Mark Cuban Says That The Perception That The NBA Is Fixed Is Damaging To Business

He's basically vocalizing what fans have been saying for years.

The problem with the NBA is that it's become so insulated. The officiating is terrible and they shut out all means of critiquing how terrible their officiating is.

And I wouldn't necessarily say games are "fixed" per se, but the unbalanced calls that tend to favor guys like LeBron are a cause for concern as it pertains to the integrity of the game.


KJ

If Stern did so much good... why are so many teams in the red?

bobheckler wrote:
"He took the NBA from a sport that wasn't on television for the Finals game to making it the second most popular sport in the world.

False...and not even close by a measure of popularity or revenue

Revenue

1)NFL Overall profit:  $984.5 million
2) English Premier League Overall profit:  $513 million
3)MLB Overall profit: $496 million
4) Formula One Overall profit: $435 million
5)NBA Overall profit: $207 million

Popularity in the US


Pro football is the most popular sport in America for at least the 30th straight year.

That's according to a survey taken this month by the Harris Poll, which has been asking adult fans, ages 18 and over, about their favorite sport since 1985.

In 2014, 35 percent of fans call the NFL their favorite sport, followed by Major League Baseball (14 percent), college football (11 percent), auto racing (7 percent), the NBA (6 percent), the NHL (5 percent) and college basketball (3 percent).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10354114/harris-poll-nfl-most-popular-mlb-2nd

mrkleen09 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:
"He took the NBA from a sport that wasn't on television for the Finals game to making it the second most popular sport in the world.

False...and not even close by a measure of popularity or revenue

Revenue

1)NFL Overall profit:  $984.5 million
2) English Premier League Overall profit:  $513 million
3)MLB Overall profit: $496 million
4) Formula One Overall profit: $435 million
5)NBA Overall profit: $207 million

Popularity in the US


Pro football is the most popular sport in America for at least the 30th straight year.

That's according to a survey taken this month by the Harris Poll, which has been asking adult fans, ages 18 and over, about their favorite sport since 1985.

In 2014, 35 percent of fans call the NFL their favorite sport, followed by Major League Baseball (14 percent), college football (11 percent), auto racing (7 percent), the NBA (6 percent), the NHL (5 percent) and college basketball (3 percent).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10354114/harris-poll-nfl-most-popular-mlb-2nd

Where did you come up with these profit numbers?
Based on Forbes report from a week or two ago, just the top 4 teams in value in the NBA netted about $260m in income.

Only one team lost $4m or more last year and that was the Nets.
The NBA is very healthy and popular.

You can't be serious if you think Formula One Racing is more popular than the NBA.

Read it again TJ

One list was the most profitable sports leagues....much different than the value of a team. 

Formula One was more PROFITABLE than the NBA, yes.

http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218_sports_business.html

The second list was popularity from an ESPN / Harris Poll.  In that list, auto racing was NASCAR, not Formula One

As for Forbes, the top 50 most valuable teams in the world had 20 NFL teams, 7 Soccer teams, 7 MLB teams and only 3 NBA teams

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/07/15/real-madrid-tops-the-worlds-most-valuable-sports-teams/

Kleen,

Maybe you should re-read Mark Cubans comments.
He did not say the NBA is the second most profitable sport in the world but he said the second most popular.

The Harris Poll was in the U.S.
Cuban said the world, not U.S.

Fair point TJ.

Both of these articles list basketball as 3rd.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/169462-most-popular-team-sports-soccer-cricket-basketball-baseball
http://voices.yahoo.com/what-most-popular-sports-world-12303581.html

I highly doubt NBA's popularity is nearly as important as it's integrity. It has become an international game; okay, cool. But problems still exist. Why should fans feel like games are rigged in a league that supposed to be fair?

Basketball is a team game, yet the NBA only advertises stars. Stars are now bigger than the game and the original team aspect of the sport. The game has been modified to facilitate said offensive stars and defenders are quite often punished for playing good solid defense.

Of course, the NBA product is one a majority of the masses seem to be satisfied with, so hardly anything will be changed, unless someone (the new commissioner) takes notice.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:Why should fans feel like games are rigged in a league that supposed to be fair?

In the NBA, this is mostly a matter of perception. You apparently think games are rigged, but I don't. Most calls are an "eye of the beholder" thing. There is contact on every play, yet some contact is a foul, and some isn't, and basically the same contact may be called a foul on one play but not on another. But I don't see that as evidence of fixing games.

I've seen so many games where fans of both sides think the refs were against them. That tells me more about fans' perception than it does about refereeing.

Soccer has had numerous scandals involving fixing games and crooked refs, but the NBA has had one. I don't think a league with league-sanctioned game fixing could hide it. It sounds like conspiracy theory stuff to me.

KJ

Name a generation, in any sport, where the super stars didn,t receive the most media attention.

swish

Outside wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:Why should fans feel like games are rigged in a league that supposed to be fair?

In the NBA, this is mostly a matter of perception. You apparently think games are rigged, but I don't. Most calls are an "eye of the beholder" thing. There is contact on every play, yet some contact is a foul, and some isn't, and basically the same contact may be called a foul on one play but not on another. But I don't see that as evidence of fixing games.

I was saying before a few posts back that I didn't think games actually were rigged, only that the officiating has noticeable discrepancies. But I was merely posing the question in a more hypothetical sense.
---

swish,

Media attention and favorable calls are not something that I feel should equate to one another.

Just because Player A is superior to Player B does not mean that a ref should only notice when Player A is fouled and turn a blind eye to Player B getting fouled/ only notice Player B committing fouls and never calling Player A for committing fouls.

It's creating a pathetic sense of entitlement. I see the biggest stars like Lebron and Wade fussing to the refs on the slim chance they are called for a foul, and when it does happen, its blatantly obvious (go figure). It's like as physical as they play, they still think they are entitled and act like they never commit fouls.



KJ

KJ

"Basketball is a team game, yet the NBA only advertises stars. Stars are now bigger than the game and the original team aspect of the sport"

I was refering to your above statement only.

swish

swish wrote:KJ

"Basketball is a team game, yet the NBA only advertises stars. Stars are now bigger than the game and the original team aspect of the sport"

I was refering to your above statement only.

swish

I understand. But that statement is more part of the broader narrative I was discussing. I can't say any sport doesn't highlight its stars. That's naturally what draws more attention to the game and the NBA has every right to market that. But when it gets to the point where officiating favors some but not others, it damages the perception of the NBA as fair and impartial.





KJ

KJ

"But when it gets to the point where officiating favors some but not others, it damages the perception of the NBA as fair and impartial."

Do you think that its any different now than it was back in the 60's and 80's ?

swish

Some examples of what I mean.












KJ

KJ

1:30 am. To be continued in a few hours. Good night.
swish

KJ,

Thanks for the clarification. I took the statement that I quoted in combination with the thread title to mean one thing, but you did indeed say previously that you didn't think games were rigged.

If I understand correctly, you think stars get favored treatment from referees that is harmful to the integrity of the game, but you don't think that rises to the level of fixing games. Is that a better assessment of your position?

I agree that stars tend to get the benefit of the doubt on calls, as do veterans over rookies. You may not say that rises to the level of the game being rigged, but some fans do, especially when combined with the perception that refs (or the league) are against their team.

I'm not sure what you meant to accomplish by including those videos of players. Do referees call perfect games? No. Do they give stars special treatment? Yes, but not every time, or else you wouldn't see guys like Kobe, LeBron, and Carmelo argue as much as they do. But the bigger problem for me is the selective nature of how many fans perceive this situation -- that a) the star player on the other team gets all the calls; b) calls always go against my team unfairly more than they do the other team; and c) a and b are proof that the refs are horrible. For some fans, it's a short leap from that to league-sanctioned conspiracy, and short leap from there to fixing games.

But all of this is based on selective use of facts. Yes, someone can point to uncalled traveling by LeBron or Carmelo, but that fan doesn't consider the times during that same game when a call (or non-call) went in his team's favor. I believe that basketball is the most difficult sport to referee, by a wide margin, and while you can point to individual incidents where something wasn't called correctly, refs do their best to call the game accurately, many incidents of what fans consider "wrong" calls are in fact right or could be called either way, and the breaks even out over time.

There's a story that comes to mind for me. The mother of my son's friend (I'll call her Becky) is the worst spectator I've ever seen. Whenever Becky watches a game, she unleashes a non-stop stream of verbal abuse against the refs, and she's so obnoxious that no one wants to sit by her. In Becky's view, call after call goes against her son's team, and literally 95% of her focus during the game is on the refs. In one church league game, my son's team was ahead for much of the game, but they had a stretch at the start of the fourth quarter when they got tired, quit moving the ball, and settled for outside shots, and their 10-point lead turned into a deficit. They came back at the end but fell short, and they lost. After the game, the first thing out of Becky's mouth was that the refs had stolen the game, and her son just rolled his eyes and said, "Mom" in the most exasperated way.

What it illustrates for me is that, for those people who choose to see games as all about the refs, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy -- for them, the games are all about the refs because that's what they choose to see.

Would the game be fairer if calls were made regardless of who the player was (or whether a game is regular season or playoffs, or whether it happens to be a close game in crunch time)? Ostensibly, yes, but there are arguments to make for making calls differently based on those differing situations.

I think your argument is that refs giving stars preferential treatment is why some fans call the league's integrity into question. But from my perspective, the main reason those fans call the league's integrity into question is that their view of the game is skewed by their own bias. Like Becky, the fact that some plays aren't called correctly leads them down a path where everything is skewed by their view of the refs, and any perceived damage to the integrity of the game is due far more to their own bias than to star players receiving some preferential treatment.

why would you call the game differently for a superstar or a veteran vs a rookie? The rules of the game should be applied equally no?

Speaking from a pure fairness and sportsmanship aspect of the game that is, leaving business out of it.

In terms of promoting stars versus other players, I believe it's dramatically different now than years ago.

And here's the main reason.  There weren't the multiplicity and strength of available media vehicles with which to promote stars years ago.  There are now, and the league and all the teams (including the Celtics when they actually do have stars) are using them to the hilt.  I understand why they're trying to leverage their chief investments; and, although I don't happen to care for it when it seems to undermine a focus on the quality of the game, understanding is at least half the battle.

In the 60s, the only star I saw promoted to anywhere near the extent that a Lebron or Kobe is marketed lately was Wilt.  Other stars received increasing amounts of publicity as their careers progressed (Russell, West, Baylor, Oscar—the four best examples I can think of), but Wilt was front page news even before he reached the NBA.  In fact, now that I think of it, if it hadn't been for Wilt, I might well erase Russell from the list above.

As for giving stars a break on calls, I don't get into that very much because I think any such phenomenon evens out over the league over time.  That's why no one on this board has ever seen or will ever see me make a big deal about referees' calls, and I simply laugh when I hear rumbles about game-fixing conspiracies or, for that matter, draft-fixing conspiracies (which were more apparent a few years ago than they are now).  And, in my book, to cite Donaghy (or whatever his name is) is just to state the exception that proves the rule.

But my main point is that of course things were extremely different years ago in terms of anything related to publicity.

Sam

swedeinestonia wrote:why would you call the game differently for a superstar or a veteran vs a rookie? The rules of the game should be applied equally no?

Speaking from a pure fairness and sportsmanship aspect of the game that is, leaving business out of it.

You've touched on one aspect of it -- that the game is a business. Fans (and sponsors) pay a lot of money, and they want to see the stars play, and if it's a close game, to see the stars perform in crunch time. They don't want to see the stars sitting at the end because they fouled out. They want the best players on the court during the game, and fans can be upset that players have to sit for portions of the game because of foul trouble, even if they don't eventually foul out. Considering that many calls and non-calls are judgment calls that could (and often do) go either way, it can be considered good business by the league to have those calls go in favor of the stars if there's any doubt.

Another aspect is human nature. Contrary to the standard that some fans set for refs, they are human. They develop relationships with the players over time as evidenced by veterans discussing calls with refs after the fact. The refs don't change their call because a player complained, but they might change the next call, or the one after that. Of course, if you complain too much or are too argumentative, they might just let the next 50-50 call go against you. But rookies don't even get the opportunity to argue their case, because if he tries, the ref's hand will come up telling the rookie to stay away and the veterans on his own team will steer him away from the ref and tell the rook to let them handle it. The privilege of arguing with refs over calls is something that's earned over time.

I'm not arguing that it should be this way. In my opinion, it shouldn't in either case -- there should be no star treatment and calls should be made the same way regardless of the number on the jersey, only the designated captain on the floor should be able to talk to the ref, and refs shouldn't allow their calls to be influenced by personal relationships.

But "star treatment" has been around a long, long time and isn't David Stern's invention. People may think that it's grossly unfair that evil LeBron hardly ever fouls out, but I don't hear those same complaints about good Kevin Durant even though Durant has fouled out only three times in his seven-year career compared to four times for LeBron in his 11-year career, so I think human nature on the part of fans plays a large part in their perception of this "injustice."

I also recognize that refs are human and that refs call the game differently at different times during the game. To give an example, I was a shotblocker as a player, and I learned over time that refs tend to have a quick whistle at the start of games. My guess was that refs take time to get into the flow of the game and that they like to exert control at the start of games to prevent issues later on. Whatever the reason was, if I attempted to block shots at the start of a game, I'd be much more likely to get called for a foul, and then I'd have to deal with foul trouble the rest of the game. So I adapted to this tendency and purposely didn't attempt to block shots for the first 6-8 minutes of a game.

Would it be better if a call was made the same in the first minute of game as it was in the last minute? I think so, but I understand the argument that refs need to establish control early and accept that that's the way it is.

Despite all that, the refs do a pretty good job and get most calls right despite the difficulties. I think the biggest factor is fans' inaccurate perception of the situation in thinking that these unfair calls happen constantly throughout a game, are vastly against their team, and determine the outcome of the game when, in fact, there are very few of these calls and they even out over time.

If you want to talk about biased referees, then you have to talk about the good old days before ESPN when some of the refs made Joey Crawford look like a paragon of fairness. For those people who think the refereeing is so biased today, please point me to the time when it was better than it is now. As for refereeing being incompetent, why is it that any time there is a referee strike, the coaches and players beg the league to settle with the refs because the replacement refs are so bad? So much of this issue is a perception problem, not an actual problem.

I just thought of another perspective on the "then and now" questions of star treatment.

Who was the bigger star in terms of popularity and drawing power—Russell or Wilt. As much as I believe Russell to be the best basketball force ever, I'd have to say that Wilt was more magnetic, which translates to me as the bigger star. Moreover, when Wilt came along, his star wasn't shared with someone named Cousy.

Under the premise that Wilt had more star power than Russ, if the referees of the time had favored the biggest stars as much as they do today, why didn't Wilt win more championships in the 1960s? Russ' forte was defense, and Wilt's was offense (although he was definitely no slouch on defense either). Which is it easier to "manufacture" a foul on—a 6' 9" guy trying to block the shot of a 7' 2" guy or a 7' 2" guy dunking over a 6' 9" guy?

Sam

More on Wilt:

In the 1960s, Wilt played on 8 teams that played in the finals but did not win the championship—either with the Philadelphia Warriors, the San Francisco Warriors, the Philadelphia 76ers, or the Los Angeles Lakers.

Over those seasons, the margin of loss in the game which knocked Wilt's team out of the playoffs averaged 4.25 points. There were one 1-point game, two 2-point games, one 3-point game, one 4-point game, 1 6-point game, and two 8-point games. All sorts of opportunities for the refs to give wilt just that tiny extra aid to get his team over the top and add to the crowds in the next series.

What I find even more amazing was that five of those eight "last game losses" were home games for Wilt. So, if anyone wants to talk about a home bias among refs in those days, I'm your boy.

I know all the counter-arguments. I'll even give you one. Maybe Wilt's teams would have fared even worse if he hadn't been given so many calls by the ref. That's really a stretcharoo, and I'm talking about a consistent pattern over the period of a decade.

Sam

Sam,  

and Wilt never fouled out of a game either..........

Here is a nice piece on refing then and now about Wilt and his time.

http://www.nba.com/2012/history/features/03/26/season-of-giants-wilt-fouling-out/index.html


Of all of Wilt's mind-numbing numbers, a 'zero' stands out
By Fran Blinebury, NBA.com
Posted Mar 26 2012 2:11PM

Season of Giants: 1961-62
NBA.com celebrates the 50th anniversary of a legendary season
• Complete Season of Giants coverage

***

When the subject is Wilt Chamberlain the conversation almost always comes down to the numbers. The 100-point game. The 55-rebound game. The 50.4 scoring average.

There is the 1961-62 season when Chamberlain averaged 48.5 minutes per night -- more than the time in a regulation NBA game -- because he was on the floor for every second of 79 games, except for the eight minutes when he was tossed out of a game against the Lakers by referee Norm Drucker.

There is Chamberlain as the only center in history to lead the league in total assists (1967-68), the all-time career leader in rebounds per game (22.9) and the only double-triple-double ever when he rang up 25 points, 22 rebounds and 21 assists on Feb. 2, 1968 against the Pistons.

There is also the grandiose braggadocio number of 20,000 women that the big man said he'd slept with in his 1990 book, A View From Above. The sheer number of numbers is enough to make your head hurt.

But if one number can make shake your head in utter disbelief, it is this:

0 -- The number of times Wilt fouled out in his career.

"That can't be possible," said Hall of Famer Hakeem Olajuwon. "Can it?"

It is.

Chamberlain played 14 seasons, 1,045 regular season games, 160 playoff games, 55,418 total minutes and never once was disqualified from a game.

"I learned early from one of my very first coaches a very fundamental lesson," Wilt once said. "You can't help your team if you're not out on the court."

Dwight Howard is in his eighth NBA season and has fouled out 31 times, including six games in the playoffs.

"It's a different time, a different era, a different game today," Howard said. "I don't think it would be possible for a big man to go through his whole career and not foul out of a game. You're talking about different players today."

Different and more difficult to play against than Bill Russell? Nate Thurmond? Clyde Lovellette? Zelmo Beatty? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? If anything, the game back then was much more physical, more brutal, more often a survival course of trying to dodge wildly thrown elbows, pushing, shoving and constant jostling.

"I wasn't even aware of that stat until somebody told me a few years ago," said referee Joey Crawford, a veteran of 35 NBA seasons. "Those aren't the kinds of conversations that officials have.

MY NOTE: Joey is still not aware of a lot of things.

"When I first came into the league, all the guys that brought me along -- the Joe Gushues, Jake O'Donnells, Earl Stroms -- ever said about Wilt was that he was such a smart player. He always knew what he was doing in the game. He was strong. And he never gave those guys any crap.

"The only things I can figure is that that offensive players stopped, took mid-range jump shots, took 5-footers, 6-footers, something like that to avoid challenging him. I don't know what they did, what they were thinking when they brought the ball into Wilt."

The style of play has changed. Chamberlain was rarely seen setting up with the ball down in the low post, turning and trying to use his immense size and brute strength to back his defender down.

"It used to be open to the individual interpretation of each different referee about what was called and what wasn't called down under the basket with the big guys," Crawford said. "Now we have rules about what is and isn't a foul and we're expected to follow."

Joe Borgia was an NBA official for 10 seasons and now is vice president of NBA referee operations. His late father, Sid, was an NBA referee from the league's inception from 1946 to 1964 and later was the supervisor of officials.

"I think it would be extremely difficult in today's game to never foul out for 14 years," Borgia said. "Obviously back in the '50s, it was a different game. And the difference in players was probably more extreme. What do I mean by that? This comes from stories and what I remember from watching as a kid. But Wilt was truly the first big man. Everybody says it was (George) Mikan. But Wilt came in at 7-foot-2 and with the kind of speed and strength that nobody had ever seen before.

"I think you're just talking about an incredible separation between Wilt and the rest of the big men in the league that enabled him to stand apart literally in so many ways. Hey, when you have to change the rules of the game sort of for one player that tells you something."

Vern Mikkelson of the Minneapolis Lakers (1949-59) is the all-time leader in disqualifications, fouling out of 127 games. In the modern era, Shawn Kemp was DQ'd 115 times and, between shattering backboards, "Chocolate Thunder" Darryl Dawkins also hit the century mark by fouling out an even 100 times.

A player doesn't have to be large and lumbering to foul out frequently. Satch Sanders did it 94 times, the graceful Olajuwon 80 times, Billy Cunningham 64, Elvin Hayes 53, Clyde Drexler 33, Kobe Bryant 18, Larry Bird 11 and Magic Johnson 5.

Russell fouled out 24 times in 963 games and even Michael Jordan had to sit 11 times in 1,072 games.

Despite the fact that every big man who has ever come along echoes a variation of Wilt's "nobody likes Goliath" line, the referees insist it is the rules that treat them differently, not the men blowing the whistles.

"It's the rules of the game," Borgia said. "On the perimeter you cannot have an extended forearm touch the player with the ball. It's an automatic foul. But you're allowed to have a forearm, a hand and your knee in a guy's ass in the post and it's not a foul. People think that's inconsistent. But at one end it's a perimeter game and the other end a half-court game. It looks inconsistent, but by the rules we're consistent. Big men normally play closer to a basket where you're allowed more legal contact to maintain your position."

Yet despite his size, despite going in for dipper dunks, despite frequently reaching double figures in blocked shots before it was an official stat category in the NBA, Chamberlain kept himself out of foul trouble.

"He was aware of it always," said former teammate Matt Guokas. "Not fouling out was something he took pride in. But Wilt was not the kind of guy who was challenging players body to body. He used his size and his length and his leaping ability to go over players to block shots."

"I think what you've got to do is give your due to Wilt Chamberlain, because I think Wilt Chamberlain was smart enough not to get that sixth foul on him," said Crawford. "He was smart enough not to put himself in jeopardy. The referee is going out to call the plays.

"If you had somebody in the league just started refereeing, they're just trying to get the plays right. You're never gonna walk out onto the court saying, 'Boy, Wilt hasn't fouled out of a game for 14 years.' Something like that would never affect a call.

"Who in our world would ask, 'Aren't you the referee that fouled Wilt out?' In our world it's not applicable. We're trying to call the plays. Everybody thinks we actually care about the kind of stuff. We don't. It doesn't have anything to do with our job description. We're trying to get the calls correct.

"What I think it proves is all the stuff that Joe Gushue, Jake O'Donnell and Darell Garretson and all those other guys ever said was right. They said Wilt was as intelligent a guy as they ever reffed."

At the same time, Chamberlain was often paying a physical toll, getting slapped, elbowed, poked, pulled and scratched himself.

"The things I saw guys to do him was unbelievable," said teammate Al Attles. "Clyde Lovellette hit him with that elbow that drove Wilt's lower teeth up into his jaw and put him the hospital and caused an infection. That was the worst of it, but he was always being beat up and abused."

It is the constant complaint of every big man from Wilt to Abdul-Jabbar to Shaquille O'Neal to Yao Ming to Howard: Big guys get calls against them that little guys don't.

"It's not intentional," said Bob Delaney, who retired in 2011 after 24 years as an NBA ref. "I think people give us more credit than we deserve. We don't react to the star player or the bigger player, just to what is in front of us.

"Speed, quickness, rhythm and balance are four things that we look for. Once the speed, quickness, rhythm or balance is interrupted, that's a foul. The difference is, take Shaquille and Wilt as examples, and a lot of times it wouldn't appear that those things were affected. But there were time when I would go back and look at tape of Shaq after a game and say to myself, 'Man, he got hit.' "

It is the difference between running into a mattress and running into a wall. The wall doesn't give.

"Those strong, big people are probably not given all the fouls that are taken on them," Delaney admitted.

Conversely, when the big man reached out to make a play on a smaller opponent, he more easily alters speed, quickness, rhythm and balance. Still, through 14 seasons and more than 1,200 NBA games, Wilt never fouled out of a single game. Not in college at Kansas or at Overbrook High in Philadelphia.

You can't help your team when you're not on the floor.

"I've read a lot of the records and I've heard most of the numbers," said 38-year-old Marcus Camby, veteran of 16 seasons in the trenches. "And I might have to say that Wilt never fouling out of one game might be the most impressive of them all.

"Wow! That's crazy. Stop and think. Zero. It's the only record you can really say will never be broken."

Fran Blinebury has covered the NBA since 1977. You can e-mail him here and follow him on twitter.

The views on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBA, its clubs or Turner Broadcasting.