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.
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.
Comment