The NBA..........where hypocrisy happens.
- Thread starter DirtyAcres
- Start date
Its not so hard to find a conspiracy when a conspiracy was CONFIRMED last summer.
Obviously, Donaghy was not the only ref involved. The others that were involved were not ratted out (somehow) and still have their job today. Are they still involved with illegal gambling? Very few people can know for sure I guess.
The problem is, why is it so easy to throw away the idea of one-siding calling and suspending when it was PROVEN of having been taking place over the last few years. A Kings fan especially should realize that it has been going on since at the very least the 2002 WCF.
Obviously, Donaghy was not the only ref involved. The others that were involved were not ratted out (somehow) and still have their job today. Are they still involved with illegal gambling? Very few people can know for sure I guess.
The problem is, why is it so easy to throw away the idea of one-siding calling and suspending when it was PROVEN of having been taking place over the last few years. A Kings fan especially should realize that it has been going on since at the very least the 2002 WCF.
con·spir·a·cy /kənˈspɪr
ə
si/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh
n-spir-uh-see] –noun, plural -cies.
2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
Donaghy + his mob buds are 2 or more. And there was easily at least one more ref involved.
It was a conspiracy. Maybe not from the top down, but a conspiracy nonetheless.
2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
Donaghy + his mob buds are 2 or more. And there was easily at least one more ref involved.
It was a conspiracy. Maybe not from the top down, but a conspiracy nonetheless.
Back up there a bit...
ALL that was proven was that ONE referee was involved with gambling.
"Obviously Donaghy was not the only ref involved?" I know this runs contrary to conspiracy theory rhetoric, but would you mind naming just one more ref that was involved? I mean, if it's obvious you shouldn't have any problem. No hurry. I'll wait...
The problem with jumping to conclusions is that sometimes you find yourself crushed on the rocks below.
ALL that was proven was that ONE referee was involved with gambling.
"Obviously Donaghy was not the only ref involved?" I know this runs contrary to conspiracy theory rhetoric, but would you mind naming just one more ref that was involved? I mean, if it's obvious you shouldn't have any problem. No hurry. I'll wait...
The problem with jumping to conclusions is that sometimes you find yourself crushed on the rocks below.
Depends on who they're playing. When they play another small market team, yeah, the ratings are bad. When they played the Knicks (1999), their ratings were almost twice what they were versus the Cavs. So it depends on the matchup.
If you look at the ratings since '81, there is only one city with a market smaller than #7 which gets a decent draw, and that's the Pistons (#11 market). Aside from them, if the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, 6ers or Celtics aren't in the playoffs, ratings will suck.
There was almost an exception once, game 7 of the 2002 WC finals hit 14.2, which was higher than the ratings for any finals since Jordan retired. For that matter, higher than any game since Jordan retired. The finals that year only managed 10.2. But then our team broke, and our bandwagon with it.
Since then, ratings have sucked, almost regardless of who is playing. If ratings mean anything, the NBA's been losing fans in droves, and if they even hit 11.5 with the finals this year, it will be a huge coup.
If you look at the ratings since '81, there is only one city with a market smaller than #7 which gets a decent draw, and that's the Pistons (#11 market). Aside from them, if the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, 6ers or Celtics aren't in the playoffs, ratings will suck.
There was almost an exception once, game 7 of the 2002 WC finals hit 14.2, which was higher than the ratings for any finals since Jordan retired. For that matter, higher than any game since Jordan retired. The finals that year only managed 10.2. But then our team broke, and our bandwagon with it.
Since then, ratings have sucked, almost regardless of who is playing. If ratings mean anything, the NBA's been losing fans in droves, and if they even hit 11.5 with the finals this year, it will be a huge coup.
If I could remember that or see video of it I could comment further. From the information I have now I can't say that I think the instances were the same, but I'm not saying I don't believe you.
And if you're right that the scenarios were pretty much the same, I'd say that is more evidence of a lack of competence than conspiracy or intentional hypocrisy, but that might just be because I have a lot more faith in the fallibility of people than I do in their deviousness.
And if you're right that the scenarios were pretty much the same, I'd say that is more evidence of a lack of competence than conspiracy or intentional hypocrisy, but that might just be because I have a lot more faith in the fallibility of people than I do in their deviousness.
Last edited:
I did watch that one, it was otherwise very boring for a playoff game.
IIRC, the ref had stepped between the two of them, and put his hands on the chests of the two players. The shot above was a moment later, when JO had been pulled back a little by one of his teammates, but Walker was not so quickly subdued.
I spent a while looking for a video clip, will keep trying.
IIRC, the ref had stepped between the two of them, and put his hands on the chests of the two players. The shot above was a moment later, when JO had been pulled back a little by one of his teammates, but Walker was not so quickly subdued.
I spent a while looking for a video clip, will keep trying.
That was Antoine Walker. And the Celtics. Against a team that a) comes from a smaller market than Atlanta; and b) was about Stern's very least favorite team in the entire league at that time (playoffs 2005).
Even if they missed or overreaacted on the Walker call, which I'd have to see video of, evidence of bias for not suspending somebody for something as mild as KG freeing himself is a helluva stretch.
I have to agree, the NBA doesn't like it when it's completely obvious to even casual fans that they're being biased. It ticks off players, drives a lot of fans away, and alienates owners. We've all seen some really bad examples, so I'm not saying that they don't occur, but that, with some of the uproars that have happened, and the reffing scandal and so on, I think they try to keep any biases as subtle-looking as they can.
It doesn't apply in this case, since Atlanta (#8) is about as big a market as Boston (#7), but I would accept an argument that the deck is stacked against smaller markets, and against teams which can't be put onto some sort of throne as a "dynasty." You can see that by looking at results on a massive scale, thousands of games played over decades. Reffing might or might not be a factor, that skewing could happen for a lot of reasons. And any time one tries to judge based on a single incident, as with reffing or penalties, a sampling of one can't really prove anything. One needs to look at the bigger picture, like my little rant on titles versus market size.
(Pity there's no similar method for showing reffing bias in favor of superstars over rookies and other minor players. We see it all the time, but you can never prove that it's so.)
It doesn't apply in this case, since Atlanta (#8) is about as big a market as Boston (#7), but I would accept an argument that the deck is stacked against smaller markets, and against teams which can't be put onto some sort of throne as a "dynasty." You can see that by looking at results on a massive scale, thousands of games played over decades. Reffing might or might not be a factor, that skewing could happen for a lot of reasons. And any time one tries to judge based on a single incident, as with reffing or penalties, a sampling of one can't really prove anything. One needs to look at the bigger picture, like my little rant on titles versus market size.
(Pity there's no similar method for showing reffing bias in favor of superstars over rookies and other minor players. We see it all the time, but you can never prove that it's so.)
Nor is there much evidence of the deck being stacked against smaller markets -- in fact if anything most of the good teams in recent history have come from smaller markets. What you do have is two franchises -- the Lakers, and the Celtics, who have been completely dominant and racked up 20+ titles between them. And those two DO/have had an advantage -- the same advantage that any winner gains with a winning culture/rep as far as people wanting to play there, being able to hire the best etc., and also in L.A.s case the unique appeal of its glamour market. None of that has anything to do with the league. Also note an obvious critique -- of COURSE the all time numbers are going to be skewed toward big market teams -- the early league was composed mostly of those teams, and all fo the teams added in recent decades have been small marekt teams as the league has expanded to fill in smaller markets that can support it. So the Knicks, Celtics etc. have 50 years of chances at titles, many of them when there were 10 -15 teams in the league. The Magic have less than 20. The Bobcats have about four.
Beyond that the other teams involved in the "big market bias" theory include Chicago, which happened to get lucky enough to draft Michael Jordan (#3, after small market Portland took Sam Bowie) and traded Olden Polynice to the small market Sonics for Scottie Pippen. Unless there was conspiracy between the small market clubs screwing up just to benefit the Bulls, their run of success (the only one they have ever really had) is again attributable to anything but league bias. Jordan may have gotten away with a pushoff in his last title run against Byron Russel in the Finals -- but is that because they were playing the small market Jazz in the Finals? Or because MJ was a living basketball god at that point with 5 titles under his belt and respect bordering on awe from everyone in the basketball world?
Meanwhile power teams have routinely cropped up in places like Cleveland, Milwaulkee, Portland, Utah, Indiana, San Antonio and even Sacramento. Small market teams draft Shaq, Robinson, Duncan, LeBron, Howard etc. etc. Where is the pattern? Who's calling the shots and how?
Last edited:
I'll add to that.
Bird, McHale, Parish, Magic, and Worthy (each and every one of them) were shrewd moves or blind luck.
Victims in the above scenarios = San Diego, Utah, GS, Cleveland, Detroit. Either due to their own misjudgment, trading away future first rounders that weren't protected back then, or simply because they were dealing with Red Auerbach or Bill Sharman/Jerry West.
RE: Cleveland, who lost their 82 1st pick, the rule that disallows teams today from trading 1st rounders in consecutive seasons (eg: 2000, 2001, 2002 1st rounders) is called the Stepien rule, named after their owner prior to Gordon Gund. He said draft picks were pie in the sky and dealt them frivolously.
Bird, McHale, Parish, Magic, and Worthy (each and every one of them) were shrewd moves or blind luck.
Victims in the above scenarios = San Diego, Utah, GS, Cleveland, Detroit. Either due to their own misjudgment, trading away future first rounders that weren't protected back then, or simply because they were dealing with Red Auerbach or Bill Sharman/Jerry West.
RE: Cleveland, who lost their 82 1st pick, the rule that disallows teams today from trading 1st rounders in consecutive seasons (eg: 2000, 2001, 2002 1st rounders) is called the Stepien rule, named after their owner prior to Gordon Gund. He said draft picks were pie in the sky and dealt them frivolously.
Trying to reply to all of that at once, with documentation, was more than I could manage before bedtime, but let's try starting off with a few points which should be easiest to resolve. Here's a good starter.
Earlier, I didn't examine the NBA before 1955, because I considered it to be SO different from now that there was no point in even looking at it. The league started out with a $55,000 salary cap, so if you had a 2,000 seat arena, and charged $1 a ticket, you had a viable business. And who were the champions in the first years?
1. Philadelphia
2. Baltimore
3. Minneapolis
4. Minneapolis
5. Rochester
6. Minneapolis
7. Minneapolis
8. Minneapolis
9. Syracuse
Philly is a major market, but I would say the others are all minor. Can we chalk up that much as undisputed?
----
EDIT: For those who like old NBA trivia, here are a list of the teams that vanished without a trace by 1955: Anderson (Indiana) Packers, Baltimore Bullets, Chicago Stags, Cleveland Rebels, Denver Nuggets, Detroit Falcons, Indianapolis Jets, Indianapolis Olympians, Pittsburgh Ironmen, Providence Steamrollers, Sheboygan Redskins, St. Louis Bombers, Toronto Huskies, Washington Capitols, Waterloo (Iowa) Hawks. The Nuggets went belly up in 1950, the current Nuggets team is descended from the ABA's Denver Larks (founded 1967), later renamed the Denver Rockets. They had to change their name to join the NBA, since Houston already had the name "Rockets," and revived the name of the long-defunct franchise. The Baltimore Bullets similarly did not become the Washington Bullets, they went bankrupt in 1955, and the name was taken by another franchise (the relocated Chicago Zephyrs) 8 years later.
As you can see, life could be tough for smaller franchises even then. Some major cities, like Chicago, had big problems maintaining a solvent team, but most of the attrition was elsewhere.
Also, during the mid-late 1950s, the trend of moving franchises to larger markets began. The Tri-Cities (Moline, IL; Rock Island, IL; Davenport, IA) Blackhawks became the Milwaukee Hawks, and then the St. Louis Hawks. The Fort Wayne (IN) Pistons were relocated to Detroit, and the Rochester Royals went to Cincinnati. Minneapolis lost their Lakers to LA.
Earlier, I didn't examine the NBA before 1955, because I considered it to be SO different from now that there was no point in even looking at it. The league started out with a $55,000 salary cap, so if you had a 2,000 seat arena, and charged $1 a ticket, you had a viable business. And who were the champions in the first years?
1. Philadelphia
2. Baltimore
3. Minneapolis
4. Minneapolis
5. Rochester
6. Minneapolis
7. Minneapolis
8. Minneapolis
9. Syracuse
Philly is a major market, but I would say the others are all minor. Can we chalk up that much as undisputed?
----
EDIT: For those who like old NBA trivia, here are a list of the teams that vanished without a trace by 1955: Anderson (Indiana) Packers, Baltimore Bullets, Chicago Stags, Cleveland Rebels, Denver Nuggets, Detroit Falcons, Indianapolis Jets, Indianapolis Olympians, Pittsburgh Ironmen, Providence Steamrollers, Sheboygan Redskins, St. Louis Bombers, Toronto Huskies, Washington Capitols, Waterloo (Iowa) Hawks. The Nuggets went belly up in 1950, the current Nuggets team is descended from the ABA's Denver Larks (founded 1967), later renamed the Denver Rockets. They had to change their name to join the NBA, since Houston already had the name "Rockets," and revived the name of the long-defunct franchise. The Baltimore Bullets similarly did not become the Washington Bullets, they went bankrupt in 1955, and the name was taken by another franchise (the relocated Chicago Zephyrs) 8 years later.
As you can see, life could be tough for smaller franchises even then. Some major cities, like Chicago, had big problems maintaining a solvent team, but most of the attrition was elsewhere.
Also, during the mid-late 1950s, the trend of moving franchises to larger markets began. The Tri-Cities (Moline, IL; Rock Island, IL; Davenport, IA) Blackhawks became the Milwaukee Hawks, and then the St. Louis Hawks. The Fort Wayne (IN) Pistons were relocated to Detroit, and the Rochester Royals went to Cincinnati. Minneapolis lost their Lakers to LA.
Last edited:
"Any player or coach guilty of intentional physical contact with an official shall automatically be suspended without pay for one game. A fine and/or longer period of suspension will result if circumstances so dictate."
http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_index.html?nav=ArticleList
Article II
Physical Contact - Suspension
...so this must have been deemed unintentional contact.
http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_index.html?nav=ArticleList
Article II
Physical Contact - Suspension
...so this must have been deemed unintentional contact.
If the referee grabs the player, the player is not making intentional physical contact. Why is it so difficult to understand?
The fact that Garnett used extra force to try to get the ref off of him means that he could have been suspended, but the automatic suspension rule certainly does not apply here.
The fact that Garnett used extra force to try to get the ref off of him means that he could have been suspended, but the automatic suspension rule certainly does not apply here.
I guess it just irks me that Garnett puts a forearm in Pachulia's face and then decides to go back for seconds. Instead of letting garnett go back for seconds the ref does his best to avert Garnett's actions. In response, said ref gets shoved by garnett. Yet, there are no repercussions?
I guess it is true. There are circumstances when shoving a ref. is allowable.
I guess it is true. There are circumstances when shoving a ref. is allowable.
Go back and watch the clip. Garnett didn't shove Eddie Rush. Eddie Rush is not a particularly big man. Garnett is a huge man. If, with the movement in question, Garnett had shoved Eddie Rush, Eddie Rush would have flown backwards. Eddie Rush didn't move backwards an inch, so either he's denser than the material at the core of a star, or Garnett didn't shove him.
Looks to me like Garnett was trying to get Rush's grip off of him (Rush must have had a good one) and when Rush's grip came free, Garnett's arm carried through, off to the side, not into Rush. That's not shoving.
Looks to me like Garnett was trying to get Rush's grip off of him (Rush must have had a good one) and when Rush's grip came free, Garnett's arm carried through, off to the side, not into Rush. That's not shoving.
