103 replies to this topic

[SBTarheel]

There's no conspiracy, people are just plain crazy..

New Orleans won it, let's move on.

I wonder if the Wizards can take Harrison Barnes, John Henson, Kendall Marshall & Tyler Zeller!!

[Oriole85]

New Orleans is not a prime NBA market, I think Stern would much rather have had Charlotte or the Wizards win it of the top 3 teams. The conspiracy theorists would've justified it regardless.

And if the team with the best odds, always won the lottery than the lottery wouldn't be as intriguing as it is.

[SportsGuy]

There's no conspiracy, people are just plain crazy..

New Orleans won it, let's move on.

I wonder if the Wizards can take Harrison Barnes, John Henson, Kendall Marshall & Tyler Zeller!!

Why, you want the Wizards to be the best team to not win?

[Pedro Cerrano]

A woman who witnessed the lottery was interviewed and went into a lot of detail about the process. While I can see David Stern reaching into a hopper and grabbing envelopes (Ewing) as pretty easy to fix, they way they do it now is pretty tough IMO.

[Nuclear Dish]

I'm not actually suggesting there was a conspiracy or that it was fixed. I actually used to believe very strongly that the NBA was fixed. I went so far as to write a column for the Hopkins Standard in 1994 about this. I was convinced that there was a sinister reason that only big-market teams won the championships (PHI-BOS-LAL-DET-CHI-HOU), while secondary market teams very often were the runners-up (POR-PHO-UTA-ORL). Of course, you could also point out that the big market teams also by far had the best players.

I actually wasn't the only person saying it in the mid-90's, and it was right around then that SA got Duncan and started winning its championships, almost in response to the criticism. Of course, you could also point out that that was right around the time that MJ was retiring (for the 2nd and most significant of 3 times).

Nowadays, I don't really care enough about the NBA nor pay attention enough to really care either way. I really just thought it was a bit funny that the Hornets won, not that it was actually a sinister plot. It's not all that different than when the Nationals had the first pick 2 years running after MLB sold them. It's just coincidence, but it feels a bit wrong.

[Nuclear Dish]

If the "top" 5 teams are the only ones with a shot at the #1 pick then I can pretty much guarantee you teams ranked 6-8 with two weeks left in the season will start tanking.

The reason all the non-playoff teams get a shot at the #1 pick is because, theoretically, every team would rather make the playoffs than be in the draft lotto. No team is going to tank if they have a shot at the playoffs, but a team that is in the middle of the abyss surely would rather tank to get into that "top" 5.

It wouldn't solve any problems. Also, the 14th team has, I believe, a .5% chance of getting the #1 pick. I'm fine with the 14th team getting the pick once out of every 200 drafts.

I understand the rationale, but the reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. Basically, the way it's set up right now, as soon as a team realizes it doesn't have a chance at the playoffs, it should start tanking to improve its chances at the #1 pick.

The whole idea that a professional team can't be trusted not to throw its games is abhorrent to me, and it's one of the many reasons why the NBA is my least favorite of the major sports leagues (behind even MLS).

If it's really that bad, the league needs to find a better incentive to staying out of the lottery to keep teams from tanking. Or a better disincentive if they are thought to be tanking. Seriously? They can't police their own teams? What is this, AAU?

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'm not actually suggesting there was a conspiracy or that it was fixed. I actually used to believe very strongly that the NBA was fixed. I went so far as to write a column for the Hopkins Standard in 1994 about this. I was convinced that there was a sinister reason that only big-market teams won the championships (PHI-BOS-LAL-DET-CHI-HOU), while secondary market teams very often were the runners-up (POR-PHO-UTA-ORL). Of course, you could also point out that the big market teams also by far had the best players.

I actually wasn't the only person saying it in the mid-90's, and it was right around then that SA got Duncan and started winning its championships, almost in response to the criticism. Of course, you could also point out that that was right around the time that MJ was retiring (for the 2nd and most significant of 3 times).

Nowadays, I don't really care enough about the NBA nor pay attention enough to really care either way. I really just thought it was a bit funny that the Hornets won, not that it was actually a sinister plot. It's not all that different than when the Nationals had the first pick 2 years running after MLB sold them. It's just coincidence, but it feels a bit wrong.

I hear ya, but it's important to realize that some of those big market teams won in the 80s and 90s because of savvy moves, not because of some underhanded sinister plot by the NBA. The Trailblazers could have had Michael Jordan. The Lakers got Magic Johnson after trading for the pick (same with James Worthy). Any other team, in theory, could have made those trades.

Is Detroit really a "big" market? Phoenix is a huge city, they're not a big market?

I dunno, I just feel the need to always defend the NBA. I'm a huge fan of the league (second only to MLB) and when people talk about "no defense" "nobody tries" "it's fixed" I have to defend it.

The recent nonsense with Chris Paul and the Donaghy scandal have not helped matters but I love when NFL fans tell me NBA players are "thugs".

[Nuclear Dish]

Is Detroit really a "big" market? Phoenix is a huge city, they're not a big market?

In the early '90's, PHO was a secondary market, especially for TV. PHO has been one of the fastest growing population centers in the country, so in 15-20 years, it's become a top 10 market, but it certainly wasn't back then.

And DET was a huge market, I believe around #5 or #6 overall. It's been one of many midwestern metro areas that have had significant population decline in the past 10-15 years. It still might be top 10, but I think it's probably dropped into the middle tier of TV markets nationally.

[Oriole85]

Is Detroit really a "big" market? Phoenix is a huge city, they're not a big market?

In the early '90's, PHO was a secondary market, especially for TV. PHO has been one of the fastest growing population centers in the country, so in 15-20 years, it's become a top 10 market, but it certainly wasn't back then.

And DET was a huge market, I believe around #5 or #6 overall. It's been one of many midwestern metro areas that have had significant population decline in the past 10-15 years. It still might be top 10, but I think it's probably dropped into the middle tier of TV markets nationally.

How exactly do you define a big market? Population, revenue generated, attendance at games, tv audience? And is big market the top 7, 10, 12?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Definitely not population. San Antonio is still considered a small market and they're one of the 10 most populated cities in the country. They just have no surrounding suburban area to speak of which limits their viewership I suppose.

[Nuclear Dish]

when people talk about "no defense" "nobody tries" "it's fixed" I have to defend it.

Like I said, I used to believe in the league being fixed. I've backed off that one, although the Donaghy thing really just confirmed for me that I absolutely could have been right. I'll never know, so I'll just assume it was all fair, and if not, at least it was entertaining.

As for the other criticisms of the league, none of them are my biggest problem with it. My issue is that every game I watch is pretty meaningless other than the last few minutes. And then those last few minutes take like an hour to watch.

A team can build a 15-point lead in the first half, and it's inevitable that the game will still be close enough that the last couple minutes require 10 timeouts, a dozen fouls, and therefore 45 minutes of real time.

How often does that happen in college basketball? Sure, a team might hang around and make it interesting. But more often, a 15-point lead is much more meaningful in college basketball. And that means that watching the game from the beginning to see how the lead is built is meaningful.

In the pros, that 15-point lead is likely to get wiped out, and so the initial building of that lead is pretty pointless. One team just had a good quarter. Now it's the other team's turn.

I don't have actual numbers to back this up. It's more of a gut feeling. But it's strong enough that I am loathe to watch an entire NBA game. I don't bother turning it on until the 4th quarter, and even then, I probably only watch the last 5-8 minutes at most. And it's just as likely that I give up on it in the last couple minutes because it's taking so damn long.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I don't bother turning it on until the 4th quarter, and even then, I probably only watch the last 5-8 minutes at most. And it's just as likely that I give up on it in the last couple minutes because it's taking so damn long.

That's a real shame. For instance, you would have missed an excellent game last night in Miami. And while the game ended up going into overtime, the ebb and flow of the game leading up to that point were well worth watching.

I think college basketball is a much worse brand of the sport. People confuse "good defense" and "poor offensive skill" all the time. Wisconsin and other Big 10 teams aren't some elite group of defenders, they just suck offensively. If that's what you enjoy watching, fine.

I also think the argument that NBA games are only worth watching in the last few minutes odd. I don't want to set up a strawman here, but it sounds like you're arguing that 15+ point blowouts in college are much more fun to watch than close NBA games that have various runs? Or that the games are more "meaningful"?

[Nuclear Dish]

In the early '90's, PHO was a secondary market, especially for TV. PHO has been one of the fastest growing population centers in the country, so in 15-20 years, it's become a top 10 market, but it certainly wasn't back then.

And DET was a huge market, I believe around #5 or #6 overall. It's been one of many midwestern metro areas that have had significant population decline in the past 10-15 years. It still might be top 10, but I think it's probably dropped into the middle tier of TV markets nationally.

How exactly do you define a big market? Population, revenue generated, attendance at games, tv audience? And is big market the top 7, 10, 12?

Big market teams in a league that is so salary controlled are teams with large TV markets and more revenue generation (which is a factor of merchandising, which is in turn a factor of national popularity, and ticket sales). Population of the metropolitan area is a big factor in determining TV market.

Right now, in terms of TV market, Detroit is ranked #11, Phoenix is #13, San Antonio is #36.

In 1990, I guarantee the separation between Detroit and Phoenix was significantly larger. I can't find the TV market rankings from that year, but in pure population of the metro areas, Detroit was #8 and Phoenix was #19. By 2005, Detroit was #11 and Phoenix was #12.

Another thing to consider specifically in the NBA, and I want to stress that I intend no disrespect or racism in saying this, is the size of the African-American market in a city. Detroit is currently the #7 TV market among African-American households, while Phoenix isn't in the top 50. If it's a stereotype to suggest that African-Americans are among the most significant groups of NBA viewers, I apologize. If it's true, though, the difference between the markets is a big deal.

[Nuclear Dish]

That's a real shame. For instance, you would have missed an excellent game last night in Miami. And while the game ended up going into overtime, the ebb and flow of the game leading up to that point were well worth watching.

I watched the last couple minutes and overtime, and I was frustrated by the end.

I think college basketball is a much worse brand of the sport. People confuse "good defense" and "poor offensive skill" all the time. Wisconsin and other Big 10 teams aren't some elite group of defenders, they just suck offensively. If that's what you enjoy watching, fine.

I can't stand Big10 basketball. In fact, I don't consider it basketball at all. It's some bastardization of the game that has evolved in the midwest, and it needs to be eliminated.

I also think the argument that NBA games are only worth watching in the last few minutes odd. I don't want to set up a strawman here, but it sounds like you're arguing that 15+ point blowouts in college are much more fun to watch than close NBA games that have various runs? Or that the games are more "meaningful"?

No, I think there is more value to the building of a 15-point lead in a college game than in an NBA game. I'm not sure how to describe it better than that. The NBA game has more runs, yes. But that doesn't appeal to me. It's like the original run that led to the 15-point lead was pointless. Let's just start from 90-90 with 3 minutes left and see who wins.

Again, I don't have numbers to back it up. It's a gut feeling, and I'm sure it's got a lot to do with long-time biases toward college hoops (from my allegiance to UNC) and my lack of a real rooting interest in the NBA. But whatever it is, I don't care for the NBA brand of basketball much more than I do the Big 10 brand (although given the choice, the NBA wins hands down).

[mweb08]

I actually go the other way than Nuclear Dish and believe that there should be less of a reward for finishing with one of the worst 3 records. I'm not a big fan of the strategy of getting as bad as possible so you can build into something great.

Teams like the Rockets who try as hard as they can to win and do it intelligently get screwed because they are on the fringe of playoff contention and thus get a mediocre pick and stay in the middle unless they can pull off a trade for Pau Gasol. Oh wait...

I'm not sure of the perfect solution, but I don't think rewarding teams for tanking (this is more often done by the front office via roster construction) is the best way to go.

[mweb08]

That's a real shame. For instance, you would have missed an excellent game last night in Miami. And while the game ended up going into overtime, the ebb and flow of the game leading up to that point were well worth watching.

I think college basketball is a much worse brand of the sport. People confuse "good defense" and "poor offensive skill" all the time. Wisconsin and other Big 10 teams aren't some elite group of defenders, they just suck offensively. If that's what you enjoy watching, fine.

I also think the argument that NBA games are only worth watching in the last few minutes odd. I don't want to set up a strawman here, but it sounds like you're arguing that 15+ point blowouts in college are much more fun to watch than close NBA games that have various runs? Or that the games are more "meaningful"?

Obviously I agree. People watch college and see guys miss a bunch of shots and turn the ball over and they point to great effort on D, when in reality, it's mostly inferior offense.

And yeah, the NBA is only worth watching in the last 5 minutes stereotype makes little sense imo.

Games are often decided before that, and when they're not, a 4-8 point lead going into that last 5 minutes matters. It's not like teams are always coming back late in games.

I also don't think the NBA has more runs than college ball. College ball has tons of runs because most teams aren't that good so they can go cold for extended stretches.

Now if you look at every game played in college, yeah, the first half probably means more because there are many more large mismatches that lead to the games being essentially over at the half or shortly thereafter. Of course, you can easily skip many of those games altogether.

[BSLMikeLowe]

San Antonio, one of the league's smallest markets, won the lottery for David Robinson back in 1988 when the lottery conspiracy theories were still alive and well. He would have been just as coveted as Ewing and Olajuwon were it not for the fact that the Spurs had to wait a full season for him to fulfill his Navy service commitment.

[Pedro Cerrano]

The league also, in what was clearly a conspiracy, gave Tim Duncan to the Spurs instead of the mega-market Celtics.

[BSLMikeLowe]

The NBA can't even conspire to rig their draft properly. Giving not one, but two franchise big-men to tiny San Antonio. How incompetent.

[DJ MC]

The league also, in what was clearly a conspiracy, gave Tim Duncan to the Spurs instead of the mega-market Celtics.

The Spurs probably leave San Antonio if they don't both get Duncan and win their first title. I remember local news reports about the possibility of a move to Baltimore even after the 1999 championship.