What does the ex-ref's guilty plea mean for the NBA?

NBA Referee Betting Scandal Donaghy pleads guilty | Four games pinpointed BURNS: Guilty plea doesn't end NBA's headache WERTHEIM: How Donaghy's plea affects the NBA THOMSEN: NBA must find way to live with betting ASCHBURNER: Stern's legacy suddenly on the line THOMSEN: Other referees have cause for concern McCALLUM: Commissioner shows a different side BURNS: Fans will inevitably doubt Stern's NBA DEFORD: Betting probe like this one was inevitable MANNIX: An isolated case? Stern better hope so McCALLUM: The NBA missed some warning signs BURNS: Ex-Donaghy colleague expresses anger GALLERY: Infamous gambling scandals in sports SI FLASHBACK: Referees caught for tax evasion

SI.com caught up with Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim on Wednesday to discuss the latest developments with former referee Tim Donaghy, who has pleaded guilty to two felony charges in an NBA betting scandal. Wertheim has covered the NBA, among other sports, since joining the magazine in 1997.

SI.com: How fortunate is the NBA that Donaghy appears to have concealed the scheme from the NBA and other referees?

Wertheim: If there's any silver lining, this notion of the 'isolated, rogue criminal' -- commissioner David Stern's term for Donaghy -- does seem accurate. The fact that Donaghy has already pled out indicates that they had the goods on him. But it's not good for the NBA in the sense that there doesn't seem to be much doubt that you did have a referee not only betting on games but also communicating his picks with these gamblers.

SI.com: The judge described Donaghy as having "unique access," including the interaction of different referees and players. How troubling is this for the NBA?

Wertheim: It's always been an open secret that certain refs have certain temperaments and that you can get away with 'X' with ref 'A' and you can't get away with it with ref 'B.' But here is concrete evidence that you basically have subjective rules. It's pretty striking for a referee to basically admit that different refs officiate differently.

SI.com: Donaghy faces a maximum of 25 years in prison for conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce. What kind of sentence can he expect?

Wertheim: There are some parallels to this and the Michael Vick case, that at some level the prosecutors are building a bigger case. This is about more than one referee for the prosecutors. His sentence is probably going to depend to some degree on how much he cooperates and how fruitful some of his information is. This is obviously a wide net being cast. A lot can happen between now and sentencing [which is scheduled for Nov. 9].

SI.com: What are the chances we'll find out the exact games he might have compromised?

Wertheim: I think it depends on how relevant that information is to the investigation. Something I find interesting is that prosecutors are saying Donaghy bet on games, but that really didn't figure into the charges he pled guilty to. That leads me to think that the NBA can do its own investigation, but in terms of the FBI, what basketball games may or may not have been tainted isn't really on its radar.

SI.com: What impact do you think this will have on fans for next season?

Wertheim: In a perverse way, the NBA almost benefits from this standpoint: For years there was a perception that there was a star system and that different refs officiated the game differently. The credibility of NBA refs had come under fire way before this. I think in most fans' eyes, no one suspected refs were fixing outcomes and consorting with gamblers, but there always had been this assumption that these guys were sometimes engaged in less than professional behavior. So it almost helps in the sense that if the referees were seen as this unimpeachable group, this would really be shocking. But that's not really the case here.