many people, and I believe a ton of people would have sold out and wrote a book w/out having to go to prison for a crime first. I also think all the owners would have to be involved for this to work and with the losses these owners are seeing, I can't see that as a possibility. Plus, if the league was rigged, they wouldn't have put themselves in so many stupid situations that the conspiracy theorist would have a field day with. The league has way too much to lose and not that much to gain by "rigging" games.
Just having the finals not be LA vs Cleveland was enough for me to know it isn't rigged. I think the refs have a really fargin tough job. They might be about to get a little help from technology from what I was reading though.
If a game can be bet on, it can be fixed. A ref can easily make 5 bad calls in a game that swing the outcome of the game by 10 points, which will be enough to change the OUTCOME of the game in most cases. Most NBA fans would not question whether or not the game was rigged, because we're so used to seeing bad calls. 5 bad calls = 1.25 per quarter, so spread it's out.
I would'nt say the outcome is predetermined like pro wrestling, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out Stern orders refs to put certain players in fouls trouble to give the other team an advantage.
It is not so overt. It couldn't be, and the league is not that dumb. But the refs know who butters their bread. They know what players and teams bring ratings and $$$. It's a blown call here, an extra foul there. In a game of inches, it can help. WCF 2002. Say no more.
I don't think the games are literally rigged, that certain games are manipulated to determine the winner ahead of time. I do think the officials enforce the rules differently for different players and that's tacitly encouraged by the league. And by the media and sometimes by the fans. Too many times I've heard a commentator admiringly say, "Well, when you're as great as he is, you've earned that call!" Fans often echo that: "Of course you have to give Michael Jordan the benefit of the doubt over Greg Ostertag." To me, that's sanctioned cheating.
The question is: Do refs consciously favor stars or is that something most humans do unconsciously? I'm guessing it's unconscious.
Rigged could mean covering the spread instead of out right winning, so it still could be to some degree. Winning is not the only thing you can bet on. Over/under and length of series in the playoffs are also things that can be wagered on. My guess is a ref who was gambling would use these to make money instead of win/loss, since it would be harder to detect.
I think it's both. I think with the marketing the NBA does (marketing primarily the player match-ups rather than the team match-ups), they encourage referees to have a looser whistle with the superstars, to prevent them from being on the bench with foul trouble. In terms of giving experienced players the break, that's probably an automatic/subconscious thing. But it's still fair to blame them for not being more conscious to avoid it. A lot of things are automatic for humans (for example, prejudice), but we expect people not to work purely on auto-pilot and to avoid such subconscious errors.
It's quite conscious, and I can prove it. I once read a book by an old ref - Mendy Rudolph maybe. He absolutely said there are star calls and the refs do it on purpose. He said 1) stars are who people pay to see,and 2) the stars are better, more athletic, etc so they get the benefit of the doubt.
#2 is the big point here, too. Say you have a borderline offensive foul. The star's driving the lane a little out of control, and the defender's slightly moving. Tie goes to the better player. And here's why: Say you have those players repeat that same situation (star driving the lane, mid-talent defender trying to take a charge) for you as a ref 1000 times. Every time, there should be a foul called, in either direction. Some of the time, the defender will make it in time to have his feet planted. Other times, he'll be moving and the start will be in perfect control. Most of the time will be somewhere in the middle, like the situation in the preceding paragraph. If you could have a machine call the clear fouls (the ones at either end of the bell curve), you would see that the defender, who is slower and not as in control of his body as the star, fouls more often... depending on the talent difference, it could be quite a bit more (Ha Seung Jin trying to take a charge off of LeBron James). So, knowing that less talented players lack the control to do very complicated maneuvers (like taking a charge or tipping a ball away without raking their hand across the ball-handler's arm) mistake-free, in judgment call situations, they are less likely to get a call. In the case of a charge, you may see a lot of no-calls, where the star will have to prove his talent by hitting the shot while leaning around a guy who's in his way. In the case of a handcheck, you might not get a whistle unless possession is lost. When both players are breaking the rules in tiny amounts, the player least likely to commit a clumsy foul is given the benefit. The nice part about this system is that you can see players improve themselves and drop their foul rate in return. So at least that part of the system generally works.
In an interview with ESPN radio about 12 years, NBA ref Bernie Fryer stated that the refs specifically have a green light (if they so choose) to give the star treatment to individual players and/or large market teams. The reason being is that the more the star players play and the better large market teams do, the more money the league makes and the more refs can be paid as well. And we see this continuously play out. It's not an attempt to throw games, but to showcase NBA talent and teams. As Bernie put it, "it's not about wins or losses, it's about marketing a league". MJ got to take steps, Shaq got to drive people away with a shoulder and push off for offensive rebounds, Yao commits several fouls but they call them on Rocet players 6' away, LeBron can shuffle his feet for a drive... Let's face it, people around the world want to see Yao play more than Pryzbilla. The league gets that and the message is passed along to the refs.
Go ahead and prove it, I'm interested. Please don't tell me that you think citing one book of one refs opinion is you proving anything. If I found a quote from a ref saying no refs favor all-stars, would that mean I have proof it doesn't happen? I don't think so.
??? One of the great refs ever saying in his book that it happens on purpose is not proof? Bernie Fryer (above) saying it happens is not proof? Actually, it most certainly is proof. As a trier of fact, you have to weigh the credibility of the witness proffering the the evidence. I say their veracity is quite high and thus give the proof a lot of weight. It's dispositive, probably.
