Clean As a Whistle?
If you listened to NBA commissioner David Stern, you likely would hear that the NBA is stronger than ever before, more visible to the rest of the world, perhaps stronger than ever before monetarily, and more tangible due to the excess of cable stations, facebook interactions, the rest of the internet, etc.. In reality, the NBA is extremely boring, overall. The game has many credibility issues, and the overall product is simply underachieved and leaves a lot to be desired.
Contrary to another writer's comment, the league's rule changes are bad, and no, contrary again, the verdict here is not based upon personal perspective. (Truth is absolute and objective, not relative or subjective.) In 1999, a few months after Michael Jordan's retirement, the league knew its ambassador was gone and was frustrated by the dismal product and all the embarrassing final scores-which literally were the same as halftime scores from the 1980s, so it changed the rules and made scoring easier for offensive players, an attempt to make the game more video-game like. Jordan later would blast the move, by the way, and referred to how the players had an obligation to respect the game and practice and that it was wrong for the league to try to make the game easier. (If the NBA's mistake here sounds familiar, think about how our "educational" system hinders real students and rewards apathy and mediocrity from typical students and does not inspire achievement and instead asks said real students to slow down for those who indeed are apathetic or cannot speak the language.)
The Lakers' fast break from the 1980s is gone, as is the Celtics' impeccable half-court offense, as is the Pistons' rebounding and tenacious defense, as is the Hawks' stylistic combination of the speed, power, and finesse shown by all of the above, and now complacency runs rampantly all over the court. There is nothing wrong with players earning multi-millions (notice how people complain about athletes' salaries but say nothing at all against an Oprah Winfrey earning $100 million-for her propaganda, no less?), but there is everything wrong with the common decision to cash one's check and not develop one's God-given talent. The league would be much better if individuals took pride in their respective crafts and worked to refine them.
Magic Johnson referred to this very topic when he returned to the Lakers in 1995. He spoke about how, in his day, players arrived for practice on time and would criticize teammates if they did not or if they slacked and spoke about how the current trend was marred by carelessness and complacency and that players did not respect their coaches (a writer once joked that players did not huddle in the NBA, as compared to college, unless they were strategizing a way to get the coach fired).
How many times do you hear the term "posterize"? A lot. This very term represents a lot of the league's troubles. Players generally see highlight reels, as do fans, and view the spectacular instead of observing the subtle, the fundamental. Charles Barkley once had an amazing, strong, wise, much-needed response to this unfortunate trend and defended Shawn Bradley after a highlight clip of his getting dunked on by informing/reminding the audience that there was nothing wrong with getting dunked on and everything wrong with not defending one's basket- a concept that shoe companies know as well as Barkley does but like to overlook in the pursuit of revenue via shallow glamourization. (Besides, most individuals who get "dunked on" really do not get dunked on at all but instead are late in arriving to the rim and just get framed as such.) Many players see these commercials, highlight reels, etc. and see the act of being featured prominently on them as more important than being a leader, a great player, a great teammate, etc. and regard the spectacular over the substantive. This egotistical approach leads to more isolations, more dribbling, less passing, lower-percentage shots, disgruntled teammates due to one's selfishness and therefore lower team morale, and a continuation of said underachieved product, and a lot of boredom for fans. Well-played games are the result of individuals working together for the betterment of the team, not exploiting the team for the betterment of personal statistics.
Of course, if a player suppresses his team for 47 minutes and 50 seconds, the aforementioned highlight shows will glamourize his two standout plays more than they will expose his lack of leadership. NBC notoriously did this type of thing throughout its dismal basketball coverage, which did not even compare to that of CBS (and ABC's coverage is as bad as NBC's, if not worse). When those at the "peacock" provided "information" to fans, it generally was nothing more than shallow absurdity, symbolized by its promotion of Michael Jordan throughout the decade. Is he the greatest player of all time? Yes, but not for the reasons they promoted over the years. For every spectacular play this man made, he made many more basic, non-glamourous, easily-overlooked plays that the vast majority of fans probably never noticed. As glamourous as his game was, it literally was a lot more blue-collar than glamourous, a reality that, again, NBC almost entirely ignored and that most companies ignored also when providing commercials.
NBC, by the way, appeared to care nothing at all about promoting the league's product or criticizing the lack of it but instead appeared to have the common paranoia networks have that people are going to quit watching the product that they paid billions for. It saw Jordan as the league's moneymaker and promoted him left and right. Yes, he was the best player, but there were many other stories and achievements the network overlooked in an effort to hide behind the man they saw as the guy who kept their investment in the black. The network was overtly and disgustingly biased in favor of him and his team, which offended real fans, such as myself (just like Brent Musburger's overt bias for Boston offended people when CBS covered the league... but, again, CBS's coverage was sterling in spite of this fact).
As mentioned earlier, the league has credibility issues. In 1988, Boston played Atlanta in Boston in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Semifinals. Many remember this game for the unsurpassed, historic duel between Larry Bird and Dominique Wilkins, but one also has to remember the blatant bias the officials showed throughout the fourth quarter. Atlanta shot about 25% the number of free throws Boston shot in the game, and this disparity was most prevalent in the fourth quarter. While Musburger clearly rooted for Boston, sidekick Tom Heinsohn, who used to play for the Celtics, by the way, criticized the way the game was called at one point, referring to how Kevin McHale and Kevin Willis were battling for position equally physically but with only Willis getting called for fouls.
In 1998, the Indiana Pacers evened the Eastern Conference Finals against Chicago, 2-2, after falling behind, 0-2. In the fourth quarter of Game 4, Jalen Rose left the bench when a fight broke out and ended up getting suspended for Game 5. Ironically, one of the reasons Indiana tied the series was because Indiana's defense against Jordan, the league's money player, was quite substantial, and Rose drew top honors in this category. Costas openly suggested that Rose might be suspended and pressured Thorn to do so, which he did. In late December 2001, Thorn, who at that point worked for the New Jersey Nets' front office, criticized the league's decision to spend one of his players, Kenyon Martin, even though Martin blatantly cheap-shotted Karl Malone with a forearm to the back of the head when Malone was attempting a dunk. The man who suspended Rose over a technicality said Malone was one of the game's "better actors." He "also" was a target of New Jersey coach Byron Scott, who had animosity toward him. Martin got suspended for one regular-season game and drew a fine of $7,500. Rose committed a petty violation and got suspended in a crucial playoff game. Unfortunately for fans of objective and fairness, this particular Rose had its Thorn.
It is important to remember that the NBA is a business, and where there is money, there tends to be corruption. One also needs to consider that the NBA does not earn money from fans who watch games from home but instead from the advertisers we see during commercial breaks and that one does not have to be a rarified mathematician to realize that the more games a playoff series goes, the more money the league can make from its advertisers (not to mention from the ratings themselves and the ticket sales at individual games). With this thought in mind, the 2002 Western Conference Finals comes to mind. The Sacramento Kings took a 3-2 lead and ran into stiff, seemingly-blatantly-biased officiating in the fourth quarter of Game 6 in Los Angeles. The Kings had displayed better teamwork in the series, but the Lakers were the more-familiar, more-glamourous team in the bigger market, featuring the league's two top stars, Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, and almost-assuredly the team the NBA wanted in the Finals. Referee Tim Donaghy, who went on to be imprisoned for officiating in a way to influence point spreads to favor his vested gambling interests (he got caught after Game 5 of the 2007 Suns-Spurs series), claimed that the NBA often manipulated seven-game series for the aforementioned monetary results and wanted referees to carry out the league's dirty work. He claimed also that officials were told not to eject high-profile players (Michael Jordan blatantly earned an ejection in Game 7 of the aforementioned 1998 ECF but did not receive one.) and said that two company-men officials collaborated to influence a seventh game that year. The only seventh game in that playoff year occurred between the Lakers and Kings, and in the fourth quarter of Game 6, L.A. astoundingly shot 18 more free throws than the Kings did (18 free throws is a lot for one quarter, period), and the Lakers went on to win the game, the series, and a third-consecutive championship. From a personal perspective, when I watched the game, did I think something corrupt was occurring? Beyond the shadow of a doubt, yes, I did, and certainly not for the first time, either.
It also is important to remember that the entire premise of sports competition is that the playing field is even, not crooked (pun intended). I cannot say that the NBA is a crooked league but can say that I have suspected it for years and have seen inadequate evidence to refute my theory. In addition, how ironic it is that, if the goal of slanting games is to influence more revenue for the league, the NBA's should-be target audience-true basketball fans- are the ones most likely to leave first (as I have). The NBA is not what it used to be. The objectivity of officiating does not appear to be what it used to be. An accidental direct correlation? Absolutely not.
Donaghy has said that many referees are scamming ballgames, either for personal financial interests or for the league's, and Stern largely has ignored these allegations and has tried to portray Donaghy as a bitter, scornful criminal. Donaghy very well might be bitter and scornful, but his comments appear to carry the kind of credibility that the NBA has not earned for a very long time, and when you look at examples to support or oppose the two's comments, one immediately can see the Celtics repeatedly going to the free-throw line in Game 7 against the Hawks in 1988, the Lakers repeatedly going to the line in the fourth quarter of Game 6 against the Kings in 2002, Rose's unfair suspension, Jordan's getting by with travels and offensive fouls left and right, O'Neal's doing the same thing, Jordan's not getting ejected after blatantly earning an ejection at halftime of Game 7 of the 1998 ECF, Vince Carter standing in front of the three-point line and setting each foot behind it without taking a dribble prior to drilling a three, and many, many, many other examples. Indeed, I fully can understand why Stern has said little to respond to Donaghy. It appears that he is at a loss for words.