|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Getting a fix on the conspiracy debate
Posted: Tuesday June 06, 2000 11:50 AM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum touches on a Hot Button issue each Monday on CNNSI.com. After you read Jack's take, give us yours.
If my father-in-law were alive, this would've been a fun time for him because he could have advanced his NBA conspiracy theory. He would have watched the Los Angeles Lakers storm to a 3-1 lead against the Portland Trail Blazers in the Western Conference finals, nodded knowingly as L.A. turned limper than overcooked cabbage for two games, then sat back smugly as the Lakers scored what he considered the inevitable Game 7 victory. No matter how much I insisted that games were not fixed, or that not many series actually went the distance, he simply believed there was a pre-ordained decision to play to the max, thereby increasing TV ratings and filling the league coffers with more gold. I know he is not alone in that opinion.
A more common conspiracy theory, of course, is that the league will try to get a marquee, big-market team to the Finals, no matter how many games it takes. In the Eastern Conference semifinals, the Miami Heat players all but accused the referees of gift-wrapping the series for the New York Knicks because, as you know, Madison Avenue has more clout than South Beach (albeit far fewer individuals in skimpy bathing suits). Get some NBA coaches on deep background and they will opine that the zebras, while not overtly instructed to make sure one team wins, are given subtle nudges by the league office. As the Sacramento Kings threatened to eliminate the Lakers in the first round, for example, one coach told me that the league would not be above giving officials the message that a certain superstar center should be protected. "Make sure there's no mugging down there" is how the directive might be couched, this coach claimed. Here's what the refs hear: Don't let Vlade Divac get physical with Shaquille O'Neal, and foul his butt out if he does. The one thing we can all agree on is that referees give favorable calls, or favorable no-calls, to superstars. (Can't we all agree on that?) Is there anyone who doubts that Kobe Bryant would have been sent to the line had he stormed down the lane and gotten bumped late in the game, as Portland's Steve Smith did Sunday night without getting a call? I'm not sure that's conspiratorial behavior as much as it is human nature. But did the Trail Blazers lose because the refs didn't honor Smith with a whistle in that crucial moment? No, they lost because they blew a 16-point lead, almost entirely without the officials' help. Did the Heat lose because the Knicks got too many calls down the stretch? No, they lost because they couldn't convert free throws and because Jamal Mashburn shot like he was wearing blinders. I'd love to see the Middle America Pacers beat the Lakers in four straight to prove all the conspiracists wrong, including my father-in-law, who's no doubt still following the league and shaking his head. But I see the Lakers winning in six. I will say this to the Pacers, though: If Shaq goes up for a shot in the final seconds of Game 7, you had better be ahead by more than three points. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will contribute a Hot Button issue every Monday on CNNSI.com. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the
writer.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
