The NBA at this point

Call me a bit biased, because I love the Mavs more than probably any other non-affiliated to the team person alive. However, watching the Mavs game against the Spurs today just hurts me inside. And call me a sore loser, but this has just gotten horrendous.

The officiating in this game was the worst I have ever seen. EVER. And that includes the Kings-Lakers series of two years ago. Even my friend, who is actually a Spurs fan, apologized to me, because my team was being discriminated against. THAT must mean something.

I mean, come on. Bruce Bowen, who has a reputation around the league of being dirty (he has purposely injured Ray Allen and Vince Carter...though that doesn't take much), at midcourt, probably at Gregg Popovich's will, just shoved Michael Finley. Blatanly. No reason at all to do it. Despite the fact that Finley was the only person scoring for the Mavs in the quarter. And, like every other person would do, Finley shoves Bowen back. Trying to protect himself. And what happens? Finley is assessed a flagrant foul and ejected. Don Nelson complains about the call, and gets two technical fouls, and is ejected. At that point the lead for the Spurs was 28, due to the other horrible officiating. I'm not saying the Mavericks would have been winning at that point, but the game should NOT have been 28 points.

Anyway, the Mavs, without their team captain and emotional leader in the fourth quarter, came back to within 5 at 95-90, but ended up losing 113-100. But I think this is a huge statement game about the Mavs. They were being discriminated against, and they still overcame that and almost won.

But anyway, now for the point of this thread. There are other dirty players in the league like Bruce Bowen. Shaq is one. There are others (Ron Artest, etc.). Now, the NBA currently is the second-most watched sport in America, behind the NFL, which is leaps and bounds ahead. The NBA chooses to allow these dirty players to continue to act this way. Bruce Bowen has never gotten suspended, as far as I know. Shaq hasn't. Artest has, I'll say that. But admit it: you would rather see a game 120-119 than a first-to-80 wins. If the NBA really wants to promote a market for its product, and make this game enjoyable, why do they allow these monsters of defense to act this way? These players are bad for the NBA. It's the last thing they need; the NBA already has enough problems on its hands. But why do they choose to not do anything about it?

This is a big venting of frustration, because I love this team to death, and this Tim Duncan-less Spurs team should NOT have won this game. The refs chose, or didn't choose, I don't know, to have the Spurs win. I get Spurs fans to say that. That surely means something.

Please, post comments, directly relating to the original question of why doesn't the NBA do anything about these disgusting players. Also, including things about officiating, and the nature of it. The players of the teams that get all the calls, namely the Lakers, even admit that officiating decides the outcome of most games (Shaq cussed out the refs on national TV). It seems obvious.

[/vent]

I'm at least mildly sure that the NBA has some games rigged through the refereeing. The NBA tries to give its favored teams a small but strong leg up through favorable foul calling.

WOW! You're the first person to agree with me, besides a few Spurs fans, and my friend.

this also came up in the Lakers-Kings playoff maybe two years ago. The Kings should have won but the refs gave game 6 away to the Lakers. I think that's what happened. I don't really follow the NBA because of things like this.

I wouldn't follow the NBA, because I hate their system for everything, but I just fell in love with everything about the Mavs, so I can't help but be obsessed with them.

As a Kings fan I may be biased, but I think that it was pretty blatant that that game 6 was given to LA. I think the NBA wants the best TV revenue possible, and they know that Los Angeles draws the hot ticket. The Kings lost game 7 on their own, but without those calls in game 6 they would have been in the finals.

The commish was on Craig Kilborn during all-star weekend and he asked about Shaq and the foul calls he gets. 'He's a hard player to officiate', that's what he said, he pretty much took no stance. I think Shaq is hard to officiate but he draws big money for the league and if they called all the contact he initiates he wouldn't be useful on the court, and therefore not useful to the NBA. To their credit, they're pretty consistent on giving him the benefit of the doubt, so teams just need to figure out a way to work around that (Yao has done a good job a few times).

The Kings and Mavs may be rivals (to some degree), but I like the Kings a lot. They understand that there is an 'o' and not 'd' in the word 'champion.' And that there's an 'o' in 'money.'

The NBA changed the freaking rules just to limit Shaq more. Most of the time he doesn't get the foul calls, because you have to commit a flagrent foul just to equal a typical foul. Officiating is biased against Shaq.

Despite the fact that on just about every possession, he lowers his shoulder and charges into his defender, and it never gets called? Despite the fact that in the playoffs, the refs put the fouls on other players to keep him from fouling out?

Yeah, it may be just a coincidence and we're all paranoid, but it's too much of a coincidence for me. When the defensive player establishes position and an offensive player knocks him over, that's a foul, right? If so, Shaq does that about half the time he gets the ball.

It goes the same thing for other officiating mistakes - I understand that refs can make bad calls, but it's the timing of them and the consistency of them. Like the Lakers-Nuggets game. What are the chances that the whistle would blow inadvertantly when it was obvious that it touched the rim, giving the LAKERS, the NBA's lovable little child (meaning the league offices, not the rest of the league), a chance to win. Of course, they took advantage of that, but it's still TOO much of a coincidence.

EDIT: The league offices are closed on the weekends. We won't know if Finley or Bowen will be suspended for the altercation.

There's some officials that shouldn't be officiating. Mainly those over 60. Like Jerry Kearse.

But most fans are bitter without watching the whole game. I mean San Antonio didn't have Tim Duncan and they managed to blow Dallas out(it doesn't matter that they came back, they shouldn't have been down 28 anyways).

If your team is so good, these close calls shouldn't be a factor...but alas, they're not.

I'm not a Spurs fan, but after watching the game...I don't much from it. I mean the Mavs were down 28 for Christ's sake, they shouldn't be down 28 against the Duncan-less Spurs. Although there are some officiating mistakes, it's only 1 out of 100 calls that really gets people upset. I would say, just get over it. If your team is truly much better, then officiating shouldn't be a factor anyways.

The Lakers are MUCH better than the Raptors. The Raptors beat the Lakers, and people complained about the officiating.

Like I said, if an official doesn't make 100% of the "right" calls, the league gets blasted. It's only the select few bad calls that makes sour grapes.

Referees in the league are at times more than 98% accurate. When calls don't go against your team, people don't complain...when they go against your team, people complain.

I remember Duke beating Maryland plenty of times in close games(most memorable was that 10 point 1 minute collapse Maryland had against Duke 2 years ago), and I thought the officiating was bad, but as I looked closer at the games, Duke was just the better team.

So like I said, 1 or 2 calls that the refs get wrong has people jumping out of their seats and demanding their jobs, but the other 99 or 98 calls that refs call right goes unnoticed.

Actually, in the Spurs-Mavs game specifically, it was about 20-30 calls that got me upset. Just ask my mom. And the wall with the hole in it.

I was speaking in general. It's only one game. I saw a good portion of the game to know that the calls weren't that bad. But the referees did a pretty good job...it's just that San Antonio walked all over Dallas.

When the refs call THAT physical of game, it's obvious that San Antonio is favored. They allowed way too much contact. Instead of making up their own opinion of what a foul is, call what the league says a foul is. See, calling that physical of a game will only lead to conflict, as it did, with Finley and Bowen. After that the refs began to call the game as it was, instead of ALLOWING the Spurs to push and shove and rape Dallas live. After that the Mavs dominated the Spurs.

I've thought the refs have been calling biased for a long time. Between that and what I see as a decline in player quality, I've had almost no incentive to watch the NBA since Jordan retired. Which is a shame, because basketball used to be my favourite sport to watch.

Just another reason why NCAA > NBA.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by King Bahamut
When the refs call THAT physical of game, it's obvious that San Antonio is favored. They allowed way too much contact. Instead of making up their own opinion of what a foul is, call what the league says a foul is. See, calling that physical of a game will only lead to conflict, as it did, with Finley and Bowen. After that the refs began to call the game as it was, instead of ALLOWING the Spurs to push and shove and rape Dallas live. After that the Mavs dominated the Spurs.

---

Weren't you the same guy in chat that said San Antonio only won last year because of Nowitski's injury? If so, then I could say Dallas only won because of Chris Webber's injury.

But regardless, San Antonio won and won big time. I'm not a Spurs fan, I'm a Wizards fan(sadly), but what I saw from the game, San Antonio whooped Dallas big time. It doesn't matter what Dallas did for the next few minutes, it doesn't equate up to an entire game.

But yes, NCAA basketball is more enjoyable to watch. The only collegiate sport more entertaining than it's pro counterpart.

You misquote me slightly, Dingo. I said that the series would have been a lot closer with Nowitzki in. And I did also say that Sacramento could have very well won with Webber. There is a slight difference, though. Ginoboli caused Dirk's injury, by sliding his foot under Dirk's. Webber simply blew out his own knee. I'm not sure that means anything, but just to state.

I said it at the beginning of the season and I'll say it again: Cleveland is going to make the playoffs.

Sacramento is the best team because if you take away their best player (Webber) they are still a good team (hell, they held the best record for a good long while without him). Los Angeles is the only other good team you could argue this for, but I personally think without Shaq LA sucks. Dallas won in that series last year because Van Exel is a streaky shooter and caught fire at the right time. That guy was smokin. Won't happen again though because Sac has the best talent and the best depth and I think only a healthy Lakers or a very hot Minnesota can take them out.

Last time I checked Dallas beat Sacto at their place and ours, albeit it was without Predrag at ARCO, but you were as healthy as Sacto will ever get in Dallas. They may be talented, but they're pansies. It doesn't matter how much talent, but if you're not tough enough to keep from injury, it doesn't make one difference in the world.

You may have a point. Dallas is a very streaky team and I only see tham as a contender if they end really hot, like Minnesota, but I think Minnesota's better. We'll see come May. Dallas-Sac would be another great series because it would undoubtedly be a shootout against two great offenses.

I loved that series last season. I still have every game taped. I watch them sometimes. I loved the one where it was 44-40 after 1 quarter, and then 83-62 at halftime. Now THAT'S basketball.

Sorry to break it to you fellas, but Dallas is not going anywhere. Offense may win games, but defense wins championships. They don't play any defense. Just going out and trying to outscore your opponents is a fine philosophy for the regular season, but playoff basketball is an entirely different game.

Yeah, no way Dallas wins the title this year. The West has too many high powered teams. I still consider Dallas the 5th best team in the conference. The 2nd round in the west is where Dallas will be bounced. They can score 120 points, but they give up like 135.

Either Sacramento or San Antonio wins this year...Minnesota next year. I'd actually be shocked if LA wins this year. But Dallas won't win it, that much I guarantee. Well, Dallas could win if Minnesota loses KG, LA loses Shaq, Sac loses Web, and San-Antonio loses Duncan, then yeah...that's Dallas' title to win then.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nino Brown
Just another reason why NCAA > NBA.

---

Yes, I'm beginning to think this as well.

And for you opposers of strong defense: shame. Which is harder to get: a good block or a flashy dunk? a 3-pointer or a steal that leads to a fast break?

Sure, offense is great, but defense is where it's at.

[q=Nino Brown]Sorry to break it to you fellas, but Dallas is not going anywhere. Offense may win games, but defense wins championships. They don't play any defense. Just going out and trying to outscore your opponents is a fine philosophy for the regular season, but playoff basketball is an entirely different game.[/q]

Maybe I should tell you this: <3

I know good and well that Dallas won't win the title this year, but the point of basketball is entertainment. I wanna see entertaining basketball, and Detroit and San Antonio's styles of basketball are quite frankly as BORING AS HELL. I would much rather see Dallas lose in a shoot-em-up high-scoring, high-flying affair than win 85-69, as Detroit did a few nights ago.