NBA : Conspiracy Theories (Some Have Facts,Some Ridiculous)

[Andrew]

Just to play devil's advocate though, it's a lot easier for us to spot those mistakes watching the game on TV, especially with the benefit of multiple replays and slow motion. I have to think that the mere fact that it's the Playoffs and every win (or loss) has such a big impact on a team's fortune accentuates any referee error. The same mistakes and inconsistencies can be found throughout the year, but a loss in December doesn't carry the same weight as a loss in April, May or June.

[Oakrhum]

Especially if you really anticipate that the refs will make errors and if your head is too polluted with the thought that they are selling games for the benefit of the more popular teams.

[Future Guy]

Especially if you really anticipate that the refs will make errors and if your head is too polluted with the thought that they are selling games for the benefit of the more popular teams.

Agreed. And really, regardless of the officiating, in any given playoff series the better team almost always prevails. Heck, even in the series with The Worst Call In The History of Team Sports (Game 5, Bulls-Knicks '94) the better team won the series (as much as it still pains me to admit it).

[vinceair]

This is thread author.

[vinceair]

http://larrybrownsports.com/basketball/referee-tim-donaghy-beat-up-assaulted-prison/7812

This suits well in here.

[Modifly]

Found three articles by David Aldridge which are linked together, thought you guys might be interested. I'm not going to comment on it, it's a very, very long read.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/d ... index.html
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/d ... index.html
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/d ... index.html

They're in order. You'll have to read part 1 first, then 2, then 3. "Grab some coffee. And a donut. This is going to take a while. But it's important."

[dopeboy]

Good read, but one cup of coffee wasn't enough.. It didn't change my opinion about officiating, but it was pretty interesting to read.

[Modifly]

You actually read all of them? I gave up half way through the second article. It didn't change my opinion about the officiating too but it was ncie to add some more information to my knowledge base.

[dopeboy]

Yes, I did.

[Andrew]

Definitely a good read, though I'm certainly biased as I'm of a similar opinion. But it comes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread, I can't buy into the conspiracy stuff without more concrete evidence. It just seems to me that if the league was rigging the games or actively influencing outcomes in any way, the whole scam would be uncovered by now and they could be doing a much better job of it. And if teams can overcome the league's influence as often as they do, is there anything sinister to worry about? I would say not.

That said, there are problems with the officiating and that article does explore them quite well in Part 3, though of the problems identified I think that consistency is the main concern, with most other issues coming back to that (including the flagrant foul calls, upgrades and downgrades). Unless (or until) the league can clean that up, the conspiracy talk will be there.

[Modifly]

The Lakers won in game 5 and not game 6 at home, so the consipiracy theory is all false.

[dopeboy]

The Lakers won in game 5 and not game 6 at home, so the consipiracy theory is all false.

They just want you to believe that.

[Hedonist]

Definitely a good read, though I'm certainly biased as I'm of a similar opinion. But it comes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread, I can't buy into the conspiracy stuff without more concrete evidence.

You made that pretty clear allright..

But I found it strange that you called yourself a skeptic as I got the feeling you discard the premises based on the lack of proof, while these posts are really all about skepticism themselves.

I enjoyed the read also. Except the video about WCF 2002 G6, that made me sick.

I may add that I thought it was ridiculous that Rondo wasn't ejected in game 6 @ Chicago.

[Andrew]

But I found it strange that you called yourself a skeptic as I got the feeling you discard the premises based on the lack of proof, while these posts are really all about skepticism themselves.

Well, yes. I'm a skeptic when it comes to the conspiracy theories because of the lack of concrete proof. What's your point?

[Mayerhendrix]

complaints about technical fouls and flagrant fouls are just tools of complaint at the disposal of fans who are upset that their team can't get it done. imo a lot of overreaction is better than anything like a repeat of the pacers-pistons brawl.

[Andrew]

Agreed, the league certainly doesn't need another incident like that but a call for more consistency in rulings is fair commentary on the way incidents are handled by the league.

[Hedonist]

But I found it strange that you called yourself a skeptic as I got the feeling you discard the premises based on the lack of proof, while these posts are really all about skepticism themselves.

Well, yes. I'm a skeptic when it comes to the conspiracy theories because of the lack of concrete proof. What's your point?

My point is that I perceive these posts (whether or not written by the topicstarter himself) to be food for thought for a skeptic mind. I didn't feel that they were posted to prove something. The title of the thread says enough for that matter.

I consider myself a skeptic person and just like you I don't consider this any proof that the NBA is rigged yet I found it very intriguing. Lack of proof doesn't prove anything so I wouldn't discard theories because of that. Manipulation doesn't have to be total. Just because you don't get screwed by the government doesn't mean that they don't screw other people. Examples of the contrary don't rule out anything.

Nor would I rule out the possibility of any sabotage because of certain 'unpopular' finals like you did. For one it might call for the NBA to make sure they don't get the same thing next year (I'm not suggesting that they did, I know it's far-fetched, just saying).

I felt your responses therefore showed you are indeed skeptic about these theories but not so much beyond that, i.e. the integrity of the NBA itself. A skeptic doesn't need proof to be able to question the trustworthiness of an organization I think.

That being said I think you also made a ton of good points in your remarks but that was not the point.

complaints about technical fouls and flagrant fouls are just tools of complaint at the disposal of fans who are upset that their team can't get it done.

I think that is a very unsophisticated way to silence any criticism.

Have you really never ever when you got into a game cursed a call on a team that you didn't support? I can't believe that.

Passion of fans will obviously lead to them screaming the loudest about unfair situations but that doesn't say anything about the validness of their point.

[Mayerhendrix]

i'm mainly referring to people who complained about the techs given to players who violated clearly-stated nba rules about stepping on the court (think back to the suns/spurs series a few years ago) and people complained that the league was fixed in favor of the spurs...

[Hedonist]

Ok. Probably every series has dubious calls, let alone in the eyes of the fans of the teams involved.

I watched game 4 of Boston - Chicago yesterday and there were a couple of very dubious calls on either side in the final 30 seconds of an OT period.

Possibly fans of either side had something to complain about in case of defeat.

[Andrew]

My point is that I perceive these posts (whether or not written by the topicstarter himself) to be food for thought for a skeptic mind. I didn't feel that they were posted to prove something. The title of the thread says enough for that matter.

The thread title has been changed since the thread was first posted. As for it being food for thought...sure, it is. But if I may extend the metaphor, that doesn't mean I'll gobble it all up indiscriminately. Yes, it's something to ponder, but I'm not just going to post something along the lines of "My my, isn't that interesting?" I'm going to offer counterpoints.

I consider myself a skeptic person and just like you I don't consider this any proof that the NBA is rigged yet I found it very intriguing. Lack of proof doesn't prove anything so I wouldn't discard theories because of that. Manipulation doesn't have to be total. Just because you don't get screwed by the government doesn't mean that they don't screw other people. Examples of the contrary don't rule out anything.

"Lack of proof doesn't prove anything"? I'll have to remember that if I'm ever up before a jury. Seriously though, I do get what you're saying but whoever wrote the original articles was trying to prove a theory and to that end there has to be evidence. And even if there is evidence, one can still try and poke holes in it and try to refute what's being said.

Nor would I rule out the possibility of any sabotage because of certain 'unpopular' finals like you did. For one it might call for the NBA to make sure they don't get the same thing next year (I'm not suggesting that they did, I know it's far-fetched, just saying).

I never said there was absolutely no chance that the conspiracy theories were true, so I didn't completely rule out the possibility as such. And as I said, in all fairness I can't conclusively prove that there is no big conspiracy going on behind the scenes. I do highly doubt it though, because if the NBA executives are powerful enough, clever enough and creative enough to do these things year-in and year-out without definitive proof ever leaking to the public, I have difficulty believing they don't do a better job of it (doing things that are counterproductive to their supposed goals) and that rogue teams are able to defy the odds and stick it to the system. That's all.

I felt your responses therefore showed you are indeed skeptic about these theories but not so much beyond that, i.e. the integrity of the NBA itself. A skeptic doesn't need proof to be able to question the trustworthiness of an organization I think.

True, but whether the league does a good job in maintaining consistency in its rulings and whether it's actively trying to help certain teams with David Stern's seal of approval on biased officiating are two very different things. I think there's plenty of evidence that shows the NBA could do a better job in certain areas, but it's not proof of evil puppetmasters and a sinister truth; so I have difficulty buying into the conspiracies.

[Hedonist]

The thread title has been changed since the thread was first posted. As for it being food for thought...sure, it is. But if I may extend the metaphor, that doesn't mean I'll gobble it all up indiscriminately. Yes, it's something to ponder, but I'm not just going to post something along the lines of "My my, isn't that interesting?" I'm going to offer counterpoints.

Yeah I saw that and I can see that, but still, a topic called "Conspiracy theories" is a completely different approach than "Stern gets the final he wants" or "The NBA is a scheme".

"Lack of proof doesn't prove anything"? I'll have to remember that if I'm ever up before a jury.

Yeah think about it. I don't believe in God but can I rule it out 100%? Can't prove it. That debate will exist for a long long time because nobody can.

Since you bring up jury's: I don't know how the justice system in your country works but in the USA you're either "found guilty" or "found not guilty". You could say they follow the principle that the lack of proof proves something, namely that you're innocent. Which is why O.J. Simpson could write a book about how he would have killed his wife and her viancee if he did it and didn't have to worry about it being used as potential evidence or in an investigation or whatever, because he was "found not guilty". And that's binding.

In my country, if the state fails to come up with enough proof to convict a suspected murderer, that person is "not found guilty". Same words but a whole different principle. Namely the lack of proof is not binding. The justice doesn't rule out the possibility of new evidence and if new evidence is found one can be indicted all over again.

Seriously though, I do get what you're saying but whoever wrote the original articles was trying to prove a theory and to that end there has to be evidence. And even if there is evidence, one can still try and poke holes in it and try to refute what's being said.

That's true. I think we agree on most things anyway.

The difference is I don't rule out a few games could be rigged because the whole Eastern Conference is not or things like that. That it would have to be total, year in year out, I'm pretty much open to all suggestions.
Nothing surprises me anymore.

I quoted you mainly because I found it a bit ironic to use that word in this context, for the manner in which "poked holes" in the theorie it seemed typical of a 'true believer' in the incorruptable goodness of his beloved NBA and not so skeptic about it.

[Andrew]

Well, I consider myself a true NBA fan but I certainly don't think that the NBA is flawless or that there's nothing that could be done to improve certain aspects of the league. Afterall, there's being a fan and then there's being a fanboy. However, when it comes to conspiracies and the like, I'd need more concrete evidence than currently is available to truly buy into all that.

[Hedonist]

Yeah I know, I mean I get what you're saying.

I'm not a conspiracy thinker myself and I also need proof to buy into something, but I'm definitely suspicious about arbitration & rules and politics in pro sport. Maybe all the fuzz about doping has got something to do with it, some events have shown for one thing that things aren't totally transparent and repercussions inconsistent.

I have refereed myself a few years, not basketball but soccer, which is probably easier to referee than basketball, but I have experienced how hard it can be to make certain calls so I can generally appreciate their work.

Good thing btw that they check video sometimes. They still don't get all the calls right but it helps.
When do they check it? Can coaches ask for it as well (like in tennis the player can) ?

[Andrew]

Not presently, but a similar system strikes me as a good idea. Like tennis, there would need to be a limit so that challenges are only made on crucial plays. Otherwise you'd have some coaches challenging every other call and that would bring the sport to a grinding halt.