Announcement

**voskuhl43** · 04-21-2003, 02:28 PM

Here's the first part

Sorry it's out of order.

The NBA: I Love This Fixed Game!
Part 1 of 3: Incompetent or Corrupt Referees?

Part 2 & Part 3

By Air Judden
January 9th, 2003

I ran across a recent quote:

"I've always thought the most likely targets of gamblers would be the referees. They make peanuts, they're highly abused both by the fans and players, and they have more control over a game than anyone else. Moreover, the normal incompetence of NBA referees would be a perfect disguise for a corrupt one. It seems to me that the NBA has gone out of its way to keep its referees poor and incompetent - and I mean clear around-the-barn-out-of-the-way."

Now, I know what you might be saying, "Insane ramblings from another conspiracy theorist. Why don't those people get a life?" Who wrote these silly words: Jim Rome? www.nba-is-fixed.com? Yours truly? How about some bitter Kings' fan who hates the Lakers? No, the quote above is from Bill Russell and it was from his book Second Wind published in 1979. Russell did not have to be bitter and blame officials for losses because the man rarely lost. He won 8 championships in a row and 11 in 13 years. The context of his quote pertained to his being approached by a gambler during his playing days. He points out that high player salaries are a great buffer against gamblers, since only an idiot would take the chump change of gamblers compared to that of their contracts - and remember, this is 1979!

After last year's playoffs, I read many articles from fine writers such as David Aldridge of ESPN and Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post. Both of them said that they put absolutely no stock in the conspiracy theories about the NBA being fixed, but both go on to basically say 'However, the officiating was horrible and it seemed like the Kings or Lakers got whatever calls were needed to extend the series to seven games.' Uh, hello guys? Are we missing something here? As Dan Rather might say, 'if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, do you think it might be a duck?' Are you familiar with the phrase, "where there's smoke, there's fire?"

Most writers seem to think if you believe the NBA has a conspiracy to fix games then you are a fan of the Kings, Mavericks, or Spurs, and you are a bitter about the Lakers and/or Bulls (or should I just say "Phil Jackson?") beating your favorite team. Let me explain my background: I am a Sixers fan since the days of Dr. J. In the late 80s, I went from being a casual fan to a full-fledged NBA fanatic. I read every book I ran across, past and present and became something of an authority on basketball history. I knew every player on every team - height, weight, college, strengths, weaknesses, and salary. I knew every team's strength and weakness. I spent 45 minutes a day combing through the box scores. I didn't necessarily care how Larry Bird and Michael Jordan did. They dominated every night. I was more interested in seeing how guys like Willie Burton and Alec Kessler did, because I studied Miami's plan for building their franchise. I wanted to see how players developed, and how traded players performed in new environments. Yeah, I was still a Sixers fan most of all, but let's face it, the Sixers had 2 chances of winning the title back in those days ???? and Slim had already left town. Therefore, I sat back and enjoyed the league as a whole. I enjoyed parity and I enjoyed watching different teams claw their way to the top. If the Internet had been as popular then, I would have been one of the very best fantasy players in the business.

Another point writers make is that fans will point out how their team was screwed by the refs, but turn a blind eye to every favorable call their team receives. (Nebraska fans: if you bring up the 1998 face mask, I will bring up the Frank Murphy non-fumble that you guys got 7 imaginary points from, so don't even go there!) Conspiracy theorists, according to profiling, are quick to point out every Shaq charge while ignoring steps on Mike Bibby, right? Well consider this: in the 1994 playoffs, I was cheering for the Knicks. The Sixers were not in the playoffs and my father was a life-long Knicks fan, so I wanted to see his team win. I really disliked the Bulls. I had grown tired of their winning and how they ruined the parity of the league. I especially disliked Scottie Pippen. I thought he was a prima donna who rode Michael Jordan's coattails to fame and fortune. I grew tired of the press calling him the 2nd best player in the league, when it was obvious that players like Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Clyde Drexler, Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone, and Charles Barkley were all superior players. With this in mind, I was ready to see the Knicks destroy the Jordan-less Bulls in the conference semi-finals. To their credit, the Bulls surprised a lot of people that season. They went 55-27, which were only two less wins than the previous season with Jordan. They nearly won home court advantage throughout the Eastern playoffs, losing it in the last two days to the Knicks. Still, the regular season means little, and without Jordan, the Knicks were simply going to clean their clocks in the playoffs. Seattle had been upset in the first round, and the only team that could stop the Knicks from winning it all was the Houston Rockets. These Bulls were simply an annoying gnat that would eventually be crushed by the hungry Knicks.

The Bulls had hung in tough and evened the series at 4 games, after Scottie Pippen performed his "Sitting Bull" routine and Toni Kukoc had won the game on a buzzer beater. Still, I knew luck could only go so far, and the superior Knicks would destroy the Bulls. There was simply no way the Jordan-less Bulls could be that good. Game 5 was played at MSG with the Bulls clinging to a 1-point lead in the final seconds. Hubert Davis, a reserve guard, takes the final shot for the Knicks and misses. After the ball leaves his hands, Pippen touches his forearm. Pippen did not affect the shot in any way. Yes, it was a foul, according to the rulebook, but one thing about NBA refs is that in the finals seconds, they put away their whistles. If they called every foul or violation according to the rulebook, Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson would have been called for traveling at least 10,000 times.

The refs use a multi-tier system of calling fouls. Superstars receive favorable calls and no-calls. Veterans receive less favoritism than stars, and rookies and scrubs have numerous calls go against them. I guarantee that Michael Jordan would not have been whistled for a foul in that instance. If Hubert Davis, the guy from my team (Knicks), had fouled Pippen in such a way, I would expect him to be called for a foul. After all, Pippen was a superstar and Davis was a bench player. There is no way in the world that Pippen should have been whistled for that call. There is no way Hubert Davis should have received the benefit of that call - especially at the end of the game. However, Davis went to the line, hit the free throws, and the Knicks won the game. Chicago took game 6 at home and the Knicks finished out the series in New York in game 7.

Chicago should have won that series. At the time, I was relieved that the Knicks got a lucky call that they should not have received, and like any other fan, I ignored the favored call and complained about the calls that went in the Bulls favor. Any Bulls fan knows the name Hue Hollins, because of this call, just like fans of the St. Louis Cardinals know who Don Deckinger is after game 6 in the 1985 World Series. I was happy the Knicks won, but in retrospect, I wish the Bulls had won, as this was one of the early signs, to me, that the league was fixing games. Without Michael Jordan, the Bulls were not a "sexy" team to NBC. Scottie Pippen lacked the flair of Michael Jordan. He was always Jim to Michael Jordan's Marlin Perkins, Tonto to Michael's Lone Ranger. With Jordan in retirement, David $tern had to make sure that the large glitzy media city was in the finals. New York had more network appeal than the Jordan-less Bulls, so I believe Hue Hollins followed orders from $tern's office ???? and remember, I hated the Bulls and was cheering for the Knicks!

That's strange that I would admit that the team I was cheering for cheated their way through a playoff series, no? You might be thinking that I am making way too much out of one bad call. After all, are refs not human - even incompetent refs? Go re-read that Bill Russell quote again. It would be easy to hide a corrupt ref because the refs are so incompetent. The league hires poor refs, so that it's easier to hide a fix. Observe what else Russell had to say in the same passage:

"It seems to me that the NBA has gone out of its way to keep its referees poor and incompetent...for years I tried to get the league to hire a black referee and recommended more than a dozen good ones. They always found a way not to hire the ones I recommended, but at the same time officials kept telling me they were looking for "qualified black referees." They always used that adjective: referees were either plain referees or were "qualified Negro referees." Finally, in frustration I sent in the name of a referee who was famous as a bumbling idiot, so the NBA hired him, of course, and he was terrible. He couldn't tell a rulebook from a slide rule, and was a walking argument against affirmative action. The protests against him were so universal that I finally got a call asking why I'd recommended him. "I got tired of recommending 'qualified black referees,'" I said, "So I decided to recommend an unqualified one for a change, and that's the one you picked."

Look no further than the Sacramento-Los Angeles series to see that the referees are horrible, that at times it is hard to tell if they are corrupt (Game 6, 4th quarter) or incompetent.

The rules of the NBA state that the referees cannot talk to the press about their calls and that coaches cannot comment about an official's performance. We have seen coaches fined for their comments. The NBA has a valid excuse for this rule: if coaches can rip a referee who is not allowed to defend himself, than that referee will be more likely to hold a grudge in future games, and that makes for biased officiating. That sounds nice until you see the next part in this 3 part series, how I prove that officials already have a bias. They are biased towards superstar players, towards home teams, and towards popular teams that bring in strong network ratings. Remember the Bill Russell quotes: it is easy to hide corruption behind apparent incompetence. Why have a referee trying to explain his awful call (and I will point to examples next week) to the press? That referee will sound like the French Olympic pairs figure skating judge who tried to say with a straight face, "I thought the Russians skated better." If a reporter corners a referee with a line of hard questions, and let's face it, they sometimes do this, then a referee may come across to the public as a fixer of games, or he may spill the beans that he was acting on orders. It is a coincidence, I will admit, but if my theory is correct, this would make for a perfect cover-up. Food for thought.

In the next part, I will present the six rules for fixing NBA games.

**voskuhl43** · 04-21-2003, 02:44 PM

part 2

This is the last one, I promise, but hey, at least you get credit for reading a book today.

The NBA: I Love This Fixed Game!
Part 2 of 3: Incompetent or Corrupt Referees?

Part 1 & Part 3

By Air Judden
January 10th, 2003

In the first part, I spoke of how I believe that the NBA hides its corruption behind the apparent incompetence of the referees. From what I have seen, I have observed what I believe are six rules for fixing NBA games.

The first rule is that you have to make it NOT look like a fix. If it is too obvious, then everyone will know it, and there is more damage in the long run, as fans turn away in droves. For instance, in the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals, Chicago vs. Indiana, one would think that if you were going to fix the series for Chicago, you would keep Reggie Miller in foul trouble, since he was the star and leading scorer for Indiana. However, if this happened, the signs point to a fix. An interesting stat in the series was that going into game 7, Pacers center Rik Smits had played very well at home and very poor on the road. Consequently, Indiana won all three home games. When Smits is on, he provided Indiana’s only consistent low post offense, and his soft touch and 7’4” height was difficult to defend. As a result, when he is on, he demands more defensive attention, which opened up Indiana’s perimeter game, since Miller and Chris Mullin were not nearly as strong at taking a defender off of the dribble and creating their own shots. Hence, the trick to keeping a low profile fix was to make sure that Rik Smits played poorly in game 7. To the league’s chagrin, Smits came out and hit two quick shots, indicating that he was going to be a force to be reckoned with. Not surprisingly, right afterwards, Smits received two quick fouls calls against him. He came back in the second quarter, only to quickly receive another foul. Early in the 3rd quarter, he picked up foul number 4. Chicago won the series, but I had detected the fix.

The second rule is that it is possible to beat a fix, simply by playing so well that the referees have no choice, lest it be obvious to everybody that a fix is on. However, most teams do not play perfect, so they cannot overcome a fix. I often hear, “yeah, but the losing team missed that crucial free throw.” However, if they weren’t getting screwed, the free throw would be irrelevant. After the Knicks beat the Bulls in 1994, they moved on to the conference finals, where they played the Pacers. In retrospect, I realize that Indiana had even less chance of beating the Knicks than the Bulls did, due to their market size (I will explain later). However, a long series is good for TV ratings (witness: last year’s LA-Sacramento series). In the pivotal game 5 (the famous Spike Lee “choke” game ), which New York was supposed to win at home, Reggie Miller went unconscious and had a 26-point 4th quarter. The man simply could not miss! Despite what the refs did, Miller hit. When he’s hitting 30-foot shots, there is not much a referee can do. If Miller were a slasher, they could allow the defense to rough him up with no calls, or they could call charging, but when he’s jump shooting 3-pointers, there is not much a ref can call, unless he wants the whole world to know that he is fixing the game. Indiana goes up 3-2 and they go back home. As a supporter of the Knicks, I was very nervous, and when the Pacers had a one point lead at the end, I was hugging the pillow and gnawing on the end. The inbounds pass went to Patrick Ewing, who stepped left, stepped right, did the moonwalk across the lane, shuffled his feet, and then hit the game winning shot. That was steps and there was no ‘ifs’, ‘ands’ or ‘buts’ about it. This was not a case of picking up your pivot foot before your dribble hits the ground, or a shuffle step. They don’t call those violations in the NBA. Those are college calls. This was flagrant walking. This was grade-school-kids-in-gym-class walking! The press went ballistic. When asked about it, Ewing replied, “I thought I was Michael Jordan.” I laughed and said, “True, true.” But this was much more ominous. Jordan walks when there is 8:53 in the 3rd quarter, and he’s dunking on someone. Ewing won the game by walking. The refs let steps violations pass, especially for superstars, but the line of the referees is that they only call steps if it gives the offensive player an unfair advantage. If it does not, they don’t call steps. (you can read it from the head of the NBA officials own mouth in Terry Pluto’s Falling from Grace). These no-calls allow the Jordans, Vince Carters, and Allen Iversons to drive through the lane and dunk, which gets the crowd excited. (Have you ever noticed how many times Allen Iverson – from my team, no less – palms the ball and gets away with it?) After all, the game has become more and more about entertainment and less about sports. People pay for excitement, and the refs make sure they get it. But anybody who saw that Knicks-Pacers game knew that Ewing’s traveling gave him an “unfair advantage.” It allowed him to shake Rik Smits and win the friggin’ game! The refs cannot fall back on the “we don’t blow our whistles at the end of games” line, because two weeks before, they called Scottie Pippen for a touch foul on Hubert Davis. Are you noticing that the call/no call is consistently in favor of the Knicks – the team that I was cheering for? I was not the stereotypical conspiracy theorist, finding bad calls to rationalizing my team’s poor performance. My team was aided by these bad calls, and they were so obvious that I was noticing this. Of course, New York went back home and won the series on their home floor.

What you saw in that Indiana-New York series was desperation. The league badly needed New York to win; yet NBC (and hence, the NBA) needed the series to go 6 or 7 games. The Knicks blew their chance to keep control at home. If they had won, then Indiana could have won at their house, and the refs could call the game in such a way to make sure the series went to game 7. After all, everyone expects home teams to get the calls. But when the visitors get the blatantly bad call at the end of the game – can you say, “fix?” The refs knew it was steps, but if they call steps, the series is over. If Reggie Miller had not gone crazy in game 5, I guarantee that Patrick Ewing would have been called for steps. I have witnessed numerous bad calls in the NBA. NBA refs are far worse than college refs and even high school refs. They favor home teams and they favor stars. They are inconsistent about everything: zones, traveling, charging, no calls, etc. However, when they were so blatantly bad, that the entire media rises up to protest the bad call, it screams, “fix”, and to me, this is when I started suspecting that the entire league was fixed.

If you are still in need of further convincing, check the home and away records over the last 10 years of all of the NBA teams. Have you ever thought it strange that teams who have been traditionally awful (Mavs, Clippers, Cavaliers, Kings) all play much better at home than they do away? That brings us to the third rule of the fix: the home teams get the calls. I believe it was 1997, when I noticed that nearly every team in the league had a winning record at home. What separated the Bulls from the Clippers was that the Bulls won on the road and the Clippers did not. The popular argument is that the home crowd pumps up the home team and they play better. Whatever! I can understand great teams play great at home.

They have a lot of pride and experience, but bad college teams play bad at home and on the road. As a KSU grad, I can attest that under the “leadership” of Tom Asbury, that there was no appreciable difference between home games and away games. KSU is 0-19 lifetime against KU at their home in Bramlage Coliseum. While KU has a strong program, during this 19-year stretch, there were seasons (1984, 88, 89) that KSU was better. Furthermore, KSU has defeated KU in Allen Field House (1988, 1993) and they nearly always play the better in Lawrence than they do in Manhattan. Go look at the bad teams in your high school and college conference and see if they play .500 at home and near winless on the road. You don’t see this, do you? Bad teams are bad for a reason – they suck. They suck at home. They suck on the road. They suck on neutral courts. Yet, I think everybody would agree that college basketball crowds are much more enthusiastic and spirited than NBA crowds, so if anything you should notice this trend more in college than in the NBA. For starters, the NBA has priced the common man out of their arenas and made it a corporate event for entertaining clients. Remember the Nike “Fun Police” commercial where they made the old corporate fogies sit in the nosebleed seats and let the “real fans” sit down by the court? Who do you think cheers louder: the Cameron Crazies (Duke) or the Hollywood Elite (Lakers)? Home court advantage is not THAT strong in the NBA versus all other levels of basketball. No, the reason bad teams do so much better at home is because that sells tickets. If you know your team has a good chance to win, are you more likely to go? It’s all about the Benjamins! It always has been, or do you really believe that a few thousand people, who have put up with 20 years of Clippers’ futility, can somehow make that group of misfits rise up and win nearly half of their games at home?

A popular counter-argument is that there is more parity in the NBA than at any other level. I disagree that parity is a valid excuse. If there were so much parity in the league, then why is there such a great discrepancy in away records? The NFL has parity and every year, nearly every team can win. Upsets happen in the NFL: look at last year’s Super Bowl. Upsets even happen in baseball. The Marlins, Royals, Twins, and Dodgers have all pulled upsets in the World Series since 1985. Why are there no upsets in the NBA finals in the last 17 years? San Antonio is the only team NOT to repeat in the NBA since 1987. We have seen Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Chicago, and Los Angeles repeat as champions. We have seen THREE three-peats in the last 12 years. How many three-peats have there been in the NFL (zero)? In the NFL, nearly every year sees a new champion. THAT is parity. The NBA does not have parity, hence, parity does not explain why nearly every team has a winning home record.

The most important rule is that I believe the NBA fixes games for favorable television matches and to promote the league as a whole. After 1994, the corruption continued: Michael Jordan came back in 1995 and the Bulls played the Charlotte Hornets in the opening round. Chicago won in the series in 4 games. At the end of the finale, Michael Jordan mugged David Wingate as Wingate was attempting the winning shot. No call. Like the Ewing call from the previous season, the press noticed the flagrant no call and went crazy. I even heard it compared to Diego Maradonna’s “hand of God” goal in soccer, where he hit the ball with his hand and then claimed it was the hand of God (God complex, perhaps?). Michael Jordan was asked about it, and his attitude was basically, “Yeah, I fouled him. So what?” That season, Orlando was THE up-and-coming team. Let’s see: who does NBC want to televise: Larry Johnson vs. Shaq or Michael Jordan vs. Shaq? David $tern knew that he had to promote his youth, so that the league would continue to succeed after Michael Jordan retired (again). The NBA was pushing Shaq hard and with he and Penny Hardaway on the same team, it did not surprise me when Michael Jordan’s dream run ended in Orlando.

Remember what I said about teams being able to overcome a fix if they play perfect? There is a flip side: if the team the refs favor play too poorly, the refs cannot help them, which is the 5th rule. Observe: in the finals of that very year (1995), in game 1, with a 3-point lead, Nick Anderson missed 2 free throws, either one of which would have given Orlando the victory. By a fluke, he got his own rebound, missed, and the refs blew the whistle again. Anderson missed the next 2 shots. Kenny Smith goes down and sinks the 3 to send it to overtime. If Anderson, a 70% free throw shooter, can’t hit one out of four free throws, there isn’t anything more the refs can do. What did surprise me was that the series was a sweep. That is not good for the networks. I don’t know if it is because Houston outplayed Orlando so badly that the refs were helpless to fix the games. After all, Houston took the first two games in Orlando, and that pretty much put a dagger through the hearts of the young and inexperienced Magic, who gave up after that. Houston played brilliantly, as Hakeem Olajuwon thoroughly outplayed Shaq, and while he and Clyde Drexler were brilliant as expected, the small name supporting cast: Kenny Smith, Sam Cassell, and Robert Horry played huge, while Penny Hardaway, Dennis Scott, and Nick Anderson all but disappeared.

The last rule of the NBA fix is that the star players get the calls because people pay to see the stars. In 1998, we saw an incident in Washington, where the referee called a foul on Mitchell Butler. Washington coach Bernie Bickerstaff went ballistic because Butler was nowhere near the ball. The referee told Bickerstaff that the foul was actually on Chris Webber, but he already had 5 fouls. However, he did not tell that to Bickerstaff in private. He said it from the court. The courtside media heard this and reported it. The referee was suspended. The NBA writers mentioned it in passing, but they know that this stuff happens all the time. After all, that is part of the “old boy” network in the NBA. However, these same guys (Wilbon, Aldridge, David DuPree, etc) refuse to believe that games are fixed. They are saying, in essence, that refs aren’t fair, but they aren’t dishonest? And these guys think that people like me are reaching for straws? Why do referees treat Chris Webber different than Chris Anstey? The reason why is because fans pay a lot of money to see guys like Webber, Shaq, Jordan, Malone, and Iverson play basketball. They don’t pay to see them sit on the bench with foul trouble. $tern and his guys know this. Rules? What rules? This is entertainment! Sports Entertainment! (Or as I add, “Kind of like the WWF!”) Do you really believe that this preferential treatment of superstars is NOT sanctioned from the league office? Are you really that naïve? And if $tern is simply giving the paying public what they want to see, why is it so hard to believe that he is not giving the viewing public what they want to see in the form of the NBA champion? Especially when there is such a mountain of examples that point to this?

Again, I say: what about the Lakers-Kings series last year? Do you really believe it was a coincidence that on one night, Shaq was called for charging, and on the next night, with the same set of referees, the same move was called a defensive foul? Shaq has been knocking people over for years, and suddenly it is a foul? Was it not strange that Sacramento got the calls when it looked like L.A. was taking control of the series – thus, keeping the series close, and extending it to the full 7 games? Then, when it looked like Sacramento was going to put L.A. away in game 6, L.A. got to shoot a ridiculous 26 free throws in the fourth quarter? If the refs were calling a close (no hard fouls) game, why did they not shoot so many free throws in the first 3 quarters? Do you really believe the referees are selectively incompetent – they have a switch on their necks that make them suddenly change gears and start calling a game close, or changing the definition of Shaq’s move from an offense to a defensive foul from night to night, or in the case of game 6, changing the criteria of a foul from quarter-to-quarter? I am not going to deny that Doug (or as I call him, Dog) Christy and Predrag Stojakovic missed crucial shots. Like I said, to overcome a fix, you have to play a perfect game. They should not have to play any more perfect than the Lakers do, simply because the Lakers are a more popular team and David $tern and Dick Ebersol want the Lakers to win. Most of all, do you think it is any coincidence that Shaq got nearly ALL of the calls only AFTER Michael Jordan retired? Don’t chalk it up to experience. Shaq had played 5 years when Jordan retired. In 5 years, Larry Bird had 2 titles and a MVP. Michael Jordan had 3 scoring titles, a MVP, and a defensive player of the year. By his 5th season, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had been to the finals twice and won 2 MVP awards.

You may be wondering why the players do not report the fix to the media. I believe that the players are intentionally not told about the fix. $tern could not trust the players. Look at the lockout. $tern united the owners. Under a penalty of a million dollar fine for speaking out individually, the owners let $tern speak for them as a group. $tern, a former league attorney, is smooth with interviews and spin control. Meanwhile, players like Karl Malone and Gary Payton were running their mouths about how poor they were, while making their millions, and their comments turned the public against them. With this much lack of common sense from testosterone driven jocks who do not guard their comments, $tern could not trust over 1,000 players to keep a conspiracy secret. I believe he keeps this very much under control, and only a few people know of it. I have heard it theorized that former Deputy Commissioner and current New Jersey Nets general manager Rod Thorn knew of the fix, and that is why his team went from the lottery to the finals in his first season. I do not agree or disagree with this theory at this time. However, I do believe $tern has a very small circle of people who know of this fix, and the players ultimately don’t care because they as a whole have made a lot of money from the success of the league. Jason Williams in his book Loose Balls said that the players knew better than to give Michael Jordan a hard foul because he was their meal ticket. Even the players don’t try their hardest to win!

Another point to consider with the players concerns the star of my team, Allen Iverson. In 2001, he wrote a rap album that included lyrics that was considered offensive to gays and women. Many people were upset about this and ESPN even compared him to John Rocker. After a pre-season game, a representative from a human rights group spoke to Iverson about the content of his lyrics in a private meeting. Iverson would not relent. Why would he? He was exercising his free speech and besides, controversy sells records! Then, David $tern summoned Iverson to NBA headquarters (cue up the Darth Vader theme music). After the meeting, Iverson told the press that he was not going to release the record because he realized that it brought embarrassment to the Sixers organization and to the NBA. Huh? What gives? Why would A.I. sell out to the man? (and trust me, if there ever was “the man,” David $tern is he). Iverson’s maverick spirit and non-conformity has made him extremely popular. He has always “kept it real” no matter how much fame and fortune he has achieved. This has cost him appearances on Team USA three times, but he has never sold out. He meets with a human rights group and he won’t sell out, and yet one meeting with David $tern, and he suddenly “sees the error in his ways?” I will not deny that $tern is one silver-tongued devil, but come on! I simply do not buy this. I would bet a good chunk of change that $tern reminded Iverson that the referees can call palming a lot closer, and a lot of those hard hits he takes on the way to the basket could suddenly become “no calls.” If the refs go against Iverson, his star power falls and the endorsement deals drop. What do you think?

I do not know if the owners know of this league-sanctioned fix in which I have theorized, but they have certainly profited from the popularity of the league that has come with keeping the most popular teams on top. Furthermore, remember, these guys share their revenue, so they would have no reason to be upset about a fix if they did know, since they stand to each make more money if the most popular teams win. However, consider who the biggest “fan” is out of all of the owners: Mark Cuban. Who has been the most vocal about the inconsistencies of officiating? Cuban. Why? Because he wants to win more than any other owner. Jerry Buss wins, but he is very cost-conscious and has made trades in order to stay below the luxury tax threshold. Cuban does not care about luxury taxes. Basketball is his toy and he wants to win more than he wants to make money. You would think if every owner had his passion, they would also hire people, like Cuban has, to track the officials and determine if the referees are consistently bad or are cheating less popular teams. After all, everybody has known about the inconsistent officiating in the NBA, yet Cuban is the first owner to vocalize it. How has the league responded – by doing everything in their power to censor him! If the refs were fair, Cuban would simply look like a paranoid, raving lunatic. I believe the league knows he has hit a potential sore spot and threatens to blow their conspiracy wide open to the media.

Something else to consider is that referees make more money from working playoff games. In order to work playoff games, they are selected on a grading system and the best referees advance. You would think the players and coaches would have the ultimate say on who the best referees are, but instead, the league office has the most power, with the players and coaches having a limited say. Do you think the refs have a reason to make calls that they think will please the front office? If fairness were the only criteria, shouldn’t the coaches and players have the only say, since they as a group, recognize fairness more than $tern and his cronies? Can you see the politics that are involved?

I have shown six rules I believe the NBA uses as guidelines for fixing games. In the next column, I will point out why I believe the NBA fixes games (from a historical perspective) and I will present multiple examples of these six rules applied to real NBA games.

Announcement

Interesting stuff...

Interesting stuff...

Comment

Comment