Has anyone checked on JoMal . . .

[Ted]

If anyone here truly believes the NBA fixes games I have one question for you: why do you continue to watch and support a league that is bogus? 

That's a dumb question. Why does anyone watch soap operas? Why does anyone watch pro wrestling? Pro boxing? It's still entertainment. And each new year, I watch in the forlorn hope that Vince McMahon will let my Jazz win a title and that David Stern will let my boy Rey Mysterio Jr. win the world heavyweight belt.

[msc]

Support it how? By paying off the refs as apparently Los Angeles influences have? By not watching? I have already started to ignore many of the games, but so what? I already do not attend the games and watch only Kings' games and not all of them.

Come up with a more logical answer, msc, other then not supporting the League. What does that matter when there are plenty of others, such as yourself, who continue to support the League because your team is never on the receiving end of the bad calls in these meaningful games. Phil Jackson, once again, made a complete ass out of himself referencing a call - ONE CALL - that he felt was against the Lakers in game five of the 2002 series. ONE CALL. And replays do not support his contention that the ball went off a Kings player anyway.  

Yes, by not watching or participating in a league that you believe is phony.  What more logical answer is there?  I don't watch WWF wrestling.  I don't care watch a sporting event that is predetermined and scripted.  Just because I don't watch it, doesn't mean it will go out of business.  Many people love it solely for its entertainment value.  Perhaps that's the same with you and the NBA.  You know it's fixed, but you watch it for the entertainment value.  If that works for you, great, but it wouldn't work for me.  

[Ted]

The Kings tensed up and got nervous . . .

Easy to do when you get elbowed in the face on offense and rung up for a ticky tack on defense.

[msc]

If anyone here truly believes the NBA fixes games I have one question for you: why do you continue to watch and support a league that is bogus? 

That's a dumb question. Why does anyone watch soap operas? Why does anyone watch pro wrestling? Pro boxing? It's still entertainment. And each new year, I watch in the forlorn hope that Vince McMahon will let my Jazz win a title and that David Stern will let my boy Rey Mysterio Jr. win the world heavyweight belt.

I don't think it's a dumb question, but I addressed it in my last post to JoMal.  Ted, so you're telling me you, JoMal and Reality just watch basketball purely for the entertainment purposes knowing full well it's fixed?  I'm a sports fan.  I grew up and continue to play sports regularly and watch them on the tube.  Part of the enjoyment for me is the competitive nature of it and if it were fixed I wouldn't take that same enjoyment.  It's fine that you can, but I can't.  

[Ted]

Ted, so you're telling me you, JoMal and Reality just watch basketball purely for the entertainment purposes knowing full well it's fixed?  I'm a sports fan.  I grew up and continue to play sports regularly and watch them on the tube.  Part of the enjoyment for me is the competitive nature of it and if it were fixed I wouldn't take that same enjoyment.  

"Whoosh!" That's the sound of my joke missing its mark.

It's fine that you can, but I can't.

Ah . . . but you can! Ah . . . but you do! Delusions of parity and fairness make the NBA enjoyable to one, and manufactured drama makes it enjoyable to another. Is one better than the other?

[msc]

Again, why on earth would you have an honest opinion about that game, whether you were watching it live or not? I am sure the big screen at Staples showed all the bad calls on replays continuously, like they did on TV, right?

Because I have an honest opinion about everything I come in contact with.  You're right, it doesn't matter if I was there or not, but for you to tell me I have "no idea what I'm talking about" isn't really a fair assesmenet.  You can discount me as a myopic Laker fan if you wish, but there are many fans of other teams that don't believe in the NBA conspiracy theory nonsense. 

No, msc, your credibility on this one can not be trusted and that is just how it is. Besides, would not bad calls rev up the crowd even more? I would not know, having never experienced bad calls that benefitted the Kings in a playoff series with the ramifications of 2002, but as you stated, you have plenty of experience on how a home (Laker) crowd would react, having the refs lead your team back into contention in a game they had clearly lost.

I saw the Lakers come back and beat the Kings, they had to put the ball in the basket at a certain point.  I'm certain there were some questionable calls, I'm also certain the Kings had a factor in blowing a 26 point lead.  Moreso of a factor than the referees. 

And no, I can not agree that any team, once it was made abundantly clear they were not wanted in the Championship Series by the League, that they would necessarily respond in a positive fashion in the next game. It would take a while for the stench of the bad game to wear off.

I disagree with you on this.  If a team truly felt they were wronged, they should use that to fuel their fire and drive.  The Sacramento Kings were mentally weak, they were not the better team physically or mentally.  Deal with it. 

In that, as you state, Donaghy even made an accusation regarding this game, does that not tell you the game is STILL causing controversy, even six years later? Hardly matters if he is truthful or not, and his credibility is highly questionable, but that he CAN reference this game and claim it was influenced - why are YOU not outraged that this is being brought up and damaging the League and quit watching as well? It is out on the table once again that there is a problem with the honesty of the referees that affects all of us, not just Kings' fans.

Well, let's be honest, the problem with the honesty of the referees only affects teams playing the Lakers, right?  Because LA is the team that paid off the officials as you stated.  Got it. 

I'm curious, why did the referees and the NBA allow Detroit to beat the Lakers in the 04 Finals?  It seems to me the Lakers had the better team on paper and there were plenty of opportunities for the officials to steer the outcome of that series.  Why not in 2004?  Did Dr. Buss forget to mail in his "donation" to David Stern that year?   

And, again, since 2002 I have hardly had the same ardor for the NBA as I did prior to that, so yes, I guess I AM not all that involved with it any more. But as long as you have your Lakers getting to play in championship after championship series and you can live with the very clear fact that some of them will forevermore be tainted, what does it matter if a few of us who are more honest with ourselves and are paying less attention to it leave it alone to do other things.

You don't have as much ardor?  Why wounldn't you give up on it completely if you felt your team was cheated by the league?  I don't understand how you can still watch it if you believe it's fake. 

It is YOUR support of the NBA that is continuing the problem, genius, NOT mine.

I've made it abundantly clear that I don't believe the NBA fixes games, genius, so I don't have a problem with the league. 

[msc]

The Kings tensed up and got nervous . . .

Easy to do when you get elbowed in the face on offense and rung up for a ticky tack on defense.

And even with all the elbows to the face and ticky tack fouls called against them, the Lakers still managed to beat Utah this year.   

Ted, in all seriousness, do you feel the league and the refs are the reason the Lakers beat Utah this year? 

[msc]

"Whoosh!" That's the sound of my joke missing its mark.

Sorry, I didn't get the joke. 

It's fine that you can, but I can't.

Ah . . . but you can! Ah . . . but you do! Delusions of parity and fairness make the NBA enjoyable to one, and manufactured drama makes it enjoyable to another. Is one better than the other?

The only delusions around here are people who actually believe the NBA has a grand conspiracy in favor of any team. 

[Ted]

And even with all the elbows to the face and ticky tack fouls called against them, the Lakers still managed to beat Utah this year.   

Ted, in all seriousness, do you feel the league and the refs are the reason the Lakers beat Utah this year? 

No. You beat us because CARLOS BOOZER SUCKED! *very petulant tone*

[Ted]

MSC, I'm merely having fun here. I think for the most part, the NBA is legit. But you have to admit, it is a league that has a really hard tame taking care of its sh*t. The referees SUCK, and are known for SUCKING far more than any other professional sports league. Now you've got one of their former best laying all this out on the table. I believe we are going to hear lots more on the subject, and if the league continues to get ugly with Donaghy affecting his sentence and so forth, he will spout even more off.

For the situation to even get to this point, it says a lot about how jacked up this league is. I think it's going to get harder and harder for you to seem objective on this subject if you hold your current line.

[msc]

Ted, I know you are. 

It's funny, I was watching some of the old Laker/Celtics games they were re-running leading up to this current series and was noticing a lot of questionable calls back then.  I don't remember anywhere near the level of "controversy" over the calls back then as we see today.  In some respects, I feel the internet and vast current forms of media we have today fuels the fire.  Back then, we could read a couple of articles in the local paper the next day and that was about it. 

I've always seen officiating as part of the game.  It's inconsistent at best, both from game to game and even sometimes within the same game.  Refs are human and it's a hard freaking job.  You have to make a split second decision based on a play that happened very quickly.  There are a ton of missed and erroneous fouls in every single game.  There are fouls that could be called on every play, but no one (at least I don't) wants to see the game slowed down to that point.  During every game I watch I'm constantly noting when the Lakers get away with a call and when one goes against them.  Contrary to JoMals opinion of me, I'm not one of these myopic fans that can't differentiate between a good and bad call against my team.  If I were, I'd be referred to as a Utah fan 

In Game 2 of this series Leon Powe shot more free throws in 15 minutes of play than the entire Laker team.  The free throw discrepancy was 38-10, that's JoMal-Sacramento-Kings type discrepancy.  I don't for one second feel that the Lakers got jobbed.  The Celtics were the aggressor; they were taking the ball to the rack and being more physical.  In my experience, the team that takes on that roll often gets the benefit of the calls.  The Lakers were the aggressors last night for the most part, and hallelujah, they got to the line.  It's on the players to adjust to the officials.  I wish that weren't the case.  I wish there was a way that the officials could be perfect, but as long as they're humans that ain't happening.  I'm not sure how I could possibly be any more objective on the subject. 

[JoMal]

Because I have an honest opinion about everything I come in contact with.  You're right, it doesn't matter if I was there or not, but for you to tell me I have "no idea what I'm talking about" isn't really a fair assesmenet.  You can discount me as a myopic Laker fan if you wish, but there are many fans of other teams that don't believe in the NBA conspiracy theory nonsense. 

I saw the Lakers come back and beat the Kings, they had to put the ball in the basket at a certain point.  I'm certain there were some questionable calls, I'm also certain the Kings had a factor in blowing a 26 point lead.  Moreso of a factor than the referees. 

I disagree with you on this.  If a team truly felt they were wronged, they should use that to fuel their fire and drive.  The Sacramento Kings were mentally weak, they were not the better team physically or mentally.  Deal with it. 

Well, let's be honest, the problem with the honesty of the referees only affects teams playing the Lakers, right?  Because LA is the team that paid off the officials as you stated.  Got it. 

Msc, do NOT get me wrong, here, especially about being a "myopic" Laker fan. You are no westkoast by a long shot. And let me apologize for letting my emotions take hold of me before and please forget my 'no idea what your talking about' reference, not to mention the snide 'genious' comment. I am in a better place now.   

Also, it is just that the opponent of the Kings in that series was the Lakers. The inference I got from the latest controversy was that the idea was to extend the series to a seventh game and to do that the refs altered the outcome of the sixth game. With that interpretation, it would seem likely that, if the series at that point were in favor of the Lakers three games to two, instead of in favor of the Kings, the refs would have then worked to make the Kings come back and win game six, had it been Sacramento who trailed by 26 points.

The Kings.....down by 26.......on the road........at Staples........against the Lakers........on the Lakers home court.

Did I mention the LAKERS home court?  Yeah, I can see your expression, faced with THAT scenario. Had the shoe actually been on the other foot, no way in hell does the League endorse or encourage a King's comeback to force a game seven. Could you in any way imaginable ever picture the Lakers coughing up a 26 point lead against anyone?

And no matter your opinion, your thoughts of how good the Lakers were back then, no matter the dumbed down insults fired off during that time, it was absolutely impossible that THOSE Sacramento Kings, who beat the Lakers in the regular season and who had home court in the playoffs because they were THAT GOOD and deserved to have it - THAT Sacramento Kings team, could have in any way, shape, or form given up a 26 point lead ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET!!!! without some help from the refs. Your team was good, but they were NOT better then the Kings that season, period, and you can look THAT up if you want. 

I'm curious, why did the referees and the NBA allow Detroit to beat the Lakers in the 04 Finals?  It seems to me the Lakers had the better team on paper and there were plenty of opportunities for the officials to steer the outcome of that series.  Why not in 2004?  Did Dr. Buss forget to mail in his "donation" to David Stern that year?   

You forget so soon. By that playoff series, the Lakers were in disarray, Shaq was not the same Shaq, Kobe was griping and everyone, most definitely the League, saw the writing on the wall and the Lakers were made old news. The drama, again, was not so much the teams involved but the outcome at that point did not favor another title for a team everyone, including, as I recall, many Laker fans, was pretty much sick to death of at the time. How did you like the officiating in that series, msc?

  You don't have as much ardor?  Why wouldn't you give up on it completely if you felt your team was cheated by the league?  I don't understand how you can still watch it if you believe it's fake. 

Well, in all honesty, I just about have.

I still watch occasionally if the Kings are playing, and if they are winning, but I am not all that interested in the Kings like I once was. Why?

Game six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings playoffs.

There has been some talk of the Kings moving to Las Vegas if a new arena does not get built here in town. For some time, I have not really cared much if they left or not. Why?

Game six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings playoffs.

Attendance has been declining the last few seasons for the Kings. Do I rush out to see them play, since seats are abundant. Nah. I can take a peak at the morning paper just as easily and much cheaper. Why?

Game six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings playoffs.

Msc, it just is not al that much fun watching the same team - your team - get all the breaks. I am happy for you, WOW, westkoast, Randy, etc, on an individual basis, but I am not the same ardent Kings fan I once was and probably never will be again. I do not in any way expect any of you SoCal fans to comprehend this because it just would not happen to your team, but when you have a brief window to showcase your city and your team, but the League wants to showcase a series into another game just because, well, they can, you are so right in suggesting "why watch?"

Which brings up another point of personal debate, as I feel I really do not belong on this board any longer for the same reason. The game has ceased to be all that fascinating to me and I tend to let many of the in-depth basketball debates slide by or just give a cursory response to. Why

Game six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings playoffs. 

It does linger, I admit, and having that idiot Donaghy bring it up again because it is out there and it just might help him at his sentencing hearing is not something I really care to remember.

[rickortreat]

But this is important, because our trust has been violated.

If teams don't play by the rules, but cheat to win, what kind of a message does that send?

It says that winners cheat!

The best team in the NBA isn't the team with the best players and coach, the best work ethic or anything of the kind.  It's about who does a better job of bribing the right people- or maybe it's just who does a better job or moving the TV money around.  LA is a bigger city and a more prosperous market than Sacramento.  The Network wanted LA in the finals, not the Kings.  They made sure the refs got the message.

Too bad Sactown fans, too bad the NBA sold you down the river.

The NBA, killer of children's dreams.

[msc]

Msc, do NOT get me wrong, here, especially about being a "myopic" Laker fan. You are no westkoast by a long shot. And let me apologize for letting my emotions take hold of me before and please forget my 'no idea what your talking about' reference, not to mention the snide 'genious' comment. I am in a better place now.   

No apology necessary, JoMal, I didn't take it personally.  I always enjoy reading your takes, whether I agree or not is another story, but that's most of the fun of coming in here. 

Also, it is just that the opponent of the Kings in that series was the Lakers. The inference I got from the latest controversy was that the idea was to extend the series to a seventh game and to do that the refs altered the outcome of the sixth game. With that interpretation, it would seem likely that, if the series at that point were in favor of the Lakers three games to two, instead of in favor of the Kings, the refs would have then worked to make the Kings come back and win game six, had it been Sacramento who trailed by 26 points.

That very well may be true IF you believe Donaghy.  I don't, and it's obvious he'd throw that game out as an example simply because it was undeniably a controversially offiated game. 

If it was mandated by the league to "force" a game 7, I think the refs would have spread the "fake" calls out over the course of the game to make it less obvious.  Most of the calls were in the 4th quarter.  As I said before, I honestly believe the refs were influenced by the crowd.  I believe this happens a lot.  If it's commonly agreed that players can be motivated or conversly intimidated by the crowd, why wouldn't refs be as well.  It's human nature, no one can completely ignore and be immune to it. 

IMO, it's not that the refs were consciously determined to send the Lakers to the line 26 times in the 4th quarter, but they got caught up in the momentum, in the energy, and they were quick to blow the whistle.  I think there were a lot of bad calls that went in the Lakers favor, no one can deny that.  However, I don't believe it was a league conspiracy.  I think logistically it would be almost impossible to pull off and I think Stern and the league have too much to lose.  The league is already successful, profitable, and growing.  Why risk the image and reputation of your successful business just for the revenue generated by one extra game in a conference finals.  It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. 

The Kings.....down by 26.......on the road........at Staples........against the Lakers........on the Lakers home court.

Did I mention the LAKERS home court?  Yeah, I can see your expression, faced with THAT scenario. Had the shoe actually been on the other foot, no way in hell does the League endorse or encourage a King's comeback to force a game seven. Could you in any way imaginable ever picture the Lakers coughing up a 26 point lead against anyone?

Actually I can imagine them blowing a huge lead because they have on several occassions.  Maybe not in a WCF game 6, but it happens to every team.  As I recall they blew a lead close to that size to New York earlier this year.  Basketball is a game of momentum and stuff happens. 

What I can't imagine is the Lakers losing Game 7 at home after blowing a 26 point lead in game 6.  I disagree that the Kings meltdown was due to their perception of being the redheaded step child of the NBA.  If they were the better team they would have come home and come out with a vengence. 

And no matter your opinion, your thoughts of how good the Lakers were back then, no matter the dumbed down insults fired off during that time, it was absolutely impossible that THOSE Sacramento Kings, who beat the Lakers in the regular season and who had home court in the playoffs because they were THAT GOOD and deserved to have it - THAT Sacramento Kings team, could have in any way, shape, or form given up a 26 point lead ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET!!!! without some help from the refs. Your team was good, but they were NOT better then the Kings that season, period, and you can look THAT up if you want. 

I don't need to look it up, I remember the Kings won the Pacific Division. That Laker squad, much like the Spurs and Detroit after them realized that the regular season doesn't matter as long as your playing well, rested, healthy and have home court advantage in the first round come playoff time.  That Laker team cruised through much of the regular season.  The Kings were a great team, no doubt, and they played well together especially that season.  That Laker team was loaded as well.  I think Shaq, Kobe, Fox, Fisher, Horry, George, Hunter, Richmond, Shaw and Madsen stack up pretty well against Weber, Peja, Bibby, Christie, Jackson, Divac, Turkaglu, Pollard, Wallace and Funderburke .  It's not like it was the Spurs playing the Nuggets where you could say for certain that one was better than the other.  They were both great teams. 

I'm curious, why did the referees and the NBA allow Detroit to beat the Lakers in the 04 Finals?  It seems to me the Lakers had the better team on paper and there were plenty of opportunities for the officials to steer the outcome of that series.  Why not in 2004?  Did Dr. Buss forget to mail in his "donation" to David Stern that year?   

You forget so soon. By that playoff series, the Lakers were in disarray, Shaq was not the same Shaq, Kobe was griping and everyone, most definitely the League, saw the writing on the wall and the Lakers were made old news. The drama, again, was not so much the teams involved but the outcome at that point did not favor another title for a team everyone, including, as I recall, many Laker fans, was pretty much sick to death of at the time. How did you like the officiating in that series, msc?

I don't recall having a problem with the officiating in that series.  I did have a problem with Shaq getting 7 rebounds in a game against a 6'8" center.  My point was that if the league wanted to maximize revenue by fixing games, why not force a game 7 at least?

  You don't have as much ardor?  Why wouldn't you give up on it completely if you felt your team was cheated by the league?  I don't understand how you can still watch it if you believe it's fake. 

Well, in all honesty, I just about have.

I still watch occasionally if the Kings are playing, and if they are winning, but I am not all that interested in the Kings like I once was. Why?

Game six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings playoffs.

There has been some talk of the Kings moving to Las Vegas if a new arena does not get built here in town. For some time, I have not really cared much if they left or not. Why?

Game six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings playoffs.

Attendance has been declining the last few seasons for the Kings. Do I rush out to see them play, since seats are abundant. Nah. I can take a peak at the morning paper just as easily and much cheaper. Why?

Game six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings playoffs.

Msc, it just is not al that much fun watching the same team - your team - get all the breaks. I am happy for you, WOW, westkoast, Randy, etc, on an individual basis, but I am not the same ardent Kings fan I once was and probably never will be again. I do not in any way expect any of you SoCal fans to comprehend this because it just would not happen to your team, but when you have a brief window to showcase your city and your team, but the League wants to showcase a series into another game just because, well, they can, you are so right in suggesting "why watch?"

Which brings up another point of personal debate, as I feel I really do not belong on this board any longer for the same reason. The game has ceased to be all that fascinating to me and I tend to let many of the in-depth basketball debates slide by or just give a cursory response to. Why

Game six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings playoffs. 

It does linger, I admit, and having that idiot Donaghy bring it up again because it is out there and it just might help him at his sentencing hearing is not something I really care to remember.

I'm sorry that your experience has been tainted and almost completely ruined.  The Lakers have had a lot of great teams, and when you look at the history of the NBA obviously the Celtics and the Lakers have enjoyed the most success.  But the Lakers went for years and years without beating the Celtics.  Jerry West almost gave up because it killed him to lose to the Celtics in the finals year after year.  The Lakers finally broke through in the 80's and that was great for me to be a part of as a youth.  Then there were the Eldon Campbell years as I affectionately refer to them     The 2000-2003 teams were great too and honestly, I'm blown away that the Lakers are back in contention.  Memphis was inept and Mitch took advantage of Miller.  I don't believe it was a conspiracy but just a poor businessman making a bad deal in an open market.  It happens every day.  As a fan, I feel blessed.  The organization has done a great job in the draft and free agent market and they've also gotten lucky.  I realize how fortunate we are as Lakers fans, but I will never believe it's some league conspiracy.  I'll leave that to the Reality's of the world. 

I, for one, hope you stick around.  This place wouldn't be the same without you poking your head in to stir up the pot. 

[msc]

LA is a bigger city and a more prosperous market than Sacramento.  The Network wanted LA in the finals, not the Kings. 

By this same logic, Philly is one of the biggest markets in the country, why isn't the league helping them get to at least the Conference Finals?  Certainly they could hype the Philly/Boston renewed rivalry, bring in Dr. J, etc.  It would be very profitable for the league to have Philly, the Bulls, New York back in the thick of things.  Why are there no conspiracies surrounding the officiating and player trades with these teams?  Are you telling me Boston and LA are the only major markets that are profitable for the league?  I don't buy it.