April 15-16, 2001

This 2 Day Easter Edition Dedicated to Conspiracy Theories

Photo by Fireplug

Mr. Dan Crawford, Number 43 John114AAA I had to wait to post this message so I would not say something that I would regret and that would be taken only as a sore loser comment. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Dan Crawford is designated to ensure King's losses at critical games. He was the ref in 2 of the games against the Lakers in which a call here and there affected the outcome of the game, just like last night. Conspiracy is almost impossible to prove. Some of the books that have been written recently about college point shaving clearly describe how easy it is to shape the outcome of a game and how difficult it is to prove unless someone steps forward and owns up to their actions. I will not say any more about this because my mother always taught me that if you have nothing positive to say about someone, then do not say anything. Mom, sorry for this post, but some times you just have to stand up and be counted or the bad guys win. Very happy about the King's season and am enjoying every moment and I refuse to let Mr. Dan Crawford spoil my joy. Go Kings!! The team just has to play that much better when Mr. Crawford and his ilk are there, and I am confident they will. I just hope that Mr. Stern and Mr Thorn have the same courage to improve the refereeing as they have shown with trying to change the rules to get a more up tempo and interesting game, and not the thug ball played by so many teams the past ten years.

Sacramento @ Dallas Paris in NoCal I have seen some badly ref'd games. Game changing calls, terrible no-calls, phantom fouls, and tickytacks. I've also seen games where the refs seemed to be playing with nite shades on and players are getting mugged and molested all over the court (i.e. EC games). It's usually one or the other. Last nite was the first time I had seen both "styles" during the same contest. In the first two minutes I knew something else was going on here. It's no secret why these two particular teams were picked to perform in the very first webcast game. The NBA is a business. Business is money. More exposure = more buzz = mo' money. Give the people (outside the US and the untapped market in the US) something they can relate to ("home town" players) and they'll line up to buy your officialy licensed merchandise and pile up at your ticket boxes to procure your empty seats. On BOTH sides of the ball the calls and non-calls alike were astonishing. The world is a stage and the NBA was not about to blow a first impression. Controversy breeds interest. Not blowouts. Anytime a team was pulling too far ahead, they were subsequently brought back to the pack in whatever fashion it took. It was embarrassing. At the half I just got up from the couch and took my dogs for a walk. Me. During a crucial game. A world wide broadcast game. Against a more than worthy opponent. A "close" game. Me. Paris in freaking NoCal. I much rather have watched my dog crap in someones lawn than watch the NBA crap all over a legit contest. I got back to see the final minute plus. Same stuff, different quarter. Feigning interest in the "down-to-the-wireness" wasn't even an option. What a farce. The team with the most foreign players won? Wow. I'm so suprised. Never seen that coming. I'm not bitter. But this tin-foil cap is killing me.

Refs and Kings Ken It is easy to think that "as long as the Kings play well, nobody, including the ref, can take the W from them." It is ideal but NOT realistic. During the game, MOMENTUM is everything and ONE bad call can turn the outcome of the game around. A phantom offensive foul on your best player, or a missed call on a def. reb... things like that can absolutely kill a team. I've said it many times before, in a close game where every possession counts, just ONE bad call in enough to change the big picture (such as playoff standings), and it is very easy for the refs to let any particular team win in any particular game. Say when the Kings are down by 15+ points, and they climb all the way back to cut it to a 1 pt game and have the ball, but if the refs need to preserve the other team's W, all they have to do is to call an offensive foul on Divac or Webber using their off-arm, or a travelling on Peja, or a charge on Chirsite, and then T-up Adelman or Divac for arguing. It doesn't matter how hard a team play, how well they defend, if the refs want you to lose, there is absoltely no hope for you to win. That's the very reason why they say, "Any team can beat any other team on a given night." The only exception is a blow-out, where you blow out the oppoent by 20+ points, then the refs pretty much can't do crap to alter it. I also have to agree with Paris that NBA is a business. Yesterday's game was webcasted all over the world and the league isn't gonna let the Mavs look bad in front of Wang's home country! Think about the amount of dollars the league can make by drawing the Chinese interest to the NBA!!! It shouldn't be surprising that the league would instruct the refs to do anything to keep the game close and exciting but let Wang's team win at the end. And the refs did an excellent job following the league's instruction. Last night's result of the Mavs winning by a close margin is the best scenerio the NBA can get in front of all the overseas audience. IMO, the Kings are just unfortunate to be Wang's opponent in the first-ever webcasted game. And you know what, going back to the conspiracy truth that "big-market teams always win" because they bring more $ to the league, I do expect the Lickers to win the divinsion title. Not because the Kings will play bad enough to lose the division lead to the Lickers, but because the league will, again, do everything possible to ensure a Shaq + Kobe division title in order to draw more attention/audience, commercials, merchandise, and thereby profit during the playoff. Fact is, the Kings team is a legitimate title contender and is able to beat anybody in any night. However, the reality is, the Kigns will not win it. Stern isn't stupid and he will manipulate playoff basketball to make the max $. He and his refs control everything. The LA Lickers are the LA Lickers, a team located next to Hollywood, a team which all the rich people and celebrities cheer for, and the league will help them out at the end. You don't need to be business major to understand the audience/market size differences between Los Angeles and Sacramento. Face the truth, Kings fans, in this so-called "fair" game, a more profitable market team gotta be treated "more fairly" than a less profitable market team. I am a die-hard Kigns fan and would LOVE to see the Kigns winning the Pacific Division, but I honestly don't expect to see that no matter how well they play in the remaining 3 games. Let's see.

More Refs and Kings Wyo I get as mad at the refs as anyone but...... Some refs, like some players, are better than others..... Some refs, like some coaches, are biased for or against some players...... Some refs, like all of us, have good days and not-so-good days and some really bad days...... Can refs change games? Absolutely! Is there an NBA scheme to determine outcomes? Not in my book. The key to more Kings wins is playing harder and smarter. Just my personal opinion. GO KINGS!!

Re: Refs and Kings Reno Lady Ken-I can see you've got this all worked out - and maybe you're right. But HOW the Kings handle all this will determine how well this team does in the future - if THEY buy into something like what you're espousing then we'll be back to a lottery team in no time! Momentum is great and it helps a team win - but attitude is just as, if not more, important - and not only helps a team win but helps them learn what they've done wrong and to not make the same mistakes again. The Kings have thousands of fans, real, true, diehard fans - probably more than any team in the league right now & the league has given the Kings a lot of attention. I don't think Stern and Co. is stupid enough to try something so obvious as what you're describing. If one fan, or a dozen, can see it then sooner or later hundreds would see it, and do just what you're doing, put it out where everyone can see it, think about it, and determine for themselves if it's true - and the league would have an uprising on its hands against which it couldn't possibly win and the image it tries so hard to perpetuate would be destroyed. I realize that "big" market teams are supposed to make the league money but if the Kings have every game sold out all season (one of the very markets in the league where that happens) and Jason Williams' jersey still outsells all those of any other player, and if Kings' road games sell more tickets than all other teams but the Lakers & the Knicks then isn't Sac making a lot of money for the league also? In another vein people could argue that you're wrong because 2 years ago San Antonio won the championship - and they're definitely not a "big" market either, maybe bigger than Sac but they're no New York or LA, and - speaking of NY if your theory were a truism why hasn't NY won the title in years? It's the biggest market out there and houses the league office - shouldn't there be favoritism to the home-town boys? While I'm not saying you're completely wrong and Lord knows when it comes to money, businesses, including sports organizations, will do just about anything to make all they can, a conspiracy like the one you're talking about is too easy to spot and there would have to be so many people in on it that word would leak out somehow. I mean just imagine what the media would do if they thought something like this existed - what they did to Clinton would be child's play compared to what they'd do to the NBA.

Even more on  Refs and Kings Bawsor Wow! Money, conspiracy, Chinese, big business, Clinton,.. sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel to me. All that's missing is a dead body (Crawford?). Is there a conspiracy to help the big market teams? Well, let's look at previous winners: LA(6), Chicago (6), Boston (3), Houston (2), Detroit (2), San Antonio (1) (Hmmm, mostly big markets, except for missing NY - maybe this is where Webber comes in ..) Compare that to the NFL: St Louis, Green Bay, Baltimore, Tennessee,.. (very small markets) The only three small market teams that captured the crowns were in the late 70's. There is Golden State Warriors with Rick Barry, Portland Trailblazers with Bill Walton, and Seattle Supersonics with Dennis Johnson. But mostly, the big market teams dominated the NBA's. Having said that, I still like our chances. Everytime I see the Kings, I keep thinking of Walton's Trailblazers, with Lucas, Hollins, Davis, and Bobby Gross. Excellent ball movement, very unselfish team. They demolished the 76ers with Erving and McGinnis in four straight after losing big the first two games. Enough of history. We should now channel all our energy and good wishes to our beloved Kings in their game tomorrow against the Phoenix Suns!

Even more on  Refs and Kings JB The size of the town doesn't matter nearly as much as the size of your audience. While some may argue that Sacramento is a small media market, the real enticement is the product. Nobody cares if we have cows in our front yards or Wall Street - they want to see Jason throw a behind the back pass to Chris for a dunk. They want to see the Kings come back from 25 point defecits to win by double digits. It's a TV producers dream - Kings down by 17 at the half to the Knicks? No problem - Stay tuned because your gonna go to OT. The Kings are on NBC & TNT/TBS 20+ times a season because people want to see them. They draw large ratings and sell big on commercial slots. The Lakers are a big draw and a big story. But if we all paid close attention to the spirit of the rule changes, who stands to benefit? The run and gun Kings or smash mouth Lakers? That was Shaq moaning the other day about the rule changes - not Chris, Vlade, Peja, Doug or Jason. Look no further than the Kings for blueprint for the NBA hopes to be.

Even more on  Refs and Kings Bawsor I wasn't trying to make a conclusion, just to present the facts. In fact, I thought it might be interesting to look at the three sports: MLB, NFL, and the NBA. Major League Baseball, to me, is the most capitalistic of the three leagues. There is no salary cap and no redistribution of wealth to help smaller markets. There is just a puny "luxury" tax, as if that would stop George Streinbrenner! So, what you are seeing is the result pure capitalism at work: the rich getting richer, with the NY Yankees winning 4 of the last 5 World Series. (Disclosure: I am a Yankee fan) My personal view is that if this continues, it will eventually destroy baseball. NFL Surprisingly, the NFL is the most "socialistic" of the three leagues. There is the salary cap and sharing of television revenues. The result? The emergence of very small market teams like the Rams, Packers, Titans, Ravens, Colts, etc.. I thought the result is a much more vibrant and broad-based rejuvenation of the NFL. (I am a NY Giants fan, living just a few miles from Giants Stadium) NBA I look at the NBA as a "tweener", in between the NFL and MLB in terms of wealth redistribution. David Stern, in case you are not aware, is an old school Democrat. His politics, I believe, have shaped the way he governs the league. The salary cap, I thought, is pretty effective in equalizing the talent distribution. My personal view is that, contrary to how Ken feels, there is no conspiracy on Stern's part. I have always thought he is the best NBA commissioner EVER, and the best commissioner among the three leagues. Having said that, referees are still human beings, with personal prejudice and bias. However, they are being evaluated every game. At half-time of every game, they watch film of the game and make the necessary adjustments. After every game, the film tape is sent to central headquarter for review. So, there is a rigorous quality control system. Well, so much for my rambling.

Last word on  Refs and Kings Wyo I have to admit that I was exaggerating a bit in my earlier view about the conspiracy theory. But still, I insist it is there in the league's office, even if at a less extent. Now, talking about the corelation between market size and winning, let me ask, was Davis Stern the ultimate NBA God when Larry Bird's Celtics, Isiah Thomas's Pistons, and Abdul-Jabar's LAL had their respective dynasties? Besides I believe these cities had a large enough market to make them a legitimate championship city. If you argue SA is a small market team but still won the champ, now let me remind you, the Spurs won it in the so called "We STILL love the game" season. And the significance of that season was that the image of NBA was so badly damaged in the lockout that Stern and Co. would do basically ANYTHING to rescue it. THAT season is also the very 1st season after Jordan retired for good. And let me also remind you that Kobe Bryant was a LAL bencher the season prior to the lockout season, and there wasn't a Shaq/Kobe combo yet. The league needed some team to be the dominant team, to start another dynasty, and that's exactly where the name "Twin Towers" fit in. But let me step back: I'd say that the conspiracy theory probably did not apply to the 50-game season because the most urgent goal of the NBA during that time was to bring back fans interest, and the league gotta let the best team win. The Spurs clearly outplayed everyone else, including NY, whose goal was only to not be swept by the Spurs in the final, in which the Spurs ended up winning 4-1. That's the exception I described: blow-out. The Spurs, with 1st pick Duncan and dream-teamer Robinson healthy, blew everybody out during the 50 games, the playoffs and the final, and the refs had to let them win. And in last year, Duncan had a lot of injury problem and didn't play in the playoffs, and the Shaq/Kobe thing emerged during the season, and guess who won the champ? As for the Knicks never winning the champ, sorry, Ewing and Co. ran into a guy name Jordan. Stern, looking at the long-term benefit of the NBA, probably wouldn't want to dirupt such dominant Bulls dynasty. After all, I have to say that it's not the NBA helping the Bulls to win multiple consecutive champs, it's the fact that MJ was TRULY so good that he could lead the Bulls to actually dominate the league. Oh, by the way, if there had been a NY "dynasty" in the past few years, then there would have been no NY/Miami saga. Don't over look this Knicks/Heat thing, they draw tons of attention and TV audience for NBC. Do you think fans nation-wide really enjoy watching those low-scoring games where NY scores 77 and Miami scores 79? They have slow, half court set in every possession. I think these are 2 of the most boring teams in the league. But 9 out of 10 times, the refs do a fantastic job to keep the game close and at the end of 4thQ or OT, let Houston or Hardaway make a buzzer-beater. hoho! Fans become estactic and think the Knicks/Heat rival is the greatest. Right now, the Twin Towers is rolling, the Shaq/Kobe combo is rolling, and the league gotta let their dynasties continue to build. New York? #33 is gone. Who do they have left? Spree/Houston combo? Or Camby/Rice? Perhaps Stern/refs combo is in fact the true force behind some Knicks W's, cuz New York is where NBC is. (Notice NY were not even in the finals last year but they are on NBC every single weekend? I mean it, every Sunday, if you are watching NBA on NBC, the Knicks is in you screen.) The league just simply has to keep NY as an elite team. The Knicks will never become a lottery team because they are in New York. They can start 5 ball-boys and can still continue to stay in the playoffs year in and year out and in many years to come. Woah, I have written too much here. Sorry to bother those of you who don't belive in my BS. Peace.