The playoffs are in full bloom and this year (more than any other), conspiracy theorists are coming out of the woodwork. I have always been a voice in the wilderness when it comes to the NBA. I firmly believe that it is an "entertainment business" first and a "pure sport" second. What I mean is that David Stern's (NBA's commissioner) #1 job is to put a product out there that will entertain the fans. Anything else is secondary. The fans want to see the superstars perform and the more popular teams win.
Michael Jordan (after his rookie year) didn't foul out the rest of his career. Once a superstar gets close to fouling out....surprisingly he never commits another one; however, no-namers come in the game and foul out within minutes. Fouls in the 1st quarter aren't fouls in the 4th quarter, etc., etc. Referees will also call a game completely different when a team is at home in contrast to being on the road.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Out of all the major sports, the NBA is #1 when it comes to trying to entertain. The NFL has instant replay. MLB doesn't but calls aren't as arbitrary. Maybe Greg Maddox gets a bigger strike zone but these examples are few and far between.
This year (in the 2nd round of the NBA playoffs) the home team is 20-1. That is astounding! The Spurs-Hornets matchup is ridiculous. Every time one of the teams is at home they are winning by an average margin of 15 points. Can someone honestly tell me that there's a 30 point swing between these 2 teams JUST due to home court?
Granted, I don't watch all the NBA games...I am only a casual observer; however, I did watch the Lakers-Jazz 4th quarter the other night and it was obvious to me who was playing at home. Referees control a game whether we like to admit it or not. Depending on what they deem a call one way or the other, determines how physical a team plays. Home teams are also averaging more than 15 foul shots than their opponent throughout these playoffs.
WHY?
Because the referees (consciously of subconsciously) do not want to make a call that will get them lynched after the game. In their minds they are basically saying, "If I give this call to the home team, I'm a hero. If I go against them, I'm public enemy #1." What would you do?
This is the culture that has been created by David Stern. Conspiracy? No. But entertainment? Yes. Keep the superstars in the game and the popular teams in the playoffs by any means necessary.
What does that mean for this year? The Lakers are the #1 seed meaning they have home court throughout the playoffs. They have the #1 superstar in Kobe Bryant. They have the #1 popular coach in Phil Jackson. And they have the #1 fan base throughout the world.
All this adds up to an NBA finals appearance. It's a lock. There's too much at stake. The ratings are back for the NBA (mainly because of Kobe and the Lakers being so good this year) and Stern, etc. can't afford to stymie the momentum.
Hulk Hogan always made it to the championship in the WWF and the Lakers will make it to their championship game as well. When it's an entertainment business first, the fans (and those at the top) wouldn't have it any other way.
3 comments:
Western Conference Finals 2002. Nuff said.
As a reminder, this was the game where the Kings were on the verge of eliminating the Lakers in LA in game 6.
The Lakers shot 27 free throws in the 4th quarter alone! to win the game at home.
After that game, I stopped taking the games seriously.
Basketball is tough game to referee. And it does seem that the refs at times are arbitrary. I think they should go to instant replay, and allow each team to challenge a certain number of calls, like the NFL.
That said, if you'd been watching the games, you'd have known that in each game in the Lakers / Jazz series - the visiting team was playing from behind coming down the stretch. What do you do when you're down, and running out of clock? You foul to stop the clock, you're more aggressive on your defense trying to turn the game around, and both of these add up to more fouls.
What's great about basketball is that of the major professional team sports - basketball is the one sport where an individual can affect the outcome of a game more than any other sport.
Hence, it is a showcase sport for the most athletic, and has the potential for the most excitement.
It also seems to be the one sport that a referee can impact the most, although Charles Woodson would disagree.
You can't compare the NBA to the WWF. I think that's a stretch. The Hornets/Spurs series is an anomole that shouldn't really be used to base any conclusions on. The home record vs. the road record is freakish this year as well, and you're right, it's difficult to explain...but it's the first round in NBA history that that's happened, so it's somewhat of an anomole as well. I think refs get swayed by home crowds, not so much by David Stern in a secret meeting telling them how to call games. I think a lot more people would have preferred to see the Suns go to the Finals last year than the Spurs, but the refs called it for the Spurs. I think if Stern wants to get the best player to advance he wouldn't let Dirk get blown out in the first series last year. He probably wouldn't have let the Celtics get within points of being eleiminated by the Hawks then the Cavs. I think refs eroneously get swayed by home crowds, and by momentum, and by the potential emotional impact their calls can have. On almost every play in the NBA there is contact, so they have to decide when to call the contact and when not to...which may allow the refs to have a greater impact on the game, but it's also just the nature of the sport. There is a much larger gray area for NBA fouls and it leads to greater varience in the consistency of foul calls. Perhaps there is an entertainment motive behind some of the trades, foul calls, etc. but it's no WWF.
Post a Comment