Deadspin posted some excerpts of Tim Donaghy's book that was going to be published before the NBA threatened to sue. Luckily for the world wanting to know the truth on NBA basketball and all those angry Sacremento Kings fans, the truth is out.
Donaghy not only mentions his own gambling addiction but also talks about how it was prevalent around the league.
To have a little fun at the expense of the worst troublemakers, the referees working the game would sometimes make a modest friendly wager amongst themselves: first ref to give one of the bad boys a technical foul wouldn't have to tip the ball boy that night. In the NBA, ball boys set up the referees' locker room and keep it stocked with food and beer for the postgame meal. We usually ran the kid ragged with a variety of personal requests and then slipped him a $20 bill. Technically, the winner of the bet won twice — he didn't have to pay the kid and he got to call a T on Mr. Foul-Mouthed Big-Shot Du Jour.
Though the most damning offense mentioned in the book was not about Donaghy, but about the NBA and how it dictated "encouraged" outcomes to games.
The 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings presents a stunning example of game and series manipulation at its ugliest. As the teams prepared for Game 6 at the Staples Center, Sacramento had a 3–2 lead in the series. The referees assigned to work Game 6 were Dick Bavetta, Bob Delaney, and Ted Bernhardt. As soon as the referees for the game were chosen, the rest of us knew immediately that there would be a Game 7. A prolonged series was good for the league, good for the networks, and good for the game. Oh, and one more thing: it was great for the big-market, star-studded Los Angeles Lakers.
In the pregame meeting prior to Game 6, the league office sent down word that certain calls — calls that would have benefited the Lakers — were being missed by the referees. This was the type of not-so-subtle information that I and other referees were left to interpret. After receiving the dispatch, Bavetta openly talked about the fact that the league wanted a Game 7.
"If we give the benefit of the calls to the team that's down in the series, nobody's going to complain. The series will be even at three apiece, and then the better team can win Game 7," Bavetta stated.
It's easy to understand the context of when this occurred. The NBA's image was in the toilet, with the league trying to find the next Michael Jordan. The Lakers looked like they were the team of the future; Kobe Bryant, a hot young player with some many weapons and of course Shaq, the 21st Century's premier post player. Bigger and stronger than Wilt and Kareem.
Of course the tainted referee goes on to mention that this game was not the only one where the NBA wanted a different outcome. Also, it's not the only time the messenger, in an officials uniform, was Dick Bavetta.
Though in fairness to Bavetta, there were other officials painted as "company men" for the Association. Not to mention that certain refs had relationships with coaches and vendettas against certain players and teams.
Again it's understood that the game was in a transition from Jordan to the Holy Trinity of LeBron/Wade/Kobe focus it has now. The league was battling an image of a streetball mentality where players were brawling on the court, smoking grass off the court and creating a very rough urban appearance the league could not market to networks TV exects and key demographic households.
Though at the same time, if the NBA was so worried about it's image why force match ups? Would a Finals match up that featured the Kings really have damaged the ratings?
The Kings were the one seed with Divac, Bibby, Christie and Webber hitting their prime. Granted the endorsements were in favor of Kobe (Adidas) and Shaq (everything in the world). A Kings win could have bumped up their exposure value for not only more potential endorsements and publicity for a new NBA market but also create a long lasting rivalry with the Lakers, a true California rival.
For the NBA this revelation paints a picture that is comparable to the Black Sox Scandal on 1919. The fact that league officials and referees were in cooperation to manipulate and rig the outcome of games and series to promote larger and more profitable markets is not only damning to the fans who pay for these games but to the owners of the teams. Essentially the NBA hates every market except for L.A., New York, Boston, Chicago and Dallas. Those are some of your largest markets out there. Milwaukee, Orlando, Portland, Toronto can just go away. No one needs them.
The NBA threatened the lawsuit on the publishers saying that the aforementioned statements by Donaghy are untrue. Now the league has hired someone to look into the officiating problems, just as the refs are ending their holdout. If the NBA wants to avoid a Selig-Steroids debate that could easily linger with the league for seasons, they might as well admit it.
That brings up the point of whether everything he said is true. If the NBA had never had those problems then they could easily assassinate Donaghy's character, claiming that he was just a former employee with an beef. Though with all the incidents and all the names dropped, say what you will about Donaghy's character because it looks like he is speaking the truth.
I remember one of my classes in college, a sports management class. The question was, "What elements comprise of a game?" One of them is an undetermined outcome. If the NBA has a policy like they do for the 2002 Western Conference Finals, then is it really a game?
Deadspin Link
ROC SPORTS NET 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment