A (horse)fly in the ointment?

Much has been made [David Shoalts, The Globe and Mail] of this afternoon's upcoming Game I tilt between Alexander Ovechkin's Washington Capitals and Sidney Crosby's Pittsburgh Penguins as a ready-made marketer's dream for the NHL. Hopes are high, and many seem to feel that this kind of matchup between two of the league's brightest stars could be a breakthrough moment for hockey in the U.S. There are some aspects that favour that idea, as both stars toil in reasonably large media markets where there isn't much else going on at the moment; both cities have atrocious baseball teams and Washington's NBA team didn't make the playoffs, while Pittsburgh lacks an NBA team completely and Pennsylvania's lone NBA team was just eliminated [Howard Beck, The New York Times]. If this series is going to draw in the viewers, though, it will have to start with a strong first game. Fortunately for the NHL, they've been able to get this game off of the obscurity of Versus and onto a major network, NBC. Unfortunately, scheduling concerns might just ruin the parade and turn the marketing dream into a nightmare scenario.

You see, the Pittsburgh - Washington game is set to start at 1 p.m. today. That's a little earlier than most NHL games, but not a huge problem. What is a problem is what's scheduled for the next block, though. At 4 p.m., NBC is set to air the Kentucky Derby pre-race show, leading up to the race itself at 5 p.m. Remember what happened the last time [Eric McErlain, Off Wing Opinion] a playoff game in overtime on NBC conflicted with a major pre-race show? That's right, NBC decided to abandon the Ottawa Senators - Buffalo Sabres game in the middle to switch over to their coverage of the Preakness Stakes (which apparently drew more viewers than the hockey game!). Now, the Preakness is important, but it doesn't quite have the cachet of the Kentucky Derby. If the network's willing to drop the playoffs for the Preakness, surely they'd do the same for the Derby?

Fortunately, the parties involved appear to have learned a bit from the last go-round. Greg Wyshynski reports over at Puck Daddy that the network has made contingency plans in advance. They've committed to showing the first overtime period on the main network (which would likely cut into the pre-race show), but then switching to the Derby while sending the NHL game to Versus for a second overtime and beyond if necessary. Obviously, this isn't an ideal situation, but it's the best hockey fans could hope for given the circumstances; it would be ratings suicide for NBC to continue showing hockey and miss the Derby itself, and they may even take a ratings bath by showing the first period of overtime hockey instead of the pre-race show. At least this time around there is a contingency plan that's been made public, and that's certainly an improvement.

Still, a switch to Versus would alienate some viewers who don't have the channel or can't find it and certainly wouldn't help the NHL's efforts to rebuild its major-league image. You can bet that both the league and network executives will be fervently praying for a short game this afternoon. It's the playoffs, though, so anything can happen, and the first clash between Alexander the Great and Sid the Kid may well be relegated to the obscurity of the bull-riding and fishing network in favour of some horses running around a track. If that happens, it will only reinforce hockey's minor-league status in the States, and the series Bettman and co. had hoped would save their image may wind up driving yet another nail into it.

Grey Cup numbers not so gloomy

Two stories on the Globe and Mail's website only hours apart give rather different takes on this year's Grey Cup viewership. The headline for the story from The Canadian Press is "Cup audience increases five per cent", while the headline for William Houston's column is "Small audience tunes in to Grey Cup Game" (game really shouldn't be capitalized, but so be it). The ledes are also rather different, as shown below:

CP: "An average of 3.65 million people tuned in to watch the first-ever Grey Cup broadcast on TSN and RDS on Sunday, according to numbers released by the network. The total audience for Calgary's win over Montreal in the 96th Grey Cup represented a five per cent increase over the viewership for last year's game, which Saskatchewan won over Winnipeg. That game was aired on CBC."

Houston: "TSN's first Grey Cup telecast drew one of the lowest television audiences in the history of the CFL championship game. The 2.439 million people who watched the Calgary Stampeders' win over the Montreal Alouettes is the Cup's second-worst TV audience since 1989. It was down 27 per cent from the CBC's 3.337 million a year ago for Winnipeg Blue Bombers-Saskatchewan Roughriders. The only audience worse was the CBC's 1.628 million for a Blue Bomber rout of the Edmonton Eskimos in 1990."

Why the discrepancy? Houston is only looking at the TSN numbers here. Later on in the column, he mentions the 1.215 million who watched on RDS, and as he begrudgingly admits, "Taken together, the TSN-RDS audience, the total Canadian viewership, was 3.615 million, slightly more than the combined CBC-RDS audience of 3.539 million in 2007. Last year, RDS drew only 200,000 for Bombers-Roughriders."

I don't see how Houston can argue that the RDS results shouldn't be included and that this was one of the worst-watched games in history. With Montreal involved, there were obviously a large amount of people who would watch the RDS feed. RDS is under the same CTVglobemedia corporate umbrella as TSN, they use the same (ESPN-style) interface for their SportsCentre shows, and they're pretty much just French-language TSN. The CFL deal is with TSN and RDS, so good ratings on RDS help quite a lot. CFL commissioner Mark Cohon and TSN president Phil King both talked about the two as a single entity for purposes of audience ratings in the CP story, and both were quite positive. As King told Houston, "It doesn't really matter from TSN's point of view what the mix is." Houston doesn't seem to agree, but I don't get his arguement: do the RDS viewers not count just because they happen to speak French?

Houston's arguments as to why TSN got lower numbers mostly fall flat. Part of his rationale is the same over-the-air versus cable drum he's been beating for a while now (see this doom-and-gloom column on the playoff matches), which doesn't make a lot of sense any more. Yes, the CBC theoretically has a distribution of 12 million to TSN's 9 million. However, most of the people who still don't have TSN are hardly ardent sports fans or ardent CFL fans, especially considering that TSN was airing every CFL game this year. My own family back in B.C., usually well behind the trend in television, made the jump to TSN this year largely based on their CFL coverage, and I'd venture that most CFL fans did the same. TSN is in most basic cable packages, and there are not all that many people who still rely on over-the-air TV; I'd guess that a large part of that seemingly-imposing 3 million gap is households who rarely watch TV and probably wouldn't be tuning in regardless.

I also don't buy his argument that the playoff hit was due to those games being on Saturday instead of Sunday. There are a lot of people in this country, especially younger demographics, who are fans of both the CFL and the NFL, and those numbers are likely increasing with the Bills-Toronto situation. It doesn't seem logical to suggest that a CFL game would automatically do better if you put it head-to-head with the full slate of Sunday afternoon NFL telecasts. There's much less competition Saturday, with the CFL only really up against Canadian and American college football (both of which draw considerably less viewers than the NFL).

Moreover, obviously there are going to be less English-language viewers for a Montreal-Calgary game than a Saskatchewan-Winnipeg game. Whatever the Grey Cup matchup, you'll always get a good deal of your audience from both local markets (and their provinces), with a smaller portion being the diehard fans like myself who will watch the game regardless of who's in it. All that's really happened here is that one of the local markets is French-speaking instead of English-speaking, so they tuned in to the RDS feed instead of the TSN one. TSN is not a weaker channel; in fact, on the sports landscape, it's much more impressive than CBC at the moment (although CBC SportsPlus might change that around eventually).

Overall, I'd argue that these ratings are good news for both the league and TSN/RDS. It doesn't matter how many watched the game in English and how many watched it in French. This certainly isn't the "second-worst TV audience since 1989", and there are plenty of francophone viewers who will back me on that one. Houston should broaden his horizons; it's the game that matters, not the language.

Donaghy's new allegations speak to basketball fans' worst fears

Photo: A screen capture of SI's original Tim Donaghy story from beRecruited.

Well, the NBA has managed to find a way to blow it yet again. The Tim Donaghy scandal had almost died down, and all of a sudden, the league starts demanding $1 million he doesn't have in restitution. In response, Donaghy's lawyers file letters and documents with the sentencing court alleging that officials altered the outcome of at least two specific games or playoff rounds: Game Six of the Los Angeles Lakers - Sacramento Kings Western Finals clash in 2002 and the Houston Rockets - Dallas Mavericks series in 2005.As respected ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson writes, accusations that easily could have stayed quiet have now become a dark shadow cutting to the very heart of the league.

"Donaghy's sentencing is scheduled for July 14. He faces a maximum of 25 years in prison for conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce. In the usual course of presentence investigations and procedures, the federal probation department asks the 'victim' about the damage resulting from the crime. As a 'victim' of Donaghy's crimes, the NBA claimed in a June 5 letter that it was entitled to $1 million in restitution from Donaghy. Restitution, or the reimbursement of the victim's losses, typically pays back a bank or a charity for money lost in an embezzlement or a theft. Donaghy obviously damaged the NBA and its reputation, but there is no indication he stole any money from the league. The NBA claimed that it was forced to spend the nice round sum of $1 million investigating Donaghy and the damage he caused, and the league wants its money back. Clearly enraged by the unexpected demand from the NBA for $1 million, Donaghy and [his lawyer John F.] Lauro retaliated with detailed accusations of manipulation by other referees. It is the worst nightmare for the NBA, which might now be reconsidering a withdrawal of its demand for restitution."

Here are the key allegations, from ESPN.com's story:

"Jeff Van Gundy ultimately backed off comments that a referee told him officials had targeted Yao Ming in the Houston Rockets' 2005 first-round playoff series against the Dallas Mavericks. Maybe Van Gundy was right after all.
A letter sent to the sentencing court on behalf of convicted former referee Tim Donaghy outlines just such a plan. It also alleges that referees helped alter the outcome of the controversial 2002 Game 6 playoff series between the Los Angeles Lakers and Sacramento Kings.
...
The letter also details an incident in the 2002 playoffs in which Donaghy alleges that two referees, who were known as NBA "company men," wanted to extend a series to seven games. "Team 5" could have wrapped up the series in Game 6 but saw two players foul out, lost the game and ultimately the series.
Only one series went to seven games in the 2002 playoffs: Lakers-Kings.
...
Donaghy also alleges that team executives conspired with the league to prevent star players from being called for too many fouls or being ejected. He claims that league officials told referees that doing so would 'hurt ticket sales and television ratings.'"

And two more from the New York Times:

"In their letter, Lauro and Donaghy make a number of other charges, among them:
That referees “socialized frequently with coaches and players” and asked for autographs and free merchandise, in violation of league rules.
That a referee’s relationship with one team’s general manager “led to an attempt by that referee to influence a game’s outcome” in 2004. Donaghy claimed that the referee in question told him that he planned to favor the general manager’s team in a game that night."

Lone Gunmen everywhere let loose a simultaneous shout of exultation when this news broke. Finally, all the debates about questionable NBA officiating and the league's conspiracy to influence the playoffs in favour of TV-rating darlings over the years (summarized nicely in this Basketbawful post by Matt McHale) have some tangible evidence from someone on the inside to back the conspiracy theory. Considering how well these theories have done over the years without this, this could be what kicks them into high gear. As Munson writes, this is perfect ammunition for those who question the NBA's credibility, especially because Donaghy's now naming specific instances. "The accusations are the kinds of things that fuel conspiracy theories that abound among NBA fans, but Donaghy is now adding dates, places and games," he writes.

If this was any other sport, this might not be as believable. However, this merely confirms fans' deepest fears about the dark side of the NBA. We already know Donaghy may have "subconsciously" influenced games [The Smoking Gun] in favour of his gambling positions, and that wasn't picked up for a long time: from there, it isn't a huge jump to other referees influencing games in favour of what the league sees as best for itself. Then you get situations in this year's playoffs like the Derek Fisher-Brent Barry incident and the foul discrepancies in Game Two of the Finals. In both cases, a result that just happened to be extremely convenient for the league occurred. Coincidence? Perhaps, but the more times these "coincidences" happen, the harder it becomes to believe that there's nothing to see here.

Donaghy picked a couple of strong examples to release, as well, further helping his cause. Many people have suspected that Lakers-Kings game (and series) was rigged ever since it happened (and Sacramento Bee columnist Ailene Voisin rather presciently predicted last summer that the Donaghy investigation might turn up new material on that fiasco). It was such a ridiculous game that even Ralph Nader called for an investigation, as detailed in Voisin's piece above. The Yao Ming scenario was also interesting: it led to ABC broadcaster Jeff Van Gundy commenting on the air that a working referee had told him that the refs were clamping down on Ming after Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban complained (the Mavericks won the series in seven games). Van Gundy was fined $100,000 by the league for his comments, but they're looking pretty accurate now. During halftime of tonight's game, he said he still thinks Ming was unfairly targeted but he doesn't give Donaghy any credibility: you have to wonder how much of that is just window dressing to avoid another fine, though.

In my mind, the biggest problem this produces is that the NBA can never completely prove its innocence, even if it turns out that they are innocent. No amount of denials is going to take away the suspicions in the minds of many, especially seeing as many of those doubts were implanted long before Donaghy came out with this latest information. We already know that David Stern doesn't particularly value truthfulness or history: now, the question is if he values the integrity of the game, or if the TV ratings are more important. The problem is, we may never really know for sure.

The last word on this matter should go to the National Post's Bruce Arthur, who rather brilliantly called this almost a year ago. Here's some of the best bits from his July 21, 2007 column on the Donaghy scandal (bolding mine), appropriately titled "Donaghy may become NBA's worst nightmare" with the kicker "Referee Scandal Could Rock League To The Core."

"After Game 5 of the 2006 NBA Finals, a Miami Herald columnist reported -- erroneously, as it turned out -- that after a controversial finish, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban turned towards the seats of NBA commissioner David Stern, and screamed, "F---you! F---you! Your league is rigged!"
Cuban never said it, and the columnist later issued a correction. He had reported it because someone told him it happened, and frankly, because it sounded plausible. One, because Cuban is a hothead. And two, because in the NBA, every conspiracy theory is believed.
Now, there appears to be an actual conspiracy. The New York Post first reported yesterday that an NBA referee is being investigated by the FBI for fixing the point spread in a number of games, in concert with organized crime, over the last two seasons."
...
Welcome to David Stern's worst nightmare. Bar none.
For that matter, if the allegations prove true, this is the worst nightmare of every sports league. The players can be criminals, and the games can be one-sided, and hell, Ron Artest could wade into the crowd and beat up a different fan each and every night. But when the integrity of the game is wounded, when that bedrock is cracked, it robs the game of all significance.
This is not steroids in baseball, or labour trouble in hockey, or even Michael Vick's sickening dog-fighting case. The only worst-case scenario is if a star player is the one doing the fixing, and even that may not be as bad. But a star is an aberration, a Pete Rose. A team is the 1919 Chicago White Sox. An official, at least in terms of perception, is institutional.
And in this case, this particular institution is an easy target. For some reason, people are perfectly willing to believe the worst about the NBA.
To be fair, gambling has had its tendrils threaded through in the NBA for years. Michael Jordan was a legendary gambler, at cards and on the golf course, and it was long speculated that his first retirement, in 1993, was in part league-ordered because of Jordan's alleged gambling problems. The 1997 book Money Players -- written by investigative reporter Armen Keteyian, New York Times columnist Harvey Araton, and investigative reporter Martin Dardis -- details allegations that Isiah Thomas wagered thousands in illegal dice games. There are more stories, whispered about throughout the league.
But none of those tendrils had ever demonstrably reached on to the court. Until now.
...
Now, every decision Donaghy made in the last two years will be scrutinized, again. And now, Stern is facing perhaps the biggest crisis of his 23-year tenure.
NBA referees have always been faced with more suspicion than in any other sport -- the league favours superstars, etc. And at every turn, Stern has vigorously defended his officials -- from charges of home-court bias, of incompetence, or of race bias, which was recently floated in a university study.
Now, if this gambling allegation is true, every borderline fan can suspect any call he or she doesn't like. My brother, a lifelong NBA fan, soured on the league after those 2006 Finals, in which Miami's Dwyane Wade seemed to get the benefit of every call. Many other fans went with him. How many more are on the ledge after this? Moreover, how does the NBA put a team in Las Vegas? How does the league maintain its integrity? How does it recover?
...
But this has the potential to bloody the NBA, and badly. This might have been the worst season in NBA history -- the short-lived change of basketballs, the injuries, the tanking, the whining, the All-Star fiasco (in Vegas, natch), the dead-dull playoffs, the playoff-altering suspensions, and finally, a dreadful NBA Finals.
But this is different. This might be the worst poison of all."

Use the Stern button, David!

(Photo from SLAM Online)
The end of tonight's Spurs-Lakers clash featured a use of the Stern Button (credit for which goes to the brilliant Matt McHale of Basketbawful) if I've ever seen one. The Spurs were down by two with a couple seconds left, grabbed the ball under their own basket and quickly called timeout, giving them possession in Lakers' territory. Robert Horry inbounds the ball to Brent Barry, who is in excellent position for a three, but can't get it off cleanly while receiving a flying elbow to the head from one Derek Fisher of the Lakers. He still chucks it up at the buzzer, expecting the foul, but then turns in disbelief to see the officials with their whistles already returned to their jewel-encrusted cases in preparation for the trip to L.A. for Game Five, perhaps subtly prompted by a couple shocks from the Stern Button. Now, instead of a 2-2 series where anything could happen, the Lakers have an almost insurmountable 3-1 lead, and Emperor Palpatine, er, Stern, will sleep easy at night knowing half of his dream final is almost in place. His battle station is almost fully operational. I'm not entirely convinced that the whole playoffs is rigged, but it's calls like this one that really make me wonder if there is a big conspiracy to drive towards a high-ratings finals. I'm not a Spurs fan: in fact, I hate the franchise for knocking off my Suns two years in a row, and I admit that they play seriously boring basketball (plus they flop way too much), but they should have won this game. The fact that they didn't means questions need to be answered. The truth is out there, and sometimes even crazy ideas are partly right.

Pieces to ponder:

- John Walters of NBCSports.com last Wednesday: "Spurs-Lakers. This is the series we all wanted. The defending NBA champs versus the league's Most Valuable Player and its best team (you heard me, Boston). As well as its most glamorous. A few years ago, NBA commissioner David Stern was asked to name his dream championship match-up. He replied without hesitation, "Lakers vs. Lakers."" (emphasis mine)


Comments: Lakers vs. Lakers, eh David? Bet you'd sure hate to have those pesky, boring Spurs in the finals. Now, that could never impact a call or non-call, could it? After all, NBA referees are known for their honesty and incorruptibility.

- The L.A. Times' T.J. Simers in an opinion piece after Game Six of the Lakers-Jazz series:
"NBA Commissioner David Stern stopped by the press room before the game and said he had just met with the referees, I presume to remind them how excited he is about the upcoming Boston-L.A. Finals.
For some reason when this game started, the refs called four fouls on Utah, none on the Lakers, and then tagged Jazz Coach Jerry Sloan with a technical foul.
No need to make it so obvious, guys.
If Stern is worried about a Lakers-Celtics matchup, he ought to be spending most of his time with Boston." ...
"Utah shot the ball well early, but once the referees got into the game, it began to tip toward the Lakers. No doubt Tim Donaghy would have bet as much.
Stern's crew took Utah's best player, Carlos Boozer, out of the game with a pair of first-quarter fouls, and then added another 19 seconds after he returned to start the second quarter. Boozer finished the half with no points, the refs doing the best job of defense on Boozer in the NBA this season.
Bryant also picked up two fouls, but his second came with the Lakers up by 15 with less than 30 seconds left in the first quarter and Bryant probably headed to the bench anyway for a rest.
Final first-half stats, the Lakers making 15 of 19 free throws, the Jazz going four for six from the line and Stern being treated to a 14-point Lakers advantage.
The Lakers had 27 free-throw attempts, Utah eight after three quarters, and the Jazz still managed to keep it close. But that's the NBA for you, every game seemingly arranged so it will somehow remain close going into the final two minutes -- like that really happens.
The Lakers won, Bryant got his Podoloff, and all in all, a good night for Stern and the NBA." (emphases mine).


Comments: Some interesting stuff to consider here. First, Simers is a member of the mainstream media, usually slow to jump on such conspiracy theories. Second, he's a Los Angeles columnist, so it's tough to accuse him of anti-Lakers bias. A provocative piece. Also, a question it raises: if things were so unfair in Lakers-Jazz, where there's still a lot of interest in the other team, what are they going to be like in Lakers-Spurs, where the opposition is likely one of the most hated basketball teams on the planet?

- Jon Friedman of MarketWatch in a May 21 piece:
"NBA Commissioner David Stern flashed the tiniest of smiles when I asked him if he looked forward to the possibility of a championship series consisting of those time-honored rivals, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics.
"Never think of it," Stern said. "Never think of it."
Yeah, right, Commish.
A few minutes later, I told an executive of one of the league's franchises what Stern had said. The official didn't even try to play it straight.
"He doesn't 'think' about it -- he dreams about it," the executive said good-naturedly, underscoring one of the topics of conversation at the annual NBA lottery on Tuesday night in Secaucus, N.J.
So do the executives of ABC, which will be televising the NBA finals this year." ... "That faint sound you hear right now is ABC executives collectively drooling at the prospect of Boston playing Los Angeles in a final series. ... The NBA is a glittering marketing machine. The lottery party was a shining example of how hard the league tries to put on a show for the media and the fans watching at home on TV. ... [T]hese days the stars burn brightest in Boston and Los Angeles. (emphases mine)


Comments: Hmm... an all-powerful commissioner dreaming of a matchup involving two massive metropolitan areas, two giant fanbases and a chance to rekindle the showpiece rivalry of the NBA? ABC executives "collectively drooling" at a Lakers-Celtics Finals? The "glittering marketing machine" of the NBA? Nothing but good can come from these ingredients!

- Will Brinson of FanHouse has an interesting commentary on Friedman's piece:
"David Stern is a funny and very sly gentleman. But if he wants people to stop yapping about conspiracies, he should probably not make snide grins when reporters ask him if he would enjoy a Celtics-Lakers matchup in the NBA Finals." ... "Oh yeah, and since the Spurs and Pistons are the other two teams currently alive, one would expect Stern is a touch nervous about seeing that ratings nightmare again. Of course, just the fact that the Spurs have won four rings in recent years should say something about the lack of conspiracy in the NBA. But Stern making sly grins about playoff matchups sure does not help anything."

Comments: Brinson has something here. Even if there isn't an actual conspiracy, Stern sure isn't doing much to dispel the widespread notion that there is. This is touched on more below.

- An ongoing survey by ESPN's Page 2 on the state of officiating in pro sports has some interesting results so far:
- 77.2 per cent of respondents think the NBA's officials "wrongly influence a game the most". The next-closest league is the NFL, with a mere 11.9 per cent of the vote.
- When asked "Given the Tim Donaghy scandal, how much trust do you have in the neutrality of officials?", 22.5 per cent chose "I have serious doubts that creep into every game I watch" and 57.4 per cent picked "I think there are other Donaghys out there, but it's isolated". Only 20.2 per cent chose "I have little doubt that the majority of officials are uncompromised."
- When asked "Do you believe a league office would ever influence its refs to affect the results in a desired way?", an astounding 66.4 per cent of respondents said "Yes."
- 70.3 per cent of respondents cited "Flopping in the NBA" as the tactic most in need of reform (other options were "Umps with differing strike zones in MLB", "Holding in the NFL" and "Fighting in the NHL").

Comments: This is the crux of the issue here. Even if the league isn't actually encouraging officials to influence the results in terms of what would make a better finals, 66.4 per cent of respondents to ESPN's poll think pro sports leagues are willing to stoop to that. Sure, those numbers aren't scientific, but given the huge differences in TV ratings and the resulting cash influx when negotiating new deals, it isn't hard to see why a lot of sports fans think that way. The NBA is also one of the most subjective leagues in terms of officiating: it's tough to differentiate a charge from a block (23.4 per cent), and there's often a wide range in what gets called: this is why Tim Donaghy's scam was so successful. The Donaghy cloud is still hanging over the league as well: that was just last summer after all. More about that below.

- A May 20 Associated Press piece on comments by Donaghy's attorney. Here's the highlights:
- "Donaghy told investigators about the gambling activities of other NBA officials and about a referee that passed 'confidential' information to an unidentified coach."
- "Disgraced basketball referee Tim Donaghy told investigators in the NBA betting probe that relationships among officials, coaches and players 'affected the outcome of games,' his attorney said."
- "The attorney, John F. Lauro, wrote that the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District agreed to plea agreements with other defendants in the case, even though his client told investigators about NBA matters outside of the government's initial investigation. Lauro said the disparity in treatment could not be fully explained because prosecutors have 'surrounded this case with a cone of silence.'"
- "In a footnote, the attorney suggested that the NBA might have "pressured" the attorney's office 'into shutting down this prosecution to avoid the disclosure of information unrelated to Tim's conduct'"

Comments: Now, granted, these comments must be taken with a grain of salt, as they are from Donaghy's lawyer. Still, that doesn't sound too much like an isolated case to me. The NBA spokesman issued just a standard "move along, nothing to see here" denial, which raises suspicions of if we've seen everything from this case. It again comes back to perception: even if Donaghy was a lone gunman, the NBA's portrayal of the case makes it look like they have something to hide, even if they don't.

- Finally, Henry Abbott from the excellent TrueHoop is rightfully incensed:
"OK, there, big ol' NBA, let's be honest: You were on notice. No funny business! We have had our referee scandal, we have been accused of fixing games, and we have promised that such things would never never never no not ever happen again.
You bounced back pretty nicely. But you promised transparency. You talked about a sacred trust.
And in that context, with everyone and their brother suspecting that the League would prefer to have the ratings monster Lakers in the Finals, and with a notorious anti-Spur referee assigned to the game, how can a key Western Conference final game end like this?" ... "That's a foul in my pickup game. That's a foul in high school. That's a foul in college. And, at just about every moment of NBA basketball that I have ever seen except this one, that's a foul in the NBA.That just simply must be called a foul, if nothing else to allay the fears that the League may be fixing up the Finals for big ratings." ... "I actually do not think that the NBA is rigged (if it was the shot clock would have been reset on the play before, when Derek Fisher's shot appeared to touch the rim). But a lot of people do, and that's a problem. The way to solve that problem is to be scrupulously fair, which this was not." ... "And then, do me one last little favor: Look us in the eye, and tell us just one more time that the sport we love is not rigged."


Comments: Henry nails this one. If the NBA isn't fixed, this is the kind of situation it absolutely has to get right. You have to call an obvious foul like that consistently, regardless of when in the game it takes place. Anything else only gives ammunition to the die-hard conspiracy theorists, and makes other, usually reasonable people like myself wonder if there isn't something to what they're suggesting.

And a photo of the Stern Button from Basketbawful: