by Andrew on Sat Apr 16, 2022 7:16 pm
Digging this one up, as I never fully responded to the question myself. There were certainly some interesting responses back when I posted it, and going by the poll results, "the NBA is rigged" is something that people believe(d).
For my part, I don't think it's fully, truly, predetermined-as-pro-wrestling rigged. If it is, then frankly the NBA is pretty bad at it. I don't buy that the NBA is simultaneously powerful enough to fix all of the results and Draft outcomes without any hard evidence of it leaking, while at the same time being powerless to stop rogue teams from messing up their plans (like the low-rated Spurs/Cavs Finals happening in 2007). Nor do I believe that they're crafty and conniving enough to let undesirable results happen from time to time, just to throw us all off the scent.
What I do agree with, as many have pointed out, is the bias towards big markets and superstars that has played a role in the outcome of games and series. Looking back at the infamous 2002 Western Conference Finals, the Kings did have their opportunities to win, which were squandered by missed free throws and other shortcomings. They also received some generous calls in at least one game, which is largely forgotten because they lost the series. However, it's pretty obvious the Lakers benefitted from the officiating themselves. It didn't make it impossible for the Kings to win, but it'd be naive to suggest that it didn't make it tougher.
Of course, it's important to look at the context and bigger picture in those situations, because there are other factors. The same goes for Draymond Green being suspended in the 2016 NBA Finals. It changed the momentum, but given what led up to that, his suspension was hardly out of the blue. They certainly could've let it slide given the stakes and optics of giving the league's marquee player a helping hand in completing an historic comeback from 3-1 down, but that could also be seen as favouring the Warriors when players from other teams would've been suspended in the same situation. I'd suggest Draymond needs to accept some responsibility for that one.
As others have noted, there's a business and entertainment side to the league that undoubtedly influences many of their decisions. To that end, I'd say there's definitely an issue with favouritism, inconsistency, and transparency. I don't believe that extends to elaborate plans to fix games, or that the results are as contrived as professional wrestling, or anything like that. There are questions of fairness, but not outright foul play. It's something that continues under Adam Silver, which is why it's puzzling when fans say that he's much better than Stern. Give it time, and there'll be similar controversies (if indeed the 2016 NBA Finals doesn't rank up there for you).
Also, when it comes to the Draft Lottery, it's overseen by Ernst & Young, a much bigger entity than the NBA. I doubt that they're in the NBA's pocket on that one. The odds favour the bottom teams, and outside of the years where someone beats the odds, that's where the top three picks are going. A team bottoming out and winning the lottery isn't much of a conspiracy, though of course it does invite a conversation about tanking and the lottery system.
I think it's all too easy to say that the league is rigged when we're unhappy with the results and there's some controversy. It depends on your definition I suppose, but in the strictest sense of the word, I don't believe it's rigged. Like I said though, I do agree that there's an issue with fairness that persists to this day. That's what needs to be addressed; not uniform nomenclature and Play-In Tournaments.