Is the NBA fixed?
March 18, 2010 by Calvin Chamberlain
I had an overly affectionate dog once as a child. Sure, he was always trying to have sex with my various body parts, but she was mine. One day that dog got under the fence at the edge of our property. He chewed off all of the hair from the neighbor dog’s backside and proceeded to commit sexual assault. I’ve never figured out why he bit off the hair, except to guess that maybe Dave just liked shaved genitals. Needless to say, that dog was fixed. The NBA, however, is not.
Dogcatcher
Or maybe it is. Hell, I can’t say for sure either way. And if the source I have inside the commissioner’s office has any idea, he isn’t telling. I would venture to say that most of the people I have come in contact with who believe the league is fixed probably don’t have reliable sources either, or I would have been shown a secret referendum instead of having my ears assaulted with “DID YOU SEE THE GAME?” On the other hand, Tim Donaghy believes the league is fixed, and it isn’t like he has an agenda to screw over the NBA or anything.
But what exactly do people mean when they say the NBA is fixed? There are those who believe that certain referees have issues with individual players that affect their ability to judge those players objectively. I believe it is quite possible for that to be the case. But that does not imply any sort of league-wide conspiracy but simply that the game can be affected by personal relationships. For example, Kobe Bryant shoots a lower percentage of foul shots per field goal attempt than any other player in the top 10 in attempts. Part of the reason for this is because Kobe tends to bitch about every missed call, resulting in poor working relationships with referees and less calls than you would think for a player of his stature. But that is not what I would call a conspiracy, but rather just an element of the game. If the refs are calling ticky tack fouls, it is up to the team to work around them.
But the far more dangerous and ridiculous assertion is that the league itself is fixed at the top, as if David Stern sits in his office at the start of the season, putting all of the NBA team logos on Dippin Dots and pushing them up into his big nose so he can pick out a champion. Fans of losing teams cant wait to excuse their poor play by claiming they were cheated by David Stern and the refs. And to that point, I can’t really prove them wrong. But if you do believe the NBA is fixed, you need to understand that it creates a couple of quandries.
Suppose for a moment that Stern has the desire to choose an NBA champion or finals matchup (possible) along with the power to make it happen (unlikely) without anyone who might turn it into a national news story ever finding out (virtually impossible). If that were the case, who is to say that Stern would only limit himself to cheating in certain series? If your team has had any success in recent years, particularly those teams who have won a title or made an NBA finals, it could be just as likely that your team was helped by Stern than not, thereby completely invalidating anything your own team has done. Miami Heat fans have no footing to complain about cheating in favor of the Lakers. Celtics fans have no footing in complaining about cheating in favor of the Spurs. And the Spurs themselves are a problem. You mean to tell me David Stern rigged the league to give four titles to one of the most boring, poor ratings generating teams in one of the smallest markets? Why, so he could lose money? Everyone who complains about league cheating is never in a hurry to point out when it might be in their favor. I’ve never heard the words, “man, the Timberwolves were really jammed by the refs in favor of my team tonight.”
And really, if success on the court is determined by Stern and the refs and not pure talent, then why do you even care about basketball? I can respect hearing that the NBA is fixed from the pudgy lady who likes telenovellas and cant decide between lap-band surgery and a meth addiction. But if you believe the league is fixed and take even a moment to stew over your team’s fate than you are an idiot. Do you get upset when The Undertaker loses? Do you believe that Macguyver turned a television into a watch and Reggie White screamed, ”Oh, come on. He’s not even Asian!” Maybe you just love the sport too much to stop watching. That is fine, but common sense would dictate you root for the team picked to win. Why would anyone be a fan of the Washington Generals? If the Lakers get so many gift titles it only makes sense to root for them. Or if you really want to stick with your loser team, at least have the good sense not to cry about it.
Asian?
What should we do next?
Well, since you’ve made it to the end of this post, you might be interested in these related articles and resources.
Did you love this post?
Then please share it!
March 18, 2010 at 11:28 pm | Nick Gelso
Nice article. I have often cited the Spurs championships as a reason not to think that the nba is fixed. I think the refs may collaborate on picking on certain players at certain times but I think they are isolated instances. I think the league-wide initiative to call games tight has enabled the officials to have way too much control over the pace of the game. In all actuality, I admire Stern and consider him to be a brilliant commissioner.
March 19, 2010 at 3:27 pm | Lucy
This article is pretty hilarious and spot on, except for the Dippin Dots thing. Wouldn’t they melt?
March 19, 2010 at 9:29 pm | Lee Herman
For as much as people complain about Stern, I would defy them to show me a better current comish. It has to go Stern>Goodell>Selig>Bettman
Honestly, I have no idea how Gary Bettman is even alive. He should have received the death sentence for murdering hockey in this country.
March 23, 2010 at 10:55 am | cashmoneydt
Recycling and regurgitating popular pablum is what makes american sports journalism so disposible. Having an interesting, original take is as unique as officiating scandals are common in sports. So whether your aware of it or not recycling is nothing to be ashamed of. Imitation is flattery, I suppose. How many times has Bettman been lambasted and Stern held up in high regard? Is Donaghy believable? of course he is. he has nothing to lose. Talk to any wise guy or sharp in the know about gambling and they’ll tell you that a good 14 refs have been on the take for years. Why this story doesn’t get told is a sign of Sterns omnipotence. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Stern should go. His time has come.
March 23, 2010 at 11:48 am | Calvin
I’m not really sure where you’re going with your generalizations about journalism. In terms of originality of take in sports, you realize that it is a reactionary process and not a creative process. We are all watching the same games, original viewpoints are unlikely to follow, as there are only so many viewpoints to be had. Not that I even believe there is such a thing as an original idea. Look at this topic. Is the NBA fixed? You either believe it is, or it isnt. Neither view is at all original. The job of the writer is to present his side of the argument in a compelling, creative way, not necessarily to have a completely unique thought.
As far as Donaghy goes, your statement that he has nothing to lose is actually an argument for him not being credible. You’re right, he has nothing to lose by making outlandish statements. What can anyone do to him now? He’s already been disgraced. But he does have something to gain in the form of selling a book or getting revenge against the NBA for setting him up with the feds. So, if he wanted to lie about cheating, it would only help serve his interests.
But forget that for a moment. I’m not saying that cheating in the NBA at one point or another isnt a possibility. But the point of the article was that every time you cry about cheating you undermine the league’s credibility as well as your own. If you believe the NBA is fixed, you really should have no motivation to care. Unless you’re Udonis Haslem, and I’m just not aware.
March 23, 2010 at 11:51 am | Calvin
Also in regards to Stern, you have a better chance of removing president Obama than you do of getting rid of Stern. If Stern is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.