PDA

View Full Version : Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games



BoomBaby31
06-10-2008, 06:31 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3436401


After Celtics and Lakers game 2, I believe it 100%. The ratio on fouls was outright ridiculous. When a team is down by 20 and has a better Field Goal percentage it is suspicious.

The filing is regarding a 2002 series -lakers and kings- to make go 7 games.

Opinions?

Pig Nash
06-10-2008, 06:34 PM
It's not true, it's a guy trying to take the NBA down with him. That's my gut feeling.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 06:42 PM
Yeah, if he had any evidence, it would have come out a lot sooner.

David Stern did his best to influence his sentencing, so I'm assuming this is payback.

Kegboy
06-10-2008, 06:44 PM
It's not true, it's a guy trying to take the NBA down with him. That's my gut feeling.

Maybe. But you know, a year ago people would have said, "The league's not fixed, by now we would have at least heard some disgruntled ref say something."

BoomBaby31
06-10-2008, 07:08 PM
Maybe. But you know, a year ago people would have said, "The league's not fixed, by now we would have at least heard some disgruntled ref say something."

It is like an unbelieving parent "they wouldn't do that, I love them, that isn't him/her." Peoples theories are contradictory "The league is clean but Tim Donaghy is guilty" Donaghy isn't the only ref that fixed/s games; I pay close attention to the lines in Vegas and the house runs about a 80% perfect rate in Basketball. Tonight the Lakers are -9.5 favorites -biggest favorites of West Coast- with 83% of the money on the Celtics and the line isn't budging. Tonight the Lakers will win by 10+ no doubt about it, the only way they do not, is if the team gets ran over by a truck or a they are leading by 12 and Pierce shoots a full court shot to cover the spread.

idioteque
06-10-2008, 07:17 PM
I hope Donaghy writes a tell all and takes Stern down with him. The sooner the despot is out the better.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 07:17 PM
I hope Donaghy writes a tell all and takes Stern down with him.

Even if he's lying?

idioteque
06-10-2008, 07:22 PM
Even if he's lying?

What I think is the case and what I think Donaghy should make public is that there are some NBA referees that fix games, and the NBA doesn't provide proper oversight to address this, which would in turn run to the top and lead to Stern's resignation.

This makes me look terrible but I would only care slightly if Donaghy was lying. Stern flat out ruined the Pacers and his dismissal would only be karma.

idioteque
06-10-2008, 07:25 PM
It is like an unbelieving parent "they wouldn't do that, I love them, that isn't him/her." Peoples theories are contradictory "The league is clean but Tim Donaghy is guilty" Donaghy isn't the only ref that fixed/s games; I pay close attention to the lines in Vegas and the house runs about a 80% perfect rate in Basketball. Tonight the Lakers are -9.5 favorites -biggest favorites of West Coast- with 83% of the money on the Celtics and the line isn't budging. Tonight the Lakers will win by 10+ no doubt about it, the only way they do not, is if the team gets ran over by a truck or a they are leading by 12 and Pierce shoots a full court shot to cover the spread.

What is your source for this? I would be interested in monitoring these numbers for the whole playoffs next year and see how it comes out.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 07:26 PM
What I think is the case and what I think Donaghy should make public is that there are some NBA referees that fix games, and the NBA doesn't provide proper oversight to address this, which would in turn run to the top and lead to Stern's resignation.



He's shown no proof whatsoever.



This makes me look terrible but I would only care slightly if Donaghy was lying.

You're right. It does make you look terrible.


Stern flat out ruined the Pacers and his dismissal would only be karma.

Yes. Stern ruined the Pacers. Not Ron Artest, not Stephen Jackson, not Jermaine O'Neal, not Jamaal Tinsley, not the guy that signed all those guys to long-term contracts.

David Stern ruined your favorite team, and you want to ruin his life, whether he's done anything illegal or not. Clearly, he has it coming.

JayRedd
06-10-2008, 07:29 PM
I wasn't here in 2004. Do some people think Tru Warier shouldn't have been suspended for the whole year?

On Donaghy...I tend to think he's lying but admittedly don't have an opinion set in stone. It's going to take more concrete evidence than a statement from a felon whose upcoming sentencing will be determine by his level of "participation" in an investigation to discredit a system though. I'll need to see more than just that and circumstantial single-game anecdotes to believe there was a league-wide protocol to make certain outcomes occur.

Pig Nash
06-10-2008, 07:30 PM
I hate how I agree with Kstat so often.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 07:30 PM
It is like an unbelieving parent "they wouldn't do that, I love them, that isn't him/her." Peoples theories are contradictory "The league is clean but Tim Donaghy is guilty" Donaghy isn't the only ref that fixed/s games; I pay close attention to the lines in Vegas and the house runs about a 80% perfect rate in Basketball. Tonight the Lakers are -9.5 favorites -biggest favorites of West Coast- with 83% of the money on the Celtics and the line isn't budging. Tonight the Lakers will win by 10+ no doubt about it, the only way they do not, is if the team gets ran over by a truck or a they are leading by 12 and Pierce shoots a full court shot to cover the spread.


...you do realize it is the JOB of these people to get a final score people will bet on... right? They kinda have experience on this.

the line isn't what vegas thinks the final margin of victory will be. It's the margin vegas thinks people will most likely bet on both side.

If %83 of vegas money was on the celtics, the line wouldn't be budging. You're not making any sense at all, other than trying to support some convoluted theory that the NBA is fixed.

Basketball Fan
06-10-2008, 07:34 PM
Yes. Stern ruined the Pacers. Not Ron Artest, not Stephen Jackson, not Jermaine O'Neal, not Jamaal Tinsley, not the guy that signed all those guys to long-term contracts.

David Stern ruined your favorite team, and you want to ruin his life. Clearly, he has it coming.



Well he contributed to it but he didn't do the major damage that's those three morons you just listed. I don't put Tinsley because he really had little to do with the brawl as I recall compared to the other three. Tinsley is just a dumbass off the court above all else. Stern at the very least should've fined the Pistons organization for not having proper security that night like all arenas do so something like this doesn't happen. He sided with the fans because well they're the ones who line his pockets. Even if they threw a knife at these players he would've still sided with them. Its all about $$$ to him. And I'm not just saying it because its the Pacers I think he would've done the same for any team involved in that situation.

Putting that aside I want Stern to go down because he's a fraud and he always has been. For someone who claimed Donaghy had nothing and that there was no need to talk to him FF months later and Stern said he had to talk to him about some things but that rest assured Donaghy had nothing. Why talk to someone who has nothing about "nothing"?

Makes no sense. And there's this article that says how Donaghy was willing to help the prosecution with this ref probe but the prosecution said no need. "No Need?" There's possible corruption here and there's "no need?"

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=A0WTWZ_L8EZITGEBOAKLvLYF?slug=ap-bettingprobe&prov=ap&type=lgns



Yeah Donaghy isn't the most honorable guy on the planet but he really doesn't have much to lose at this point and I'll believe him over Stern at this point. Stern has ruined this league and anyone who has been involved in a ref scandal would've been asked to step down by now along with his refs.

idioteque
06-10-2008, 07:36 PM
David Stern ruined your favorite team, and you want to ruin his life, whether he's done anything illegal or not. Clearly, he has it coming.

It was a travesty and very unprecedented concerning what he did to the Pacers, a team I had/have invested much of an emotional and financial investment in. He basically took that investment and took a giant **** on it with those suspensions. I'm honest about wanting Stern out of the NBA and I'm not going to sugarcoat it. Somehow I don't think he'd be in the streets if he lost his job.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 07:36 PM
Look, if people want to go the roswell route because they so desperately want to play the victim and believe the NBA is fixed, it's going to sound very empty without any evidence.

Donaghy is playing on the gullibility of the public to believe conspiracy theories about the NBA to sell books.

Mind you, this is the same guy that sold out and fixed outcomes himself and is facing a very long jail sentence.

But regardless of his character, we're willing to believe anything he says, so long as it supports our conspiracy theories about the NBA.

indygeezer
06-10-2008, 07:38 PM
He's shown no proof whatsoever.




You're right. It does make you look terrible.



Yes. Stern ruined the Pacers. Not Ron Artest, not Stephen Jackson, not Jermaine O'Neal, not Jamaal Tinsley, not the guy that signed all those guys to long-term contracts.

David Stern ruined your favorite team, and you want to ruin his life, whether he's done anything illegal or not. Clearly, he has it coming.

Yes, he does...but I'm not going there.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 07:38 PM
It was a travesty and very unprecedented concerning what he did to the Pacers, a team I had/have invested much of an emotional and financial investment in. He basically took that investment and took a giant **** on it with those suspensions. I'm honest about wanting Stern out of the NBA and I'm not going to sugarcoat it. Somehow I don't think he'd be in the streets if he lost his job.

You're not supporting him losing his job, you're supporting lying and committing perjury because you don't think the commissioner of the NBA is a fair guy.

Really, if you want to ruin a man's life and reputation over a basketball game, you need to get out in the world and learn what's really important.

You'd want the commissioner to be accused of fixing NBA games even if he really didn't? That's terrible.

idioteque
06-10-2008, 07:47 PM
You're not supporting him losing his job, you're supporting lying and committing perjury because you don't think the commissioner of the NBA is a fair guy.

If it was a lie chances are Stern would mobilize his resources to quickly debunk the whole book, and there would be no problem. I don't have any problem with Stern sweating either way, if someone spreads nasty rumors about him I am looking the other way.


Really, if you want to ruin a man's life and reputation over a basketball game, you need to get out in the world and learn what's really important.

If Stern was to ruin his already tainted reputation it would probably be over basketball, since he is the commissioner of the NBA. Think how much money the Simons have lost from a series of setbacks that were set in motion from Stern's despotic suspensions. Stern is far from a saint and his flaunted his dictatorial control over the NBA repeatedly, from fixing the Ewing draft to ruining the Pacers. He was in the earshot of the press when he publicly got mad that the Sonics and the Blazers, both small market teams, got the first two draft picks. He runs the league for money and not for the fans.

I know that in the eyes of many I have an irrational hatred of David Stern. It's the one thing that really gets me fuming.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 07:49 PM
I don't put Tinsley because he really had little to do with the brawl as I recall compared to the other three. Tinsley is just a dumbass off the court above all else.

Tinsley has done as much to destroy the pacers franchise as any other player. But his actions you can't really blame on David Stern....


Stern at the very least should've fined the Pistons organization for not having proper security that night like all arenas do so something like this doesn't happen.

Right. Not fining the Pistons was what led to the downfall of the Pacers.


He sided with the fans because well they're the ones who line his pockets.

The fan that threw the cup was banned for life. All the fans that could be identified were punished severely. Beyond that, he can't really punish the fans, can he?


Even if they threw a knife at these players he would've still sided with them.

...and this is what happens when we don't get to use facts. We make up absurd extreme scenarios.


Its all about $$$ to him. And I'm not just saying it because its the Pacers

...of course not...



Putting that aside I want Stern to go down because he's a fraud and he always has been. For someone who claimed Donaghy had nothing and that there was no need to talk to him FF months later and Stern said he had to talk to him about some things but that rest assured Donaghy had nothing. Why talk to someone who has nothing about "nothing"?

He might have just wanted to talk to him about the extent of his involvement- naaaaah


And there's this article that says how Donaghy was willing to help the prosecution with this ref probe but the prosecution said no need. "No Need?" There's possible corruption here and there's "no need?"

...because they don't want help from a liar that can be discredited on the stand if they don't need it? It kinda helps at a trial...



Yeah Donaghy isn't the most honorable guy on the planet but he really doesn't have much to lose at this point

...if he has nowhere to go but up by making this statement, how exactly does that make him credible?


and I'll believe him over Stern at this point. Stern has ruined this league

Right. The NBA is dead. Compared to when it was so great when Stern took over in 1984...oh wait.


and anyone who has been involved in a ref scandal would've been asked to step down by now along with his refs.

Really? He has the most strict referee policy in pro sports and he's supposed to monitor his phone calls too?

Kstat
06-10-2008, 07:56 PM
Think how much money the Simons have lost from a series of setbacks that were set in motion from Stern's despotic suspensions.

Actually, they got to keep a very large chunk or Ron Artest's salary....I'd say financially they made out.


Stern is far from a saint

well, that's certainly cause to fire him...


and his flaunted his dictatorial control over the NBA repeatedly, from fixing the Ewing draft to ruining the Pacers.

Completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories FTW! I heard this rumor and its bad for Stern, therefore I know it's true!


He was in the earshot of the press when he publicly got mad that the Sonics and the Blazers, both small market teams, got the first two draft picks.


...wait...did he accidentally fix it for the wrong teams? Was there something wrong in the fixing process last year?

Sheesh, you'd think the NBA would get better at fixing stuff. I mean, they've been doing it for 24 years...



He runs the league for money and not for the fans.

And most of the players play for the money and not the fans. They must be in on the fix too...

Shade
06-10-2008, 07:58 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3436401


After Celtics and Lakers game 2, I believe it 100%. The ratio on fouls was outright ridiculous. When a team is down by 20 and has a better Field Goal percentage it is suspicious.

The filing is regarding a 2002 series -lakers and kings- to make go 7 games.

Opinions?

If ever there was a series that was fixed, that was it.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:01 PM
If ever there was a series that was fixed, that was it.

The problem is, Donaghy knows it, and he didn't even work the game. He's alleging a crew he had no contact with fixed the game, which is info Donaghy would have no way of getting first-hand knowledge of.

He won't even name the officials involved.

Basically, there's this game he knows about between these two teams, and these two guys fixed the game.

If the NBA was really fixing the game, all 3 officials would be involved. He's only saying there were two because it gives them deniability, and keeps him from indirectly naming names.

waterjater
06-10-2008, 08:04 PM
There is more to it. For all of us who believe the Kings/lakers was fixed. He's dropped this bomb as well. I'm all for the tell all book as long as it is truth because I truly believe there is much more to this than just Donaghy...has to be......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ex-NBA referee Tim Donaghy told the feds two referees fixed the outcome of one playoff series and that officials were told not to eject star players from games for fear of hurting ticket sales.

The allegations are contained in a court document filed Tuesday by Donaghy's lawyer. Donaghy said officials were told not to call technical fouls on stars, and that two officials helped extend a 2002 playoff series to a seventh game, all in the name of ticket sales and television revenue. The Kings/Lakers series was the only one to go seven games that year, with the Lakers winning games 6 and 7. If Donaghy's allegations are factual, David Stern's worst nightmares may have just come true. Jun. 10 - 6:36 pm et

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:05 PM
...because both Sacramento and the LA Lakers were having trouble selling playoff tickets in 2002...

If only Donaghy hadn't deliberately left Robert Horry open at the end of game 4. Worst call in playoff history.

Shade
06-10-2008, 08:06 PM
Look at it this way; we're probably going to find out, once and for all, whether the NBA is crooked or not.

ABADays
06-10-2008, 08:07 PM
I know that in the eyes of many I have an irrational hatred of David Stern. It's the one thing that really gets me fuming.

The brawl wasn't the first time he dumped on Indiana. He was in the mix when the 4 ABA teams were absorbed. It's a wonder any of them survived.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:08 PM
Look at it this way; we're probably going to find out, once and for all, whether the NBA is crooked or not.

And if they say nothing is wrong, people will say there's a big cover up.

Truth and facts mean nothing anymore. People will substitute their own fiction for reality, especially in the world of sports.

I don't like David Stern, therefore I know he's a bad person and a criminal. I know because I want it to be true.

If Stern's guilty of something, by all means I'll be first in line to bury him. But I'm also not going to condemn him without evidence.

Shade
06-10-2008, 08:09 PM
And if they say nothing is wrong, people will say there's a big cover up.

Truth and facts mean nothing anymore. People will substitute their own fiction for reality, especially in the world of sports.

If the law does an investigation and determines there's no wrong-doing, it would be hard to cover up. The law has nothing to gain by covering things up with a basketball league.

For the record, my suspicions of shady doings far predates my loathing of the commissioner. I've just seen too many things that make you go :huh: in this league.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:11 PM
If the law does an investigation and determines there's no wrong-doing, it would be hard to cover up. The law has nothing to gain by covering things up with a basketball league.



Are you kidding?

The NBA will have either hidden the information, or David Stern used his influence as NBA commissioner (lol) to wipe away any federal charges.

The conspiracy theories will still continue, and people will line up to buy Donaghy's tell-all book, coming soon to a store near you....

idioteque
06-10-2008, 08:12 PM
Actually, they got to keep a very large chunk or Ron Artest's salary....I'd say financially they made out.

The suspensions were the first event to occur in the line that destroyed the Pacers' reputation in the eyes of the fans. We now have the worst attendance in the league and the team isn't even well liked in Indianapolis. I think the Simons have lost quite a bit of money.


Completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories FTW! I heard this rumor and its bad for Stern, therefore I know it's true!

My interpretation of the video is that Stern fixed the draft. It's easier to believe when you factor in Stern's natural predilection for large market teams and his reaction of disgust when the Pacific Northwest got the first two picks in last year's draft. Where there's smoke there's fire.





...wait...did he accidentally fix it for the wrong teams? Was there something wrong in the fixing process last year?

Sheesh, you'd think the NBA would get better at fixing stuff. I mean, they've been doing it for 24 years...

If Stern had his way NY, Chicago, and LA would rotate the first pick every three years. He can't make it that obvious, however, or more accusations toward him would obviously surface. He has to do things in more subtle ways like through officiating.




And most of the players play for the money and not the fans. They must be in on the fix too...[/quote]

Shade
06-10-2008, 08:15 PM
Are you kidding?

The NBA will have either hidden the information, or David Stern used his influence as NBA commissioner (lol) to wipe away any federal charges.

The conspiracy theories will still continue, and people will line up to buy Donaghy's tell-all book, coming soon to a store near you....

I'm not saying the conspiracy theories won't continue. But I am saying, as a CT myself, that odds are I'd believe if a legal investigation was done and the NBA came out clean.

I would not, however, buy the results of an internal investigation.

Shade
06-10-2008, 08:17 PM
My feelings on the brawl are pretty much the same today as they were then:

- The suspensions to the Pacers players were excessive.
- The Pistons got a slap on the wrist, relatively speaking. And I mean more in terms of the organization than the players.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:19 PM
The suspensions were the first event to occur in the line that destroyed the Pacers' reputation in the eyes of the fans. We now have the worst attendance in the league and the team isn't even well liked in Indianapolis.

Pacer fans don't like the Pacers because David Stern. The Pacer players are just poor victims. Gotcha.






My interpretation of the video is that Stern fixed the draft.

"your interpretation of the video?"

What exactly did you see that everyone else doesn't? Did you have a special camera in the back room?




It's easier to believe when you factor in Stern's natural predilection for large market teams and his reaction of disgust when the Pacific Northwest got the first two picks in last year's draft.

wait...it's easier to believe stern fixes the lottery when he's visibly angry at the outcome of a lottery?




If Stern had his way NY, Chicago, and LA would rotate the first pick every three years. He can't make it that obvious

...right. The Knicks not having a top-3 pick in the last 24 years was all part of Stern's plan. He doesn't want to make it obvious.


What the players do is their own business. Stern is the leader of the NBA and has more of a job of acting for public interest than do the players.

...so the players making money for themselves is ok, but David Stern trying to make money for the NBA...that's evil?

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:24 PM
According to the NBA, these allegations were already made to the FBI in the past and were investigated, and no wrongdoing was found.

If that's true, then case closed.

Shade
06-10-2008, 08:25 PM
According to the NBA, these allegations were already made to the FBI in the past and were investigated, and no wrongdoing was found.

If that's true, then case closed.

The allegations were made when, and investigated by whom?

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:28 PM
The allegations were made when, and investigated by whom?

They were made by Donaghy during the FBI's original investigation, according to a statement made by the NBA.

Shade
06-10-2008, 08:32 PM
They were made by Donaghy during the FBI's original investigation, according to a statement made by the NBA.

In that case, Tim had better have some hard evidence to back up his claims.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:34 PM
In that case, Tim had better have some hard evidence to back up his claims.

Why?

He doesn't need evidence to convict the NBA and sell a few books. This thread has proven that, if anything.

His claims are about games he didn't even referee, involving people he won't even name.

He's playing it so he can make money while he's in prison.

Shade
06-10-2008, 08:36 PM
Why?

He doesn't need evidence to convict the NBA and sell a few books. This thread has proven that, if anything.

He'll sell a lot more books if he has evidence. ;)

A lack of evidence certainly won't help his chances of a lighter sentence.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:37 PM
He'll sell a lot more books if he has evidence. ;)


Jose Canseco is on what, his 4th tell-all book without a spec of evidence?



A lack of evidence certainly won't help his chances of a lighter sentence.

Considering David Stern is putting every influence into throwing the book at him, it wasn't going to hurt him much anyway.

idioteque
06-10-2008, 08:47 PM
Pacer fans don't like the Pacers because David Stern. The Pacer players are just poor victims. Gotcha.

No, I said that Stern set in motion a series of unfortunate events for the Pacers with the brawl suspensions.


"your interpretation of the video?"

What exactly did you see that everyone else doesn't? Did you have a special camera in the back room?

The envelope was obviously bent if you watch the video.



wait...it's easier to believe stern fixes the lottery when he's visibly angry at the outcome of a lottery?

Uh yea.


The Knicks not having a top-3 pick in the last 24 years was all part of Stern's plan. He doesn't want to make it obvious.

Well obviously with Patrick Ewing as the starting center for many years for the Knicks, they didn't need too many lottery appearances after that. Stern is trying to make these teams successful by giving them lottery picks, not just giving them lottery picks for the hell of it.


..so the players making money for themselves is ok, but David Stern trying to make money for the NBA...that's evil?

Villifying the players in this situation would be like trying lump all of the blame regarding the Enron scandal on the guy that the operated parking garage.

pacerwaala
06-10-2008, 08:53 PM
I hope Donaghy writes a tell all and takes Stern down with him. The sooner the despot is out the better.

and bring down the NBA with him? you would not have NBA basketball anymore if the NBA deliberately fixed games. The fallout would be real bad.

I absolutely do not believe that the league manipulated any series. Donaghy is a thug who is just trying to reduce his sentence.

The NBA has more to lose by doing such stuff and it coming out than if Sacramento plays Milwaukee in the NBA finals.

Also, it is very hard to keep it hush hush with so many people involved.

Inspite of what he did to the Pacers, I think David Stern is a very good commisioner. Actually, I think Artest deserved that punishment, considering the kind of fool that he turned out to be. Jermaine's punishment was a bit too much but it was reduced later. Also, Detroit should have been fined or punished somehow than a slap on the wrist that they got.

Kstat
06-10-2008, 08:54 PM
No, I said that Stern set in motion a series of unfortunate events for the Pacers with the brawl suspensions.

right. players not staying healthy, Artest demanding a trade, players having shootouts at stripclubs...David Stern started all of that.


The envelope was obviously bent if you watch the video.


well, obviously.

The envelope was frozen, it wasn't bent. Get your conspiracy theories straight.


Well obviously with Patrick Ewing as the starting center for many years for the Knicks, they didn't need too many lottery appearances after that.

wow...the knicks haven't needed any lottery picks lately?


Villifying the players in this situation would be like trying lump all of the blame regarding the Enron scandal on the guy that the operated parking garage.

...because the guy that parks my car in the garage makes about $5 million a year.

You realize half the players in the NBA make more than David Stern...

BoomBaby31
06-10-2008, 08:55 PM
What is your source for this? I would be interested in monitoring these numbers for the whole playoffs next year and see how it comes out.

I use a couple of sources. Vegasinsider.com (click on match-ups) and Sportsinsights.com (better source); Covers.com is a great place for trends, they are the ones who discovered Donaghy had 14+/- over games in a row! Just think, if Donaghy was only getting $5,000 per correct pick he had to be fixing a lot of games to be living the lifestyle, he wanted.

BoomBaby31
06-10-2008, 09:09 PM
...you do realize it is the JOB of these people to get a final score people will bet on... right? They kinda have experience on this.

the line isn't what vegas thinks the final margin of victory will be. It's the margin vegas thinks people will most likely bet on both side.

If %83 of vegas money was on the celtics, the line wouldn't be budging. You're not making any sense at all, other than trying to support some convoluted theory that the NBA is fixed.

Why wouldn't it be budging? 83% of the money should easily be a 3 point shift. They want as much money on the Celtics possible tonight, a 5% shift on a game -in a heavy bet game- is a .5 shift. The spread should be bet down to 6, EASY, with that much money on the Celtics. The NBA isn't wrestling but it is influenced. Spurs were 7.5 point underdogs in the final game of the series verse the lakers. Lakers were covering until Tony P makes a basket, steals the ball and hits a three making them down by 5 (2.5 point cover) -again 80+% of the money on spurs-.

This is what happens next.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs1N_g3hxdE

Sasha just screaming crazy for the ball and takes a wide open three to cover, biggest coincidence in the world? Maybe.. then again maybe not.

pacerwaala
06-10-2008, 09:32 PM
They were made by Donaghy during the FBI's original investigation, according to a statement made by the NBA.

From what I heard on sportscenter, the NBA's statement did not say that the claims were investigated. Did they?

Kstat
06-10-2008, 09:35 PM
From what I heard on sportscenter, the NBA's statement did not say that the claims were investigated. Did they?

David Stern said the FBI launched an investigation.

pacerwaala
06-11-2008, 12:07 AM
It is like an unbelieving parent "they wouldn't do that, I love them, that isn't him/her." Peoples theories are contradictory "The league is clean but Tim Donaghy is guilty" Donaghy isn't the only ref that fixed/s games; I pay close attention to the lines in Vegas and the house runs about a 80% perfect rate in Basketball. Tonight the Lakers are -9.5 favorites -biggest favorites of West Coast- with 83% of the money on the Celtics and the line isn't budging. Tonight the Lakers will win by 10+ no doubt about it, the only way they do not, is if the team gets ran over by a truck or a they are leading by 12 and Pierce shoots a full court shot to cover the spread.


AP is reporting that the Lakers team bus got run over by a truck. The starters were all injured. The Lakers started some replacement players against the Celtics in the 3rd game of the 2008 NBA finals. That makeshift team led by 12 points with 1.2 seconds to play. The Celtics called a timeout and Paul Pierce shot a full court shot and the final marigin was 9. The owner of the bus was arrested because he bet a lot of money in Vegas for the Celtics to cover in this game.

JayRedd
06-11-2008, 12:11 AM
Why wouldn't it be budging? 83% of the money should easily be a 3 point shift. They want as much money on the Celtics possible tonight, a 5% shift on a game -in a heavy bet game- is a .5 shift. The spread should be bet down to 6, EASY, with that much money on the Celtics. The NBA isn't wrestling but it is influenced.

Good call. Vegas purposely kept the line high just so they could pay out "83%" to the people who took the Cs to cover. Real Crackerjack job by them. Pretty big blunder for a bunch of oddsmakers who have been doing this for a century. :rolleyes:

Where do you get these figures of "80%" of the money being on one side? Vegas has no interest in doing that. Sure it happens from time to time (although incredibly really in such high-volume gambling events), but the fact that the line stayed so high (and rose from an opening of -8.5 to -9.5 in most books) would suggest bookies were trying to get more action on the Cs, not less.

Vegas' goal isn't to predict things. It's to get 50% action on both sides so that it takes all the vig and can't possibly loss any money. That's the goal. Always. Split the action and take the fee. Any other way and there are exposed on one side or the other.

Have you ever gambled?

Bball
06-11-2008, 12:24 AM
In a footnote, the attorney suggested that the NBA might have "pressured" the attorney's office "into shutting down this prosecution to avoid the disclosure of information unrelated to Tim's conduct."

"The letter filed today on Mr. Donaghy's behalf contains an assortment of lies, unfounded allegations, and facts that have been previously acknowledged, such as the fact that certain NBA referees engaged in casino gambling in violation of NBA rules," said Joel Litvin, the NBA president for league and basketball operations, in a statement. "The letter is the desperate act of a convicted felon who is hoping to avoid prison time."

Lauro took exception to Litvin's response, saying the league should consider the information Donaghy willingly gave to investigators rather than vilify his client.

"The remarks by NBA president Joel Litvin were unfortunate and ill-advised," Lauro said in a statement released Tuesday. "Rather than seeking to implement much-needed reforms, the NBA has chosen instead to attack the messenger. Following a thorough and exhaustive investigation, federal law enforcement officials have concluded that Tim provided honest and trustworthy assistance to them.

"If the NBA takes issue with any of Tim's cooperation, then perhaps it should release the results of an internal investigation conducted by its counsel over the last year."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3404607

cramerica
06-11-2008, 12:34 AM
Do I believe Donaghy? Well, I don't necessarily believe anything a guy that will take money to fix games has to say.

I don't think that the NBA necessarily fix's games rather than I think they favor star players more than they do the rookies or low-profile players. For some reason the NBA should have the best refs but with what they let the players get away with, I think the refs as a whole suck.

If the NBA really wanted to get fans back in the game then they would stop the favortism and stop the ridiculous antics that they let the players get away with. Nobody wants to see a grown man cry like a little baby because he did or did not get a call which is also on the players.

waterjater
06-11-2008, 01:31 AM
Look at it this way; we're probably going to find out, once and for all, whether the NBA is crooked or not.


Yes, this would be nice and I agree with you Shade. If an independent investigation (like Doud taking down Pete Rose), proved the NBA was clean, I'd shut up about it forever. If the allegations are true, then Stern should be held accountable. My personal opinion is that I don't think an independent investigaion will prove the NBA clean...at the very least it will find that favortism was given to star players.

Kstat- I just don't see how only Donaghy was involved. Acting alone as a rogue ref without detection for years! YEARS!! He helped gamblers make a lot of money and leveraged all his knowledge about refs relationships with players & coaches (facts used against him) and gave great advice to gamblers. (this alone gives credibility to his statements)

I believe he did name names on the Lakers vs. Kings (just wasn't disclosed in the open letter) at least that was my impression from all that I've read on the subject.

With all the point shaving scandals, millions of dollars bet on games, refs getting in trouble gambling at casinos (players too)......one can't be naive that the mafia/gamblers/fixers haven't gotten to more than just Donaghy...they have. I don't have proof, but if they can get to one person, they've likely gotten to more.

As for Stern vs. the Pacers. I don't think he had a vendetta against the Pacers, but the embarassment he felt from the "brawl" led him to over penalize the Pacers which led down a very slippery slope for the Pacers franchise.

My view of the whole brawl thing hasn't changed:

A) Ben Wallace started the whole thing by being a poor sport and needlessly shoving Artest after getting fouled (hard foul or not- poor sport). Lost his cool because he was getting his arse kicked.

B) Refs FAILED to eject Wallace immediately or get play going again right away to close out the measely 44 seconds left in the game allowing Wallace to rile up the crowd (just watch him raising his hands to get the crowd going, throwing his towel etc. etc.) and hence ignite the fuse that started with cup throwing and then the dumb *** Artest leaving the court (DUMB *** ARTEST).

C) Had the refs done their job and either ejected both players or just Wallace and wrapped the game up, no brawl and a great season wouldn't have been ruined. OR at least just call a double technical and move on!!!

D) Not enough punishment for the refs for their failure in the game....should have been suspended for as long as the longest player suspension!!

E) Punishment to Pacers was too harsh, especially considering the refs failed to do their job, the Pistons failed to have proper security and their fans failed to maintain common sense.

F) Punishment to Pistons was too light, Wallace should have received a lengthy suspension and the Pistons organization and the Palace should have received healthy fines.

From the point of the suspensions onward, The Pacers made many horrible personnel decisions that have led to our decline. Stern started the problem, but Pacers management did the rest.

Going back to refs and altering games....I stick to my beliefs that the NBA likes to control games for entertainment value (no deficit too large, no lead is safe) (and yes there are blow outs, but generally teams always come back, even bad ones), star players get away with contact and go to the line even when not even touched, and that they do like to extend playoff series. Never thought so much as they wanted a specific team to win, but rather wanted the games to be close or the series to go as far as it could for entertainment value and revenue.

Water

waterjater
06-11-2008, 01:41 AM
Do I believe Donaghy? Well, I don't necessarily believe anything a guy that will take money to fix games has to say.

.

So who do you believe in Baseball? McNamee or Clemens? McNamee is the admitted steriods supplier/dealer (convicted felon or criminal...) Or Clemens?

I actually think Donaghy is putting forth facts (my hunch/gut feel), many of which he used in his illegal gambling activities. He used the information about how refs relationships with players and coaches affected games to his and his gamblers benefits. He used his knowledge of "company men" as he calls them to give his gamblers good information.

So, yeah, at this time, my hunch is he (like Mcnamee) is telling the truth. The truth will set him free....LOL ie. I'd like to believe Clemens, but it is hard to believe he didn't dabble in steriods at the very least....heck, it wasn't even against the rules back then!

Water

Bball
06-11-2008, 01:55 AM
Wouldn't it be in Donaghy's interest to NOT lie and name names and games? If he's trying to be cooperative and ask for leniency it seems to me the last thing he'd want to do is lie and do ANYTHING to damage whatever credibility he can salvage in this process.

To be caught in even one lie at this point (when he's supposedly coming clean), no matter how small, would be an impossible setback to his cause.

-Bball

Kstat
06-11-2008, 02:37 AM
So who do you believe in Baseball? McNamee or Clemens? McNamee is the admitted steriods supplier/dealer (convicted felon or criminal...) Or Clemens?



McNamee had physical evidence. Donaghy had nothing.

McNamee is not a convicted felon. Donaghy is.

Other than that though, they're exactly the same... totally fair comparison.

We get it. You want Donaghy to be right, and you want to believe him very badly so you can come out and say NBA games are corrupt, and you've been cheated all these years.

It's not going to happen.


My view of the whole brawl thing hasn't changed

Yes, I know. Nobody's opinion of the brawl has changed in 3 years, an yet people are compelled to keep bringing it up...

This isn't a brawl thread.

Kstat
06-11-2008, 02:40 AM
Tonight the Lakers are -9.5 favorites -biggest favorites of West Coast- with 83% of the money on the Celtics and the line isn't budging. Tonight the Lakers will win by 10+ no doubt about it, the only way they do not, is if the team gets ran over by a truck or a they are leading by 12 and Pierce shoots a full court shot to cover the spread.

I love it when people pretend to "know" that team X will cover the spread because of some great conspiracy...

If you're right, you get to tell everyone the NBA is fixed and you are a genius.

If you're wrong, we all quietly forget about it until the next time you decide to take a wild stab in the dark.

Slick Pinkham
06-11-2008, 08:20 AM
Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, with rigorous standards of evidence.

The above quote, from astronomer Carl Sagan, applies to this. In fact it is one of my favorite quotes and applies to lots of conspiracy theories and headline-grabbing shocker-type stories.

If you hear something that doesn't make sense, an extraordinary claim, to believe it is not impossible but it requires extraordinary evidence, evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Chewy
06-11-2008, 08:27 AM
It's a league wide conspiracy i say, even the players are in it :laugh:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24892642

Unclebuck
06-11-2008, 08:33 AM
Needless to say I agree 100% with Kstat on everything he has posted in this thread.

Really though we probably should discuss each allegation individually. But since I don't believe Donaghy for one second, then there is really no need for me to do so.

The only thing I want to say is this. Lets assume the allegations are true, the NBA fixes games (however you want to define that) then I must say the NBA has without exceptions done a horrible job. Only 1 NBA Finals series has gone 7 games since 1994. How in the world have the Spurs won so often, they get terrible ratings, I mean if all this fixing hadn't been going on every series would be a 4 games sweep.

If I were as sure as some of you that the games are fixed, then I have one question. Why do you waste your time watching it then. I know I wouldn't if I believed like you.

grace
06-11-2008, 08:39 AM
Jack Ford from truTV was on Mike & Mike today. If they put a link of up the website I highly suggest you listen to it. In a nutshell he said it would ordinarily be suspicious of someone who starts naming names right before his sentencing hearing. However, Jack thinks that Donaghy and his lawyers are pissed that the NBA wants a million dollars in damages so he decided to name names.

Jack went on to say that he's sure someone is Congress is going to call for an investigation. He said it would be in Stern's best interest to be very cooperative with any investigation (in other words don't say "We've already investigated and there's nothing do it").

Greenie also read some letter from Ralph Nadar about the Lakers/Kings game, but I was only half listening.

Unclebuck
06-11-2008, 09:08 AM
OK, now we have Congress and Ralph Nader involved. They just need to stay out of it - they should just continue to ....oops, I better not Or I'll have to reprimand myself

Spicoli
06-11-2008, 09:57 AM
Jack Ford from truTV was on Mike & Mike today. If they put a link of up the website I highly suggest you listen to it. In a nutshell he said it would ordinarily be suspicious of someone who starts naming names right before his sentencing hearing. However, Jack thinks that Donaghy and his lawyers are pissed that the NBA wants a million dollars in damages so he decided to name names.

Jack went on to say that he's sure someone is Congress is going to call for an investigation. He said it would be in Stern's best interest to be very cooperative with any investigation (in other words don't say "We've already investigated and there's nothing do it").

Greenie also read some letter from Ralph Nadar about the Lakers/Kings game, but I was only half listening.


If there's one thing I've learned in life (and it's a result of my profession), it's to ALWAYS follow the money.

In private filings, the NBA has demanded Donaghy to pay $1 million in restitution to cover the NBA's costs associated with conducting its internal investigation into the matter.

Donaghy and his legal team are currently doing everything in their power to minimize his prison time as he is already a felon awaiting sentencing. Because he has been "cooperating" with the government, Donaghy's sentence will likely be in the 3 year range (compared to what could have been something like 25 years). If Donaghy is ordered to pay restitution to the NBA of $1 million, and he is unable to do so, he will not be getting out of prison in 3 years.

Thus, it is in his best interest to bring bigger ammunition into his fight with the NBA. And, what better way to harm the NBA than to bring into question the credibility of the league's games. Donaghy has some serious credibility issues himself, though, and I highly doubt his allegations of fixing games have any sort of truth to them. His allegations of refs being too cozy with team management, fraternizing with team members, and playing favorites are probably true. And that needs to be remedied (but that is a whole different topic).

It would now be in the NBA's best interest to simply rescend its demand for restitution, regardless of the fact this douchebag ref's accusations are most likely false. This will result in Donaghy having confidence in serving his shortened jail sentence and saving he and his family $1 million - which is a considerable sum to a referree.

Announcing all of these allegations in a PUBLIC letter (which would normally have been kept private) before Game 3 of the Finals after a game in which lopsided officiating was in question was the PERFECT time for his legal team to make this maneuver. It's all about him appearing to cooperate with authorities, shorten jail time, and save $$$$$$$.

He's a desparate douchenozzle doing everything he can to save his arse right now. I believe his accusations of fixing games are false. No doubt in my mind, however, that refs do have biases and sometimes influence games to the benefit of the NBA.



That is my NBA related post for 2008.

Arcadian
06-11-2008, 10:17 AM
I don't put any stock in what Donaghy says. He is a proven liar which an interest in lying about the state of the NBA.

I wish the government didn't feel the need to investigate sports.

idioteque
06-11-2008, 10:31 AM
I agree with those that don't believe that the NBA is fixed. It is an interesting idea and with Stern's attitude towards things it doesn't seem like it would be 100% out of the question but there is no way you could fix the outcomes of games in a professional sports league without someone coming to the forefront by now.

But at the same time I believe that Stern, through the referees, exercises his desired impact on games. Although he can't mold every game to his liking, he encourages referees to make calls that favor the large market teams that he visibly supports. That Larry Johnson four point play is one great example. Antonio Davis, if anything, fouled on the dribble and didn't touch Johnson during the shot. That is blatantly obvious if you watch the replay.

If any other opportunity, like the brawl, is to arise, then Stern of course is going to take the blatant opportunity to destroy a small market team. Stern paved the way to the Pistons winning the East that year.

There is no evidence that Stern has fixed a draft since the '85 Ewing draft via the bent envelope but the idea that he fixed the draft has garnered a lot of discussion and is the most infamous "conspiracy theory" in modern professional sports. Do you think Stern was really going to risk the garnering of evidence that he was imposing his direct wishes regarding different large market franchises? If you watch the video of that draft lottery, you'll see that the guy Stern has designated to throw the enveloped into the plastic dinghy slams one of the envelopes hard into the plastic, which dog ears the envelope, which assisted Stern in picking
the Knicks envelope last.

From time to time, Stern does what he can to impose his agenda of successful big market teams winning in the league. Does that make the whole league fixed? No, statistically there is no way that that's the case. But Stern's other dirty dealing alone would make me pity him very little if he had to sweat it out and disprove a Donaghy tell all.

Unclebuck
06-11-2008, 10:42 AM
But at the same time I believe that Stern, through the referees, exercises his desired impact on games. Although he can't mold every game to his liking, he encourages referees to make calls that favor the large market teams that he visibly supports. That Larry Johnson four point play is one great example. Antonio Davis, if anything, fouled on the dribble and didn't touch Johnson during the shot. That is blatantly obvious if you watch the replay.

You do know the NBA later did come out and did say that was a bad call and the ref who made the call, Jess kersey who at the time was considered one of the best refs in the NBA, from that point in time going forward, he did not work an eastern or western conference finals game ever agin, nor an NBA finals game. That cost him a ton of money. If he had some undue influence to make a call to help the Knicks, then he would be extremely bitter about it today - because he has probably lost at least $100K over the years.




There is no evidence that Stern has fixed a draft since the '85 Ewing draft via the bent envelope but the idea that he fixed the draft has garnered a lot of discussion and is the most infamous "conspiracy theory" in modern professional sports. Do you think Stern was really going to risk the garnering of evidence that he was imposing his direct wishes regarding different large market franchises? If you watch the video of that draft lottery, you'll see that the guy Stern has designated to throw the enveloped into the plastic dinghy slams one of the envelopes hard into the plastic, which dog ears the envelope, which assisted Stern in picking the Knicks envelope last.

From time to time, Stern does what he can to impose his agenda of successful big market teams winning in the league. Does that make the whole league fixed? No, statistically there is no way that that's the case. But Stern's other dirty dealing alone would make me pity him very little if he had to sweat it out and disprove a Donaghy tell all.

Yes I watched the super slow mo, super close up U-Tube video of the draft lottery, and it didn't look like it was fixed to me. Of course that was how many years ago?? Do you really think the guy knew which envelope the Knicks were in.

Basketball Fan
06-11-2008, 10:43 AM
Tinsley has done as much to destroy the pacers franchise as any other player. But his actions you can't really blame on David Stern....

Yes he has but he was a non factor in the brawl compared to the other three you know reading comprehension right?

Right. Not fining the Pistons was what led to the downfall of the Pacers.


No, not fining the Pistons set a precedent that they aren't held responsible for lack of security in their arenas if the roles were reversed and this happened at Conseco Pistons fans would be upset over the same thing.

The fan that threw the cup was banned for life. All the fans that could be identified were punished severely. Beyond that, he can't really punish the fans, can he?



...and this is what happens when we don't get to use facts. We make up absurd extreme scenarios.



...of course not...



He might have just wanted to talk to him about the extent of his involvement- naaaaah



...because they don't want help from a liar that can be discredited on the stand if they don't need it? It kinda helps at a trial...



...if he has nowhere to go but up by making this statement, how exactly does that make him credible?



Right. The NBA is dead. Compared to when it was so great when Stern took over in 1984...oh wait.

Compared to the NFL and MLB the NBA is dead in comparison. Magic/Bird were in their primes and then he got lucky with Jordan after that he's pretty much been a sitting duck. Stern's credibility is rather questionable at this point its not about then its about what have you done for me lately?

Really? He has the most strict referee policy in pro sports and he's supposed to monitor his phone calls too?


His referee policy isn't much of one the fact that all these guys are still working the games despite being implicated in this ref scandal directly or otherwise is questionable at best. One would think if Stern would want integrity restored in the league at least the perception of it he would get rid of these guys and get new ones who don't have a history of being questionable like Joey Crawford.

Kstat
06-11-2008, 12:13 PM
His referee policy isn't much of one the fact that all these guys are still working the games despite being implicated in this ref scandal directly or otherwise is questionable at best. One would think if Stern would want integrity restored in the league at least the perception of it he would get rid of these guys and get new ones who don't have a history of being questionable like Joey Crawford.

Yes, he should suspend and/or fire people from their jobs because Tim Donaghy said they were corrupt. That's a great reason.

Nevermind that the FBI found no evidence. Take their jobs away. They have it coming.

BoomBaby31
06-11-2008, 12:39 PM
I love it when people pretend to "know" that team X will cover the spread because of some great conspiracy...

If you're right, you get to tell everyone the NBA is fixed and you are a genius.

If you're wrong, we all quietly forget about it until the next time you decide to take a wild stab in the dark.


Probably wasn't in the best interest of the NBA fixing another game, especially after Donaghy was crying foul about previous rigged playoff games. Another thing, I am not claiming every single game is rigged or influenced intentionally. A game like this was suppose to cover because of game 2 being influenced and the public actually thinking the Celtics had a chance. The Lakers weren't hitting shots they normally would. The NBA has what they want -at least a game 6-.

BoomBaby31
06-11-2008, 12:42 PM
Yes, he should suspend and/or fire people from their jobs because Tim Donaghy said they were corrupt. That's a great reason.

Nevermind that the FBI found no evidence. Take their jobs away. They have it coming.


What type of evidence can they find? It's not like they can drug test these guys. Seems the only evidence is a convicted individual ratting out other persons like himself. He isn't the only one, not everyone is a "rigger" but there has to be at least be another one.

Kstat
06-11-2008, 12:54 PM
Probably wasn't in the best interest of the NBA fixing another game

But you guaranteed us all the Celtics would win by double figures AFTER hearing about it last night!


I am not claiming every single game is rigged or influenced intentionally.

You did last night, so that's at least one one that you were totally wrong about.


A game like this was suppose to cover because of game 2 being influenced and the public actually thinking the Celtics had a chance.

According to you, %83 of the money was on Boston, and vegas never touched the spread. So either they knew it was fixed or they are the dumbest people in the history of gambling.


The Lakers weren't hitting shots they normally would.

What a league. The Lakers aren't even good enough to put up THEIR end of the NBA-wide conspiracy.

If your first wild accusation doesn't stick to the wall, just throw some more out and pray one happens to go your way.

Zero accountability FTW!

Putnam
06-11-2008, 01:11 PM
This thread is an awesome solo performance by Kstat.

(EDIT: with a best supporting poster nomination to pacertom)



Not to detract from that, but I'm an innocent childe when it comes to gambling. The last time I bet on anything was in 1979 when I had Indiana State to win the NCAA Finals. So this makes me want to know:


Vegas' goal isn't to predict things. It's to get 50% action on both sides so that it takes all the vig and can't possibly lose any money.

What is "vig?"

Bball
06-11-2008, 01:12 PM
Could someone address what a man in Donaghy's position stands to gain by lying at this point? Once he is sentenced I can understand it, but I'm having a hard time understanding the risk vs reward scenario of making this stuff up right now.

-Bball

Slick Pinkham
06-11-2008, 01:33 PM
Probably wasn't in the best interest of the NBA fixing another game...


Let me get this straight, you have a theory (the games are fixed) and so you predicted the result that you thought would be most consistent with that result (a Lakers blowout win).

When it doesn't happen, you declare that this is still consistent with your theory, and the NBA conveniently decided to take a little layoff from the game-fixing.

Let me guess on game 4 and what it means, from your point of view:

LA wins big: the fix is in, the series is evened up like they wanted and momentum is in LA's favor, thus putting pressure on the Celtics to win highly rated games 6 and 7 at home.

LA wins a tight one: the fix is in. They needed a 2-2 tie to assure a 6 game series at least, so a couple of key little calls helped the Lakers.

Boston wins big: the fix WAS in, but people got wise to the plan, so a devious reverse fix was put in, to throw everyone except me off target.

Boston wins a squeaker: the fix is in-- down 3-1, it's set up for Kobe to emerge as the star and media darling, with all the pressure on him to deliver the goods in games 5 and 6 so the NBA can finally have the marketing successor to Jordan.


Ya gotta love a situation when you can spin every possible outcome as a validation of your "theory"


:o

Kstat
06-11-2008, 01:36 PM
If it rains today, it's because I have mystical powers.

If it doesn't rain today, it's because my powers decided not to work today or worked in reverse.

Get back to me tomorrow, though. You might be able to see my powers in action.

naptownmenace
06-11-2008, 01:43 PM
...because both Sacramento and the LA Lakers were having trouble selling playoff tickets in 2002...

If only Donaghy hadn't deliberately left Robert Horry open at the end of game 4. Worst call in playoff history.

:laugh:

I'm loving this thread.

Unclebuck
06-11-2008, 01:48 PM
Boston wins big: the fix WAS in, but people got wise to the plan, so a devious reverse fix was put in, to throw everyone except me off target.

Boston wins a squeaker: the fix is in-- down 3-1, it's set up for Kobe to emerge as the star and media darling, with all the pressure on him to deliver the goods in games 5 and 6 so the NBA can finally have the marketing successor to Jordan.


Ya gotta love a situation when you can spin every possible outcome as a validation of your "theory"


:o



LOL - very funny.


On a slightly different topic, and yet related. You know when the announcers jinx a free throw shooter. The announcer will say, Granger is shooting 85% and has made 45 FTs in a row. He misses the free throw and it will be the announcers fault, he jinxed it. But what about what the other 3 sets of announcers that are calling the same game, to really prove this beyond any doubt we would have to see what each set of announcers said and then and only then can the ft jinx theory finally be proven - now I realize that most people are just joking around - but then again, I always figured that people were joking around about the fixing of NBA games.

This thread should be nominated for thread of the year and Kstat should be nominated for the "best performance in a thread in a solo role"

pwee31
06-11-2008, 01:49 PM
Not saying that Donaghy is telling the truth, but those who are just dismissing his comments because of his character and history should maybe give what he's saying a 2nd thought.

Yeah his sentencing is coming up, but you still have to look at the argument from both sides of the coin.

For one, he obviously knew something, b/c while he was getting away with gambling... he did pretty well for himself.

Now the results of the games may vary win it comes to the final outcome, b/c players still have to make plays in end, but there's a lot of things that can happen to lead up to the moment.

Fouls and Free Throws are definitely one of them. It's not hard for an NBA official to keep a game within reach if they truly wanted to. Basketball officiating is never consistent, which is why you have times when it seems like they're letting players play, and other times where it appears they're calling touch fouls.

This is definitely a serious matter, and just b/c the guy relaying the info is in legal trouble, doesn't mean he's lying or making things up.

There's plenty of everyday cases in the courts where someone seems loyal, or doesn't want to "snitch" then when the pressure is on to save their own tail... all of a sudden they remember more of the incident.

To use another sporting example... look at the Michael Vick situation. When the story first broke, a lot of his friends and family were trying to protect him, but as the pressure came down on them, they started to admit more of his wrongdoing. So does that mean they're liars?

It's natural for some to remain quiet on situations thinking and hoping they'll be looked out for, and then when the tables turn, they have a lot more to say.

It's not up to me to call the guys bluff or not, it's up to the legal system, and there's times where innocent people are locked up, and other times where the guilty are let off the hook.

It really just depends on which side is more convincing, or has a better argument. Still doesn't mean that side is right.....

Kstat
06-11-2008, 01:53 PM
To use another sporting example... look at the Michael Vick situation. When the story first broke, a lot of his friends and family were trying to protect him, but as the pressure came down on them, they started to admit more of his wrongdoing. So does that mean they're liars?

The best part about the "benefit of the doubt" people is that they keep referencing other cases where guys ratted someone else out, which conveniently forgetting the fact they all had corroborating evidence, while Donaghy has no evidence at all.


It's not up to me to call the guys bluff or not, it's up to the legal system

The FBI found nothing, but apparently that's not good enough...

Unclebuck
06-11-2008, 02:01 PM
Could someone address what a man in Donaghy's position stands to gain by lying at this point? Once he is sentenced I can understand it, but I'm having a hard time understanding the risk vs reward scenario of making this stuff up right now.

-Bball

One theory, the NBA is trying to recover $1M from Donaghy, he might be using these allegations as a way to get the NBA to drop their claim. More than likely though he is just being vindictive. Has he presented any evidence.

If I walk into a police station and I say that someone told me my neighbor killed someone. First they would ask if I saw it, if I say no, they would want to talk to the person who told me this info, judge their credibility. then they would investigate, look for a murder weapon, look for a body and so forth. They would not just go arrest the guy based upon my flimsy second hand account. And all this is, is Donaghy's flimsy second hand account of things. He seems like he's been listening to too many sports talk shows from Sacramento.

pwee31
06-11-2008, 02:05 PM
The best part about the "benefit of the doubt" people is that they keep referencing other cases where guys ratted someone else out, which conveniently forgetting the fact they all had corroborating evidence, while Donaghy has no evidence at all.



The FBI found nothing, but apparently that's not good enough....

I understand the evidence argument, and that speaks for itself... but in fairness, there's been times where evidence was involved and they still may have gotten the case wrong.

Just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean that it's false. Which goes back to what I said earlier. It all comes down to the better argument, evidence.

Another example would be a story awhile back where a guy was falsely accused of crime, and sentenced, until more evidence came forward from a tv show

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/07/larry.david/index.html

Which helps me prove my point.

Once again I don't know if Donaghy is lying or not, but I do know that I'm not just going to throw his claim aside until everything is said and done.

Kstat
06-11-2008, 02:06 PM
e.

If I walk into a police station and I say that someone told me my neighbor killed someone. First they would ask if I saw it, if I say no, they would want to talk to the person who told me this info, judge their credibility. then they would investigate, look for a murder weapon, look for a body and so forth. They would just go arrest the guy badsed upon my flimsy second hand account.

It's even less credible than that, UB.

Unsupported testimony from a conspirator involved in the same criminal transaction isn't even admissible in court. They couldn't even put Donaghy on the stand or file a prosecution without actual evidence.


Just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean that it's false.

actually, it kinda does.


Another example would be a story awhile back where a guy was falsely accused of crime, and sentenced, until more evidence came forward from a tv show

Are you just randomly searching bad convictions, or is there some actual relevance here?

There were innocent bystanders that testified against him. They were obviously poor witnesses, but that is still way more credible than Donaghy has.

If Donaghy was innocent of any wrongdoing, it would be more credible. The fact he's involved in fixing games means his statements are meaningless without proof.

Putnam
06-11-2008, 02:07 PM
OK, I'll take a turn.

Donaghy is a liar and cheater whose word cannot be believed and whose motives are suspect, right? That's KStat's contention and I believe it. But this same guy was a licensed NBA referee. Doesn't that right there sort of cast a blot on the reputation of the NBA's referee corps?

I don't stand with those who claim to know David Stern's inner motives or who point to a particular game outcome and claim it as proof of a fix. But I do think that the worse Tim Donaghy is made to look, the worse it is for the NBA, too.

At the very least, why didn't the league catch him sooner? And why is the game not organized so that it will be crystal clear that a ref is or isn't fairly enforcing the rules at every moment of every game. That is a tall order, I know. And other games have their issues with calling the strike zone, breaking the plane of the end zone, leg-before-wicket, and so on. But I think the NBA needs to fix its face as regards allowable contact (if any contact at all should be allowed). Maybe the worst aspect of Tim Donaghy is that it will focus attention on people, when the more serious problem is the rules.

naptownmenace
06-11-2008, 02:12 PM
The only thing I want to say is this. Lets assume the allegations are true, the NBA fixes games (however you want to define that) then I must say the NBA has without exceptions done a horrible job. Only 1 NBA Finals series has gone 7 games since 1994. How in the world have the Spurs won so often, they get terrible ratings, I mean if all this fixing hadn't been going on every series would be a 4 games sweep.


BINGO! If they fix games, they're terrible at it.

It's almost like some equate bad officiating in any given game with a purposely contrived scheme from the commissioner. Some don't want to believe that bad officiating can only be bad officiating. There has to be more to it! :rolleyes:

There were a ton of blown calls in that Lakers vs. Kings game 6 but the refs didn't make the Kings miss all those free throws or cause Doug Christie and Peja to miss multiple wide open shots. Refs don't put the ball in the basket.

Kstat
06-11-2008, 02:20 PM
But this same guy was a licensed NBA referee. Doesn't that right there sort of cast a blot on the reputation of the NBA's referee corps?

Does that mean if someone you worked with is convicted of fraud, then you yourself should be under suspicion, regardless of any actual proof?


I don't stand with those who claim to know David Stern's inner motives or who point to a particular game outcome and claim it as proof of a fix. But I do think that the worse Tim Donaghy is made to look, the worse it is for the NBA, too.

..and Donaghy is making every effort to make it appear that way. That's all people without factual evidence can focus on: appearances.


At the very least, why didn't the league catch him sooner?

Were they supposed to wire tap his phone lines? Do you think he was actually doing his business out on the open?


And why is the game not organized so that it will be crystal clear that a ref is or isn't fairly enforcing the rules at every moment of every game.

Mind reading technology hasn't been invented yet?

Putnam
06-11-2008, 02:41 PM
Does that mean if someone you worked with is convicted of fraud, then you yourself should be under suspicion, regardless of any actual proof?

No, but it might mean that my employer had not been diligent in hiring honest men.


Mind reading technology hasn't been invented yet?<!-- / message -->

I'm asking not so much about conversations with gamblers as with bad calls on the floor.

Gladiatorial combat was never screwed up by the rules or the officials and there was never any doubt that it would be or could be. The bout lasted until one guy was dead. Then the guy who wasn't dead was declared the winner.

I admit no sport since then has been as clear-cut. But I think NBA basketball is particularly bad. What constitutes a foul, and what constitutes traveling are two questions that are very confusing. It makes it possible for a crook like Donaghy to affect the outcome of a game without his action being subject to proof. What's more, well-intentioned referees can make the same kind of mistakes that Doneghy did (albeit more randomly), thus affecting the outcomes of games.

JayRedd
06-11-2008, 02:44 PM
What is "vig?"

The "vig" is the fee it costs to make a bet with a bookie or a more formal sports book. Generally, it is 10% of the wager although 5% is used commonly on occassion (mostly to promote betting action and increase the volume of money being wagered).

For instance, anyone who bet on Boston last night at +9.5 pts likely paid $110 to make $100. When Boston covered, they got a total payoff of $200 ($200 = $110 original wager + $100 profit - $10 vig). Similarly, it would have taken $2,200 to make $2,000.

The real answer is that the "vig" is how bookies and sports books make their money.

The goal is to never "pick a side." Vegas could care less what the outcome of any game is as a rule. They just want high volume.

A perfectly set line would get 50% of all the money wagered on Celtics and 50% of all the money wagered on the Lakers. Then the book pays out the winning side with the money it took in from the losing side. And it keeps the 10% vig from the winning side.

So let's say $18 million was bet on LA last night and $18 million was bet on Boston. Boston covered the spread so those who picked Boston win and get paid back $16.2 million ($18 million - 10% vig). But, meanwhile, the book took in $18 million from the LA-backing losers. So they just cleared $1.8 million. And they would have made the exact same $1.8 million if Boston hadn't covered the spread from the reverse direction.

If whoever claimed 83% of the money was ever on the Celtics to cover (which Boston did) was correct (which they couldn't have been) then Vegas would have been out tens of millions of dollars. There's no way they would have let that happen. The oddsmakers are incredibly skilled at setting a line that will cause the public to bet equally on each side and when they do miss the mark, the line moves during the week to promote action on the side with less than 50% of the betting volume.

On a regular season Toronto vs. Memphis game the line may be skewed with 60% action on Toronto and they'll let it slide without moving the line too much. But in a high-profile event like the NBA Finals -- where less-seasoned gamblers make an incredible amout of wagers compared to random regular season games -- the betting volume goes through the roof. So they would never allow themselves to be so greatly exposed for losses as they would be with "83%" volume on any one side. To do that would mean Vegas themselves was "gambling" which they are ironically not in the business of doing. They are in the process of taking a fee to process other people's wagers.

This whole thing explains the giant misnomer most people believe about the point spread. The line is in no way Vegas' "prediction" of what the games outcome will be. It's a prediction of what spread will lead to in indecisive public whose collective opinion on the outcome will be split evenly.

Putnam
06-11-2008, 02:52 PM
Thanks, JayRedd.

Eighty percent of the time I can never tell what you are talking about. But that explanation was perfectly clear and thorough.

grace
06-11-2008, 02:58 PM
There were a ton of blown calls in that Lakers vs. Kings game 6 but the refs didn't make the Kings miss all those free throws or cause Doug Christie and Peja to miss multiple wide open shots. Refs don't put the ball in the basket.

No, I can't prove that the NBA is fixing games, but the theory that they blow calls in hopes of sending a series to game seven so there's another game that refs can get paid for doesn't seem all that out of the realm of possibility to me. Had the refs made the calls they should have maybe those free throws would have been made and other shots would have fallen. Or maybe the Lakers would have gotten so ticked off about fouls being called they would have decided if a foul is going to be called they might as well foul Doug Christie hard and make it worth their while. And then Jackie Christie goes berserk and comes down out of the stands and starts a brawl...cups and punches fly...a dust pan emerges...suspensions are handed out...security is increased league wide which means the Pacers/Pistons brawl never happens...the Pacers make it to the NBA finals against the Lakers...the referees know Pacers fans still remember the fact that Shaq's 6th foul wasn't called until he'd committed at least ten fouls so they decide they better call a clean game...and Reggie gets to retire with a ring.

JayRedd
06-11-2008, 03:00 PM
Thanks, JayRedd.

Eighty percent of the time I can never tell what you are talking about. But that explanation was perfectly clear and thorough.

Don't tell UB.

Unclebuck
06-11-2008, 03:05 PM
Don't tell UB.

What? I don't get it

pwee31
06-11-2008, 03:07 PM
It's even less credible than that, UB.

Unsupported testimony from a conspirator involved in the same criminal transaction isn't even admissible in court. They couldn't even put Donaghy on the stand or file a prosecution without actual evidence.



actually, it kinda does.



Are you just randomly searching bad convictions, or is there some actual relevance here?

There were innocent bystanders that testified against him. They were obviously poor witnesses, but that is still way more credible than Donaghy has.

If Donaghy was innocent of any wrongdoing, it would be more credible. The fact he's involved in fixing games means his statements are meaningless without proof.


No evidence automatically means you're lying? Give me a break!

I could say I choked on a granola bar a few years back, and have no evidence that it happened. So that means I never choked on it?

Why would I have to randomly search for bad convictions? It was actually a pretty big story, and I think it proves my point. The guy even had tickets as his evidence, and of course they didn't stick, but luckily for him the footage from the show saved his backside.

So was the guy convicted lying since he didn't have enough evidence? That's what you're saying right? Since no evidence has to mean you're wrong or lying right?

And I'm not even trying to take Donaghy's side, and I understand that EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion. I just don't see how evidence means everything. Of course it means something... hell it can mean a lot, but not everything. Can you imagine this world if evidence was all you could go by?

I could post a thread about how I met Mike Dunleavy, and how awesome he was, and how well he carries himself in person.
If I don't post pictures or evidence of the encounter, or if Dunleavy doesn't remember me, or says it didn't happen, then I must be lying right?

Yeah I have to randomly search for your OJ stories, your Kobe in Denver stories, your Duke lacrosse stories, your MLB steriod stories.

Ha, and I may also believe Donaghy is lying as well, but i also don't know if he's telling the truth either.

I guess I'm one of the few that doesn't have inside information

pwee31
06-11-2008, 03:10 PM
I'll quit commenting on this situation. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers, just tried to get my 2 cents in.

i'll see ya in the other threads!

JayRedd
06-11-2008, 03:12 PM
What? I don't get it

You have a gambling problem.

The last thing we need you to be more informed about how to try to "beat the system" and start saying "so if I bet $100 on every NBA game next season, all I have to do is get 2/3 of them correct and I can retire? Where do I sign up."

Slick Pinkham
06-11-2008, 03:19 PM
pwee31,

If you are claiming something as absolute fact and have no evidence for it, you may be telling the truth or you may telling a lie.

If neither side has facts to support the argument, then it's just a battle of trust: who do you believe?

You can believe the vindictive guy on his way to jail if you want.

To me it doesn't make sense, and since his story is so sensationalistic, and I choose to demand evidence and choose to assume he is lying if he is unable to produce any. Serious claims demand serious evidence.

I'm not going to call you a liar for having no evidence of choking on the granola bar. If you are claiming something more fantastic, like maybe that aliens abducted you for cloning purposes, then I naturally have a higher burden of proof in mind in terms of deciding whether you are on the up-and-up.

idioteque
06-11-2008, 03:27 PM
You do know the NBA later did come out and did say that was a bad call and the ref who made the call, Jess kersey who at the time was considered one of the best refs in the NBA, from that point in time going forward, he did not work an eastern or western conference finals game ever agin, nor an NBA finals game. That cost him a ton of money. If he had some undue influence to make a call to help the Knicks, then he would be extremely bitter about it today - because he has probably lost at least $100K over the years.

Fair enough, although if someone is going to have the leash shortened on them that much, are they even capable of being an NBA ref in the first place. There are plenty of other examples of star-based and franchise-based calling in the last 24 years, but you make a great point here.



Yes I watched the super slow mo, super close up U-Tube video of the draft lottery, and it didn't look like it was fixed to me. Of course that was how many years ago?? Do you really think the guy knew which envelope the Knicks were in.

Really? You didn't notice how the guy placing the envelopes into the shaker thing doesn't just slam the Knicks envelope into the cube as hard as he can to dent it up while just tossing the other ones?

Unclebuck
06-11-2008, 03:29 PM
You have a gambling problem.

The last thing we need you to be more informed about how to try to "beat the system" and start saying "so if I bet $100 on every NBA game next season, all I have to do is get 2/3 of them correct and I can retire? Where do I sign up."

I'm in denial, but I'm already savbing my money for November

Since86
06-11-2008, 03:34 PM
pwee31,

If you are claiming something as absolute fact and have no evidence for it, you may be telling the truth or you may telling a lie.

If neither side has facts to support the argument, then it's just a battle of trust: who do you believe?

You can believe the vindictive guy on his way to jail if you want.

To me it doesn't make sense, and since his story is so sensationalistic, and I choose to demand evidence and choose to assume he is lying if he is unable to produce any. Serious claims demand serious evidence.

I'm not going to call you a liar for having no evidence of choking on the granola bar. If you are claiming something more fantastic, like maybe that aliens abducted you for cloning purposes, then I naturally have a higher burden of proof in mind in terms of deciding whether you are on the up-and-up.


While it's not concrete evidence, I think the (sorry I had to bring it up) LJ 4-pt play is stuff that causes people to believe without having definitive proof.

When unexplainable things happen, like that play, it makes you stratch your head. The draft where NY got the #1 pick, where Stern tosses in the envelop differently. Was it NY's? I don't know. Did he do it on purpose? I don't know. It does clang against the side of the ball, or whatever you want to call it, and he did put it in there differently than he did the rest.

Sure everything could be coincidence. I doubt it's some grand scheme to control events, like pro wrestling, but it makes you wonder.

If a ref could go as long as he did without getting caught, doesn't get caught by the league but by a federal investigation, it's not out of the realm of possibility it goes on by other refs.

It's a pretty easy thing to cover up, because it's not an exact science. There are already built in excuses because they are judgement calls.

IMHO, telling refs to concentrate on traveling calls or defensive three seconds on a particular game is changing it. Calls should be called as close as possible from one game to the next.

There should be no concentrating on one aspect for a particular game, or series, or time period. That means that you're not calling it right to begin.


Overall summary? There's too many discrepiencies to just write it off that Donaghy was the only one doing it because he's the only one who got caught.

EDIT: Should have read the entire thread before posting.

idioteque
06-11-2008, 03:42 PM
right. players not staying healthy, Artest demanding a trade, players having shootouts at stripclubs...David Stern started all of that.

Stern set all of the events in motion. Misrepresenting my argument FTW? Whose to say Tinsley wouldn't have had a better attitude toward the team had we kept winning in 04-05 and eventually won the title? Would being the third option on a title contending team kept Jackson in line? Plenty of players in the past have learned to stay out of trouble when they're in a winning situation. Artest demanding a trade actually stems directly from the brawl, he said the Pacers needed a "fresh start" without him. Had Stern suspended him fairly (30 games IMO) instead of giving him a draconian sentence that only made him look even worse in the public eye?


wow...the knicks haven't needed any lottery picks lately?Hard to get a lottery pick when you've traded away almost half of your lottery picks since 2004.



You realize half the players in the NBA make more than David Stern...And that means what in terms of any decision making power they have for the league's wellbeing? The Artest suspension, as Stern said himself, was a 1-0 vote. There's not some parliament of maxed out, star players, who could have pressured Stern to lighten the position. Yes, the players union did appeal, but that did just about nothing, didn't it?

JohnnyBGoode
06-11-2008, 04:42 PM
The NBA is fixed, period! Anyone who thinks otherwise is certifiable. I quit believing in the tooth fairy many years ago, and to take the NBA seriously is a waste of time. I watch the NBA for entertainment and sometimes a ball game breaks out.

Slick Pinkham
06-11-2008, 04:54 PM
The NBA is fixed, period! Anyone who thinks otherwise is certifiable. I quit believing in the tooth fairy many years ago, and to take the NBA seriously is a waste of time. I watch the NBA for entertainment and sometimes a ball game breaks out.

OK, then.

That settles it right there.


http://thejiveman.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/tinfoil-hat.jpg

waterjater
06-11-2008, 07:42 PM
[QUOTE=Kstat;733961]McNamee had physical evidence. Donaghy had nothing.

Huh?? He does...hasn't been tested yet. He's just a convicted Steriods dealer and cheater...so I guess he's lying. I don't know either way candidly.

[QUOTE=Kstat;733961] McNamee is not a convicted felon. Donaghy is.

(Mcnamee dealt in illegal steriods...just as bad in my opinion)

[QUOTE=Kstat;733961] Other than that though, they're exactly the same... totally fair comparison.

Regardless of fair comparision its about believability. I'm not sure I believe Donaghy or not but other than trying to reduce the $1M fine, I see no reason to lie and like the the Jemele Hill article....the dirtiest folks typically end up telling the strongest truths and it may or may not come to this.

[QUOTE=Kstat;733961] We get it. You want Donaghy to be right, and you want to believe him very badly so you can come out and say NBA games are corrupt, and you've been cheated all these years.

I certainly would like to find out what is the truth and what isn't!! It is a fact that corruption has occured in the NBA and at the very least with just Dohaghy. And yes, a part of me wants Donaghy's accusations found to be true.

[QUOTE=Kstat;733961] It's not going to happen.

Only time will tell.....



Kstat- you are definitely strong in your convictions and I admire that (we are all entitled to our opinion). I just don't think it is as clear cut as you suggest in this case. For him to do what he's done for this long means he's had help and knows what info to give to gamblers.

What everyone forgets is even if it was just Donaghy, the NBA hasn't been pure for many years and last years playoffs were impacted by his gambling and adjusting outcomes of games. There has without a doubt been games fixed in the NBA over the past several years...PERIOD and with Evidence to back it up as you require, otherwise Donaghy wouldn't be a convicted Felon!

I'm anxious to learn the truth because we haven't seen the results of the FBI investigation (no evidence one way or the other at this point)...just Stern saying they didn't find anything. And frankly, I don't have any reason to believe Stern at this point either.

Water

Slick Pinkham
06-11-2008, 08:57 PM
I'm not sure I believe Donaghy or not but other than trying to reduce the $1M fine, I see no reason to lie


The guy had it made, and the league kicked him out. He is bitter and noe he's "throwing a hand grenade into the room hoping some people get hit".

The guy had the life, now he has nothing, and he wants to strike back, so he creates some type of potentially believable story, and throws it out there hoping to damage the league, because of his problems. He is a disgruntled former employee who is vengeful.

If you worked in the White house for 20 years, were a loyal employee, then did something and got fired, what would you do? Wait until the eve of the election then drop some bombshell at exactly the point it will get the most attention.

Truth doesnt matter, you want attention, and revenge.

Revenge, anger, cravings for attention, and psychological issues are all strong reasons for the Tim Donaghys (and Matt Walshs) of the world to fabricate stuff.

Bball
06-11-2008, 10:04 PM
The guy had it made, and the league kicked him out. He is bitter and noe he's "throwing a hand grenade into the room hoping some people get hit".

The guy had the life, now he has nothing, and he wants to strike back, so he creates some type of potentially believable story, and throws it out there hoping to damage the league, because of his problems. He is a disgruntled former employee who is vengeful.

If you worked in the White house for 20 years, were a loyal employee, then did something and got fired, what would you do? Wait until the eve of the election then drop some bombshell at exactly the point it will get the most attention.

Truth doesnt matter, you want attention, and revenge.

Revenge, anger, cravings for attention, and psychological issues are all strong reasons for the Tim Donaghys (and Matt Walshs) of the world to fabricate stuff.

The only thing wrong with your answer would be that his timing makes no sense. If he wants to throw a hand grenade into the league's reputation, and it's going to just be lies, then you do that AFTER your sentencing. Of course the fact is, if he IS telling the truth and waited, the same people not even willing to give him the time of day now would be saying "Why didn't he come out with this BEFORE he was sentenced?"

It makes no sense to lie right now except for the argument that this is a last ditch effort to get the NBA to forget about their desire to nail him for a 1,000,000.00 reimbursement. And even then, it's a dangerous gamble in light of the fact he hasn't been sentenced yet.

-Bball

Plax80
06-11-2008, 11:50 PM
The guy had it made, and the league kicked him out. He is bitter and noe he's "throwing a hand grenade into the room hoping some people get hit".

The guy had the life, now he has nothing, and he wants to strike back, so he creates some type of potentially believable story, and throws it out there hoping to damage the league, because of his problems. He is a disgruntled former employee who is vengeful.

If you worked in the White house for 20 years, were a loyal employee, then did something and got fired, what would you do? Wait until the eve of the election then drop some bombshell at exactly the point it will get the most attention.

Truth doesnt matter, you want attention, and revenge.

Revenge, anger, cravings for attention, and psychological issues are all strong reasons for the Tim Donaghys (and Matt Walshs) of the world to fabricate stuff.

Everybody with an IQ above 80 knows that the NBA has been "tinkering" with the outcome of games since Michael Jordan ruled the league.

Donaghy is certainly not a victim in any of this, but to make a blanket statement that he's a liar about this is akin to Vince McMahon shaking his finger to Bob Costas.

Lets add this up quickly:
League struggles for ratings and revenue after Bird-Magic era...........Jordan comes along and is only thing that captures attention of casual fan.........I wonderi f MJ in the Finals is good for business???

I wonder if NBC wants Tiger Woods in the final pairing on Sunday??

So we start "helping" MJ by blowing some extra whistles in 4th qtrs of pivotal games.

Once that works out so well............logically Stern has found himself a new toy...........

it continues with the "lengthening of series like Miami -Dallas"

or by "altering" the Laker-Kings series..........and even extends beyond into series like the Mavs-Rockets........

well duh !!

You think Rasheed Wallace was being funny when he choose the word entertainment to describe NBA playoff action instead of sport.

So Donaghy gets himself into trouble by being greedy and getting into betting on games he knows will be influenced by officials.........gamblers get wind of this and he gets in even deeper........and now he finds himself in court.........spilling his guts to the Feds.........Imagine that.

And all the while............ole Joey Crawford keeps getting to ref pivotal NBA playoff games...........

Only question remaining is how long before ole Vince Stern shows up on the court wielding a chair in Tim Duncan's direction.

The funniest thing about the whole thing is that I really think Vince stopped the practice after the embarrasment over the Heat-Mavs Finals. They never intended to push the trophy to Miami......they just wanted to avoid a 4 or 5 game blitz by Dallas.............then after giving them two wins.....Miami actually wins game 6 on their own.............Ouch.

My opinion------couldn't happen to a nicer fella.........lets finally get him off his ivory tower and get the sport out of the gutter.

Slick Pinkham
06-11-2008, 11:56 PM
The only thing wrong with your answer would be that his timing makes no sense.

Once the Finals are over, and the draft is over later this month, NBA basketball drops from the front pages and nobody but us diehards cares much until about November 1

Actually, most don't notice until sometime in January.

If Donaghy wants attention, this was precisely the week to do it. Not when sports reporters are all fcoused on other stuff like the Olympics or football season. Right now gets him maximum exposure. He feels mighty important.

JayRedd
06-11-2008, 11:59 PM
Everybody with an IQ above 80 knows that the NBA has been "tinkering" with the outcome of games since Michael Jordan ruled the league.

Donaghy is certainly not a victim in any of this, but to make a blanket statement that he's a liar about this is akin to Vince McMahon shaking his finger to Bob Costas.

Lets add this up quickly:
League struggles for ratings and revenue after Bird-Magic era...........Jordan comes along and is only thing that captures attention of casual fan.........I wonderi f MJ in the Finals is good for business???

I wonder if NBC wants Tiger Woods in the final pairing on Sunday??

So we start "helping" MJ by blowing some extra whistles in 4th qtrs of pivotal games.

Once that works out so well............logically Stern has found himself a new toy...........

it continues with the "lengthening of series like Miami -Dallas"

or by "altering" the Laker-Kings series..........and even extends beyond into series like the Mavs-Rockets........

well duh !!

You think Rasheed Wallace was being funny when he choose the word entertainment to describe NBA playoff action instead of sport.

So Donaghy gets himself into trouble by being greedy and getting into betting on games he knows will be influenced by officials.........gamblers get wind of this and he gets in even deeper........and now he finds himself in court.........spilling his guts to the Feds.........Imagine that.

And all the while............ole Joey Crawford keeps getting to ref pivotal NBA playoff games...........

Only question remaining is how long before ole Vince Stern shows up on the court wielding a chair in Tim Duncan's direction.

The funniest thing about the whole thing is that I really think Vince stopped the practice after the embarrasment over the Heat-Mavs Finals. They never intended to push the trophy to Miami......they just wanted to avoid a 4 or 5 game blitz by Dallas.............then after giving them two wins.....Miami actually wins game 6 on their own.............Ouch.

My opinion------couldn't happen to a nicer fella.........lets finally get him off his ivory tower and get the sport out of the gutter.

Clearly.

I only have two questions:


How is NBC getting Tiger to play on Sunday? Magnets?

And during all this, when did Stern find the time to implode the Twin Towers?

Plax80
06-12-2008, 12:04 AM
Clearly.

I only have two questions:


How is NBC getting Tiger to play on Sunday? Magnets?

And during all this, when did Stern find the time to implode the Twin Towers?


1. NBC can't ....... that's why its a sport and not reality TV.

2. Right after serving as one of the Hulkamaniacs instrumental in dropping Andre the giant to the canvas..............what ya goin to do when Joey Crawford blows the whistle on you ???

Slick Pinkham
06-12-2008, 12:12 AM
I just want somebody to answer UncleBuck's questions earlier in the thread:

If the NBA is fixing eveything, why are they so incredibly bad at it?

Why has there been just one 7-game final in the last 14 tears?

Why were the low-ratings, boring, smaller-market Spurs allowed to be the decade's best franchise? Boring, low-ratings despite the market size Detroit one of the top few franchises?

Why until this year did all the success in the lottery go to smaller market bad teams?

rock747
06-12-2008, 12:31 AM
Wow, the NBA has always had this Conspiracy undercurrent. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. I'm not writing this off as bogus.

rock747
06-12-2008, 12:37 AM
I just want somebody to answer UncleBuck's questions earlier in the thread:

If the NBA is fixing eveything, why are they so incredibly bad at it?

Why has there been just one 7-game final in the last 14 tears?

Why were the low-ratings, boring, smaller-market Spurs allowed to be the decade's best franchise? Boring, low-ratings despite the market size Detroit one of the top few franchises?

Why until this year did all the success in the lottery go to smaller market bad teams?

But there is almost always a big market team or highly marketable player in the finals. Whens the last time you saw a milwaukee- utah finals indiana seattle finals etc. Never.

I think most of the "fixing" pertains to officiating. Donahgy's claims were that the league told the refs how to officiate certain players and teams. There is no way that games could be completley fixed, but officials can definetly dictate them.

If you don't agree that NBA officiating is suspicious or atleast inconsistent you haven't been watching the NBA.

Plax80
06-12-2008, 12:38 AM
I just want somebody to answer UncleBuck's questions earlier in the thread:

If the NBA is fixing eveything, why are they so incredibly bad at it?

Why has there been just one 7-game final in the last 14 tears?

Why were the low-ratings, boring, smaller-market Spurs allowed to be the decade's best franchise? Boring, low-ratings despite the market size Detroit one of the top few franchises?

Why until this year did all the success in the lottery go to smaller market bad teams?

Why didn't barry Bonds hit a HR every time up??

No one thinks that the fix has been in on every call/lottery ever held. That doesn't mean the Patrick Ewing lotto was legit though.

It doesn't mean that Dwayne Wade FTA's in games 3-5 against Dallas weren't artificially inflated.

It doesn't mean that LA's 28 4th qtr FTs against Sacramento were legitimate.

So the Knicks stink........defense rests........Vince better call Robert Shapiro right away.

You can bet that Donaghy has either already taken a polygraph for the Feds or will be taking one soon..........no wonder Stern was so shaken up by the initial reports concerning Donaghy 9 mths ago.

Funny, I don't remember Giamatti or Goddell being quite so unnerved by their sports' scandals.

Bball
06-12-2008, 01:07 AM
I just want somebody to answer UncleBuck's questions earlier in the thread:

If the NBA is fixing eveything, why are they so incredibly bad at it?

Why has there been just one 7-game final in the last 14 tears?

Why were the low-ratings, boring, smaller-market Spurs allowed to be the decade's best franchise? Boring, low-ratings despite the market size Detroit one of the top few franchises?

Why until this year did all the success in the lottery go to smaller market bad teams?

I think some of you are missing the point. It's not that the NBA is actually 'fixing' games to the point of scripting a winner (ala the WWE), it's that the NBA has asked refs to 'massage' the results for entertainment value. ...Obviously that will give certain players, and thus their teams, an advantage but there is only so far a game can be controlled from outside unless the players are all in on it too.

I don't think there is any question that refs play favorites and certain players are given far more leeway to look good than others. I don't doubt personal grudges develop between certain refs and players or coaches... This may stay dormant for quite some time but at some point that ref will 'get even'. In the world of judgement calls, how do you know?

Isn't it odd how many games have fantastic comebacks? Now, the team making the comeback might not get there all the way but is it so hard to believe the refs have been informed that comebacks are better for entertainment than blowouts with a wink and a nod if not a specific instruction?

Stern never said that what Donaghy was saying was untrue (in what I read), instead Stern made a reply about the FBI finding the NBA was doing nothing illegal. Is the WWE doing anything illegal when they go so far as script outcomes? So, why would the NBA be doing anything illegal if their refs were given instructions to keep the scores close by giving judgment calls to the trailing team, or by protecting star players or even making them look even better (let them have an extra step, give them the call if their shot isn't falling, swallow the whistle so they can play 'tighter' defense, etc).

I don't find it hard to believe that the NBA would look to manage and massage games for entertainment purposes. I also don't find it so hard to believe that the NBA would ask them to use their whistle to subtly influence and extend a series. It's just not that much of a leap from something that I think many of us believe: That stars get 'star treatment'.

That doesn't mean overall that the NBA is trying to slot a champion from draft to the Finals... Only that they are massaging outcomes via judgment calls of the officials who know there is a bit of an agenda to keep games entertaining on a couple of levels (by making stars shine whenever possible and by promoting an environment that allows comebacks... and possibly creating a climate to extend a series).

That doesn't mean that the team that the NBA/refs want to win will win. Players have to make their FT's and teams have to hang onto the ball. If you hit some miracle shots, don't give the refs too many opportunities to make these questionable 'judgment calls', the other team misses their FT's, etc then it doesn't matter how much the refs grease the skids... unless they want to be as obvious as Sonny Liston getting KO'ed by a phantom Muhammed Ali punch. And I doubt the NBA is quite that into seeing a specific outcome anyway. But to see that they put a finger on the scales to give the most entertaining (or $$$ful) outcome a better chance??? Yeah... I can see that.

I don't know if Donaghy is telling the truth or not... BUT to dismiss him based on what WE know (which includes very little of what he's said behind closed doors)? I don't know how some of you do that except on blind faith in the NBA.

Donaghy himself is evidence that the game isn't as pure as we'd hope. The man is taking an extreme gamble to lie about these things BEFORE his sentencing. Maybe he thinks he has to in order to get the NBA to drop their intentions to be reimbursed $1M from him. It's still a dangerous tactic... Much less dangerous if it's true though.

If the question is: Is the NBA fixed?
The answer... IMHO... is: It depends.

There's no doubt refs manage games and hand out star treatment to certain players. Donaghy is saying it goes further. Is it really that hard to believe it would?

Let's not forget how Stern has marketed the NBA pushing stars over teams.

All the ingredients are in the stew. Let's just see how they blend together before dumping it down the drain and moving on.

rock747
06-12-2008, 01:12 AM
Great post ^


I think its almost an "unwritten rule" that the big market teams and player get the calls. If the NBA is sanctioning this though, thats when you really have a problem. Exspecially telling officials to make sure that the stars don't get ejected or foul out. How many times have you seen a foul called, and two players are near the foul. One is a star, one is a average player. The foul is given to the average player, you watch the replay and it was obvious the star player commited the foul.

waterjater
06-12-2008, 01:20 AM
Wow! Very well stated Bball and this is pretty much where I stand on all this (i'm a little more extreme on it but this is dead on my thoughts). Also loved Plax80's fun walk though it all.

It is going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I think Plax80 even commented on Sheed's "its entertainment" which falls right into this description as well.

Water



I think some of you are missing the point. It's not that the NBA is actually 'fixing' games to the point of scripting a winner (ala the WWE), it's that the NBA has asked refs to 'massage' the results for entertainment value. ...Obviously that will give certain players, and thus their teams, an advantage but there is only so far a game can be controlled from outside unless the players are all in on it too.

I don't think there is any question that refs play favorites and certain players are given far more leeway to look good than others. I don't doubt personal grudges develop between certain refs and players or coaches... This may stay dormant for quite some time but at some point that ref will 'get even'. In the world of judgement calls, how do you know?

Isn't it odd how many games have fantastic comebacks? Now, the team making the comeback might not get there all the way but is it so hard to believe the refs have been informed that comebacks are better for entertainment than blowouts with a wink and a nod if not a specific instruction?

Stern never said that what Donaghy was saying was untrue (in what I read), instead Stern made a reply about the FBI finding the NBA was doing nothing illegal. Is the WWE doing anything illegal when they go so far as script outcomes? So, why would the NBA be doing anything illegal if their refs were given instructions to keep the scores close by giving judgment calls to the trailing team, or by protecting star players or even making them look even better (let them have an extra step, give them the call if their shot isn't falling, swallow the whistle so they can play 'tighter' defense, etc).

I don't find it hard to believe that the NBA would look to manage and massage games for entertainment purposes. I also don't find it so hard to believe that the NBA would ask them to use their whistle to subtly influence and extend a series. It's just not that much of a leap from something that I think many of us believe: That stars get 'star treatment'.

That doesn't mean overall that the NBA is trying to slot a champion from draft to the Finals... Only that they are massaging outcomes via judgment calls of the officials who know there is a bit of an agenda to keep games entertaining on a couple of levels (by making stars shine whenever possible and by promoting an environment that allows comebacks... and possibly creating a climate to extend a series).

That doesn't mean that the team that the NBA/refs want to win will win. Players have to make their FT's and teams have to hang onto the ball. If you hit some miracle shots, don't give the refs too many opportunities to make these questionable 'judgment calls', the other team misses their FT's, etc then it doesn't matter how much the refs grease the skids... unless they want to be as obvious as Sonny Liston getting KO'ed by a phantom Muhammed Ali punch. And I doubt the NBA is quite that into seeing a specific outcome anyway. But to see that they put a finger on the scales to give the most entertaining (or $$$ful) outcome a better chance??? Yeah... I can see that.

I don't know if Donaghy is telling the truth or not... BUT to dismiss him based on what WE know (which includes very little of what he's said behind closed doors)? I don't know how some of you do that except on blind faith in the NBA.

Donaghy himself is evidence that the game isn't as pure as we'd hope. The man is taking an extreme gamble to lie about these things BEFORE his sentencing. Maybe he thinks he has to in order to get the NBA to drop their intentions to be reimbursed $1M from him. It's still a dangerous tactic... Much less dangerous if it's true though.

If the question is: Is the NBA fixed?
The answer... IMHO... is: It depends.

There's no doubt refs manage games and hand out star treatment to certain players. Donaghy is saying it goes further. Is it really that hard to believe it would?

Let's not forget how Stern has marketed the NBA pushing stars over teams.

All the ingredients are in the stew. Let's just see how they blend together before dumping it down the drain and moving on.

waterjater
06-12-2008, 01:27 AM
Great post ^


I think its almost an "unwritten rule" that the big market teams and player get the calls. If the NBA is sanctioning this though, thats when you really have a problem. Exspecially telling officials to make sure that the stars don't get ejected or foul out. How many times have you seen a foul called, and two players are near the foul. One is a star, one is a average player. The foul is given to the average player, you watch the replay and it was obviously the star player commited the foul.

Go back through the years and count how few times players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, and even Reggie Miller for that matter ever fouled out of a game. If I was a coach in the NBA and had these players, I wouldn't be that concerned when they picked up their fourth or even fifth foul. The odds of them actually being called for the 6th foul had to be slim (unless they committed an overtly obvious foul).

Anyway this is kinda fun seeing what all might transpire from this.

water

rock747
06-12-2008, 01:31 AM
Go back through the years and count how few times players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, and even Reggie Miller for that matter ever fouled out of a game. If I was a coach in the NBA and had these players, I wouldn't be that concerned when they picked up their fourth or even fifth foul. The odds of them actually being called for the 6th foul had to be slim (unless they committed an overtly obvious foul).

Anyway this is kinda fun seeing what all might transpire from this.

water

Definetly, I have thought about this before. I have even tried to find if there was a stat out there somewhere that kept foul outs. You never see Kobe, Lebron, Wade etc. foul out.

Shade
06-12-2008, 01:56 AM
I think some of you are missing the point. It's not that the NBA is actually 'fixing' games to the point of scripting a winner (ala the WWE), it's that the NBA has asked refs to 'massage' the results for entertainment value. ...Obviously that will give certain players, and thus their teams, an advantage but there is only so far a game can be controlled from outside unless the players are all in on it too.

I don't think there is any question that refs play favorites and certain players are given far more leeway to look good than others. I don't doubt personal grudges develop between certain refs and players or coaches... This may stay dormant for quite some time but at some point that ref will 'get even'. In the world of judgement calls, how do you know?

Isn't it odd how many games have fantastic comebacks? Now, the team making the comeback might not get there all the way but is it so hard to believe the refs have been informed that comebacks are better for entertainment than blowouts with a wink and a nod if not a specific instruction?

Stern never said that what Donaghy was saying was untrue (in what I read), instead Stern made a reply about the FBI finding the NBA was doing nothing illegal. Is the WWE doing anything illegal when they go so far as script outcomes? So, why would the NBA be doing anything illegal if their refs were given instructions to keep the scores close by giving judgment calls to the trailing team, or by protecting star players or even making them look even better (let them have an extra step, give them the call if their shot isn't falling, swallow the whistle so they can play 'tighter' defense, etc).

I don't find it hard to believe that the NBA would look to manage and massage games for entertainment purposes. I also don't find it so hard to believe that the NBA would ask them to use their whistle to subtly influence and extend a series. It's just not that much of a leap from something that I think many of us believe: That stars get 'star treatment'.

That doesn't mean overall that the NBA is trying to slot a champion from draft to the Finals... Only that they are massaging outcomes via judgment calls of the officials who know there is a bit of an agenda to keep games entertaining on a couple of levels (by making stars shine whenever possible and by promoting an environment that allows comebacks... and possibly creating a climate to extend a series).

That doesn't mean that the team that the NBA/refs want to win will win. Players have to make their FT's and teams have to hang onto the ball. If you hit some miracle shots, don't give the refs too many opportunities to make these questionable 'judgment calls', the other team misses their FT's, etc then it doesn't matter how much the refs grease the skids... unless they want to be as obvious as Sonny Liston getting KO'ed by a phantom Muhammed Ali punch. And I doubt the NBA is quite that into seeing a specific outcome anyway. But to see that they put a finger on the scales to give the most entertaining (or $$$ful) outcome a better chance??? Yeah... I can see that.

I don't know if Donaghy is telling the truth or not... BUT to dismiss him based on what WE know (which includes very little of what he's said behind closed doors)? I don't know how some of you do that except on blind faith in the NBA.

Donaghy himself is evidence that the game isn't as pure as we'd hope. The man is taking an extreme gamble to lie about these things BEFORE his sentencing. Maybe he thinks he has to in order to get the NBA to drop their intentions to be reimbursed $1M from him. It's still a dangerous tactic... Much less dangerous if it's true though.

If the question is: Is the NBA fixed?
The answer... IMHO... is: It depends.

There's no doubt refs manage games and hand out star treatment to certain players. Donaghy is saying it goes further. Is it really that hard to believe it would?

Let's not forget how Stern has marketed the NBA pushing stars over teams.

All the ingredients are in the stew. Let's just see how they blend together before dumping it down the drain and moving on.

:iagree:

Kstat
06-12-2008, 02:43 AM
Ugh... coming from someone that respects him a lot, BBall is so far off here, I don't know where to begin.


Isn't it odd how many games have fantastic comebacks? Now, the team making the comeback might not get there all the way but is it so hard to believe the refs have been informed that comebacks are better for entertainment than blowouts with a wink and a nod if not a specific instruction?

...yes. Comebacks have nothing to do with momentum or the other team breaking down mentally and missing shots. It's all scripted. You got me.

Anything fantastic that ever happens in the NBA is scripted. It's too hard to believe something exciting could happen simply on its own merit.



Stern never said that what Donaghy was saying was untrue

Jesus Christ. Tell me with a straight face that nobody in the NBA said the allegations were false. please. That's ridiculous.


. Is the WWE doing anything illegal when they go so far as script outcomes? So, why would the NBA be doing anything illegal if their refs were given instructions to keep the scores close by giving judgment calls to the trailing team, or by protecting star players or even making them look even better (let them have an extra step, give them the call if their shot isn't falling, swallow the whistle so they can play 'tighter' defense, etc).

Holy ****ing ****, we're comparing the WWE, which ISN'T A SPORT, to the NBA.

Uh, yeah, it would be illegal as **** if the NBA scripted games. It would break so many anti-trust laws the entire league would be blown up with an atomic bomb.

Does vegas take odds on the WWE? Then what the hell does the WWE have to do with the public trust? They aren't even a SPORT.



That doesn't mean that the team that the NBA/refs want to win will win. Players have to make their FT's and teams have to hang onto the ball. If you hit some miracle shots, don't give the refs too many opportunities to make these questionable 'judgment calls', the other team misses their FT's, etc then it doesn't matter how much the refs grease the skids... unless they want to be as obvious as Sonny Liston getting KO'ed by a phantom Muhammed Ali punch. And I doubt the NBA is quite that into seeing a specific outcome anyway. But to see that they put a finger on the scales to give the most entertaining (or $$$ful) outcome a better chance??? Yeah... I can see that.

Oh good god. Here we go again.

"If team A wins, the game was fixed!"

"If team B wins, the game was still fixed, but they just overcame the odds!"

Someday I'd love to make my own reality where every possible outcome can be twisted to support my opinion. That has to be the greatest job in the world.


I don't know if Donaghy is telling the truth or not... BUT to dismiss him based on what WE know (which includes very little of what he's said behind closed doors)? I don't know how some of you do that except on blind faith in the NBA.

Well let's see...blind faith in the NBA, or a convicted felon that's looking to get out from a million dollar lawsuit and sell a few books. No, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. He's earned it, even though he has no proof at all.

Tell you what: between David Stern and Tim Donaghy, I'll believe the FBI.


Donaghy himself is evidence that the game isn't as pure as we'd hope.

....which has nothing to do with how the league governs itself, since he was acting outside league control...



If the question is: Is the NBA fixed?
The answer... IMHO... is: It depends.

Awesome. Imply that the league slants everything, and then give them most ambiguous answer possible when it comes to putting your stamp on things.


Let's not forget how Stern has marketed the NBA pushing stars over teams.

Holy crap, he did the smart thing and promoted his star players to bring the NBA incredible popularity and profitability. He's totally evil.


All the ingredients are in the stew. Let's just see how they blend together before dumping it down the drain and moving on.

This is the most redundant, ambiguous stew ever. Luke warm tea has more substance and punch in it than this. It's so bland, I can barely tell it's there.

Tell you what: I'll wait until someone brings me an original flavor. I've had this one too many times, and it's getting very old.

Peck
06-12-2008, 02:59 AM
I'm taking a wait and see approach to this.

It would be hard to convince me that the NBA has partaken in "fixing" games as a league.

However I am not closed minded to the thoughts that

A. if there was one bad ref, there might have been more than one.

B. While Donaghy is not a reliable source, the timing of this is bizarre to say the least. Prior to sentancing? He either has something legitimate to say or he has the dumbest lawyer in the history of litigation.

However, like the wise Carl Sagen, I am open to the idea however there is going to have to be some extrodinary evidence.

Bball
06-12-2008, 03:10 AM
Ugh... coming from someone that respects him a lot, BBall is so far off here, I don't know where to begin.



...yes. Comebacks have nothing to do with momentum or the other team breaking down mentally and missing shots. It's all scripted. You got me.

Anything fantastic that ever happens in the NBA is scripted. It's too hard to believe something exciting could happen simply on its own merit.




Jesus Christ. Tell me with a straight face that nobody in the NBA said the allegations were false. please. That's ridiculous.



Holy ****ing ****, we're comparing the WWE, which ISN'T A SPORT, to the NBA.

Uh, yeah, it would be illegal as **** if the NBA scripted games. It would break so many anti-trust laws the entire league would be blown up with an atomic bomb.

Does vegas take odds on the WWE? Then what the hell does the WWE have to do with the public trust? They aren't even a SPORT.




Oh good god. Here we go again.

"If team A wins, the game was fixed!"

"If team B wins, the game was still fixed, but they just overcame the odds!"

Someday I'd love to make my own reality where every possible outcome can be twisted to support my opinion. That has to be the greatest job in the world.



Well let's see...blind faith in the NBA, or a convicted felon that's looking to get out from a million dollar lawsuit and sell a few books. No, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. He's earned it, even though he has no proof at all.

Tell you what: between David Stern and Tim Donaghy, I'll believe the FBI.



....which has nothing to do with how the league governs itself, since he was acting outside league control...



Awesome. Imply that the league slants everything, and then give them most ambiguous answer possible when it comes to putting your stamp on things.



Holy crap, he did the smart thing and promoted his star players to bring the NBA incredible popularity and profitability. He's totally evil.



This is the most redundant, ambiguous stew ever. Luke warm tea has more substance and punch in it than this. It's so bland, I can barely tell it's there.

Tell you what: I'll wait until someone brings me an original flavor. I've had this one too many times, and it's getting very old.

So what you're saying is you have no idea what-so-ever if Donaghy is telling the truth or lying so you'll just call it all lies anyway, close your eyes and ears, and move forward without looking back.

Let me know when the FBI speaks for themselves on the subject. You say you need evidence, Donaghy himself is evidence. The question is not whether the NBA game has been compromised, it's simply how deep it runs and in what directions. Maybe it stops at Donaghy. Maybe not.

Neither one of us has enough information to call it either way right now...

-Bball

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:15 AM
Donaghy himself is evidence.

Does that mean I can accuse anybody of anything I want and I automatically become evidence? I don't even need to back it up at all? Sweet!


So what you're saying is you have no idea what-so-ever if Donaghy is telling the truth or lying so you'll just call it all lies anyway, close your eyes and ears, and move forward without looking back.


In my world, if you accuse someone of cheating, you have to back it up with something.

If you don't have any proof, I don't have the time to listen to you. Go sit with the alien abduction guy and the guy that claims he was brainwashed by the CIA.

Slick Pinkham
06-12-2008, 07:54 AM
It doesn't mean that LA's 28 4th qtr FTs against Sacramento were legitimate.

On Mike & Mike this morning they said that 14 of those 28 free throws were on intentional fouls: hack-a-Shaqs and fouls to stop the clock late when hope was about lost. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but if so, it certainly puts the "free throw attempts mean everything when it comes to officiating" concept in doubt.

I'm in agreement with Kstat on the need for evidence. We also need to hear from the officials Donaghy is accusing of fixing that game. If I were those guys I'd be trying to get more than 1M in damages for him saying that.

If you are a scum of the Earth felon with gambling and psychological issues, but you tell me it's raining outside, I'll believe you. If you say that there's green sticky Oobleck falling down (for those of you with kids who read Dr. Suess) then I'd like a little more than just your word on it.

Putnam
06-12-2008, 08:19 AM
ESPN article by Mark Stein, from the RSS feeds:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&page=DonaghyStern-080611&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines



NBA has no quick fix for Donaghy's fixing charges

By Marc Stein
ESPN.com

LOS ANGELES -- It doesn't matter how many times David Stern squares his feet and starts launching his go-to denials.

It doesn't matter how often the NBA's commissioner sternly assures us the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI soon will reveal findings that show Tim Donaghy, without doubt, is the "only one here that's guilty of criminal activity."

It probably won't even matter now if The Rogue Ref, as Stern famously dubbed him, is proven conclusively to be just what The Commish says he is.

"The reality is that … he's a singing, cooperating witness who is trying to get as light a sentence as he can," Stern insisted, attempting to discredit the most damaging round of allegations yet from the disgraced Donaghy, as he arrived at Staples Center for Game 3 of what was supposed to be his NBA Finals fantasy.

"We said it in July," Stern continued, "and we'll say it again on the first anniversary: There's one criminal here."

Sorry.

The reality is that the NBA's credibility issues aren't going away even if Stern's proclamations all are true. Not after another postseason that has only swelled the ranks of the conspiracy theorists.

The reality for Stern and his league is considerably more complicated and uncomfortable than Easy Dave makes it sound, no matter how many holes are in the documents emanating from Donaghy's accusations (no names yet, for starters) and no matter how much backing pro basketball eventually gets from those heavyweight government agencies. The nightmarish reality that hangs over what was supposed to be Stern's dream Finals is that public confidence in NBA officiating is maybe even lower now than it was when Donaghy's betting on games and association with known gamblers were first revealed last summer.
With no clear-cut way to raise it.

After the Lakers lost Game 2 of these Finals in Boston, shooting only 10 free throws to the Celtics' 38? After the Lakers took a must-win Game 3 at home to slice the series deficit to 2-1 and save their season, shooting 20 of the evening's first 24 free throws and with Kobe Bryant going to the line 18 times?

After Team Donaghy, in between those games, let it be known that he has accused two former fellow referees of fixing the outcome of the Lakers' unforgettably controversial Game 6 win over the Kings in the 2002 Western Conference finals?

Good luck trying to convince disgruntled fans on both coasts that Donaghy's claims that league officials direct their referees "to manipulate games" to "boost ticket sales and television ratings" have no merit.

"Baseless" was the word Stern used to describe the allegations. But it's getting harder to find folks who don't believe there's something to what Donaghy's lawyer has been saying. It's not just the fans, either. Distrust in certain refs only grows every year among players, coaches and team executives.

Two examples from Texas: All of San Antonio is convinced the Spurs have no shot at a W if Joey Crawford is in the building, just as anyone who follows Dallas can tell you that when Danny Crawford has a whistle, the Mavs have a 2-14 record in the playoffs since Mark Cuban bought the team.

Worse yet?

Good ideas for how the NBA goes about improving the quality of its officiating and restoring some of that trust are, shall we say, scarce.

This is the only sports league in America in which it's a routine reaction by folks on the inside as well as the outside to respond to bitter defeat with charges of biased refereeing or outright game-rigging. It's a massive problem magnified by the fact that no one I've encountered in 15 years of covering the league is overflowing with suggestions for how to stop such perceptions from mushrooming any further, let alone for how to put a halt to them.

Would congressional hearings do it? Would it appease the masses if the NBA submitted to an open examination of its referees on Capitol Hill, as baseball did with steroids? Or are such hearings more about politics than about finding the truth?

Is it time for some significant changes during the game? Like, say, giving each coach video challenges, as they do in the NFL?

Long known as the league's loudest critic of Stern's referees, Cuban has been calling for years for an independent head of officiating to be hired from the real world to find, evaluate and manage referees. Cuban gained an unexpected ally when Lakers coach Phil Jackson announced during his pregame address Tuesday that he'd like to see NBA refs employed and managed as "a separate entity [from] the NBA entirely."

But even Jackson seemed to understand that Stern's having no control over the referees doesn't quite make sense, either, quickly adding: "I don't think that's going to happen."

That's the state of NBA reffing today. So many layers, so few answers. No obvious path to make things better.

As my ESPN colleague Michael Wilbon recently wrote in The Washington Post: "The larger point here is that nobody has ever known what is and what isn't a foul in professional basketball. … It's as subjective as anything in sports, calling a foul. You can't get a consensus from people who've been in and around the game for 100 years."

Satisfying the skeptical media and public when it comes to NBA officiating is tougher still. Another example: There were numerous calls throughout the season for the league to be more transparent on officiating matters, as Stern promised the league would be when the Donaghy scandal broke. So what happened when the league responded to a few reporters' inquiries during the Western Conference finals by admitting its refs missed a foul on L.A.'s Derek Fisher on the last play of Game 4 in San Antonio? The league office was subjected to widespread criticism for acknowledging the mistake and thus undermining those refs.

Yet it's likewise true that the NBA can (and must) figure out how to do a lot more than it did this season, which amazingly generated so little Donaghy chatter. I fully expected to be hearing and talking about this scandal all year. Unappetizing as it was for Stern to have to deal with it on this stage -- courtesy of some timing from Donaghy's legal team, which certainly wasn't accidental -- the league is amazingly lucky the story was dormant for such long stretches during the past nine months.

It was a certifiable bombshell to hear Donaghy, through a Brooklyn court filing, allege that two former colleagues he called "company men" conspired to ensure the 2002 West finals would reach a seventh game.

The claim was so aggressive that even Cuban was prompted to throw some support behind his longtime nemesis, telling ESPN.com via e-mail: "There's no way on God's green Earth that David Stern has ever done anything to influence the outcome of a game."

I believe it, too. Stern is too smart and too fair and has way too much to lose to even think of orchestrating anything.

But, again, perceptions are hugely powerful. Stern has no choice but to manufacture a way to start convincing the NBA's ever-growing legion of skeptics that these Donaghy allegations, as well as his previous charges (that relationships between referees, coaches and players have "prevented games from being played on a level playing field''), are untrue.

Stern maintains that the details forthcoming from the FBI's investigation and the NBA's own internal review, presumably to be released after Donaghy's mid-July sentencing, will fill in several blanks, start easing concerns and lead to a clearer picture of what the league intends to do better, ref-wise. Let's hope.

Let's hope, because the mountains of evidence in recent hoop history that completely undermine the very notion of conspiracies -- such as small-market San Antonio's winning four championships and two draft lotteries, and the Knicks' sliding all the way to laughingstock territory just a few miles from the NBA's offices -- don't stop ESPN.com readers from flooding my mailbag with countless cries that NBA outcomes are being orchestrated.

Nor did they stop a man as respected as the nine-ringed Jackson from making one of the more inflammatory statements of a newsy Tuesday night.

Asked for his recollections about that Lakers-Kings Game 6 that Donaghy says was fixed, in which L.A. shot 27 free throws to Sacramento's nine in the fourth quarter, Jackson asked, "Was that after the fifth game [that] we had the game stolen away from us after a bad call out of bounds and gave the ball back to Sacramento and they made a 3-point shot? There's a lot of things going on in these games and they're suspicious, but I don't want to throw it back to there."

That's just one more allegation that must make Stern envy Bud Selig some days.

Marc Stein is the senior NBA writer for ESPN.com.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 08:28 AM
Once the Finals are over, and the draft is over later this month, NBA basketball drops from the front pages and nobody but us diehards cares much until about November 1

Actually, most don't notice until sometime in January.

If Donaghy wants attention, this was precisely the week to do it. Not when sports reporters are all fcoused on other stuff like the Olympics or football season. Right now gets him maximum exposure. He feels mighty important.

Amen

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 08:31 AM
Good article here, he makes a similar point to what I tried to make yesterday

http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-heisler12-2008jun12,0,6987208,print.column


If the NBA is rigged, it's got to get a lot better at it
The latest Tim Donaghy news is more fodder for conspiracy theorists, but there are many examples where the league is not protecting its elite franchises.
Mark Heisler
NBA

June 12, 2008

Where insanity happens.

Trying to judge the impact of last summer's Tim Donaghy scandal, I recently called around to assess the reaction of the congenitally suspicious core audience . . . the gamblers.

It turned out there was no impact.

The Donaghy blockbuster, the latest story that seemed to presage The Death of the NBA, quickly faded away in what turned out to be a great season for the league.

"My gut feeling," says Bruce Marshall, associate editor of the Gold Sheet, "is it didn't change NBA betting one way or the other."

In other words, it looks as if gamblers accepted the notion that Donaghy was what the league insisted he was, a rogue.

However, there was one wrinkle that was pure NBA.

One local bookmaker, asking to remain anonymous since bookmaking is illegal, said a lot of NBA bettors grumble about conspiracies -- while continuing to bet on NBA games.

"They're betting on games they think may be fixed?" I asked.

"They're trying to figure out which way the league is fixing it," the guy said, laughing.

This just confirms what I've always known:

Everyone connected with the NBA from the league office to the owners, coaches, players, entourages, mascots, fans and, of course, press people, is out of his gourd.

Just how this ongoing conspiracy theory attaches itself specifically to the NBA -- and only the NBA -- has never been explained.

NFL officials are part-timers who can call holding on any play. Baseball umpires have personal strike zones. College basketball is almost as hard to officiate as the NBA game and, as its history of point-shaving scandals shows, easier to corrupt.

All have ongoing conflict with officials . . . but only in the NBA is it perceived as part of a wider conspiracy.

Every baseball team has umpiring crews it hates. Managers kick the ground, remove the bases and get ejected, but the next day everyone starts over without any talk of a plot.

The skepticism with which the NBA is perceived stems from the league's image as a perennial mutt.

In the '50s it was derided as a "YMCA league," in the '60s as "bush."

In the '70s, it was the league that was obliged to try to market predominantly African American players to white fans.

Then after race declined as an issue in the NBA's golden age with Magic Johnson and Larry Bird in the '80s and its zenith with Michael Jordan in the '90s, along came hip-hop, the Internet and worldwide tabloid journalism.

The assumption is always that the NBA is endangered and has to get the best matchup.

Worse, it's assumed by all participants, coaches, players, etc., who never stop working the referees . . . even as they insist, as Lakers Coach Phil Jackson and Celtics Coach Doc Rivers did Wednesday, the system is totally honest.

Actually, the NBA has long been on solid footing, now getting $925 million in annual rights fees from its network partners to baseball's $670 million.

The most famous urban myth is the "frozen envelope" in the first NBA lottery in 1985, supposedly enabling Commissioner David Stern to deliver Patrick Ewing to the hometown New York Knicks.

Amid annual speculation that young stars would be sent to glamour teams, David Robinson then went to San Antonio, Shaquille O'Neal to Orlando, Tim Duncan to San Antonio, Yao Ming to Houston, LeBron James to Cleveland and Greg Oden to Portland.

The Knicks, the league's tattered flagship franchise, never again drew a pick higher than No. 5.

The NBA actually bends over backward to avoid even the appearance of doing anything wrong . . . amid ever-increasing accusations it's fixing everything.

Let's put it this way: If it is fixing anything, it's doing a really lousy job.

Small-market teams from San Antonio, Utah and Indiana have appeared in seven of the last 12 Finals along with crowd-pleasers such as the Detroit Pistons (twice), New Jersey Nets (twice) and Cleveland Cavaliers.

Meanwhile, the league was proving its impartiality by taking draconian action against glamour teams.

In 1997 with the Knicks leading their second-round series with Miami, 3-2, Stern suspended so many of them after the Heat's P.J. Brown tackled Charlie Ward, they had to sit out in shifts to have enough players for Games 6 and 7.

Four Knicks -- Ewing, Allen Houston, John Starks and Larry Johnson -- were suspended just for leaving the bench.

The Knicks lost.

Not to suggest the learning curve isn't all you could hope for, all around, but it just happened again last spring.

The Phoenix Suns, who had just won in San Antonio to tie their second-round series, 2-2, saw Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw suspended for leaving the bench during a "fight" that was actually just players milling around after the Spurs' Robert Horry hip-checked Steve Nash into the scorer's table.

The high-scoring Suns, the most entertaining team in the NBA, then lost Game 5 at home, got their players back and lost Game 6 in San Antonio.

It's hard for me to imagine the league rigging a matchup. On the other hand, I'm not in the business of assuming what can happen but of trying to learn what did.

What I can't believe is that the NBA could fix something like that and get away with it. Legal whizzes that these guys are, they're not that slick.

We hear a lot about what goes on in the office . . . like it wasn't Stern who suspended Stoudemire and Diaw but NBA vice president Stu Jackson, after which Stern noted that people were always telling him not to micromanage everything and look what happened.

Or that second-guessing of the referees after Game 4 of the Lakers-Spurs series this season came from Stern, not Jackson, part of the new "transparency."

Now we're in the throes of the usual lemmings rush into the sea after Donaghy's latest allegations of referees manipulating Game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings playoffs series in the Lakers' favor, or as ESPN.com headlines had it, "Season Shaken . . . Finals Shadow . . . League is inviting suspicion."

Of course, if Donaghy doesn't have something more tangible than a Lakers-Sacramento box score from 2002 and a directive to watch moving screens in the Dallas-San Antonio series in 2005, this could go away as fast as it did last summer.

I still love this game, even if it's hard to watch while waiting for the sky to fall.

mark.heisler@latimes.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spicoli
06-12-2008, 09:50 AM
Does vegas take odds on the WWE? Then what the hell does the WWE have to do with the public trust? They aren't even a SPORT.


Actually, strangely enough, you can place bets on the outcomes of Wrestlemania matches. :)


And, no, I don't have a gambling problem. Well at least not a severe one...

JayRedd
06-12-2008, 10:38 AM
Amid annual speculation that young stars would be sent to glamour teams, David Robinson then went to San Antonio, Shaquille O'Neal to Orlando, Tim Duncan to San Antonio, Yao Ming to Houston, LeBron James to Cleveland and Greg Oden to Portland.

Exhibit A.


The Knicks, the league's tattered flagship franchise, never again drew a pick higher than No. 5.

Exhibit B. (And how many Top 5 picks have the Lakers or Celtics had since 1990?)


Small-market teams from San Antonio, Utah and Indiana have appeared in seven of the last 12 Finals along with crowd-pleasers such as the Detroit Pistons (twice), New Jersey Nets (twice) and Cleveland Cavaliers.

Exhibit C.



In 1997 with the Knicks leading their second-round series with Miami, 3-2, Stern suspended so many of them after the Heat's P.J. Brown tackled Charlie Ward, they had to sit out in shifts to have enough players for Games 6 and 7.

Four Knicks -- Ewing, Allen Houston, John Starks and Larry Johnson -- were suspended just for leaving the bench.

The Knicks lost.

Not to suggest the learning curve isn't all you could hope for, all around, but it just happened again last spring.

The Phoenix Suns, who had just won in San Antonio to tie their second-round series, 2-2, saw Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw suspended for leaving the bench during a "fight" that was actually just players milling around after the Spurs' Robert Horry hip-checked Steve Nash into the scorer's table.

The high-scoring Suns, the most entertaining team in the NBA, then lost Game 5 at home, got their players back and lost Game 6 in San Antonio.

Exhibit D.


Of course, if Donaghy doesn't have something more tangible than a Lakers-Sacramento box score from 2002 and a directive to watch moving screens in the Dallas-San Antonio series in 2005, this could go away as fast as it did last summer.

Versus the only two new mentions of impropriety, one of which (actively looking for moving screens) is in no way, shape or form improper.

Putnam
06-12-2008, 11:08 AM
We've got a proven liar claiming the NBA refs are no good. He's probably lying about this, too. But that doesn't exhonerate the refs.

Supposing Donaghy goes away, as he ought to. Does that mean everything is fine in the NBA? No it doesn't.


This is the only sports league in America in which it's a routine reaction by folks on the inside as well as the outside to respond to bitter defeat with charges of biased refereeing or outright game-rigging. It's a massive problem magnified by the fact that no one I've encountered in 15 years of covering the league is overflowing with suggestions for how to stop such perceptions from mushrooming any further, let alone for how to put a halt to them.

This thread is about Donaghy, and I don't want to divert it. But I'd ask those of you who are shouting loudest that he isn't credible to remember that NBA refereeing is nevertheless a profound problem.

Bball
06-12-2008, 11:20 AM
If the charge is 'fixing' games... and by 'fixing' games it is meant that the winner is predetermined beforehand, then I am extremely skeptical. My skepticism is much less though if the charge is manipulating games to make them more entertaining and allow stars to shine. In fact, I think both already happen so the only question is to what degree they happen and if it is a league mandated thing or if it's just human nature and a lax attitude by the overseers of the referees that allows it to happen. In either case it needs to be addressed and has for quite some time.

As for working to keep small market teams down, no I don't think that happens directly nor do I think that is what is being alleged.

NBA officiating has been questionable for quite some time. If more people actually cared about the NBA then maybe something would be done about it. As it is, the NBA is stuck somewhere between trying to be a real sport and trying to be a showcase for stars. It's little wonder why these allegations perk up the ears of some.


In my world, if you accuse someone of cheating, you have to back it up with something.

If you don't have any proof, I don't have the time to listen to you. Go sit with the alien abduction guy and the guy that claims he was brainwashed by the CIA.

You'll never find that evidence if you ignore any allegations of wrong-doing. Who better to know than a former referee who has been engaged in similar activity? Is his credibility damaged? -Yes it is. Does that or Stern's denials make his claims wrong?- No.

This all goes away when a foul's a foul and a travel is a travel and a game officiated on one night is no different than a game officiated on any other night.

Plax80
06-12-2008, 11:29 AM
Does that mean I can accuse anybody of anything I want and I automatically become evidence? I don't even need to back it up at all? Sweet!



In my world, if you accuse someone of cheating, you have to back it up with something.

If you don't have any proof, I don't have the time to listen to you. Go sit with the alien abduction guy and the guy that claims he was brainwashed by the CIA.

I would say that of all the rebuttals I've read or heard........yours is among the most sensible.

Having said that, you can't make a blanket statement that just because the guy is a degenerate........everything he says is a lie or an attempt to bash the league.

Seems like most of what Canseco and McNamee said turned out to be pretty credible as well.

And when a guy is in the process of being sentenced by the Federal Court; I highly doubt he and his attorney are going to pick that moment in time to start slinging slander.

To further back it up, he offers specific dates with a specific set of referres (2 of the three........being told by 1 of the three in advance of the game)..............

Rarely is slander done so specifically.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 11:37 AM
Has the actual letter to the court been released? I've only read media reports, so I don't really know what the allegations are.

JohnnyBGoode
06-12-2008, 11:39 AM
OK kiddies, Stern is using the old discredit the messenger in order to call into question the message. The GOP does this all of the time, just ask UB. ;)

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 11:45 AM
I guess this ESPN article has thre allegations.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3436401

This sort of evidence would not be allowed into court




"Referees A, F and G were officiating a playoff series between Teams 5 and 6 in May of 2002. It was the sixth game of a seven-game series, and a Team 5 victory that night would have ended the series. However, Tim learned from Referee A that Referees A and F wanted to extend the series to seven games. Tim knew referees A and F to be 'company men,' always acting in the interest of the NBA, and that night, it was in the NBA's interest to add another game to the series. Referees A and F heavily favored Team 6. Personal fouls [resulting in obviously injured players] were ignored even when they occurred in full view of the referees. Conversely, the referees called made-up fouls on Team 5 in order to give additional free throw opportunities for Team 6. Their foul-calling also led to the ejection of two Team 5 players. The referees' favoring of Team 6 led to that team's victory that night, and Team 6 came back from behind to win that series."




I don't know how you prove or disprove anything actually happened. Were bad calls made - yes, did the home team get the benefit of the calls - yes, but that happens all the time, that in no way proves anything

Plax80
06-12-2008, 11:46 AM
If the charge is 'fixing' games... and by 'fixing' games it is meant that the winner is predetermined beforehand, then I am extremely skeptical. My skepticism is much less though if the charge is manipulating games to make them more entertaining and allow stars to shine. In fact, I think both already happen so the only question is to what degree they happen and if it is a league mandated thing or if it's just human nature and a lax attitude by the overseers of the referees that allows it to happen. In either case it needs to be addressed and has for quite some time.

As for working to keep small market teams down, no I don't think that happens directly nor do I think that is what is being alleged.

NBA officiating has been questionable for quite some time. If more people actually cared about the NBA then maybe something would be done about it. As it is, the NBA is stuck somewhere between trying to be a real sport and trying to be a showcase for stars. It's little wonder why these allegations perk up the ears of some.



You'll never find that evidence if you ignore any allegations of wrong-doing. Who better to know than a former referee who has been engaged in similar activity? Is his credibility damaged? -Yes it is. Does that or Stern's denials make his claims wrong?- No.

This all goes away when a foul's a foul and a travel is a travel and a game officiated on one night is no different than a game officiated on any other night.

You are exactly right.

And everyone acts as though the "Jordan Rules" documentary never existed.

Tim Donaghy's allegations aren't new........go back and read the book.

Is there really any difference between giving special treatment to the league's superstar and fixing games ??

NO.

Yet, we all simply accepted the Jordan Rules in kind of a "it is what it is" attitude.

The vast majority of fans acknowledge the Jordan Rules, but then can't believe a Game 6 of the WCF could have been manipulated ??

How much sense does that make ??

The reality is that NBA Ratings have been on a steep decline (even this Stern- dream series is mostly a non-watch).

In my opinion the main reason is that the sport long ago stopped being a competition.

What other league would continue to let one guy have so much control and power over almost everything ??

What other league would continue to let convicted felons officiate its most important games ??

What other league wouldn't strictly prohibit its officials from associating in any way with the gambling community ??

What other league would continue to employ an official who tried to pick a fight with one of its star players ??

The NFL has Instant Replay. MLB has Questec.

The NBA has David Stern and Joey Crawford.

Start doing the math and Tim Donaghy's story is only a news item for those who are blind loyalists.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 11:54 AM
wait, wait, wait, the Jordan rules refrs to the defensive rules the Detroit Pistons used to defend Jordan in the late 80's and early 90's. it had nothing to do with him getting calls or not getting calls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Rules

Joey Crawford never tried to pick a fight with Duncan. The word fight was refering to an argument, not a physical altercation

Plax80
06-12-2008, 12:17 PM
wait, wait, wait, the Jordan rules refrs to the defensive rules the Detroit Pistons used to defend Jordan in the late 80's and early 90's. it had nothing to do with him getting calls or not getting calls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Rules

Joey Crawford never tried to pick a fight with Duncan. The word fight was refering to an argument, not a physical altercation

I was referring to the book written by Sam Smith , not the Wikipedia definition?????

I have no idea what you are referring to with Crawford and Duncan

JayRedd
06-12-2008, 12:35 PM
Sam Smith's book title is essentially an ironic play on the rough and tumble treatment of Chuck Daly's "Jordan Rules" vs. the equally brutal way MJ treated his teammates. It can also be seen as talking about the resentment they had for Mike based on the assumed preferential treatment afforded MJ by the Chicago Bulls organization.

It didn't really have anything to do with the way he was officiated by refs or treated by the NBA at large. It was a behind-the-scenes look at the inner complexities and turmoil of the Chicago Bulls roster during their first championship season.

As a sidenote, anyone who hasn't read it, needs to. People forget that, at that time, most people over 15-years-old thought MJ was a bigger douchebag than they think Kobe is now (aside from the whole rape thing, I guess). Amazing book, which, as I recall, is where the infamous "Will Vanderbilt" story comes from.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 01:05 PM
I was referring to the book written by Sam Smith , not the Wikipedia definition?????

I have no idea what you are referring to with Crawford and Duncan

I read that book and you are just not correct.

Besides repeating what I already said, there isn't anything else I can say about the Crawford vs TD thing.

On the more general point of the allegations: it is interesting because those most associated with the game don't believe the allegations put forth by Donaghy. Players, coaches, beat writers, columnists who only cover the NBA - are much less likely to believe the allegations then do the media types who only cover the NBA maybe in the finals, or those fans that perhaps aren't diehards.

As Ric Buucher said this is all insane - and he was referring to those who are buying into the conspiracy.

rock747
06-12-2008, 02:09 PM
This stuff is not at all new. The NBA has been long thought shady. These conspiracy is now just reaching the limelight. The NBA is the only sport in which the players even mention the conspiracy...

"I guess they were only doing what they were told to do." -Antonio Davis reffering to officials...

Ray Allen-

"I think there's no question about that. The league, as a marketing machine, the bottom line is about making money," Allen said. "It behooves everybody for the league to make more money, and the league knows that Philadelphia is going to make more money with L.A. than we would with L.A."
"I used to always think the series were fixed when I was in high school, then when I got to the NBA I said there's no way they could be fixed. But even last year against Indiana in Game 5 (of Milwaukee's first-round series) it seemed like everything went against us," Allen said.

George Karl-
Bucks coach George Karl said conspiracy theories were "summer talk," although he claimed three other NBA coaches had called him after Game 5 to raise that very issue.

"Sam Cassell said that Kevin Garnett and Rod Strickland had called him, so it's out there," Karl said.

The NBA has always laughed off the charge, but conspiracy theorists often point to Game 7 of the 1993 Western Conference finals in making their case -- saying Phoenix got an inordinate number of calls against Seattle because the league wanted to see a Suns-Chicago Bulls final.

"Here was the scenario: A Barkley-Jordan final, and Barkley did a commercial for NBC three weeks before the finals -- and he told me about it. And then they shoot 67 free throws in the final game," said Karl, who coached the SuperSonics in that game.

There were 100 foul shots taken in that game, 64 by the Suns. Seattle was called for 38 personal fouls and had three players disqualified; Phoenix was whistled for 27 fouls and had no one foul out.

"So there's a little paranoia there, but tomorrow night that means nothing," Karl said. "The board room is behind closed doors in New York City, so no one's ever going to know.

Rasheed Wallace-"I still don't think they (Cavaliers) beat us, we beat ourselves," Wallace said. "And I think we also fell victim to that personal NBA thing where they are trying to make it a world game and get (television) ratings. They wanted to put their darling in there (the NBA Finals) and they did, and look what ended up happening.

"This game ain't basketball anymore, it's entertainment," Wallace said. "It's starting to get like the WWF. There ain't no real wrestling anymore either. It's all fake."



There are numerous other instances things have been said, but I'm not going to continue researching. No other sport has the players crying conspiracy like the NBA.

Why try to write Donahgys claims off as bogus immeadiately?


On the more general point of the allegations: it is interesting because those most associated with the game don't believe the allegations put forth by Donaghy. Players, coaches, beat writers, columnists who only cover the NBA - are much less likely to believe the allegations then do the media types who only cover the NBA maybe in the finals, or those fans that perhaps aren't diehards.


Well of course players and coaches are going to write it off. They will be hit with a hefty fine if they talk against the NBA, we've seen that many times. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. The beat writes and columnists don't want to be thought of as conspiracy wack jobs. It's pretty easy to see why they wouldn't say anything publicly.


As Ric Buucher said this is all insane - and he was referring to those who are buying into the conspiracy.

People are skeptical because this isn't just a new thing. The NBA has been scrutinized for this for years. If this was the first time something like this had been mentioned people probably would shrug it off.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/Rasheed-says-NBA-quot-wanted-Cavs-LeBron-in-?urn=nba,51022
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2001/2001/0531/1208098.html
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4138624/Bad-calls-don-t-mean.html

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 02:21 PM
rock, all those comments were made during an NBA playoff series, they were all just trying to get calls for the next game and or they were frustrATED BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST LOST A GAME. . We have Pat Riley and Phil Jackson to thank for that practice.


I was entertained when I was watching Jackson's press conference the other day when he said that he rememebers in the Bulls vs Pacers series in 1998 that Pippen had eseentially taken Mark Jackson out of the games 1 and 2 and then Bird complained and in game 3 Pippen got 2 fouls against Mark Jackson - and Dick Bevetta made both of those calls.

But everyone know that Dick calls things close

Kstat
06-12-2008, 02:48 PM
To further back it up, he offers specific dates with a specific set of referres (2 of the three........being told by 1 of the three in advance of the game)..............

Rarely is slander done so specifically.
Plax80 is offline Report Post

You call that "specific?

"I know of this game where two guys out of three were told to fix things?"

The fact he said only 2 out of three refs cheated is the biggest condemnation possible.

If the NBA was fixing games, WHY WOULD THEY ONLY LET TWO OUT OF THREE REFS IN ON IT?

The reason he HAS to say it was 2 out of 3, is because by saying all three, he puts names to his allegations, and he knows he can't back it up.

By only accusing two out of 3, he can sit back and let everyone else guess which ones he's talking about.

It's the lamest scam attempt in the history of conspiracy theories.

Donaghy is saying just enough so that people can fill in the blanks themselves, and little enough that he's not on the hook to actually prove anything. It's insulting to anybody with an IQ over 20.

rock747
06-12-2008, 02:55 PM
If the NBA was fixing games, WHY WOULD THEY ONLY LET TWO OUT OF THREE REFS IN ON IT?


Maybe, because the less people that know the better? You only need two people to call fouls and agree with each other on it.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 02:59 PM
Bob Delaney - the "third referee" is a former cop and he was an undercover cop for sometime and helped to bring down parts of the NJ Mob. He and Dick Bevetta do not get along well. So I'm sure Delaney would have blown the whistle on Bevetta if he suspected something.


here is a newsy article worth reading

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/sports/basketball/12refs.html?_r=1&ref=sports&pagewanted=print


The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear
By HOWARD BECK
LOS ANGELES — Troubling new allegations of referee misconduct have dampened the celebratory mood here at the N.B.A. finals, although the line between temporary crisis and long-term scandal is not clear.

Tim Donaghy, the disgraced former referee, has accused league officials of manipulating games. Commissioner David Stern has dismissed the claims as “baseless” and the desperate words of a convicted felon who is seeking a light sentence after admitting to conspiring with gamblers.

Coaches, players and fans are left to navigate the rhetoric and the accusations without a reliable compass. “The whole Donaghy thing just makes me sick,” Boston Coach Doc Rivers said Wednesday as the Celtics and the Lakers were preparing for Game 4 of the finals.

Donaghy’s latest accusations were contained in a four-page letter filed Tuesday in United States District Court in Brooklyn. In the letter, Donaghy said that N.B.A. executives directed referees “to manipulate games” in order to “boost ticket sales and television ratings,” and he cited several alleged examples, including a highly disputed 2002 playoff series between the Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.

When he spoke with reporters Tuesday night, Stern repeatedly stated that all of Donaghy’s claims have been investigated by the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors.

“We said it in July, and we’ll say it again on the first anniversary: there’s one criminal here,” Stern said.

His implication was that if the authorities had discovered other criminal misconduct, they would have acted on it. That is not necessarily the case, according to legal experts.

“It takes a long time to investigate cases,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.

Levenson said there were many possible explanations for the absence of criminal charges. She said authorities could still be investigating; they could have “high suspicion” of a criminal act but insufficient proof; or the allegations could simply be false. In some instances — like Donaghy’s accusation of impropriety in a 2002 playoff series — the statute of limitations could have expired, she said.

“It doesn’t at all follow that because they didn’t file charges that you can dismiss the allegations,” Levenson said. But, she added: “We have to take it for what it is — allegations. Whether they’re true or false probably remains to be answered.”

Levenson said the allegations could prompt the court to delay Donaghy’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for July 14 in Brooklyn.

Levenson and another former prosecutor raised questions over the timing of the claims. Donaghy’s lawyer, John Lauro, had already filed a plea letter last month, but without any of the provocative details that were presented Tuesday.

“It looks more desperate,” Levenson said of making the claims now. “It looks like he might be stretching. It has less credibility. Things that are in sentencing memos look like last gasps to get whatever they can from the court. We always look at those with a grain of salt. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It doesn’t mean it is true.”

Ed McDonald, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said that making the claims now “detracts from the significance of what he had to say, by Lauro’s not raising it in the first letter.”

Donaghy was arrested last summer and pleaded guilty to two felony counts in August. He faces up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine, but he is expected to receive a lighter sentence for cooperating with the authorities.

Lauro provided enough details in the letter so that specific games that were allegedly tainted by referee misconduct could be recognized. The letter pointed to Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals, in which the Lakers were awarded 40 free throws, including 27 in the fourth quarter, in a victory over the Kings that forced a Game 7.

According to Lauro’s letter: “Tim learned from Referee A that Referees A and F wanted to extend the series to seven games. Tim knew Referees A and F to be ‘company men,’ always acting in the interest of the N.B.A., and that night, it was in the N.B.A.’s interest to add another game to the series.”

The game was refereed by three tenured veterans: Dick Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt and Bob Delaney. Bernhardt has retired from the league. Under N.B.A. rules, Bavetta and Delaney are not permitted to speak to the news media. However, Delaney, a former New Jersey state trooper, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claims in an interview with ESPN.

“This is not the first time a known or convicted criminal has lied about me before the judicial system,” Delaney said Wednesday. “I have an extensive law enforcement background, and still train police officers. I have dealt with criminals and informants, and I know full well they are capable of doing and saying anything.”

The FBI has made inquiries about Bavetta, according to a former N.B.A. referee who was interviewed by federal agents last year.

Hue Hollins, who retired in 2003 and has been outspoken about the N.B.A.’s treatment of referees, said he met for about an hour with two agents from New York before last season.

In addition to asking questions about Donaghy, Hollins said the agents inquired extensively about Bavetta. They asked if he ever noticed that Bavetta “was making sure that the home team would win, and I told them I had no idea because I didn’t work with him a lot.”

Hollins said the agents did not ask about a specific team, game or series and did not ask about Game 6 in 2002.

“They were very specific about their questioning, as though they had heard something,” Hollins said. “They knew exactly what they were going after.”

He said that he didn’t tell them much about either Donaghy or Bavetta, saying he had never noticed suspicious activity by either man. He said it would be difficult for a single referee to affect the outcome of a game.

Mark Cuban, the outspoken Dallas Mavericks owner, who has been a leading critic of the N.B.A.’s officiating program, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claim that league officials had orchestrated anything.

“There’s no way on God’s green Earth that David Stern has ever done anything to influence the outcome of a game,” Cuban told ESPN.com.

Two current N.B.A. referees, in separate interviews, also said Donaghy’s claims were not credible. “I’ve been refereeing since I was 18 years old; I’ve never suspected a referee of cheating in my life,” said a referee, who required anonymity because the N.B.A. prohibits referees from speaking to the news media.

Another referee said that Donaghy appeared to be cherry-picking the most well-known and most-controversial games in order to make the biggest impact.

“He took a poorly refereed game that everyone knew was a poorly refereed game,” said the referee, referring to Game 6. “He knows where to punch.”

Donaghy’s charges have given new life to conspiracy theories about N.B.A. officiating, generating suspicion and conjecture in blogs and on sports talk shows.

Given the intensity of the coverage, there is also the possibility of Congressional hearings. There is no indication that the House committee that investigated the steroids scandal in baseball will take up the matter.

Scot Pollard, a former Kings center who fouled out of the game in question, sounded doubtful about Donaghy’s charges.

“You can’t put credibility in a guy that wasn’t there, didn’t ref the game and doesn’t have a lot of friends in this world right now,” said Pollard, who now plays for Boston. “That game was controversial, anyway. It’s an easy one for somebody to make up a conspiracy theory about.”

Katie Thomas, Michael S. Schmidt and Billy Witz contributed reporting.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:04 PM
Bob Delaney - the "third referee" is a former cop and he was an undercover cop for sometime and helped to bring down parts of the NJ Mob. He and Dick Bevetta do not get along well. So I'm sure Delaney would have blown the whistle on Bevetta if he suspected something.

This is great. The NBA hires officials to referee fixed games, and decides bring in former law enforcement officers.

The NBA is apparently one of the smartest sporting organizations on earth, and at the same time they are completely incompetent when it comes to fixing games.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:06 PM
Maybe, because the less people that know the better? You only need two people to call fouls and agree with each other on it.

Without all 3 officials you cannot fix the way a game is called. You only need two refs to agree with a foul, but 2 refs cannot overrule another ref on the floor. They can't just erase another referee's calls, and if they did that for an entire game, it would be completely obvious.

rock747
06-12-2008, 03:14 PM
Without all 3 officials you cannot fix the way a game is called. You only need two refs to agree with a foul, but 2 refs cannot overrule another ref on the floor. They can't just erase another referee's calls, and if they did that for an entire game, it would be completely obvious.

No, but they could call fouls on a certain team one way in the 4th quarter. While the other ref calls the game normally.



Don't get me wrong I want the NBA to have intergrity and this all to be proved wrong. BUT I am not just going to write this off. I have seen too much sketchy officiating in NBA games and this talk has been around too much for me to just automatically shrug this off.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 03:18 PM
No, but they could call fouls on a certain team one way in the 4th quarter. While the other ref calls the game normally.



Don't get me wrong I want the NBA to have intergrity and this all to be proved wrong. BUT I am not just going to write this off. I have seen too much sketchy officiating in NBA games and this talk has been around too much for me to just automatically shrug this off.

One question I have is how can the NBA possibly prove it didn't happen. What would convince you, what would convince most fans.

JayRedd
06-12-2008, 03:18 PM
The Times just did a pretty in-depth story on this whole thing.

It's pretty long, so I'll bold the highlights.



The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear

Howard Beck
New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/sports/basketball/12refs.html?pagewanted=all




June 12, 2008

<NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear </NYT_HEADLINE>

<NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">By HOWARD BECK (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/howard_beck/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

</NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>LOS ANGELES — Troubling new allegations of referee misconduct have dampened the celebratory mood here at the N.B.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_basketball_association/index.html?inline=nyt-org) finals, although the line between temporary crisis and long-term scandal is not clear.

Tim Donaghy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/tim_donaghy/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the disgraced former referee, has accused league officials of manipulating games. Commissioner David Stern (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/david_stern/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has dismissed the claims as “baseless” and the desperate words of a convicted felon who is seeking a light sentence after admitting to conspiring with gamblers.

Coaches, players and fans are left to navigate the rhetoric and the accusations without a reliable compass. “The whole Donaghy thing just makes me sick,” Boston Coach Doc Rivers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/doc_rivers/index.html?inline=nyt-per) said Wednesday as the Celtics (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/probasketball/nationalbasketballassociation/bostonceltics/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the Lakers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/probasketball/nationalbasketballassociation/losangeleslakers/index.html?inline=nyt-org) were preparing for Game 4 of the finals.

Donaghy’s latest accusations were contained in a four-page letter filed Tuesday in United States District Court in Brooklyn. In the letter, Donaghy said that N.B.A. executives directed referees “to manipulate games” in order to “boost ticket sales and television ratings,” and he cited several alleged examples, including a highly disputed 2002 playoff series between the Lakers and the Sacramento Kings (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/probasketball/nationalbasketballassociation/sacramentokings/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

When he spoke with reporters Tuesday night, Stern repeatedly stated that all of Donaghy’s claims have been investigated by the F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and federal prosecutors.

“We said it in July, and we’ll say it again on the first anniversary: there’s one criminal here,” Stern said.

His [Stern's] implication was that if the authorities had discovered other criminal misconduct, they would have acted on it. That is not necessarily the case, according to legal experts.

“It takes a long time to investigate cases,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.

Levenson said there were many possible explanations for the absence of criminal charges. She said authorities could still be investigating; they could have “high suspicion” of a criminal act but insufficient proof; or the allegations could simply be false. In some instances — like Donaghy’s accusation of impropriety in a 2002 playoff series — the statute of limitations could have expired, she said.

“It doesn’t at all follow that because they didn’t file charges that you can dismiss the allegations,” Levenson said. But, she added: “We have to take it for what it is — allegations. Whether they’re true or false probably remains to be answered.”

Levenson said the allegations could prompt the court to delay Donaghy’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for July 14 in Brooklyn.

Levenson and another former prosecutor raised questions over the timing of the claims. Donaghy’s lawyer, John Lauro, had already filed a plea letter last month, but without any of the provocative details that were presented Tuesday.

“It looks more desperate,” Levenson said of making the claims now. “It looks like he might be stretching. It has less credibility. Things that are in sentencing memos look like last gasps to get whatever they can from the court. We always look at those with a grain of salt. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It doesn’t mean it is true.”

Ed McDonald, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said that making the claims now “detracts from the significance of what he had to say, by Lauro’s not raising it in the first letter.”

Donaghy was arrested last summer and pleaded guilty to two felony counts in August. He faces up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine, but he is expected to receive a lighter sentence for cooperating with the authorities.

Lauro provided enough details in the letter so that specific games that were allegedly tainted by referee misconduct could be recognized. The letter pointed to Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals, in which the Lakers were awarded 40 free throws, including 27 in the fourth quarter, in a victory over the Kings that forced a Game 7.

According to Lauro’s letter: “Tim learned from Referee A that Referees A and F wanted to extend the series to seven games. Tim knew Referees A and F to be ‘company men,’ always acting in the interest of the N.B.A., and that night, it was in the N.B.A.’s interest to add another game to the series.”

The game was refereed by three tenured veterans: Dick Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt and Bob Delaney. Bernhardt has retired from the league. Under N.B.A. rules, Bavetta and Delaney are not permitted to speak to the news media. However, Delaney, a former New Jersey state trooper, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claims in an interview with ESPN.

“This is not the first time a known or convicted criminal has lied about me before the judicial system,” Delaney said Wednesday. “I have an extensive law enforcement background, and still train police officers. I have dealt with criminals and informants, and I know full well they are capable of doing and saying anything.”

The FBI has made inquiries about Bavetta, according to a former N.B.A. referee who was interviewed by federal agents last year.

Hue Hollins, who retired in 2003 and has been outspoken about the N.B.A.’s treatment of referees, said he met for about an hour with two agents from New York before last season.

In addition to asking questions about Donaghy, Hollins said the agents inquired extensively about Bavetta. They asked if he ever noticed that Bavetta “was making sure that the home team would win, and I told them I had no idea because I didn’t work with him a lot.”

Hollins said the agents did not ask about a specific team, game or series and did not ask about Game 6 in 2002.

“They were very specific about their questioning, as though they had heard something,” Hollins said. “They knew exactly what they were going after.”

He said that he didn’t tell them much about either Donaghy or Bavetta, saying he had never noticed suspicious activity by either man. He said it would be difficult for a single referee to affect the outcome of a game.

Mark Cuban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/mark_cuban/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the outspoken Dallas Mavericks (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/probasketball/nationalbasketballassociation/dallasmavericks/index.html?inline=nyt-org) owner, who has been a leading critic of the N.B.A.’s officiating program, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claim that league officials had orchestrated anything.

“There’s no way on God’s green Earth that David Stern has ever done anything to influence the outcome of a game,” Cuban told ESPN.com (http://espn.com/).

Two current N.B.A. referees, in separate interviews, also said Donaghy’s claims were not credible. “I’ve been refereeing since I was 18 years old; I’ve never suspected a referee of cheating in my life,” said a referee, who required anonymity because the N.B.A. prohibits referees from speaking to the news media.

Another referee said that Donaghy appeared to be cherry-picking the most well-known and most-controversial games in order to make the biggest impact.

“He took a poorly refereed game that everyone knew was a poorly refereed game,” said the referee, referring to Game 6. “He knows where to punch.”

Donaghy’s charges have given new life to conspiracy theories about N.B.A. officiating, generating suspicion and conjecture in blogs and on sports talk shows.

Given the intensity of the coverage, there is also the possibility of Congressional hearings. There is no indication that the House committee that investigated the steroids scandal in baseball will take up the matter.
Scot Pollard, a former Kings center who fouled out of the game in question, sounded doubtful about Donaghy’s charges.

“You can’t put credibility in a guy that wasn’t there, didn’t ref the game and doesn’t have a lot of friends in this world right now,” said Pollard, who now plays for Boston. “That game was controversial, anyway. It’s an easy one for somebody to make up a conspiracy theory about.”

<NYT_AUTHOR_ID>Katie Thomas, Michael S. Schmidt and Billy Witz contributed reporting.

</NYT_AUTHOR_ID><NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM>
</NYT_TEXT>


The Pollard quote at the end pretty much tells me that he was joking around in signature Pollard style when he was quoted previously after hearing about the allegations as saying something like [paraphrasing] "I knew something was up."

Also, according to Hue Hollins, the FBI clearly has been investigating around.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:18 PM
No, but they could call fouls on a certain team one way in the 4th quarter. While the other ref calls the game normally.

You cant fix a game that way. If the other team is committing fouls, there is nothing to keep the third ref from calling them.

JayRedd
06-12-2008, 03:21 PM
Here's the ESPN article on the Hue Hollins comments:


Report: Ex-ref Hollins says he was interviewed by feds

<O:p</O:p
ESPN.com news services (Chris Sheridan contributed to this report.)

<!-- promo plug --><!-- end promo plug -->ESPN.com

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3439554&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3439554&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines)<O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:22 PM
The Times just did a pretty in-depth story on this whole thing.

It's pretty long, so I'll bold the highlights.



The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear

Howard Beck
New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/sports/basketball/12refs.html?pagewanted=all



Also, according to Hue Hollins, the FBI clearly has been investigating around.


Like I said at the very beginning of this thread, the FBI has already investigated this **** already, and if they found something, we'd know about it.

I guess we should still be taking Donaghy seriously, though.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 03:24 PM
The Times just did a pretty in-depth story on this whole thing.

It's pretty long, so I'll bold the highlights.



The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear

Howard Beck
New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/sports/basketball/12refs.html?pagewanted=all




The Pollard quote at the end pretty much tells me that he was joking around in signature Pollard style when he was quoted previously after hearing about the allegations as saying something like [paraphrasing] "I knew something was up."

Also, according to Hue Hollins, the FBI clearly has been investigating around.



Wow that is a good article, even better when highlighted. Seems familar though. LOL


You know Donaghy's allegations would carry more weight if he suggested a much lesser known game was fixed. But he picked the one game that has caused the most controvery, a rather obvious choice, any really, really casual fan would have picked that same game.

Has anyone checked out Kingsfanforum.com - I haven't yet, I'm a little afraid to. But I think I will - yeah I just checked out out - they are more likely to believe it. I wish Donaghy would have picked the LJ 4 point play game or game 6 of that series. Infact he should have just said thatthe whole 1999 ECF between the Pacers and Knicks was fixed - everyonbe knew the pacers were the best team and had it not been for Stern the pacers would have won 4 or 5 titles. Yes that is what Donaghy should have alleged

Putnam
06-12-2008, 03:28 PM
This is a great thread and I hope it continues all summer.

First we had Donaghy's allegations. Now we've got Scot Pollard's legal opinions
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:XgvejvaGgF_3XM:http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/4235f6ccb1_pollard1030207.jpg

Swingman
06-12-2008, 03:32 PM
Kstat can't prove that all NBA refs are saints and no one else can prove they have been fixing games (other than Donaghy). So this argument could go on forever.

What I find funny is Kstat, a Pistons fan, is trying to convince Pacer fans that Stern didn't go overboard when punishing the Pacers for the brawl. We may be biased in our opinions but his opinion isn't clear of bias either.

Brawl Suspensions levied to Pacers
Artest - 86 games
Jackson - 30 games
Oneal - 25 games (reduced to 15)
Johnson - 5 games

BIggest Suspensions not in the brawl
Sprewell - 68 games for physically assualting his coach during practice
Kermit Washington - 26 games for punching another player
Carmelo Anthony - 15 games for punching another player
(Rodman kicking a cameraman in the nuts doesn't even make the list of long suspensions)

Ok, so Stern claims the length of suspension was due to entering the stands...

Antonio Davis suspended for 5 games for confronting a fan in the stands during a game. Yes you read that right, 5 games (not even close to 86)

Notable: Rasheed Wallace goes after fan on Dec 20th, 2002 for throwing something at him - fined but not suspended.

I guess it's alright when some players go into stands or go after fans for getting something thrown at them but the Pacers needed to learn a lesson because of a fight that got out of fan which was provoked by Ben Wallace and piston fans.

Artest and Jackson messed up and were in the wrong but the length of suspension was so far overboard it's not even close. Combine that with the fact that Ben Wallace gets off extremely light for starting the whole thing and you can understand why people here wish Stern the worst.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:34 PM
What I find funny is Kstat, a Pistons fan, is trying to convince Pacer fans that Stern didn't go overboard when punishing the Pacers for the brawl. We may be biased in our opinions but his opinion isn't clear of bias either.

Really? Point out to me where I EVER MENTIONED THE BRAWL, aside from saying it is NOT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD.

Please, tell me where I tried to convince someone here that the Pistons didn't get off light, and I'll happily agree with you.

Ask anybody that's been here since 2005 if I ever brought up the brawl since the incident itself. Please. You're three years late to a discussion that I'm not even having.



Brawl Suspensions levied to Pacers
Artest - 86 games
Jackson - 30 games
Oneal - 25 games (reduced to 15)
Johnson - 5 games

...you....


BIggest Suspensions not in the brawl
Sprewell - 68 games for physically assualting his coach during practice
Kermit Washington - 26 games for punching another player
Carmelo Anthony - 15 games for punching another player

...are....


Ok, so Stern claims the length of suspension was due to entering the stands...

Antonio Davis suspended for 5 games for confronting a fan in the stands during a game. Yes you read that right, 5 games (not even close to 86)

Notable: Rasheed Wallace goes after fan on Dec 20th, 2002 for throwing something at him - fined but not suspended.


...arguing....


I guess it's alright when some players go into stands or go after fans for getting something thrown at them but the Pacers needed to learn a lesson because of a fight that got out of fan which was provoked by Ben Wallace and piston fans.

....with...


Artest and Jackson messed up and were in the wrong but the length of suspension was so far overboard it's not even close. Combine that with the fact that Ben Wallace gets off extremely light for starting the whole thing and you can understand why people here wish Stern the worst.

...yourself.....

For the love of god, please involve yourself in the argument at hand, not the one you wish we were having.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 03:36 PM
Kstat can't prove that all NBA refs are saints and no one else can prove they have been fixing games (other than Donaghy). So this argument could go on forever.

What I find funny is Kstat, a Pistons fan, is trying to convince Pacer fans that Stern didn't go overboard when punishing the Pacers for the brawl. We may be biased in our opinions but his opinion isn't clear of bias either.

Brawl Suspensions levied to Pacers
Artest - 86 games
Jackson - 30 games
Oneal - 25 games (reduced to 15)
Johnson - 5 games

BIggest Suspensions not in the brawl
Sprewell - 68 games for physically assualting his coach during practice
Kermit Washington - 26 games for punching another player
Carmelo Anthony - 15 games for punching another player
(Rodman kicking a cameraman in the nuts doesn't even make the list of long suspensions)

Ok, so Stern claims the length of suspension was due to entering the stands...

Antonio Davis suspended for 5 games for confronting a fan in the stands during a game. Yes you read that right, 5 games (not even close to 86)

Notable: Rasheed Wallace goes after fan on Dec 20th, 2002 for throwing something at him - fined but not suspended.

I guess it's alright when some players go into stands or go after fans for getting something thrown at them but the Pacers needed to learn a lesson because of a fight that got out of fan which was provoked by Ben Wallace and piston fans.

Artest and Jackson messed up and were in the wrong but the length of suspension was so far overboard it's not even close. Combine that with the fact that Ben Wallace gets off extremely light for starting the whole thing and you can understand why people here wish Stern the worst.


I certainly don't wish Stern the worst but I did think his treatment of the pacers was a little excessive. But that doesn't lead me down a path of some anti-Stern rant and about how much he hates the pacers - I just don't buy that. I was mainly mad that the Pistons organization didn't get a huge fine and I was upset that Ronnie Garretson wasn't thrown out of the league for his actions.

rock747
06-12-2008, 03:41 PM
You cant fix a game that way. If the other team is committing fouls, there is nothing to keep the third ref from calling them.

Right. But the third ref is the minority to the two other ref's when it comes to calling phantom calls on the other team(Kings).

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:44 PM
Right. But the third ref is the minority to the two other ref's when it comes to calling phantom calls on the other team(Kings).

Point is, you can't only control half the game and fix the outcome. It's stupidity to only include two out of three refs for the sake of deniability.

If they wanted to fix the game, they would not have sent a freaking undercover cop to referee it.

Shade
06-12-2008, 03:49 PM
It looks like :bavetta: is the main guy the feds are looking at right now. Can't say this surprises me at all.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 03:50 PM
Another angle that is rarely brought up is this. what is really the upside of fixing games to assure the Lakers vs Kings go to a 7th game. (I believe by then the new contract with ESPN/ABC had already been signed) 1 extra game is worth risking your $10 M a year job over. 1 extra game is worth putting the NBA out of business, it is worth costing the owners billions of dollars, it is worth your entire reputation.

The upsode of fixing games just isn't worth the possible downside. And no one has ever come close to providing a decent argument otherwise.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 03:54 PM
It looks like :bavetta: is the main guy the feds are looking at right now. Can't say this surprises me at all.

And yet if you ask the current coaches and current and former players to name the best refs - Dick is with rare exceptions always mentioned as one of the best, he is consistantly ranked as one of the best refs, by coaches, players and by the NBA's comprehensive grading system. Just heard Eddie Johnson today and Jason Terry yesterday on Cowherd mentioned Dick as one of the best,

personally, I think Dick calls too many travels and too many offensive fouls and generally calls the game too close for my liking. But I know I was jumping up and down for joy when I saw him refing game 3 of the 1998 ECF against the Bulls

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:55 PM
All of the 90's generation of players swear by the guy. Barkley loves him.

JohnnyBGoode
06-12-2008, 03:55 PM
I think that it depends on how much a fan has invested in the whole NBA experience, as to their views of this dirty ref and fixed games deal. Here you have the hard core fans, such as UB, who have devoted a great deal of their time and money in supporting the Pacers, and it is hard for them to even entertain the thought that the whole thing is not on the level. Now on the other hand, fans like myself, see it differently. I accept the NBA for what it is, highly athletic players performing at the behest of their respective team, under the guise of a level playing field. It is so easy for the refs to affect the outcome of a game without being easily detected. The NBA wants the fans to believe in the integrity of the game, while they manipulated the outcome.

If the NBA was for real, the Pacers would have at least a couple of championships by now, but you keep on drinking the koolaide, as it is hot out today.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 03:57 PM
If the NBA was for real, the Pacers would have at least a couple of championships by now

But since they don't have a championship, you're going to take your ball and go home. Either you win, or nobody should win. Shame on the NBA for the pacers not winning a championship. It's all everyone else's fault.

The Pacers never actually lose games. They just get cheated. Heck of a way to live nife, not having to take responsibility for anything.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 04:00 PM
If the NBA was for real, the Pacers would have at least a couple of championships by now, but you keep on drinking the koolaide, as it is hot out today.


Wow that is some logic there. So the Pacers didn't win a championship, so the league has to be fixed. Only one year have they ever had the best record in the NBA and if it weren't for the Pistons acquiring Sheed, a few key injuries, and Artest melting down, the pacers might have won it that year.

In 1999 - go back and look how poorly Reggie played in that series against the Knicks. Houston outplayed him by a wide margin.

I don't know what other year the pacers had the best team, but I'm as big of a fan as anyone and I can't think of a year where the pacers were the best team

Shade
06-12-2008, 04:01 PM
And yet if you ask the current coaches and current and former players to name the best refs - Dick is with rare exceptions always mentioned as one of the best, he is consistantly ranked as one of the best refs, by coaches, players and by the NBA's comprehensive grading system. Just heard Eddie Johnson today and Jason Terry yesterday on Cowherd mentioned Dick as one of the best,

personally, I think Dick calls too many travels and too many offensive fouls and generally calls the game too close for my liking. But I know I was jumping up and down for joy when I saw him refing game 3 of the 1998 ECF against the Bulls

And yet, Bavetta has been involved in perhaps more questionable scenarios than any other ref, especially in big market vs. small market playoff series. The aforementioned 2002 Lakers/Kings Game 6 being one of them.

The NBA had better hope it's not true. What you say would make it all the more devastating if it is.

Shade
06-12-2008, 04:02 PM
Shame on the NBA for the pacers not winning a championship.

Agreed. :D ;)

Kstat
06-12-2008, 04:03 PM
Shade, the Bavetta investigation was most likely the FBI's way if indirectly investigating Donaghy's accusations without letting people know what they were looking for.

JohnnyBGoode
06-12-2008, 04:04 PM
Wow that is some logic there. So the Pacers didn't win a championship, so the league has to be fixed. Only one year have they ever had the best record in the NBA and if it weren't for the Pistons acquiring Sheed, a few key injuries, and Artest melting down, the pacers might have won it that year.

Since when does a team have to have the best record in the NBA to win it all? Some freaking logic there UB. I am making a hell of a lot more sense then your defending the NBA at all costs attitude. Selective memory of the Jordan years, ther UB?

Kstat
06-12-2008, 04:06 PM
Since when does a team have to have the best record in the NBA to win it all? Some freaking logic there UB. I am making a hell of a lot more sense then your defending the NBA at all costs attitude. Selective memory of the Jordan years, ther UB?

Yeah, the Pacers were better than the Bulls all those years. That Jordan guy would never have been as good as Reggie Miller without the NBA fixing the games for him.

UB is making way more sense than you. You haven't even explained how the Pacers were "cheated" out of two championships. You're throwing slop at the wall.

Hicks
06-12-2008, 04:06 PM
[:stirthepo] Of course, you could argue that the other ref who was hired after being a former cop, a former undercover cop, suggests he makes an excellent liar who can easily hide important information even when under pressure and when isolated. [/:stirthepo]

Not saying I'm convinced, but I do stand somewhere near where Bball is on this: We don't know.

But that goes both ways.

We do know one guy was crooked, and before that broke I think a lot of people would have adamantly dismissed the idea that ANY referee was crooked.

That is evidence of a problem in and of itself, NOT WHAT DONAGHY IS SAYING, just the fact that Donaghy was in the league in the first place doing this. And then there's always the possibility that he's telling at least some of the truth. But we don't know, and that's not evidence. The only evidence with Donaghy is that he himself was crooked, and the NBA didn't know it.

JohnnyBGoode
06-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Yeah, the Pacers were better than the Bulls all those years. That Jordan guy would never have been as good as Reggie Miller without the NBA fixing the games for him.

Cherry or grape?

Shade
06-12-2008, 04:08 PM
[:stirthepo] Of course, you could argue with the other ref who was hired after being a former cop, a former undercover cop, that that suggests he makes an excellent liar who can easily hide important information even when under pressure and when isolated. [/:stirthepo]

Not saying I'm convinced, but I do stand somewhere near where Bball is on this: We don't know.

But that goes both ways.

We do know one guy was crooked, and before that broke I think a lot of people would have adamantly dismissed the idea that ANY referee was crooked.

That is evidence of a problem in and of itself, NOT WHAT DONAGHY IS SAYING, just the fact that Donaghy was in the league in the first place doing this. And then there's always the possibility that he's telling at least some of the truth. But we don't know, and that's not evidence. The only evidence with Donaghy is that he himself was crooked, and the NBA didn't know it.

:iagree:

Kstat
06-12-2008, 04:09 PM
Cherry or grape?

Another brilliant, convincing argument. You're making a great case that the pacers were better than Jordan's bulls.

To answer the question, the kool aid tastes great. It's a heck of a lot better than the sour grapes whine....

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 04:12 PM
Since when does a team have to have the best record in the NBA to win it all? Some freaking logic there UB. I am making a hell of a lot more sense then your defending the NBA at all costs attitude. Selective memory of the Jordan years, ther UB?

Ok, then I'll jiust say the Pacers were never the best team and that is why they never won. - It certainly wasn't because of the refs

Slick Pinkham
06-12-2008, 04:13 PM
If the NBA was for real, the Pacers would have at least a couple of championships by now, but you keep on drinking the koolaide, as it is hot out today.

I've been a diehard Pacers fan for 38 years (I didn't follow in my pre-kindergarden years) and can objectively say that only twice did I think we may have the best team in the league, going into the playoffs: 1998 & 2000

Still I was not confident in 1998 due to Jordan. Not due to any special rules, but due to his skill and as I was to find out, their overall defensive intensity which really threw a wrench into our offense. they were a better defensive team, and with Jordan (even diminished) as the go-to guy they were better in getting a basket when their lives depended on it.

In 2000 I thought we had a shot, though we were pretty gimmicky- a jump shooting team without great rebounding and interior D. In the end we needed to always shoot a much higher percentage to make up for fewer posessions. Kobe killed us in the OT, and Shaq killed us inside. They were flat-out better.

The 1999 strike season we never gelled. I hated the LJ 4-point play as much as anyone, and we were better than the Knicks, but I think the Spurs were better than us.

I honestly think we got as much out of those seasons as we could. I would like to re-play the last quarter of game 7 of the ECF against the Bulls in 1998 though.

Shade
06-12-2008, 04:14 PM
Shade, the Bavetta investigation was most likely the FBI's way if indirectly investigating Donaghy's accusations without letting people know what they were looking for.

Perhaps. But it is interesting that they've opened up a new investigation, apparently.

rock747
06-12-2008, 04:14 PM
I don't think they're arguing the games are "fixed" just that officials are told to call the games certain ways to protect the star player and aid the star teams. In fact, I think that is obvious if you watch an NBA game.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 04:14 PM
If you want to blame the NBA for having Donaghy in the NBA to begin with, I have no problems with that. if you want to say the refs make a lot of bad, calls I have no problem because they do make a lot of bad calls, bad non-calls

Shade
06-12-2008, 04:16 PM
I've been a diehard Pacers fan for 38 years (I didn't follow in my pre-kindergarden years) and can objectively say that only twice did I think we may have the best team in the league, going into the playoffs: 1998 & 2000

Still I was not confident in 1998 due to Jordan. Not due to any special rules, but due to his skill and as I was to find out, their overall defensive intensity which really threw a wrench into our offense. they were a better defensive team, and with Jordan (even diminished) as the go-to guy they were better in getting a basket when their lives depended on it.

In 2000 I thought we had a shot, though we were pretty gimmicky- a jump shooting team without great rebounding and interior D. In the end we needed to always shoot a much higher percentage to make up for fewer posessions. Kobe killed us in the OT, and Shaq killed us inside. They were flat-out better.

The 1999 strike season we never gelled. I hated the LJ 4-point play as much as anyone, and we were better than the Knicks, but I think the Spurs were better than us.

I honestly think we got as much out of those seasons as we could. I would like to re-play the last quarter of game 7 of the ECF against the Bulls in 1998 though.

I agree for the most part. We got hosed pretty badly in the '99 ECF so it's hard to say how we would have done against the Spurs.

I think we also had the best team in '04 before the Sheed acquisition.

Shade
06-12-2008, 04:17 PM
I don't think they're arguing the games are "fixed" just that officials are told to call the games certain ways to protect the star player and aid the star teams. In fact, I think that is obvious if you watch an NBA game.

That's a form of fixing.

JohnnyBGoode
06-12-2008, 04:20 PM
Ok, then I'll jiust say the Pacers were never the best team and that is why they never won. - It certainly wasn't because of the refs

Best for a game, a series, a whole season? The best team does not always win, or horse for that matter.

JohnnyBGoode
06-12-2008, 04:22 PM
If Smits would have been treated like Jordan or any of the other top players in the league, the Pacers would have won at least one title. I can't believe that some of you die hards can't see what occured back then.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 04:23 PM
Best for a game, a series, a whole season? The best team does not always win, or horse for that matter.

I just never thought the Pacers were the best team during the playoffs in any single season , however even if I did think they were the best team in a given year that doesn't prove some conspiracy

rock747
06-12-2008, 04:23 PM
That's a form of fixing.

Right, what i am saying is I don't think the winner is pre-determined, but the big market team with big money players is given the edge in games.

Hoop
06-12-2008, 04:25 PM
Kstat can't prove that all NBA refs are saints and no one else can prove they have been fixing games (other than Donaghy). So this argument could go on forever.

What I find funny is Kstat, a Pistons fan, is trying to convince Pacer fans that Stern didn't go overboard when punishing the Pacers for the brawl. We may be biased in our opinions but his opinion isn't clear of bias either.

Brawl Suspensions levied to Pacers
Artest - 86 games
Jackson - 30 games
Oneal - 25 games (reduced to 15)
Johnson - 5 games

BIggest Suspensions not in the brawl
Sprewell - 68 games for physically assualting his coach during practice
Kermit Washington - 26 games for punching another player
Carmelo Anthony - 15 games for punching another player
(Rodman kicking a cameraman in the nuts doesn't even make the list of long suspensions)

Ok, so Stern claims the length of suspension was due to entering the stands...

Antonio Davis suspended for 5 games for confronting a fan in the stands during a game. Yes you read that right, 5 games (not even close to 86)

Notable: Rasheed Wallace goes after fan on Dec 20th, 2002 for throwing something at him - fined but not suspended.

I guess it's alright when some players go into stands or go after fans for getting something thrown at them but the Pacers needed to learn a lesson because of a fight that got out of fan which was provoked by Ben Wallace and piston fans.

Artest and Jackson messed up and were in the wrong but the length of suspension was so far overboard it's not even close. Combine that with the fact that Ben Wallace gets off extremely light for starting the whole thing and you can understand why people here wish Stern the worst.
I haven't read this entire thread, to lazy to. I agree with most of this post though.

You forgot Vernon Maxwell, he was a know hot head, had already been in more past trouble than Artest. Mad Max goes up several rows into the stands and punches a fan and only gets 10 games. How does that compute? 10 games vs 86, complete bull.

Artest gets more than Sprewell? More injustice, Sprewell chokes his coach while saying "I'm going to kill you" and gets less than Artest.

JO had been a perfect citizen his whole career, he punches a guy that comes on to the floor looking to fight and JO gets punished, makes no sense to me. Fans have came on the field in football and baseball and have been attacked by players and those players never received any punishment.

Detroit should have had to play at least a few games with no fans in the building. Ben Wallace should have got more punishment for inciting a riot, Ben was the first in the building to throw something, then the fans started.
Stern socked it to the Pacers way more than needed, I will always hate him for that.

Shade
06-12-2008, 04:28 PM
Right, what i am saying is I don't think the winner is pre-determined, but the big market team with big money players is given the edge in games.

Yeah, this is exactly my belief as well.

A game cannot be fixed completely unless EVERYONE is in on it; the refs, the players, the coaches...EVERYONE. I don't believe this to be the case.

However, I do believe that certain teams/players are favored intentionally by the refs, whether it be to preserve the best interests of the league or due to a personal bias (or both). I don't see how anyone can watch an NBA game and not see this.

Sometimes the favoritism is enough to affect the outcome of the game; sometimes it isn't. But there's no way in hell this flood of poor officiating is only due to poor decision-making by the referees. A lot of them, sure. But not all. There are too many blatant, obvious calls/non-calls that any competent referee would not get wrong, much less THREE of them.

Shade
06-12-2008, 04:31 PM
I haven't read this entire thread, to lazy to. I agree with most of this post though.

You forgot Vernon Maxwell, he was a know hot head, had already been in more past trouble than Artest. Mad Max goes up several rows into the stands and punches a fan and only gets 10 games. How does that compute? 10 games vs 86, complete bull.

Artest gets more than Sprewell? More injustice, Sprewell chokes his coach while saying "I'm going to kill you" and gets less than Artest.

JO had been a perfect citizen his whole career, he punches a guy that comes on to the floor looking to fight and JO gets punished, makes no sense to me. Fans have came on the field in football and baseball and have been attacked by players and those players never received any punishment.

Detroit should have had to play at least a few games with no fans in the building. Ben Wallace should have got more punishment for inciting a riot, Ben was the first in the building to throw something, then the fans started.
Stern socked it to the Pacers way more than needed, I will always hate him for that.

Agreed. Suspensions were warranted for sure, but the amazingly lopsided punishments handed down displayed a clear bias against the Pacers (or for the Pistons, however you choose to see it).

Kstat
06-12-2008, 04:33 PM
I do agree that superstars get calls a lot of other players don't, but there's a totally different reason for that, other than marketing dollars.

If you think about it, we have two kinds of phrases when it comes to abnormal whistles: "rookie calls," and "superstars calls." One is positive and the latter is negative.

Really, if the NBA wants to pamper its superstars, then does that mean it wants to punish its young, up and coming rookies? What possible purpose would that serve?

NBA refs have the toughest job in sports. It isn't even close. They're asked to watch for 20 possible violations every second of the game, and it's impossible to focus on one or two. The human eye can't possible follow everything in detail simultaneously.

So how does a human being get around this? They rely on what they know about the player.

I remember early in Tayshaun's career, he made a lot of those jaw-dropping blocks like the one he made on reggie miller, and most of them were ruled goaltends. Why? Because it was very hard for the referee to believe Tayshaun could make that kind of play, and more often than not they played it safe.

But the more games he played, the more times referees reviewed tapes and saw that he was getting those shots cleanly, he started getting the benefit of the doubt.

There's no doubt %90 of the players in the NBA would have been whistled for a goaltend on that Miller block. There is no way in hell any of those refs were in position to make a conclusive call either way. He was awarded a clean block because he had shown himself capable of making that play on a consistent basis, and got the benefit of the doubt. On replay, it was the correct call by a fraction of a second.

The more a player shows his unique abilities on the floorand proves himself, the more he's going to get the benefit of that doubt that most players don't. So when the referee is forced to make a judgment call on a play he was not focusing on, (and what the heck in the NBA ISN'T a judgment call?) then he's going to fall back on what he knows about every player involved in the play.

Is it fair? Not really, but as long as you have three human beings trying to monitor 100 possible violations per play, at some point something is going to happen out of nowhere, and a call is going to need to be made.

Superstar calls are logical, as are rookie calls. They should be more accurately re-named "veteran calls." Every veteran gets certain calls because he has certain abilities that he's shown over his career. It's just more obvious with superstars because Kobe Byrant can get to the rim and force more calls to be made than a guy like PJ Brown.

Every young player is taught from the day he starts out that if he keeps performing though every bad whistle he gets, the referees will adjust to his game and he will 'get the calls." It isn't because he'll be more marketable, it's simply because referees will know his game better.

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2008, 04:33 PM
It's stupidity to only include two out of three refs for the sake of deniability.
Chicago Black Sox.

Nearly all fixes have only included some people. Vegas isn't rich because it always wins, Vegas is rich because when you sit at Carribean Stud or Roulette or BlackJack you only win 49% of the time/money.

So TILTING games a direction in HOPES of getting the outcomes you want is still something you would do, even if they couldn't always get what they wanted.

AJ Foyt once claimed another driver must be cheating because that's the only way he could be beaten. The reaction by some was that AJ's logic must be "I'm cheating so I know they must be". This would be one example that even cheaters lose sometimes. (or lottery outcome "adjusters", such as add 5 extra ping pong balls)

Fixers don't fix everything and they know they are going to have some attempts fail. But it's still a business where over the long haul things go in the direction you want, enough to help out your financial situation.


BTW, I've heard the defense with Stern that "why would he risk his rep now after doing so many good things for the NBA". The problem is what's to say he hasn't used influential tatics from day 1.

Not a 100% puppet show, but pushing and nudging as much as he could. The league becomes popular, but then the openly fixed pro wrestling leagues are popular too. Even die hard NBA fans have found themselves wondering from time to time.


Personally I think fans complain too often about calls, but at the same time refs clearly do have a wide variance of tolerance. Some guys don't let you touch the elbow, some guys call it tighter at the start than the end, and so on.

Lost in all those vague flavors of styles would be if that style was intentional.


Personally I'm most bothered by the fact that Stern fined Van Gundy for something that TD just also said was true, that refs were told to call the Dallas/Houston series differently.

Even if JVG was sourcing Tim D, he was "right" in the sense that a ref was telling him this. Should he have been fined 100K for that, and magically backed off the statement shortly after? And furthermore, did JVG have a relationship that close with Tim D? Should a ref and coach have that caliber a relationship?

Or was JVG citing a different source?

Kstat
06-12-2008, 04:35 PM
If Smits would have been treated like Jordan

Rik Smits is comparable to Michael Jordan. Gotcha.

If only the NBA wasn't rigged, we'd all be purchasing "air dutchman" shoes and singing "If I could be like Rik.."

This is the best conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

JohnnyBGoode
06-12-2008, 04:41 PM
One thing that I believe points to the whole integrity of the game is, the whole home court advantage idea. No, I am not referring to the obvious advantages of the home court, such as cheering fans or the familiarity of the court. I am pointing at the obvious foul dispaity that the home team consistently benefits from. It is almost written in stone that the home team will get the edge in the officiating. Now to me it seems far fetched that just because you are the home team, you suddenly commit less fouls. Why should the home team get this edge? That's right, the officials can and do call the games differently, geesh, wake up people.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 04:42 PM
Personally I'm most bothered by the fact that Stern fined Van Gundy for something that TD just also said was true, that refs were told to call the Dallas/Houston series differently.

Yeah, fine a guy for publicly calling out the integrity of the company he works for, instead of handling it in-house. That's insane.


Hmm...I feel like fixing a series to make the NBA some money.

Hey, I know, I'll freeze Yao Ming out of the playoffs! Our ratings will skyrocket!

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2008, 04:43 PM
We do know one guy was crooked, and before that broke I think a lot of people would have adamantly dismissed the idea that ANY referee was crooked.
And that's the key, isn't it. Stern has no one to blame but himself. Whose process let Donaghy get away with this, what company hired him?

The fans didn't hire him, the Pacers didn't hire him, and none of us was standing up to the press consistantly suggesting that there is no way this was happening.

And worse yet, the NBA was told to look at this guy, did an investigation, and came back with "clean". What's that tell you about the process in place telling us all these other guys are clean?

Stern could be right, it could just be TD with sour grapes, but my point since last year remains this - STERN DOESN'T KNOW because his method for finding out already failed badly with TD.


Yeah, fine a guy for publicly calling out the integrity of the company he works for, instead of handling it in-house. That's insane.
But it seems now like JVG was telling the truth. So why fine him? Shouldn't Stern hear what JVG is saying and take it as a serious issue, that someone OTHER THAN JVG is saying this is true. Let's say it was true, why in the world should JVG not be shouting to the rafters, and why in the world would Stern shout him down rather than look into it if he was indeed clean and trying to keep the NBA clean?

Maybe the reaction should be "we think JVG has bad info but we are looking into it" rather than "YOU SHUT UP NOW!" It looks bad IMO. JVG didn't say "IMO it's all fixed". JVG was whistle blowing. You don't fine whistle blowers, you commend them for getting the corruption out in the open. Either a liar was giving JVG bad info and action BY STERN should have gone into finding that source or JVG had been told the truth and Stern should have taken action to find out who was handing out that order.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 04:44 PM
I am pointing at the obvious foul dispaity that the home team consistently benefits from.

It isn't because the home team simply has more energy and attacks the rim more- naaaaah, that would require actually paying attention to the game that's being played.


It is almost written in stone that the home team will get the edge in the officiating.

I can give you over a dozen games this year, playoffs included, where the Pistons were out shot at the line at the Palace by at least 10.


geesh, wake up people.

...like smits...if I could be like smits....

I wannawannawannawanna be like Smiiiiiits...

Ah, what could have been, if only the NBA wasn't fixed.

JohnnyBGoode
06-12-2008, 04:45 PM
Rik Smits is comparable to Michael Jordan. Gotcha.

If only the NBA wasn't rigged, we'd all be purchasing "air dutchman" shoes and singing "If I could be like Rik.."

This is the best conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

I never meant that Smits was on the level of Jordan, only that he did not recieve the same treatment that Jordon did. Smits, didn't even recieve the same treatment as rookies did. BTW, why should great players get special treatment? That just proves that the NBA is not on the level.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 04:48 PM
I never meant that Smits was on the level of Jordan, only that he did not recieve the same treatment that Jordon did.

Right, in a fair league Rik Smits would have gotten more calls when he tried to dunk from the free throw line. Fair's fair, after all.


BTW, why should great players get special treatment? That just proves that the NBA is not on the level.

I explained it in great detail, but you'd have to go back and read.

http://www.internationalbasketball.com/riksmitspic.jpg

Sometimes I dream....that he is me...

http://dungyhadtheunder.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/lg_jordan45_ap_01.jpg

They even wore the same number. The comparisons are scary.

Swingman
06-12-2008, 05:17 PM
Who are you trying to kid Kstat? You were talking about the brawl on page one of this thread. Apparently you have a short term memory disorder.

Too much :buddies:?

Kstat
06-12-2008, 05:19 PM
Who are you trying to kid Kstat? You were talking about the brawl on page one of this thread. Apparently you have a short term memory disorder.


Really? At what point did I defend the Pistons' role in the brawl and say they didn't get off light?

Swingman
06-12-2008, 05:30 PM
Really? At what point did I defend the Pistons' role in the brawl and say they didn't get off light?

Where did I say that you said they got off light?

All I said was that you were trying to claim Stern didn't over-punish the Pacers. The rest of my post was to point out how unfair Stern was in handling the situation which is why many Pacer fans don't feel he deserves a fair shake in this and would rejoice if he had to resign.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 05:31 PM
Where did I say that you said they got off light?

That's what I'm being accused of...


All I said was that you were trying to claim Stern didn't over-punish the Pacers.


I said he was not the reason for their downfall. I did not comment on the severity of the suspensions either way.


The rest of my post to point out how unfair Stern was in handling the situation which is why many Pacer fans don't feel he deserves a fair shake in this and would rejoice if he had to resign.

The brawl has nothing to do with this discussion. David Stern is a very poor excuse to bring up 11/19 in this thread.

If this was a thread about Stern's job approval rating in this forum, 11/19 would be relevant.

This thread is about the NBA allegedly fixing games, which has nothing at all in common with 11/19.

"I personally don't like David Stern because of the brawl suspensions " is not cause to accuse him of fixing playoff games. That's the world's biggest leap in logic.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 10:48 PM
did anyone see Sterns 25 minute press conference before game #4. he said every ref has ben interviewed after last summer's Donaghy situation came to light

rm1369
06-12-2008, 10:49 PM
Kstat,

Your explanation of superstar calls certainly has some truth to it, but it doesn't explain the depth that superstar calls go. Mutombo may have gotten away with more contact on a block because that is what he was known for, but in many cases it's simply a matter of the amount of contact that is needed for a foul call. Not a specific move or ability. Simply contact on a drive or jumper. The perfect example is Brent Barry's shot in the LA - SA series. Make that Kobe and it's much more likely a foul call - even if he doesn't sell it.

And what in the world explains Ewing's three steps across the lane move? Did it cease being a travel because he was known for it or because he was a star?

rock747
06-12-2008, 10:55 PM
did anyone see Sterns 25 minute press conference before game #4. he said every ref has ben interviewed after last summer's Donaghy situation came to light

Even if Stern has nothing to do with this, he is going to protect his own league however he can.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 11:03 PM
Even if Stern has nothing to do with this, he is going to protect his own league however he can.

that is what he gets paid to do

Plax80
06-12-2008, 11:10 PM
I do agree that superstars get calls a lot of other players don't, but there's a totally different reason for that, other than marketing dollars.

If you think about it, we have two kinds of phrases when it comes to abnormal whistles: "rookie calls," and "superstars calls." One is positive and the latter is negative.

Really, if the NBA wants to pamper its superstars, then does that mean it wants to punish its young, up and coming rookies? What possible purpose would that serve?

NBA refs have the toughest job in sports. It isn't even close. They're asked to watch for 20 possible violations every second of the game, and it's impossible to focus on one or two. The human eye can't possible follow everything in detail simultaneously.

So how does a human being get around this? They rely on what they know about the player.

I remember early in Tayshaun's career, he made a lot of those jaw-dropping blocks like the one he made on reggie miller, and most of them were ruled goaltends. Why? Because it was very hard for the referee to believe Tayshaun could make that kind of play, and more often than not they played it safe.

But the more games he played, the more times referees reviewed tapes and saw that he was getting those shots cleanly, he started getting the benefit of the doubt.

There's no doubt %90 of the players in the NBA would have been whistled for a goaltend on that Miller block. There is no way in hell any of those refs were in position to make a conclusive call either way. He was awarded a clean block because he had shown himself capable of making that play on a consistent basis, and got the benefit of the doubt. On replay, it was the correct call by a fraction of a second.

The more a player shows his unique abilities on the floorand proves himself, the more he's going to get the benefit of that doubt that most players don't. So when the referee is forced to make a judgment call on a play he was not focusing on, (and what the heck in the NBA ISN'T a judgment call?) then he's going to fall back on what he knows about every player involved in the play.

Is it fair? Not really, but as long as you have three human beings trying to monitor 100 possible violations per play, at some point something is going to happen out of nowhere, and a call is going to need to be made.

Superstar calls are logical, as are rookie calls. They should be more accurately re-named "veteran calls." Every veteran gets certain calls because he has certain abilities that he's shown over his career. It's just more obvious with superstars because Kobe Byrant can get to the rim and force more calls to be made than a guy like PJ Brown.

Every young player is taught from the day he starts out that if he keeps performing though every bad whistle he gets, the referees will adjust to his game and he will 'get the calls." It isn't because he'll be more marketable, it's simply because referees will know his game better.

I actually like the way you argue your points so I'm going to try and place myself and your side of the argument and see what I come up with.

1. Its 1991 and my league is beginning to struggle again with the end of the Bird-Magic Era. I have an up and coming superstar player to market in Michael Jordan only the rest of his team is lacking. I have a mechanism through subjective intrepretation of our rulebook which allows me to at the very least have some influence on the outcome of games. My ability to maintain and grow my revenue stream is largely dependant on the success of this superstar and his team.
I therefore choose to: a.) Ignore my opportunity to promote said player under the best interests of the game clause; or b.) Take some active or passive role through the built in subjective intrpretation of the rules in helping said player and team.

Because I am only concerned with what's in the best interest of the game, I ignore the inherit opportunity to enhance my revenue and public status as a league by ordering all my officials to intrpret the rules on the basis of merit only.

2. Its now 2006 and my league is being bashed again for the 10,000th time for using its ability to influence the outcome of games and playoff series through its subjective intrepretation mechanism after an eye-popping display of free throw shooting by Dwayne wade in games 3 and 5 of NBA Finals.

I can either; a.) Continue to choose to ignore the public backlash which is now producing significant dropoffs in interest and ratings for my most important league events. Or b.) Finally admit that it is time to reform the process of regulating the subjective intrepretation mechanism inherit in the sport by removing myself and other league executives from having a direct relationship with league referees.

While choosing option B certainly would promote a significant positive step that would be immensely popular with coaches, players and fans and would certainly curtail if not completely eliminate the ever-growing sentiment that the league routinely directly or indirectly influences the outcome of its games.......I choose option A on the basis that I am omnipotent and even though I never have misused my power to effect any aspect of competition.....I'm not willing to relinquish any control over it..........no matter how damaging it may continue to be to the sport.

3. Its now 2007 and I am getting even more heat over my intrpretation of two prominent Phoenix players leaving bench during series with Spurs. In this instance I made an honest mistake in judgment but because I am an egomaniac I refuse to admit to the mistake which completely effects outcome of playoffs. NBA Finals ratings now reach an all time low barely outpacing some cable network news broadcasts.

4. Even though I continue to get raked over the coals; even though my league and my popularity are at all time lows, I continue to employ several questionable characters within my officiating ranks some of whom have been linked to gambling, tax evasion and instigators in disputes with league players and coaches. I again choose not to relinquish any disciplinary authority or oversight over officials and continue to allow certain officials that "I am comfortable with" to officiate some of the leagues most pivotal games.

Again, I'm omnipotent and what I say goes no matter the public perception.

I didn't even touch the Patrick ewing cold envelope that nearly everyone has winked an nodded to except Stern...........or the 2002 Sac-LAL series.......or the Van Gundy episode.............or the comments pertaining to James Dolan not accepting his invitation to discuss his ideas on how to begin to fix the Knicks' problems.

Or any ofthe other issues you can rightfully challenge his highness on.......

and even without those supporting arguments.....to believe that David Stern is completely innocent of using his power and influence to directly or indirectly affect the outcome of certain events.........is harder to believe than Michael Vick's initial defense in the dogfighting ring.

I could have misused my authority.......but I didn't.
I could have set up a better system to remove myself and league officials from the process and thus ending all conspiracy theories.........but I didn't.
I could have hired more reputable people to officiate my games.........but I didn't.
I could have ..........I should have.............I didn't.........because I don't want to...............Why ??

Cause its my ball and I'll take it if I want to.

Waaaahhhh

Sorry- thats a tough argument to get my arms completely around.

Swingman
06-12-2008, 11:32 PM
That's what I'm being accused of...

Who is accusing you of that?

I said he was not the reason for their downfall. I did not comment on the severity of the suspensions either way.

Fine

The brawl has nothing to do with this discussion. David Stern is a very poor excuse to bring up 11/19 in this thread.

It was brought up well before my post and it has everything to do with how fans here feel about Stern.

If this was a thread about Stern's job approval rating in this forum, 11/19 would be relevant.

This thread is about the NBA allegedly fixing games, which has nothing at all in common with 11/19.

"I personally don't like David Stern because of the brawl suspensions " is not cause to accuse him of fixing playoff games. That's the world's biggest leap in logic.

No it's not cause to accuse him for fixing playoff games (where did I say that?) but it's why some fans hope he gets caught red-handed.

Kstat
06-12-2008, 11:37 PM
No it's not cause to accuse him for fixing playoff games (where did I say that?) but it's why some fans hope he gets caught red-handed.

..except this isn't about what you HOPE. It's about what you think is the truth.

Bball
06-13-2008, 01:29 AM
..except this isn't about what you HOPE. It's about what you think is the truth.

The truth is that none of us know. Some of us think there's enough smoke to believe there could be fire and Donaghy's in a position to know... and a position to tell what he knows... And a bad position to be lying right now.

I'm losing track of who said what but I thought you were arguing that the FBI had already cleared everyone and Donaghy wasn't being taken seriously... then lo and behold we find out the FBI is conducting an investigation. To me, that is something that needs to happen and then everyone needs to let the chips fall where they may.

As to your explanation of star calls- I'm not sure what is left to be said. I don't really want to overly argue anything and in fact agree with some of your points there. Unfortunately, your points go too far and at a certain point it just turns into making excuses for bad refereeing. It's already been addressed that nobody is talking about a player who excels at shot-blocking and begins to get the benefit of the doubt. It's the phantom fouls sending stars to the line, the (lack of) travels, the no calls when they are on defense, a lack of consistency, etc that is what people are talking about and your argument doesn't address that. In fact, what it does is reinforce the argument against those things because you're arguing refs will 'learn' players. Well, if they learn their good things, they should be learning the bad things too... such as their need for an extra step, their flops, etc... Then they should be calling them more.

I'm not arguing the NBA is definitely rigged from top to bottom. I'm arguing that the possibility does exist of some type of 'game management' due the pi$$-poor officiating that is found in the NBA... And Donaghy's statement have a ring of plausibility to them. The truth is, some of the NBA officiating is so bad that we should all HOPE it IS rigged because otherwise I'm not sure these guys (and gals) should even have jobs.



-Bball

rock747
06-13-2008, 02:19 AM
Another great post bball

quiller
06-13-2008, 04:21 AM
Nice thread,

I would be shocked beyond belief if there was any fix saying one team needs to win on any game. That said I do believe that it could be possible that Stern might have said something unofficial to ref's go easy on the superstars.... What I do feel is that the system does not work well. There is no consistency in calls game in game out. Calls seemed to be influenced by coaches/players complaining. Also it is obvious to me that certain players get calls and certain players do not depending upon situation to situation. What also bugs me is the whole don't you dare complain or I will fine you...
Now of course when the heat is really on we are hearing about all the reviewing and grading of ref's that goes on game in game out. Well we should have been hearing about this before, including telling us when ref's mess up and what Stern did about it. If we as fans know there is accountability for mistakes then we won't feel there is any conspiracy.

I also feel that Stern does not "hate" the Pacers. I do feel that Stern was embarrassed by the brawl and like everyone else took the easy way out, blame the bad guy (Artest), come down hard to show everyone you really are in control and not punish Detroit(bad security), or the ref's that did a poor job in containment as well as that would show you weren't really in control.

My take on the Pacer teams...

93-94 Pacers as good as any team... flip a coin with New York, Houston
94-95 Pacers as good as any team... flip a coin with Orlando, Houston
97-98 Pacers as good as any team... flip a coin Chicago
98-99 were better then NY as good as SA....
03-04 were the best, even then Detroit with Sheed.
04-05 were showing signs of being the best tell brawl but way too early...

99-00 we were not as good as LA...

Slick Pinkham
06-13-2008, 07:49 AM
It was amazing how last night the fix was on big time for the Lakers, and then it became too obvious. They then went for the ever-so-deceptive "reverse fix" to get Boston back into the game, but overdid it and couldn't pull off the " reverse resverse fix" and help out the Lakers in the very end.

I think I saw Uri Geller in the stands trying to mentally alter the trajectory of James Posey's late 3-pointer.

Uri was distracted by the Laker girls, though. You would have thought that Stern would have considered that, and substituted Laker girls with Pacemates. Or picked a gay psychic.

:brick:

;)

Unclebuck
06-13-2008, 09:14 AM
wow the refs screwed it up last night. Don't they know that it is their job to make sure the Finals go 7 games. Stern is busy right now, so he can't be having direct contact with Ted Washington, Steve Javi and Joe DeRosa, but I thought all the refs knew what they were to do. I'm sure Stern is reprimanding them as we speak.

I was watching Rome is Burning last not and Tom friend was one of the guests and he mater of factly said that everyone knows this series is going 7 games because that is what the NBA wants needless to say I think he's got a few screws loose.

Putnam
06-13-2008, 09:29 AM
C'mon friends. Sarcasm proves nothing.

It is cool that you point out how last night's game didn't go according to a hypothetical script, but please remember that nobody has claimed the entire league is scripted from start to finish and every game controlled without exception. The most fanatical arguer on the other side is saying, "Bad calls happen sometimes, and I believe they are deliberate."

By pointing out that last night's Celtics win wasn't scripted (and was in fact a darn good game of basketball), you still aren't proving that all games are always cleanly officiated. No one can claim anymore that the NBA is without taint. Donaghy himself, that scumbag liar, has already been convicted of corrupt practices affecting the league.

The truth lies somewhere between always scripted and always fair. And it is not a good place for the league to be.

Swingman
06-13-2008, 10:25 AM
..except this isn't about what you HOPE. It's about what you think is the truth.

Why are you putting words in other people's mouth? No one knows the truth but everyone has a right to their opinion. I think it's possible games are getting fixed but I don't know and neither do you.

bambam
06-13-2008, 10:29 AM
Jose Canseco is on what, his 4th tell-all book without a spec of evidence?



Yup, but look at the flood gates he did open up with his first book when know one in the MLB was going to do anything about steroids. If Jose Canseco would of NEVER wrote the book, how much longer would it of take for everything come out? The congressional hearings and the Mitchell report? You cant deny that Cansecos book didnt help jump start killing the seroid area in baseball. Guys are now scared to take steroids and amazingly you can see the drop in HRs. And the guys that had career years during that era are pretty much washed up or done.

All it takes is one person to shed some light on a subject. I agree he has almost no credit du to Donaghy situation. But, no one gave Canseco any credit and look what his first book did.

Arcadian
06-13-2008, 10:36 AM
The NBA's bigger issue than if games are fixed is why do so many want to believe they are fixed.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories as a whole. I find that dissuading people who do believe them doesn't go very far.

JohnnyBGoode
06-13-2008, 11:10 AM
It does not matter if the NBA is not 100% fixed, either your pregnant or your not.

Slick Pinkham
06-13-2008, 12:49 PM
By pointing out that last night's Celtics win wasn't scripted (and was in fact a darn good game of basketball), you still aren't proving that all games are always cleanly officiated.

I thought that earlier in this thread it was argued that an evidence of scripting was when you see a huge comeback-- making up, say, a 20 point deficitin a short amount of time-- I guess so that people stay tuned into the 4th quarter.

I am confused as to what I should use for evidence of scripted play and what evidence supports unscripted play.

To think that a talented team like the Lakers could blow a 20+ point lead at home "by natural causes" seems to me to be as implausible as any other evidence stated for fixing, like Leon Powe's frequent trips to the free throw line.

:confused:

Putnam
06-13-2008, 01:22 PM
I thought that earlier in this thread it was argued that an evidence of scripting was when you see a huge comeback-- making up, say, a 20 point deficitin a short amount of time-- I guess so that people stay tuned into the 4th quarter.

I am confused as to what I should use for evidence of scripted play and what evidence supports unscripted play.


Everyone else is just as confused as you are, whether they admit it or not. It isn't clear what constitutes a foul, a travel, etc., and no one can say x many fouls is possible, but x+1 proves the fix is in.

Some folks are trying to say, "X many fouls, when it is is to the advantage of a big-market team or a star player, when a certain referee is calling them, in the final period of a pivotal game, proves the league is tweaking the game."

Well, it doesn't.

It doesn't prove the league is fixing anything, because the refs could be doing it on their own. And it doesn't even prove the refs were doing anything, because they could really be seeing it that way. Even the most extreme shifts in frequency of fouls could be innocent happenstance. (Though many widely accepted scientific principles and legal decisions are founded on a preponderance of evidence no greaster than these.)

Some folks around here are willing to ignore the uncertainty and go ahead as if they were certain the corruption is there. Others are just as willing to deny it.

To me, the uncertainty is the real problem. What the heck is going on when nobody can even tell for sure if the game is being called fairly or not? One guy believes it is and another guy beileves it isn't. But neither of them knows. :wtf:

JohnnyBGoode
06-13-2008, 01:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080613/cm_usatoday/thenbasfoulmood


Good read.

waterjater
06-14-2008, 01:44 AM
I thought that earlier in this thread it was argued that an evidence of scripting was when you see a huge comeback-- making up, say, a 20 point deficitin a short amount of time-- I guess so that people stay tuned into the 4th quarter.

I am confused as to what I should use for evidence of scripted play and what evidence supports unscripted play.

To think that a talented team like the Lakers could blow a 20+ point lead at home "by natural causes" seems to me to be as implausible as any other evidence stated for fixing, like Leon Powe's frequent trips to the free throw line.

:confused:


I didn't watch the game, but really does go according to "the script". One team winning big and the other team comes back. I'm assuming since Phil didn't bash the reffing, he was either told to stop bashing officials emphatically or that his team flat laid an egg over the final two quarters.

As I've stated long before this finals, it is about entertainment. Comebacks and close games are better entertainment. I don't think the NBA try's to fix a game to the specific winner, but they want to see games kept close if possible. BUT, if the team behind doesn't make shots, then there is no comeback...OR The team that had the big lead, never regains there composure then last night happens.

My theory has always been based on what I overheard one time during a satellite broadcast of a Pacers vs. Knicks series. Hue Hollins I believe was the one who said this to his other two crew members (which is funny since he's one of the refs being asked to provide insight into Dick "the Knick" Bavetta...and Hues's one of the lousy officials pulling this crap off)

>> Paraphrasing - we have the game right where we (the officials) want it, IF they keep missing shots, there is nothing we can do about it. <<

To me, this speaks to the whole "entertainment value" and keeping games close which is what I believe occurs on a regular basis in NBA games....see bballs great description of the NBA several pages back. I have never suggested they had an agenda to make the Pacers lose or have this specific team win...."controlling" games is my view in addition to the "star" treatment crap.

Kstat I know you totally disagree and I respect your opinion...so no need to state it here. The above is my opinion and until I see evidence to prove otherwise, I'm sticking to it. Makes it much easier to enjoy the NBA and focus on the 4th quarter to see who pulls it out (the team coming from behind or the team ahead regaining their mojo and finishing what they started).

Water

Shade
06-14-2008, 01:15 PM
2XmeA5VmhX4

Chewy
06-16-2008, 08:24 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=3439659


The FBI already has investigated the allegations. Donaghy first met with FBI agents in July 2007. A team of agents has been probing his stories ever since. As the result of their investigations, federal prosecutors have filed what is known as a 5(k) letter. The 5(k) letter means the agents have checked on the stories and have concluded Donaghy was truthful. The 5(k) letter does not apply to the 2002 Western Conference finals Game 6 because the statute of limitations had expired. More than five years went by before Donaghy described that game to any agents. There was no reason to look into that game because no one could be charged with a crime. The 5(k) letter does apply to statements Donaghy made to agents regarding the three games in 2005. The information could result in a reduction of Donaghy's prison sentence when Amon sentences him July 14. He faces a maximum of 33 months in prison under federal guidelines.

Unclebuck
06-16-2008, 08:54 AM
Everyone else is just as confused as you are, whether they admit it or not. It isn't clear what constitutes a foul, a travel, etc., and no one can say x many fouls is possible, but x+1 proves the fix is in.

Some folks are trying to say, "X many fouls, when it is is to the advantage of a big-market team or a star player, when a certain referee is calling them, in the final period of a pivotal game, proves the league is tweaking the game."

Well, it doesn't.

It doesn't prove the league is fixing anything, because the refs could be doing it on their own. And it doesn't even prove the refs were doing anything, because they could really be seeing it that way. Even the most extreme shifts in frequency of fouls could be innocent happenstance. (Though many widely accepted scientific principles and legal decisions are founded on a preponderance of evidence no greaster than these.)

Some folks around here are willing to ignore the uncertainty and go ahead as if they were certain the corruption is there. Others are just as willing to deny it.

To me, the uncertainty is the real problem. What the heck is going on when nobody can even tell for sure if the game is being called fairly or not? One guy believes it is and another guy beileves it isn't. But neither of them knows. :wtf:



I'm not trying to be a smart Alec here, but I'm not confused in the least. I know what a foul is when I see it an the refs get it right about 95% of the time, and the other 5%, is probably split between me being wrong and the refs being wrong.

I can tell the games are being called fairly. The NBA is by far the most difficult sport to referee, and I think overall they do a very good job.

At no time when I was watching a game have I ever thought for one second that it was fixed, influenced or purposely unfair. Do I see bad calls - Yes, do I see black helicoptors - NO.

I'm just glad I can enjoy the game

JohnnyBGoode
06-16-2008, 09:07 AM
I'm not trying to be a smart Alec here, but I'm not confused in the least. I know what a foul is when I see it an the refs get it right about 95% of the time, and the other 5%, is probably split between me being wrong and the refs being wrong.

I can tell the games are being called fairly. The NBA is by far the most difficult sport to referee, and I think overall they do a very good job.

At no time when I was watching a game have I ever thought for one second that it was fixed, influenced or purposely unfair. Do I see bad calls - Yes, do I see black helicoptors - NO.

I'm just glad I can enjoy the game

UB, I respect you and your dedication to the Pacers, however I think you should open your eyes and stop with the belittling" black helicoptor", comments for fans who view the situation differently than you do. I think that your "faith" in the NBA officials and Stern is misplaced, imo.

Unclebuck
06-16-2008, 09:23 AM
UB, I respect you and your dedication to the Pacers, however I think you should open your eyes and stop with the belittling" black helicoptor", comments for fans who view the situation differently than you do. I think that your "faith" in the NBA officials and Stern is misplaced, imo.

Really it has nothing to do with faith. I go by what I see while watching a game. That is what I use to judge. I don't judge by what Stern says or doesn't say, I don't judge by what the media or fans say.

In this entire issue (however you ant to define it) there is the truth to what is going on. This isn't one of those things where there is a gray area, either they are or they aren't. We aren't discusing whether you liked a certain movie, where we can disagree and that is a good thing.