Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

    The past few days I have been thinking a lot about the situation the league is in right now in regards to the uncomfortable veil of scrutiny, which has seemed to permeate across the public and media in levels that I believe are unprecedented (likely due to the extreme social information network we call the internet). After the incident with Jim Rome and Stern, I was inspired to share some of my thoughts on this, and hear how others are interpreting what, in my opinion, is a potentially profoundly damaging scrutiny of the league we all love.

    I will be the first to say that the NBA lottery conspiracies are complete bogus, but the Jim Rome situation brought up an interesting example of the expectations of ESPN affiliates. Jim Rome might end up losing his job for this, and Im not gonna say I think its warranted or not, but it made me think about how I have noticed a lot of other major network analysts sneak in sentiments of scrutiny about the reffing in these playoffs. A large number brought attention to the foul discrepency in the Boston-Miami series:

    1) Those ridiculous technicals in Game 1 against the Celtics
    2) The no call when Rondo got hit on the head in a key moment of Game 2
    3) Pierce fouling out at key points in the game (good thing the refs saved some face and fouled out Lebron on an equally bogus call in one of these incidents, or else there might have been a major fallout)
    4) The Game 7 calls on Kevin Garnett, a key advantage for the Cs, to get him on the bench after setting an illegal screen and pivoting into a teammates defender when he had the ball: both plays to which Jeff Van Gundy responded "This is something he has done his whole career and never got called for" and we can say that NOBODY gets called for, especially key players in a game 7 of the ECFs.

    I cant help but lose a little faith in the system when I see a trend developing in the reffing of some of the Heat games this year. It is done subtly, often getting the opposing team in the bonus early in 1st quarters because of petty touch fouls. This has huge reprocussions, often putting key players in foul trouble, getting the Heat a large amount of foul attempts, and SETS THE DEFENSIVE TONE for the whole game. When this happens, I believe the opposing players lose trust in the refs, and must adjust their aggressiveness drastically to avoid getting into foul trouble.

    We can definitely find examples of fair calling in these playoffs, and even in some cases where the opposing team seemed to have an edge against the Heat in the ref calls (arguably Game 3 and 4 of our series with them), and one can easily point to the fact that the Mavs won last year against the Heat in a fairly reffed series (if I remember...?) HOWEVER, after the Boston series, I find it hard to ignore some of the BS. Also, I realized how much the NBA has to gain in keeping the Heat in the playoffs as long as possible and then REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WIN OR LOSE IN THE FINALS, they benefit tremendously. The Mavs beating them last year kept the chatter going the and viewership up. We watch the Heat because we want them to fail. What would viewership be of a Celtics-Spurs finals, relatively?

    Its clear to see what the NBA has to gain by advancing the Heat, and I think some analysts are getting more bold in their growing frustrations.

    Now, ESPN affiliates and other analysts seem to be in a dangerous position when talking about some of these discrepencies, and it made me wonder about the possibility of having a source of reliable sports analysts who didnt work for organizations with mutually beneficial television contracts with the league, who would be able to address some of the sentiments I believe a great majority of the fanbase feels.

    Some may immediately say this would be chaos, given the extent we can see conspiracies reach among the fans. However, I think you can find a group of professional analysts who have the right unbiased, balanced minds to not make claims against certain processes (like the lottery, which I think is a legit process).

    Just wondering what people thought about the current scrutiny of the NBA, versus past eras, and if other people notice major network analysts starting to crack a bit, and show a level of scrutiny that a lot of fans share.
    Last edited by Ratking; 06-14-2012, 01:56 AM.
    https://soundcloud.com/geoclipse
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

    I don't know. The problem is that you can conjure up an artificial narrative no matter what way the refs call the game and label it a conspiracy. Same goes for the lottery. If there ever was something going on, it would have to be between Stern, Adam Silver, the refs, and no one else. There is no way the players would know with certainty, if they did at this point someone would have gone public. Which makes it hard for me to believe the refs could be in on this, surely at least a few of them (Donaghy alleged things, I know) would have gone public by now.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

      4 Spurs titles say if the NBA has a conspiracy for big market teams and big money superstars, they aren't very good at it.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

        I have a hard time watching NBA games due to the discrepancies in refing. I pay a lot more attention to the Pacers than any other team, but we were screwed during that Heat playoff series.

        To me it really boils down to a couple things: Star players can travel at will. Watch Durant and LeBron when they drive. They will travel about 50% of the time, and other players don't get nearly that much leeway. I remember when the Pacers played OKC. Durant caught a pass, didn't even dribble, ran all the way across the lane (3 steps) and layed it in. Insane.

        Star players get touch calls on offense, can initiate more contact on defense, and are allowed to be much more physical when fighting for rebounding position. Once again, watch the calls Lebron and Wade get compared to say the Pacers players. Wasn't even close how it was called. Also, when Lebron is switched on, he's a great rebounder, but he just pushes people out the way. It's like watching a stronger, more athletic Hans (except Hans will get called for it).

        I also think that ESPN isn't in on a conspiracy, but on the other hand, star players get them ratings. They are never going to complain about Wade not getting suspended for an obvious flagrant two, because Wade brings in viewers.

        I'm sure I'd feel differently if the Pacers had one of those legitimate stars who got all the calls. But we never have and it drives me nuts. A couple early foul calls can really have a 10 to 15 point difference in the game, easy. I check out boxscores, and the first thing I look at is free throw attempts and total fouls (for the playoffs, been a game of mine) and try to guess who won. It's pretty easy...
        Danger Zone

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

          The NBA allows the quote "Super Stars" to get calls that others do not. That is not at all in disputed. So the NBA is biased toward players and teams that have those players because the NBA is a star driven league. The Spurs had David Robinson and Tim Duncan both were stars in the NBA at one time!

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

            Do people think there is a difference in the way ESPN analysts tend to feed these conspiracies in perhaps subtle ways, as compared to scrutiny in the past? I have not paid much attention to NBA analysts before this season, so I dont have much room for comparison. It might be that this all comes down to the anomaly of the Heat's situation:

            1) Most hated/scrutinized team in sports history
            2) This could lead to analysts letting their own feelings slip into publicly aired programs.
            3) OR, the NBA and/or the major media groups alike are taking advantage of this Heat-hate craze and strategically create the illusion of reffing bias and conspiracies in order to drive viewership (Jim Rome, clearly)
            4) This same motive, the incredible force that is the money-making monster of Heat-hate, could be used to fuel speculations of ACTUAL corruption and potential rigging. The NBA has a lot at stake with the tragectory of this team.
            https://soundcloud.com/geoclipse

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

              Originally posted by will567 View Post
              The NBA allows the quote "Super Stars" to get calls that others do not. That is not at all in disputed. So the NBA is biased toward players and teams that have those players because the NBA is a star driven league. The Spurs had David Robinson and Tim Duncan both were stars in the NBA at one time!

              Oh yes it is. There has never been a study that concluded the stars get the calls. I dispute and I watch as much NBA as anyone. Do they "get the calls"? sure sometimes, but sometimes not. Plus which stars are you talking about. I guarantee you people in OKC don't think they get the calls.

              The Spurs have always gotten horrible TV ratings even when Robinson and Duncan were both on the team. The lowest rated NBA finals all include the Spurs.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                I also think its interesting that there was a shift in the analysts tone during the Celtics-Heat series. Nobody cared enough to make risky statements during our series with the Heat, but more people care about the Celtics. In that series we saw stars like KG, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce get shafted compared to LeBron and Wade. So, although the latter are way more beneficial to the league, it still goes against previous star treatment. It looks more like Heat-treatment.

                Now, I love the league, and am not much turned off by certain discrepencies. I will still watch, because every team still has a chance to win. Overall, the refs call things fair, and teams that lose to the Heat definitely arent helping themselves in many aspects. But still curious to hear what everyone thinks.
                https://soundcloud.com/geoclipse

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                  Great post RatKing. Well thought out and although you have your opinion, you are asking for others input.

                  My biggest thing with what you conveyed was the relationship between ESPN and the NBA. This relationship is what drives who is a "Superstar" and who isn't. The NBA is run on population bases. Ratings are driven by number of household viewers. Their profitability and health as a league is solely dependent on revenue. ESPN can generate way more advertising revenue by showing Lebron James 42 times in an hour long show. They stuff his talent down your throat. You won't catch them saying anything bad about these players. It goes against what ESPN is trying to do. They are trying to generate fan interest.

                  We are all fans regardless. Its the rest of the population that makes an arena go from 50% capacity to full capacity. Corporations will sponsor teams and arenas and corporate suites, if there is enough interest in the league. The way they do that is to make players' names everyday household names. They want the Bird versus Magic. Michael Jordan. Lebron. The interest from all sides of decision making is to promote a select few over the mass. It's what drives revenues. I guess it shows a bit of the backbone of this country, hopping from what is short-term today to what is popular tomorrow. Bandwagon lifestyle in every facet. Favorite chasers. People want to be a part of something that wins or is great. It is the nature of our current society. This is the ball game and we are just the bench players who are loyal to a fault. Sitting on the bench cheering on our team regardless of how bad we are. We are the stability.

                  In Indianapolis, the population base for sales and TV ratings aren't large enough to be considered by ESPN. The only way that changes is if we win. That is why I think so many of us were looking for balance in the last CBA. Something that set a framework for greater parity in the league. The talent across the league has improved greatly. The next CBA will need to further reflect that. The superstars are the type of players who can carry your team, but how far? The superstars get most of the national TV games.

                  The Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, Bulls, Mavs, and Heat represent six of the ten largest markets in the NBA. The other teams are the Raptors, Rockets, Wizards, Sixers, and Clippers and Nets (as secondary teams in their markets). The top five cities have pretty much the same population as the bottom 20 cities. This is the disparity that the league faces and in turn, where would you target your league the most? To the masses. It helps to have great teams in big cities from a revenue standpoint. The incentive is there for the conspiracy theories. Yet, look at OKC. They are the anomoly for so much of the NBA. They are one of the bottom five smallest cities and have the best basketball player in the league, IMO. They are in the finals becuase they have several All-Star caliber players. Teams make superstars legendary. Winning can be done in any city, but there is no question that there is a foundation for some of the conspiracy theories to occur. Whether they are true, is another story entirely.
                  Last edited by pacergod2; 06-14-2012, 11:18 AM.
                  "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                    I think regarding the refereeing, having a publicly available (i.e. it doesn't have to be a spectacle but it should be accessible) professional review of the refereeing after every game would go a LONG way to helping people understand the difference between bias, human error, and incompetence. The biggest harm comes in the NBA's complete and utter stonewall of any inquiry into officiating.

                    I think the problem with the reporting is, as has been pointed out before, that ESPN now makes no pretense at all of being anything other than a set of channels that pander to the biggest chunk of their audience. In order to do that, they need inside access, and in order to maintain inside access they need to "play ball", so to speak.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                      How do the refs get paid? Does it go into a pool for all of them or do only the one's doing the reffing get paid. Is it per series or per game? I ask this because sometimes I think the refs call games so that they can make the most money.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Oh yes it is. There has never been a study that concluded the stars get the calls. I dispute and I watch as much NBA as anyone. Do they "get the calls"? sure sometimes, but sometimes not. Plus which stars are you talking about. I guarantee you people in OKC don't think they get the calls.

                        The Spurs have always gotten horrible TV ratings even when Robinson and Duncan were both on the team. The lowest rated NBA finals all include the Spurs.
                        Yeah, LeBron James gets the same calls as Paul George. (and we never hear things like "Just give him another year and he will get that call after he earns the referees respect)

                        We also didnt just say the same, exact call made in a playoff game between a star (Wade) and a bench player (Tyler H). I would still love for someone to explain how Tylers foul on Wade is a F2. I am sure it was nothing to do with Wade being a marquee player

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          How do the refs get paid? Does it go into a pool for all of them or do only the one's doing the reffing get paid. Is it per series or per game? I ask this because sometimes I think the refs call games so that they can make the most money.

                          They get a salary for the regular season based on experience and "how good they are" The best refs get rewarded by working playoff games and they get more money for working more playoff games.

                          So the way for an individual ref to make the most or more money is to keep doing it year after year and grade well from the NBA so you get more and more playoff games.

                          In the Finals for example I believe there are 12 refs rewarded. Games 1-4 set of three refs work the games. So after game 4 all 12 refs have worked 1 games each. Games 5,6, and 7 I don't know how they choose which of the 12 work. My guess is the best refs work a second game . Not sure if the grading is just from the series or playoffs or whether it goes back to regular season.
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-14-2012, 10:52 AM.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                            Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                            I would still love for someone to explain how Tylers foul on Wade is a F2. I am sure it was nothing to do with Wade being a marquee player

                            We can argue whether it was an flagrant 1 or 2 or just a regular foul. That is debatable. I think it should have been an F1. But F2 is within the realm of reasonableness. The key point is the foul that haslem comitted a minute later was clearly worse and the NBA judged it as worse as he was suspended a playoff game which is a big penalty.

                            To the more general point, every ref calls things differently. Some love to call traveling, some love the offensive foul, some love to call defensive 3 seconds - so all calls are not the same.

                            But do star players get the calls? I think established vets will get some calls especially if they do the move all the time., For example: Reggie traveled a lot as he was getting set-up to take a shot - and it was rarely if ever called. OK is that a star getting a call? I would say no, that was what Reggie did all the time so the refs tended to just not call it. Just like Lebron does that one dribble move of his, and it is rarely called. is that a star getting a call? well the opposing teams fans sure think so. it is a missed call, but I don't think it is a star call.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                              F2 has to have no play on the ball. Tyler clearly played the ball IMO

                              That is where we disagree, IMO the refs should call it whether it is Reggie Miller, Lance, or LeBron. You would see lots of *****ing at first, but I am willing to bet the players would adjust to play by the rules.

                              So to me, both are missed calls and given because the player is a star

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X