Ralph Nader wants NBA to review West's Game 6

[Double High C]

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2002/s/2002/0605/1390908.html

[Dr T Non-Fan]

What an ass.

[Harry]

Sounds to me like the game was fixed. The NBA makes a lot more money with the Lakers in there than the Kings. A Nets-Kings final? That would be horrendous from a ratings point of view. The NBA is already on shaky ground.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

And someone (other than Horry) put in Horry's shot at the last second, too.
Besides, NBC makes money on a good final, not the NBA.

[Han Solo]

And someone (other than Horry) put in Horry's shot at the last second, too.
Besides, NBC makes money on a good final, not the NBA.
Not just that NBC wanted the Lakers in the finals, NBC also wanted that Lakers-Kings series to go seven games, since they were getting huge ratings from it.

[Harry]

And someone (other than Horry) put in Horry's shot at the last second, too.
Besides, NBC makes money on a good final, not the NBA.

And who does NBC pay for the rights to televise these games? The NBA. What determines the price? How many people watch the games. Obviously the NBA has at least as much interest in a good final as NBC.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Do you believe that the NBA hasn't thought out all the risks of performing such a feat?

[Harry]

Do you believe that the NBA hasn't thought out all the risks of performing such a feat?

I'm sure they have. Do you believe that Enron and AA thought of all the risks of doing what they did?

[gloid]

Why wouldn't they fix the games? Basketball is the easiest game to fix. It's the only one where a single player can control the outcome. See point shaving scandals at major schools like Boston College and Arizona St. What's more is Dick Bevetta has been involoved in numerous games where a certain outcome would mean millions of dollars for the NBC and NBA.

This article by Bill Simmons points out a number of such games:

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020606.html

About 2/3 of the way down is a heading: What is the most disturbing subplot in the NBA playoffs. And that doesn't even include when George Karl said he had video eveidence of the refs making every call against his Bucks

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Again: are you saying that Robert Horry made that shot on purpose to win the game? Someone should question him.

[jets fan]

LA averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 ...

If this quote from Gloid's article is true, then this is a very troubling statistic.

If true, another troubling stat is:

2000, Lakers-Blazers, Game 7 ... LA shoots 21 more free throws and rallies back from a 17-point deficit in the final seven minutes ...

21 free throws in the final 7 minutes looks very suspicious. But I would like to see the stats of how many times this happened to the Lakers all season. If it has happened several times before (but not enough to push the average up), then I might be able to swallow it.

[sb_jim]

Have you heard of Hack-a-Shaq? Teams foul him in the 4th to get the ball after his missed free throws. Stupid teams do it when they already have a lead. Really stupid teams don't realize that he now makes over half of those free throws. Most of those extra fouls called in the 4th are intentional against the Lakers, not the result of any change in officiating. I have noticed a tendency by the refs to let them play more in the 4th but they can't help but call the hacks.

[jets fan]

Have you heard of Hack-a-Shaq.

The quote said that, on average, the Lakers had 22 foul shots per game for the 1st 5 games of the series. Are you saying that, all of a sudden in game 5, the Kings implemented the "hack-a-shaq" strategy while they refrained from doing it in the first 5 games entirely? I confess, I didn't see the end of game 6, but I saw the ends of the other games and the Kings never had any need for the "hack-a-shaq".

[DW Simpson]

If you had to weigh which looked more like a fix was in, IMHO the 2000 Blazers-Lakers Game 7 looked like more of a fix than the 2002 Kings-Lakers Game 6. The calls and non-calls in that Blazers game were even more egregious.

The Sixers/Bucks series last year was a great example. I'd love to know if Bevetta was the ref in Games 5 and 7.

The NBA is a scam and people are catching on. It's nice when it's your team that's getting all the calls, though.

(And no, DTNF, Horry's shot wasn't a conspiracy. The sum of all calls that led to that point, though, were of questionable quality.)

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Well, Claude, we wouldn't be discussing the "conspiracy" if he misses the shot. Without the shot being made, there is no conspiracy. Besides, a conspiracy to have him make this shot, AND have Shaq and Kobe blow their last seconds layups seems way too far out there.

Off topic: A vitamin deficiency can cause paranoia.

[DW Simpson]

If the shot wasn't made, the officials would have found a way to hand Game 5 to the Lakers. Excuse me, I have to go take my vitamins (http://www.hoptechno.com/paranoia.htm) now.

[gloid]

Well, Claude, we wouldn't be discussing the "conspiracy" if he misses the shot. Without the shot being made, there is no conspiracy. Besides, a conspiracy to have him make this shot, AND have Shaq and Kobe blow their last seconds layups seems way too far out there.

Off topic: A vitamin deficiency can cause paranoia.

Why is it so hard to believe that the NBA may influence calls in a game? Obviously, the Horry shot was skill, but if they are down 15 points, it doesn't matter. The NBA is not a charity providing entertainment for the unfortunate masses. The league and the owners don't care about the fans, only their money. It is a Billion dollar industry, it is definitely in their best interest to make the game more interesting, so they can get the "fans" money.

As for the free throws, the Kings were winning most of the way. They should normally have been the team shooting 27 free throws in the 4th quarter...

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I think it's easy to believe. Trying to convince rational thinkers is another matter, altogether.

[DW Simpson]

When Bill Walton asked Bevetta if there is any truth to the rumor that he's an NBA mole, the veteran referee replied obliquely, "Two-thousand, six-hundred and four posts: every stinkin' one of them rational, I mean legit."

[Dr T Non-Fan]

gloid, if all that is true, then I'm now not interested in the NBA. I watch for the sport, not for the entertainment value, and if fouls are supposed to be entertaining, then I'm completely lost.
Not that I ever was. I'd have to look very hard to find something I've spent money on that is related in any way to the NBA.

Also, am I confusing Game 4 with Game 6? Horry's shot was in which one? I know it was in L.A., bt that's all I remember. If it was game 4, then my whole rebuttal is shot. And no one wants their rebuttal shot.

[Anonymous]

You are confusing game four with six.

The NBA is biased. The Lakers were kept in the game avoiding elimination. It is so accepted that it isn’t worth calling the game fixed. Many accept that certain players receive unfair calls to promote the league to a greater audience. Many accept that a trailing team will receive unfair calls to promote the league to a greater audience. NBC, SI, and others stand to lose fortunes by slandering the NBA. Owners, players, and many others have ridiculed the calls by referees with very little national airtime in proportion.

[gloid]

gloid, if all that is true, then I'm now not interested in the NBA. I watch for the sport, not for the entertainment value, and if fouls are supposed to be entertaining, then I'm completely lost.
Not that I ever was. I'd have to look very hard to find something I've spent money on that is related in any way to the NBA.


Yes, I think you are completely lost. No one is saying that a foul is entertaining. Game 7 in a 3-3 series with the Lakers playing is a lot more enjoyable than a Game 4 in a 3-0 series with the Pacers or the Bucks playing. That is all I am saying. It is kind of obvious.

Maybe not you, but people in general go to basketball games. Extra games means extra ticket receipts and advertising revenue.

As for not spending money on the game, NBC makes their money on advertising. Advertising costs more when ratings are higher. Ratings are higher for a Game 7 with the Lakers playing than Game 4 with the Pacers playing.

How do you make sure the Lakers are playing? Call every foul their, that will lead to about 10 or 15 extra points for them (net of extra for them and points the other team doesn't get on free throws they should have gotten). There is your rational thought.

[Cho Da]

If you bet on things that talk, you shouldn't be surprised that the fix is in.
________________
Follow the money. --Deepthroat

[Mr. Grim]

Actually, I believe the Kings would have drawn in more viewers than the Lakers. The Lakers are so boring to watch that even the Lakers fans have quit watching them. UH, throw it to Shaq so I can run over three people and score. If I was running the NBA, the Kings would definitely be in the finals.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Yeah, I'm a bit lost, but that's only because there's no basis in the conspiracy. It's hard to follow without a foundation.
I don't think the powers can make this happen. It presumes that they're smart enough to pull it off in front of tens of millions of people. AND get away with it.

Just because one sports situation is more entertaining than another doesn't mean that people and corporations will conspire to make the more entertaining (and profitable) situation happen.
Maybe I believe in more unpredicability than others.

So, the Nets should win the next two, right? Am I following the theory correctly? If so, who's putting their money where their mouths are?

[Pseudolus]

If the theory is correct, why are the Nets in the finals at all? Why isn't it Lakers/Celtics?

[Mr. Grim]

The theory makes no sense. If so, why did the lakers lose only one game last year. I am sure the NBA would have done much better if they lost a few of the close games (obviously it easy to do by calling fouls on the Lakers). let us continue on this line. The year before, the finals went six games and why would the NBA not have put the Knicks in the finals again instead of allowing the small market Pacers to face the Lakers. how could you beat an LA vs. NY series for marketability?

and the year before that San Antonio beat the Knicks in five games - I am sure the NBA could have fouled Duncan out ensuring they get another large NY audience for game six and seven.

The theory is bogus.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

You're thinking too rationally, Suede-olous. Do we have to call the aliens to probe you AGAIN? Maybe you like it?

[gloid]

The "theory" does make sense. It is too simple not too. Just make a few calls go a certain way in a certain situation, and you can make a few million bucks for the league. What is so crazy about that? It's a BUSINESS. Take it as far as you reasonably can. It's just like steroids in baseball... drugs = home runs = more fans at the games and watching at home. Is that a crazy theory too?

But, you can only take it so far. DTNF, you are right, it is difficult to pull it off in front of millions of people game in and game out. That is why it is the refs who can control it. Games can be decided sometimes by fouls and other ref calls. I am not saying this is the WWF, but there are plenty of opportunities to make certain things happen. It is so easy to do, I cannot see why people don't believe it. It is talked about so much.

No, I do not see the Nets winning two in a row. Especially now, where the refs are under the microscope.

[Mr. Grim]

it makes no sense - this is the second lowest rated finals in history. The knicks series a few years back was the lowest.

Does the league fail to realize that big market does not equal big audience? I think we want to see quality basketball. If the NBA wants to see big ratings they should move Sacramento to the eastern conference.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

1. "It's just like steroids in baseball... drugs = home runs = more fans at the games and watching at home. Is that a crazy theory too?"
Well, smaller parks, lower seams on baseballs (lessening movement on the ball), and expansion that has depleted quality pitching has done a lot more.

2. So, if the Nets DO win two games in a row, the CT is back on? You can't lose with that kind of talking.

3. If a ref was on the take, and if he ever decided to talk (and this, in case you were wondering, IS the risk of doing all this) to anybody (see Skakel case, for example), the league would cease to exist. No one (of any rational means, that is) would bother to watch a fixed-outcome sporting event. One big reason for horse racing's drop in popularity: too much fixing.

4. Organized crime would make a lot more money fixing games than the NBA would. And, they have ways of making people shaddup.

[gloid]

Fine, it makes no sense. I have not seen one good reason why not though. Saying that they can't fool millions of fans is not one. It's just too easy to fool people, especially when you do not expect something like that. You always hear people saying how "bad" the referees are. How can they possibly be that bad?

I will not convince you, but at least acknowledge how easy it would be if the NBA wanted to fix a game here or there.

[Mr. Grim]

I do not think the fixing is organized in the sense of this team or that. It is more subtle along the 'star' lines. If you are a star, you do not foul out of the game and the ref gives you the benefit of the doubt. Call it the Jordan rules. How many times did you see Jordan in foul trouble in a big game? One would expect that Shaq would foul out now and again as his game is to basically to kill the opponent in order to score. He rarely fouls out of a game. Same with Kobe, he punches Bibby in the nose and doesn't get called for a foul.

[Tony the Tiger]

When did Kobe punch Bibby? I must have missed that.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

1. You're the one declaring a CT. Not up to me to defend the innocent world.

2. It's entirely possible to fix basketball games. It's easy to do, but difficult to keep. Too many mouths to keep shut. Too much money to hide and not spend. It would be far more difficult to keep a conference or league final fix in check, FOREVER.

3. Lastly, the CT implies that this is a frequent occurrence (more often than just this one particular season). And at an historical level (one stored in sports almanacs forever).

4. Yes, you are implying the NBA is like the WWF. Them's strong words without backing, or vitamins.

[jets fan]

I don't know if "conspiracy" is the word, and I also don't know how often these "fixes" occur, if at all. What I do know, is that 27 foul shots in the 4th quarter alone of game 6 (when they've averaged 22 per game for the last 5 playoff games) is a VERY tough statistic to swallow. There are other examples of such statistics, but there are a lot of examples of games where it doesn't look suspicious. I guess I can't fault someone for calling attention to this.

[Ducky]

I hear Nader also wants to investigate Bill Buckner....maybe even take a look at Chris Webber calling that timeout he didn't have....

[gloid]

DTNF, My argument is not that every single outcome is decided upon in advance, there is no script. Like you, I know that that would be ridiculous.

In my opinion there have been cases where the league, in order to create what should have been a profitable situatuion, has influenced the outcome of a game. The article that I linked to earlier points out a few, and gives small pieces of evidence of how that may have been true. I firmly believe that the league is not above making a "marketable" (in their mind) team win a game or two extra. Game 6 of the Lakers series was a perfect example of this. Do they do this for every game? No, not even close. But, if it has happened at least once, then Ralph Nader is right, and this does need to be looked at very carefully.

[Guerilla poster]

One problem with the CT is the refs. They really are not paid much. They could make much more by writing a "tell all" book about the NBA if your CT was true. Maybe David Stern would send the troops after them if they did this.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I think there must exist legitimate ways of making the game more exciting and marketable. Assuming, of course, that it's zctually possible to make the game more exciting. This would make the cover-up, which might cost more money than the profits, non-existent.

[DW Simpson]

One of the more interesting aspects of people who sell intelligence secrets to foreign countries, or hire someone to murder their spouse, or shave points in a college basketball game, is that it takes much less money and effort and coordination than one would think.

NBA referees know that they need to call certain games a certain way for continued employment as NBA referees. It need not be written anywhere, and you don't need to watch a game expecting some conspiracy theory to know it's happening.

[Pseudolus]

One of the more interesting aspects of people who sell intelligence secrets to foreign countries, or hire someone to murder their spouse, or shave points in a college basketball game, is that it takes much less money and effort and coordination than one would think.

And which of those have you done?

[Guerilla poster]

Do you not think the press would search out some former disgruntled referees who would be willing to sell out the NBA on this? I think the NBA has way too much to lose.

I am going to look into this. There must be some connection to Dick Cheney if something fishy is going down. What a great way to bring down the Bush administration! :P

[DW Simpson]

http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2000/0329/452999.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583222685/qid=1023814163/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2020431-6091956

Wednesday, March 29
Officials have been asked to fix games

ESPN.com news services

ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- There are college sports officials who have called games unfairly due to gambling-related issues, according to a study released Wednesday by the University of Michigan.

The yearlong gambling study of 640 Division I officials -- from football and men's and women's basketball -- revealed that 12 officials surveyed (or nearly 2 percent) could cite instances where gambling influenced the way games were officiated.

Details were not available on the games allegedly involved.

Moreover, two officials reported that they had been approached about fixing a game. And two officials said their awareness of the point spread resulted in "their officiating with a level of bias."

The study found that 84.4 percent of officials have gambled since becoming a college official. The most common gambling activities were casinos, lotteries and slot or other gambling machines. The study also found that about 40 percent of officials have bet on sports -- including 2.2 percent who admitted they bet on sports through bookies. And 22.9 percent have gambled on the NCAA basketball tournament.

Just over three percent were identified as problem or pathological gamblers, according to a widely accepted measure of that behavior.


"I think what this tells us is that we have to continue to be diligent about our efforts to keep this issue before sports officials," NCAA spokesman Wallace Renfro said. The NCAA is responsible for hiring and training its game officials.


Renfro said that if the numbers are accurate, the percentage of officials betting on college games heightens the NCAA's anxiety.

In 1996, Congress created a National Gambling Impact Study Commission and asked it to report on the effect of betting across the nation. In November 1998, commissioners were told that illegal sports betting takes in as much as $380 billion annually, dwarfing the $2.4 billion bet legally on sports in Nevada.


Michigan officials said they decided to conduct the study because game officials have the greatest potential to influence the outcome of sporting competitions and may be the most vulnerable to gambling.


Renfro said the NCAA's education efforts with game officials have been ongoing for the past three years. An FBI representative meets with basketball officials in fall clinics and will meet with the officials of the last three Final Four games, he said. Plus, background checks have been conducted on tournament officials, Renfro said.

"These findings should be used as an educational resource," said Ann Vollano, one of the study's co-authors. "The presence of gambling and the problems created are in every part of society. College athletics are no different."

The data in the study was collected from 640 returned questionnaires of the 1,462 mailed to Division I sports officials in January 1999 -- a response rate of 43.8 percent.

The study -- titled "NCAA Division I Officials: Gambling with the Integrity of College Sports?" -- is the second in a series by the compliance office of the University of Michigan's athletic department. It was prepared by Derrick Gragg, assistant athletics director for compliance, and Vollano, the assistant director of compliance.

Michigan's first study, released in January 1999 and titled "The Extent and Nature of Gambling among College Student-Athletes," provided data from across the nation on the gambling habits of college athletes.

The complete findings of both gambling studies can be found on the University of Michigan's athletic department website at mgoblue.com.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Thanks, GP, for stating what has already been said.
While games are easy to fix by referees, I find it a great leap of faith to pin it on the NBA. Gangsters: yes. I can see their rationale. The potential amount of money there is staggering. I think the NBA could profit more by having their games called with as much integrity as possible. But, I'm a long-term revenue-stream kind of guy.

[Guerilla poster]

Thanks DTNF, that is my forte - executive summary of your comments. You already discussed the connection to Dick Cheney? If so, I will go away silently.

[Ducky]

I hear Jimmy Hoffa is controlling the outcome of the NBA & NHL Finals... :D He doesn't have enough International influence to take care of the World Cup.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Nah, GP, I'll give you credit for that. A fine satire of the CT taken to an extreme. Perhaps you'll get an award someday, as AB just did.
Now, about going away silently...

[Troy McClure]

http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2000/0329/452999.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583222685/qid=1023814163/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2020431-6091956

Wednesday, March 29
Officials have been asked to fix games

ESPN.com news services

ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- There are college sports officials who have called games unfairly due to gambling-related issues, according to a study released Wednesday by the University of Michigan.
...
In 1996, Congress created a National Gambling Impact Study Commission and asked it to report on the effect of betting across the nation. In November 1998, commissioners were told that illegal sports betting takes in as much as $380 billion annually, dwarfing the $2.4 billion bet legally on sports in Nevada.
...


Do those stats even make sense? Who here has bet illegally and who has bet in Vegas? I have done both, but nowhere near 100x as much bet illegally. And, we can believe that illegal sports betting takes in as much as 4% of our GNP? More than $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country? I find that extremely hard to believe.

[DW Simpson]

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/s/2001/0312/1150957.html

"The 1 percent isn't the problem, it's the other 99 percent," said Richard Perkins, speaker of the Nevada state legislature. The President Clinton-appointed National Gambling Impact Study Commission valued illegal sports gambling in the U.S. at between $80 billion and $380 billion, while Nevada's revenues are slightly more than $2 billion.

Apparently $380 billion is the high range. :wink:

I think the $380 billion is way high, too, but I wouldn't think of it as $1,000 for every man, woman and child. If you pick $100 billion, I'd think of it as $20,000 for every 1 in 60 people. How many guys try to get even come Super Bowl time?

(Nope, I'm not speaking from personal experience, but illegal sports betting is a huge problem.)

[Pseudolus]

It's a bureaucracy thing. If you organize a "Committee on X", do you think they're going to say: "You know what? X really isn't a problem. You should definately stop giving us all these research grants to study X. I'm sure sick of being on the cover of Time magazine for being an X expert!" ?

[Han Solo]

If the fix was in, you'd think they'd have fixed it better, since the ratings were down 17% from last year, and the second lowest in 21 years.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2002/playoffs/news/2002/06/13/nba_ratings_ap/