A few questions for ref bashers

[Darth Celtic]

Some may have been corrupted, but many of those are gone. Every game will have missed calls. Or bad ones. Because human error. All ask is to be consistent about it. Don't allow moving screens all game long and call one with 10 seconds left in 1 pt game

[rand]

Lol.

People continue not to get it.

I think it’s the word rigged or fixed. People get caught up on that and the word conspiracy. It’s neither. It’s a corporate culture.

No one is telling them directly to cheat and full on rigging isn’t even possible.

Refs that get it, get better games. Simple as that. It is $. The NBA is a multibillion dollar per year global corporation. It’s about $. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s what grownups know.

Refs can put a thumb on the scale. Hell, they can do so while still making legit calls. This is all proven.

Why didn't the NBA put its thumb on the scales for the Lakers in Game 2 vs Denver? It's obvious that they did not but should have for $, being that the Lakers are the league's most popular team with it's most popular player. What happened?

I know from experience you have no rational explanation for outcomes like these which contradict your understanding of the "corporate culture" at work here.

[SNPA]

Lol.

People continue not to get it.

I think it’s the word rigged or fixed. People get caught up on that and the word conspiracy. It’s neither. It’s a corporate culture.

No one is telling them directly to cheat and full on rigging isn’t even possible.

Refs that get it, get better games. Simple as that. It is $. The NBA is a multibillion dollar per year global corporation. It’s about $. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s what grownups know.

Refs can put a thumb on the scale. Hell, they can do so while still making legit calls. This is all proven.

Why didn't the NBA put its thumb on the scales for the Lakers in Game 2 vs Denver? It's obvious that they did not but should have for $, being that the Lakers are the league's most popular team with it's most popular player. What happened?

I know from experience you have no rational explanation for outcomes like these which contradict your understanding of the "corporate culture" at work here.

Why doesn’t the dirty cop steal from every person he pulls over? I’ve found some where it didn’t happen! See…proof there are no dirty cops.

See the flaw?

Incentives remain the same.

[Yoshun]

My favorite quote from the movie Red Belt goes something like: "Two guys fighting for money, it's always fixed."

I think about it a lot when I'm watching any kind of competition for money. I don't think the NBA has some sort of script or is actively rigging games, but I do think the out comes of some games are "influenced" in some way. It's better for business.

[Special_Puppy]

The funny thing is that every fan base thinks that the refs are fixing the game against them

[rand]

Lol.

People continue not to get it.

I think it’s the word rigged or fixed. People get caught up on that and the word conspiracy. It’s neither. It’s a corporate culture.

No one is telling them directly to cheat and full on rigging isn’t even possible.

Refs that get it, get better games. Simple as that. It is $. The NBA is a multibillion dollar per year global corporation. It’s about $. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s what grownups know.

Refs can put a thumb on the scale. Hell, they can do so while still making legit calls. This is all proven.

Why didn't the NBA put its thumb on the scales for the Lakers in Game 2 vs Denver? It's obvious that they did not but should have for $, being that the Lakers are the league's most popular team with it's most popular player. What happened?

I know from experience you have no rational explanation for outcomes like these which contradict your understanding of the "corporate culture" at work here.

Why doesn’t the dirty cop steal from every person he pulls over? I’ve found some where it didn’t happen! See…proof there are no dirty cops.

See the flaw?

Incentives remain the same.

What a neat little unfalsifiable package. Every time the league should strongly want corrupt officiating to produce an outcome and it's clear that corrupt officiating could have produced that outcome but wasn't applied, we simply pretend they decided not to this time on a totally arbitrary basis.

Where was the disincentive for the NBA to "put its thumb on the scale" in the specific instance of Game 2? Why was it too risky this time but not in other cases?

[SNPA]

Why didn't the NBA put its thumb on the scales for the Lakers in Game 2 vs Denver? It's obvious that they did not but should have for $, being that the Lakers are the league's most popular team with it's most popular player. What happened?

I know from experience you have no rational explanation for outcomes like these which contradict your understanding of the "corporate culture" at work here.

Why doesn’t the dirty cop steal from every person he pulls over? I’ve found some where it didn’t happen! See…proof there are no dirty cops.

See the flaw?

Incentives remain the same.

What a neat little unfalsifiable package. Every time the league should strongly want corrupt officiating to produce an outcome and it's clear that corrupt officiating could have produced that outcome but wasn't applied, we simply pretend they decided not to this time on a totally arbitrary basis.

Where was the disincentive for the NBA to "put its thumb on the scale" in the specific instance of Game 2? Why was it too risky this time but not in other cases?

Ever hear of a story about a boy who cried wolf?

You can’t go to the well every time. It’s far more important to protect the business model than expose it to far too much daylight.

Thumbs are on scales, sorry you don’t see it. I guess you are under the assumption giant global multibillion dollar corporations are your friend and care about fairness in a game where a ball goes into a basket. It’s just a level of naive that’s hard for me to get too.

[rand]

Why doesn’t the dirty cop steal from every person he pulls over? I’ve found some where it didn’t happen! See…proof there are no dirty cops.

See the flaw?

Incentives remain the same.

What a neat little unfalsifiable package. Every time the league should strongly want corrupt officiating to produce an outcome and it's clear that corrupt officiating could have produced that outcome but wasn't applied, we simply pretend they decided not to this time on a totally arbitrary basis.

Where was the disincentive for the NBA to "put its thumb on the scale" in the specific instance of Game 2? Why was it too risky this time but not in other cases?

Ever hear of a story about a boy who cried wolf?

You can’t go to the well every time. It’s far more important to protect the business model than expose it to far too much daylight.

Thumbs are on scales, sorry you don’t see it. I guess you are under the assumption giant global multibillion dollar corporations are your friend and care about fairness in a game where a ball goes into a basketball. It’s just a level of naive that’s hard for me to get too.

No, they don't care about fairness, they care about managing risk. The league will make billions whether or not they get outcomes they might commercially prefer from any matchup. Why risk killing the golden goose through the exposure of corruption?

They didn't go to the well in Game 2 because there is no well. If there was a well, Game 2 is exactly the kid of game they should have "put their thumbs on" since it's obvious which side they should prefer, the game was razor close, and there were plenty of chances down the stretch to throw the Lakers critical calls which could never be proven to be corrupt.

[SNPA]

What a neat little unfalsifiable package. Every time the league should strongly want corrupt officiating to produce an outcome and it's clear that corrupt officiating could have produced that outcome but wasn't applied, we simply pretend they decided not to this time on a totally arbitrary basis.

Where was the disincentive for the NBA to "put its thumb on the scale" in the specific instance of Game 2? Why was it too risky this time but not in other cases?

Ever hear of a story about a boy who cried wolf?

You can’t go to the well every time. It’s far more important to protect the business model than expose it to far too much daylight.

Thumbs are on scales, sorry you don’t see it. I guess you are under the assumption giant global multibillion dollar corporations are your friend and care about fairness in a game where a ball goes into a basketball. It’s just a level of naive that’s hard for me to get too.

No, they don't care about fairness, they care about managing risk.

Yep.

Why do they manage risk?

$.

Are you familiar with the tobacco industry? Risk vs reward. You just answered your last question.

[rand]

Ever hear of a story about a boy who cried wolf?

You can’t go to the well every time. It’s far more important to protect the business model than expose it to far too much daylight.

Thumbs are on scales, sorry you don’t see it. I guess you are under the assumption giant global multibillion dollar corporations are your friend and care about fairness in a game where a ball goes into a basketball. It’s just a level of naive that’s hard for me to get too.

No, they don't care about fairness, they care about managing risk.

Yep.

Why do they manage risk?

$.

Are you familiar with the tobacco industry? Risk vs reward. You just answered your last question.

Yes, they manage risk, by not engaging in a potentially catastrophic corruption scheme for marginal added profit.

You know if you were right they would have rigged Game 2 and you also know it's obvious they didn't. You simply ignore it because it and a multitude of similar instances break your conspiracy theory.

[SNPA]

No, they don't care about fairness, they care about managing risk.

Yep.

Why do they manage risk?

$.

Are you familiar with the tobacco industry? Risk vs reward. You just answered your last question.

Yes, they manage risk, by not engaging in a potentially catastrophic corruption scheme for marginal added profit.

You know if you were right they would have rigged Game 2 and you also know it's obvious they didn't. You simply ignore it because it and a multitude of similar instances break your conspiracy theory.

Marginal? Hmmm….ehhhh…?

Catastrophic? Tobacco put millions of people in their graves early while lying point blank to anyone, government or otherwise, who would listen. Why you think the NBA is some saint of a global corporation I don’t get. Of course they’ll lie and put a thumb on the scale…billions. Billions. Maybe that’s marginal to you.

They aren’t worried about the golden goose. Why? Because they don’t operate in the black and white comically naive world you are describing. They will continue to do so as long as the risk is less than the reward.

If they were truly concerned about officiating fairness the NBA would hand officiating oversight to a neutral third party at a flat payment rate. Wonder why that’s not happening? You got any ideas?

[rand]

Yep.

Why do they manage risk?

$.

Are you familiar with the tobacco industry? Risk vs reward. You just answered your last question.

Yes, they manage risk, by not engaging in a potentially catastrophic corruption scheme for marginal added profit.

You know if you were right they would have rigged Game 2 and you also know it's obvious they didn't. You simply ignore it because it and a multitude of similar instances break your conspiracy theory.

Marginal? Hmmm….ehhhh…?

Catastrophic? Tobacco put millions of people in their graves early while lying point blank to anyone, government or otherwise, who would listen. Why you think the NBA is some saint of a global corporation I don’t get. Of course they’ll lie and out a thumb on the scale…billions. Billions. Maybe that’s marginal to you.

They aren’t worried about the golden goose. Why? Because they don’t operate in the black and white comically naive world you are describing. They will continue to do so as long as the risk is less than the reward. If they were truly concerned about officiating fairness the NBA would hand officiating oversight to a neutral third party at a flat payment rate. Wonder why that’s not happening? You got any ideas?

Catastrophic to the financial health of the league and the value of the franchises to their owners. That's the risk they're managing by not engaging in this scheme for a marginal boost in profit.

[SNPA]

Yes, they manage risk, by not engaging in a potentially catastrophic corruption scheme for marginal added profit.

You know if you were right they would have rigged Game 2 and you also know it's obvious they didn't. You simply ignore it because it and a multitude of similar instances break your conspiracy theory.

Marginal? Hmmm….ehhhh…?

Catastrophic? Tobacco put millions of people in their graves early while lying point blank to anyone, government or otherwise, who would listen. Why you think the NBA is some saint of a global corporation I don’t get. Of course they’ll lie and out a thumb on the scale…billions. Billions. Maybe that’s marginal to you.

They aren’t worried about the golden goose. Why? Because they don’t operate in the black and white comically naive world you are describing. They will continue to do so as long as the risk is less than the reward. If they were truly concerned about officiating fairness the NBA would hand officiating oversight to a neutral third party at a flat payment rate. Wonder why that’s not happening? You got any ideas?

Catastrophic to the financial health of the league and the value of the franchises to its owners. That's the risk they're managing by not engaging in this scheme for a marginal boost in profit.

Billionaires care about maximizing profit. That’s how they got to be billionaires. They will literally poison people to death, take away healthcare, make them ride in a van all day and **** in a bag the employee had to bring. What about this aren’t you getting?

The system Stern designed has plausible deniability built in at all levels, it is court level sufficient. There will not be a smoking gun. Silver tells no one to cheat. The plausible deniability has already been tested, at the drop of a hat they’ll scream rogue ref and use their billions to destroy anyone that says anything. They will suspend a player for life.

Corporate culture is a real thing. People wanting to reach the apex of their field is a real thing. Plausible deniability is a real thing. Hundreds of billions…real thing. Again, I’m unclear on which part you aren’t getting. It seems you are hung up on they wouldn’t risk anything to make more money…good luck with that.

[durden_tyler]

1. Do you think game fixing is an active problem in the NBA?

Answer yes if you think it comes from stray officials or the NBA itself.

2. If you answered yes, why do you still watch the NBA given that games are fixed?

3. Do you think the average NBA ref is bad at the job?

4. If you answered yes, what basketball league has better refs than the NBA?

5. What do you consider an acceptable error rate for NBA Referees?

As a frame of reference, the GOAT shooter Steph Curry misses 1 in 11 free throws (9% error)

Yes but not all games. Point shaving is a thing too, if you’re into betting you’ll know and see it.

For favoring teams in certain games to help out that team, it’s obvious too if you watch enough games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[durden_tyler]

the NBA is closer to professional wrestling than an actual competitive sport at this point in its history. legalized gambling isn't helping the credibility perception either.

Why do you watch then?

Some people, like me who believes Vegas has influence in the games, just want to be on the right side of the bets

[durden_tyler]

I don't believe anything is rigged just cause that would take a lot of maneuvering that would raise flags and I don't think the NBA is that dumb to bring negative attention to itself like that. That being said, I think the NBA refs are especially bad. So bad that it makes it look rigged at times. I don't know of the specifics but it just seems like there's a relatively younger group of officials that lack the experience needed to ref NBA players like there was 10 years ago.

This is because you think to “rig” a game you need to affect the entire game. You just throw one or two bad call here and there and you’d be influencing something (not necessarily the result of the game since there are a thousand bets to choose from LOL)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rand]

Marginal? Hmmm….ehhhh…?

Catastrophic? Tobacco put millions of people in their graves early while lying point blank to anyone, government or otherwise, who would listen. Why you think the NBA is some saint of a global corporation I don’t get. Of course they’ll lie and out a thumb on the scale…billions. Billions. Maybe that’s marginal to you.

They aren’t worried about the golden goose. Why? Because they don’t operate in the black and white comically naive world you are describing. They will continue to do so as long as the risk is less than the reward. If they were truly concerned about officiating fairness the NBA would hand officiating oversight to a neutral third party at a flat payment rate. Wonder why that’s not happening? You got any ideas?

Catastrophic to the financial health of the league and the value of the franchises to its owners. That's the risk they're managing by not engaging in this scheme for a marginal boost in profit.

Billionaires care about maximizing profit. That’s how they got to be billionaires. They will literally poison people to death, take away healthcare, make them ride in a van all day and **** in a bag the employee had to bring. What about this aren’t you getting?

The system Stern designed has plausible deniability built in at all levels, it is court level sufficient. There will not be a smoking gun. Silver tells no one to cheat. The plausible deniability has already been tested, at the drop of a hat they’ll scream rogue ref and use their billions to destroy anyone that says anything. They will suspend a player for life.

Corporate culture is a real thing. People wanting to reach the apex of their field is a real thing. Plausible deniability is a real thing. Hundreds of billions…real thing. Again, I’m unclear on which part you aren’t getting. It seems you are hung up on they wouldn’t risk anything to make more money…good luck with that.

They also got to be billionaires by assessing relative risk vs reward. It's not worth risking the dozens of eggs their golden goose will naturally lay each year for one additional corrupt egg.

I have the opportunity to cheat at work to my own $ gain every day and the odds of getting caught each day are miniscule but why bother when the gain is proportionately tiny to what I can gain through regular legitimate business operations and the consequences of exposure would be catastrophic?

[SNPA]

Catastrophic to the financial health of the league and the value of the franchises to its owners. That's the risk they're managing by not engaging in this scheme for a marginal boost in profit.

Billionaires care about maximizing profit. That’s how they got to be billionaires. They will literally poison people to death, take away healthcare, make them ride in a van all day and **** in a bag the employee had to bring. What about this aren’t you getting?

The system Stern designed has plausible deniability built in at all levels, it is court level sufficient. There will not be a smoking gun. Silver tells no one to cheat. The plausible deniability has already been tested, at the drop of a hat they’ll scream rogue ref and use their billions to destroy anyone that says anything. They will suspend a player for life.

Corporate culture is a real thing. People wanting to reach the apex of their field is a real thing. Plausible deniability is a real thing. Hundreds of billions…real thing. Again, I’m unclear on which part you aren’t getting. It seems you are hung up on they wouldn’t risk anything to make more money…good luck with that.

They also got to be billionaires by assessing relative risk vs reward. It's not worth risking the dozens of eggs their golden goose will naturally lay each year for one additional corrupt egg.

I have the opportunity to cheat at work to my own $ gain every day and the odds of getting caught each day are miniscule but why bother when the gain is proportionately tiny to what I can gain through regular legitimate business operations and the consequences of exposure would be catastrophic?

Your argument is basically anti corporate malfeasance, just in the NBA context. Why would any corporation take a risk to make more than they otherwise could have? I’m sorry, I’ve enjoyed the conversation but that’s just not a level of naive I can get it.

They would poison the basketball and slowly kill of fans in the front row from exposure if it made billions and they thought they could get away with it. What we are talking about with refs is nothing, it’s so small time. Zero ethical concerns. It’s a nothing burger. Of course they would. No one even gets physically hurt. It’s just blowing a whistle a little differently and getting rewarded for it, all under the proven guise of plausible deniability. It’s actually pretty genius.

It’s worked. And continues to work. Why change?

[SNPA]

Also, the owners aren’t making the decisions. It’s the commissioner, who gets paid by owners to maximize profits. He has every incentive to be pushing on the edges to make more money. Stern didn’t create this system just because.

[rand]

Billionaires care about maximizing profit. That’s how they got to be billionaires. They will literally poison people to death, take away healthcare, make them ride in a van all day and **** in a bag the employee had to bring. What about this aren’t you getting?

The system Stern designed has plausible deniability built in at all levels, it is court level sufficient. There will not be a smoking gun. Silver tells no one to cheat. The plausible deniability has already been tested, at the drop of a hat they’ll scream rogue ref and use their billions to destroy anyone that says anything. They will suspend a player for life.

Corporate culture is a real thing. People wanting to reach the apex of their field is a real thing. Plausible deniability is a real thing. Hundreds of billions…real thing. Again, I’m unclear on which part you aren’t getting. It seems you are hung up on they wouldn’t risk anything to make more money…good luck with that.

They also got to be billionaires by assessing relative risk vs reward. It's not worth risking the dozens of eggs their golden goose will naturally lay each year for one additional corrupt egg.

I have the opportunity to cheat at work to my own $ gain every day and the odds of getting caught each day are miniscule but why bother when the gain is proportionately tiny to what I can gain through regular legitimate business operations and the consequences of exposure would be catastrophic?

Your argument is basically anti corporate malfeasance, just in the NBA context. Why would any corporation take a risk to make more than they otherwise could have? I’m sorry, I’ve enjoyed the conversation but that’s just not a level of naive I can get it.

They would poison the basketball and slowly kill of fans in the front row from exposure if it made billions and they thought they could get away with it. What we are talking about with refs is nothing, it’s so small time. Zero ethical concerns. It’s a nothing burger. Of course they would. No one even gets physically hurt. It’s just blowing a whistle a little differently and getting rewarded for it, all under the proven guise of plausible deniability. It’s actually pretty genius.
Hi

The people who run any corporation would be expected to take any hypothetical risk if it was justified in a risk/reward analysis by the size of the reward vs the size of the risk. Here it is not. This is not a blanket argument against the existence of corporate corruption, which is obviously real. It is an argument that not every conceivable scheme for corrupt gain is always followed, risk/reward be damned.

Funny, I've never said anything about ethics but you keep straw manning it anyway.