The NBA is Rigged...do you believe it ?

.......This was the strategy, but the Golden State Warriors didn't really have to hope the referees would oblige, just look at Game 2 of the Pelicans Series in the previous round at Oracle Arena, the fix was on in that game, and the small media market Pelicans Team would have won that game if the NBA Refs didn't step in and determine that game in favor of the Warriors.
So the Warrior players know through experience that they can camp out in the lane with Draymond Green and not get an illegal defense call, knock players to the floor, set illegal moving screens on offense, reach in from behind when they are beat causing turnovers, and hand check and hold on every drive to the basket because they are going to get the “Dream Team Treatment” in the end from the referees


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-27/nba-rigged

Can you refball a 31-9 quarter? 25 points for a half. Not really. Houston choked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

Can you refball a 31-9 quarter? 25 points for a half. Not really. Houston choked.

---

No,but you can ref to the point where you cause a team to lose all their momentum. It happened in game 1 against the Warriors as well, we had all the momentum,then they started calling phantom fouls left and right until we cooled down..

Game 2 was also obviously biased.. Game 3 was a little better (we won despite bad calls), and game 4 was finally called fair, we just went cold...

I have no doubt we wouldve taken it to 7 games if it weren't for the bias from the refs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soggymoss

No,but you can ref to the point where you cause a team to lose all their momentum. It happened in game 1 against the Warriors as well, we had all the momentum,then they started calling phantom fouls left and right until we cooled down..

Game 2 was also obviously biased.. Game 3 was a little better (we won despite bad calls), and game 4 was finally called fair, we just went cold...

I have no doubt we wouldve taken it to 7 games if it weren't for the bias from the refs

---

agreed

I was always a believer that the league is rigged for years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kinglio21093

I was always a believer that the league is rigged for years now.

---

I’m right there with you. It’s more about ratings than it is about actually being the better team.

I it has nothing to do with the Pels, it has to do with the NBA. They no longer believe in may the best team win, all they now care about is star power so Stephan A has something to ramble about. Book it, Harden wins the MVP, and the Cavs and Warriors meet in the finals again. It has become like the WWE, they do what's best for NBA business.

Last edited by redrum; 03-19-2018 at 05:42 PM.





I really hope I am wrong, but it sure is suspicious.

So... Cavs v Wars FOUR TIMES IN A ROW

Thoughts?:P

There's too many factors for me to accept the game is rigged. It's fan (word that rimes with rank). Plain and simple.

This finals just went from "oh maybe this could be interesting" to "I refuse to watch even 1 minute of it" in only 2 days.

“Rigged” is a strong word. Heavily impacted by suspicious calls at opportune moments? For sure.

My favorite part was when the refs started contesting Rocket threes. Classic NBA move.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All I’m going to say is Tim Donaghy.

If you believe the league is rigged why do you watch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawless522

“Rigged” is a strong word. Heavily impacted by suspicious calls at opportune moments? For sure.

---

This.

The NBA definitely has its goals and intentions. It's difficult, although I believe not impossible, to overcome those intentions.

For example: if, instead of missing 27 straight threes, the Rockets had hit 17 (hitting 21 on the night), there's nothing he refs could have done.

The teams want to go up by 20 or more to prevent a comeback, but the league and the networks want close games through at least 3 quarters. Whoever is hot at the end wins that type of game. Nobody wants to see every foul or travel or discontinued dribble called, because inbounds passes and free throws are boring. Therefore the refs have to pick and choose which to call. They pick and choose in favor of certain players and teams at certain times, and we were on the wrong side in Game 2. We may never be on that side, unfortunately, but there is hope because Golden State was not a favored team 10 years ago. The NFL has similar issues with offensive holding, defensive pass interference, and other penalties that could technically be called 2-3 times more often than they are called. I still watch because there is no fair game that is available to watch, and there is always hope that we can overcome the stacked odds one day and win. The Rockets could have won if they hit 5 out of 27 in that stretch, just like the Pels could have won Game 2 if we shot our share of free throws or made a couple more 3s. So, its not totally rigged like rassling, but it is stacked enough to make it really improbable.

Once Pels were eliminated, I stopped watching. I know we would get GS and Cle for the fourth year in a row.

The rockets hit 5-7 of those 27 miss 3s they win this game...

Maybe if the rockets had gone back to the pick and roll in between those miss 3s they would had a better chance to close this game out..at some point you have to be smart and adapt to getting 2s with layups and pick n roll when the shots are not falling..... Houston stuck to their script and died by the 3 when they had a legit chance to take the warriors out....

This game 7 wasn't rigged for the warriors but there were games in the 1st and 2nd rounds that had the rigged look lol...

LeBron and the warriors for the 4th time is good ratings for the NBA smh lol ...this series should be a sweep but the warriors will give LeBron a win so they can celebrate at home....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

All I’m going to say is Tim Donaghy.

---

Donaghy even has had some interesting things to say about what goes on behind the scenes. His memoir that he wrote got cancelled because of "liability concerns," and there's a rumor that the NBA threatened legal action.

I mean, even look at what happened during game 1 of the semis with the Pels and Warriors. How drastic was the free throw discrepancy again? It was pretty substantial.

I don't buy that refs are being told to make sure teams win.

But I do buy refs being told to call on reputation, not what they see.


I also think it's possible to miss 27 3s in a row becuase driving the lane and getting clobbered and getting zero calls for it will make you decide to just chuck and pray.

I don't think the NBA is rigged. Its just poorly officiated. It just so happens that the Warriors are on the right side of a disproportionate amount of bad calls. I don't see anything wrong with a jump shooting team shooting more free throws than a drive to the goal team. Isn't that normal? Last year when Steph Curry shot 10 free throws in the 1st quarter of the NBA Finals, I just thought the Cavs needed to play better defense. IJS

This is the 1st time ever in the history of major US sports that the same two teams have met 4 years in a row.

This coming from the same league that had the Lakers and Celtics rivalry. Even they never had this happen.

This is one of the worst things that could happen to the league. I hope the ratings absolutely tank so they lose a ton of money and maybe, just maybe, they might so something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

This is the 1st time ever in the history of major US sports that the same two teams have met 4 years in a row.

This coming from the same league that had the Lakers and Celtics rivalry. Even they never had this happen.

This is one of the worst things that could happen to the league. I hope the ratings absolutely tank so they lose a ton of money and maybe, just maybe, they might so something.

---

What would you suggest they do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

What would you suggest they do?

---

Shake everything up! Fantasy draft for every team!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

What would you suggest they do?

---

What about an actual hard cap for every team? Keep everything like it is now except add a hard cap at some percentage of the soft cap. The tax has not kept teams from spending at will. Set a hard cap for every team at about 25% of the soft cap. So the cap for this year was 99 million with the tax line at 119. If there was a hard cap at 125m these are the teams that would be affected: Cleveland and Golden State are at 135, OKC is at 133, and Washington is at 124. The current situation is ruining the league.

Edited to add: I think the players would go for a hard cap if it was set at a higher amount. I don't know if the owners would go for the higher amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

What about an actual hard cap for every team? Keep everything like it is now except add a hard cap at some percentage of the soft cap. The tax has not kept teams from spending at will. Set a hard cap for every team at about 25% of the soft cap. So the cap for this year was 99 million with the tax line at 119. If there was a hard cap at 125m these are the teams that would be affected: Cleveland and Golden State are at 135, OKC is at 133, and Washington is at 124. The current situation is ruining the league.

Edited to add: I think the players would go for a hard cap if it was set at a higher amount. I don't know if the owners would go for the higher amount.

---

Okay, let's say we do that.

$125m hard-cap. Say that got passed in this off-season, to be effective in the 2018-19 season. Golden State walks into that season with a salary cap (as of right now, regardless of what happens in summer), of $128.3m. So they're $3.3m over the hard cap, with only 8 players. What happens? Are they forced to cut players until they're under the cap, and then just play with however many they have? Or are they allowed to keep that going until the current contracts play out? In which case, it doesn't actually hurt them doing this for years and the change doesn't help.

I'm genuinely curious, would the league have to intervene and shuffle contracts around, or would teams just be forced into trading salary for nothing and playing with like, 8 players, or would all contracts be renegotiated, how would that work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Okay, let's say we do that.

$125m hard-cap. Say that got passed in this off-season, to be effective in the 2018-19 season. Golden State walks into that season with a salary cap (as of right now, regardless of what happens in summer), of $128.3m. So they're $3.3m over the hard cap, with only 8 players. What happens? Are they forced to cut players until they're under the cap, and then just play with however many they have? Or are they allowed to keep that going until the current contracts play out? In which case, it doesn't actually hurt them doing this for years and the change doesn't help.

I'm genuinely curious, would the league have to intervene and shuffle contracts around, or would teams just be forced into trading salary for nothing and playing with like, 8 players, or would all contracts be renegotiated, how would that work?

---

i haven't put that much thought into it but since it really would only affect the four teams I mentioned they would have to move people to get under the hard cap. They would still be able to bring players in on minimum deals to fill out the roster.

Not to mention, in the Warriors case, do you think Thompson resigns after next year for 18 - 19 per to keep them under the hard cap? Would Durant resign for 26 per as well if he doesn't opt out? Unlikely IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

i haven't put that much thought into it but since it really would only affect the four teams I mentioned they would have to move people to get under the hard cap. They would still be able to bring players in on minimum deals to fill out the roster.

---

If they were forced to move people to get under the hard cap, then sign minimum deals, they'd end up over the hard cap again. The league requires you to have 13 players on your roster.

So, say they have the $128.3m; they've gotta get under salary, so they move/cut/whatever Shaun Livingston; obviously they're not going to move any of their 4 all stars, and getting rid of Bell or Jones wouldn't bring them under the cap: even getting rid of both wouldn't. So now they're at $120m, with 7 players. So they have to sign 6 minimum guys. The average NBA player plays 6 seasons in the league, so imagine they sign 6 guys halfway through their careers; 3 year players. The minimum contract for a 3 year player is $1.08m. 6 of those, that's $6.48m. So they're back up to $126.48. So they're over again, just by signing the minimum amount of guys required to play.

So that means that Livingston wouldn't be enough, that means they'd have to cut Iguodala if they wanted to sign enough players to fill out the required roster, which means they'd have to either cut him ($48m guaranteed money), or they'd have to find someone willing to trade for an injury prone 34 year old with nearly $50m left on their salary, which means they'd have to bring back in enough salary to the point where getting rid of him wouldn't actually open up the required cap, so they'd have to cut him, which the owners wouldn't like.



I think at this point I'm just rambling. God the NBA Cap seems like it's trying to be perplexing.

Correction: Iguodala's contract is only $48m if you count this season. Obviously that wouldn't be in play next season, so it's only $33m. Still a lot of money, but less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

If they were forced to move people to get under the hard cap, then sign minimum deals, they'd end up over the hard cap again. The league requires you to have 13 players on your roster.

So, say they have the $128.3m; they've gotta get under salary, so they move/cut/whatever Shaun Livingston; obviously they're not going to move any of their 4 all stars, and getting rid of Bell or Jones wouldn't bring them under the cap: even getting rid of both wouldn't. So now they're at $120m, with 7 players. So they have to sign 6 minimum guys. The average NBA player plays 6 seasons in the league, so imagine they sign 6 guys halfway through their careers; 3 year players. The minimum contract for a 3 year player is $1.08m. 6 of those, that's $6.48m. So they're back up to $126.48. So they're over again, just by signing the minimum amount of guys required to play.

So that means that Livingston wouldn't be enough, that means they'd have to cut Iguodala if they wanted to sign enough players to fill out the required roster, which means they'd have to either cut him ($48m guaranteed money), or they'd have to find someone willing to trade for an injury prone 34 year old with nearly $50m left on their salary, which means they'd have to bring back in enough salary to the point where getting rid of him wouldn't actually open up the required cap, so they'd have to cut him, which the owners wouldn't like.



I think at this point I'm just rambling. God the NBA Cap seems like it's trying to be perplexing.

Correction: Iguodala's contract is only $48m if you count this season. Obviously that wouldn't be in play next season, so it's only $33m. Still a lot of money, but less.

---

The easy solution is make minimum deals not count towards the cap. Two way players would not count towards the cap either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

The easy solution is make minimum deals not count towards the cap. Two way players would not count towards the cap either.

---

Maybe, but then how are we in a different situation than we're in now? Warriors still trot out Curry, Klay, Iguodala, Durant, and Green, with a surrounding cast of minimum contracts and rookies. That's essentially what they're doing now anyway, the only difference is no Livingstone, which obviously makes them worse but does it make them worse enough to actually make an impact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Maybe, but then how are we in a different situation than we're in now? Warriors still trot out Curry, Klay, Iguodala, Durant, and Green, with a surrounding cast of minimum contracts and rookies. That's essentially what they're doing now anyway, the only difference is no Livingstone, which obviously makes them worse but does it make them worse enough to actually make an impact?

---

It might not make a difference next year but it would prevent it from happening again in the future. I also don't think Durant opts in at 26 next year, meaning they would likely lose him. Then after next year would Thompson resign at a discount in the 20 per year range to keep the band together? He might but I wouldn't bet on it. He might give discount but he would be nuts to sign for one that big.

Let's hope the ratings suck in the finals. I watched both conf finals because it looked like another team might get in. I won't be watching the finals. Is it any coincidence that the two teams with the highest salaries have been in the finals four years in a row? Okc is next closest but I think they are an outlier due to the albatross that is Melo's contract.

Somehow, I missed Miami at 133.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

It might not make a difference next year but it would prevent it from happening again in the future. I also don't think Durant opts in at 26 next year, meaning they would likely lose him. Then after next year would Thompson resign at a discount in the 20 per year range to keep the band together? He might but I wouldn't bet on it. He might give discount but he would be nuts to sign for one that big.

---

Durant definitely resigns. He already took a big pay cut to be there this year, not sure why he wouldn't next year, especially considering that next year will be his third season with the Warriors, thus giving them bird rights in the following free agency and allowing them to go over-cap to resign him. As far as I can tell, it's really a question of if the front office will pay the tax, rather than whether or not he stays.

Klay is a different type of situation, but even so that's two years out from now. That will mean that 2015,16,17,18, and 19, at a minimum, will be Golden State and there's nothing we can do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Durant definitely resigns. He already took a big pay cut to be there this year, not sure why he wouldn't next year, especially considering that next year will be his third season with the Warriors, thus giving them bird rights in the following free agency and allowing them to go over-cap to resign him. As far as I can tell, it's really a question of if the front office will pay the tax, rather than whether or not he stays.

Klay is a different type of situation, but even so that's two years out from now. That will mean that 2015,16,17,18, and 19, at a minimum, will be Golden State and there's nothing we can do about it.

---

Basketball reference has Clay coming off their books next year. Not that it matters because they will pay the tax and resign him. I read they may hit a max combined salary and tax of 300 million. That's just crazy. Seems like the players would prefer a hard cap if they got more of the money instead of teams just paying a tax to the league. But what do I know.

An actual hardcap set at a specific amount and the removal of capped player contracts. All current contracts grandfathered in. Teams have the ability to wipe any 1 contract from their books signed under the previous rules.

This would fix the issue within 2 years. A true open market where teams can offer however much money they want for a single player would cause players to have to seriously think about their destination. Does Durant resign for pennies or go to another team that can offer him hundreds of millions more over the life of the contract?

The NFL has it right with a true open market. How do you protect teams who draft a player and then he becomes a superstar from walking? The same way the NFL does it, with a franchise tag. You franchise them which pays them the average of the top 5 contracts and they can't walk. A 2nd year of franchise gives them the same amount as the average of the top 2 contracts. You cannot do 3 straight years of franchise. This effectively gives home teams 7 years of a player and 3 years to negotiate a contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

An actual hardcap set at a specific amount and the removal of capped player contracts. All current contracts grandfathered in. Teams have the ability to wipe any 1 contract from their books signed under the previous rules.

This would fix the issue within 2 years. A true open market where teams can offer however much money they want for a single player would cause players to have to seriously think about their destination. Does Durant resign for pennies or go to another team that can offer him hundreds of millions more over the life of the contract?

The NFL has it right with a true open market. How do you protect teams who draft a player and then he becomes a superstar from walking? The same way the NFL does it, with a franchise tag. You franchise them which pays them the average of the top 5 contracts and they can't walk. A 2nd year of franchise gives them the same amount as the average of the top 2 contracts. You cannot do 3 straight years of franchise. This effectively gives home teams 7 years of a player and 3 years to negotiate a contract.

---

I agree that the NFL has it right in terms of a formula that creates parity. It's a shame it will likely never happen in the NBA.

In football, the practical reality of running an actual football team makes their cap situation different. In Basketball, a guy plays offense and defense. A singular talent in one sport is clearly worth more. I like the current system because it rewards brilliance both on the court and the front office. I’m not interested in a system that has to save an owner from himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DefensiveMind

In football, the practical reality of running an actual football team makes their cap situation different. In Basketball, a guy plays offense and defense. A singular talent in one sport is clearly worth more. I like the current system because it rewards brilliance both on the court and the front office. I’m not interested in a system that has to save an owner from himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The current system saves owners way more than a true free market does. There's capped contracts (why does Otto Porter deserve the same percentage as Anthony Davis?), there's soft caps, there's sign and trades, heck there's even rules currently that make GMs unable to trade consecutive 1st round picks - literally saving them from themselves.

If you really want to reward excellence by the front office a true open market with 1 hard cap that can't be crossed way better than the current system. Baseball players play offense and defense and they don't have capped contracts. Let the cream rise to the top and stop allowing stupid loopholes that build super teams. Everyone gets the same amount of money, may the best ran team win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

The current system saves owners way more than a true free market does. There's capped contracts (why does Otto Porter deserve the same percentage as Anthony Davis?), there's soft caps, there's sign and trades, heck there's even rules currently that make GMs unable to trade consecutive 1st round picks - literally saving them from themselves.

If you really want to reward excellence by the front office a true open market with 1 hard cap that can't be crossed way better than the current system. Baseball players play offense and defense and they don't have capped contracts. Let the cream rise to the top and stop allowing stupid loopholes that build super teams. Everyone gets the same amount of money, may the best ran team win.

---

I agree with this...I was thinking about this earlier...Basically a hard cap similar to what NFL does today is the only way to fix the competitive balance.

Right on with your post. There are so many "phantom" calls that even Stevie Wonder could see were phony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawless522

“Rigged” is a strong word. Heavily impacted by suspicious calls at opportune moments? For sure.

---

Does anyone think the nba is fixed right now? When the conferences went 7 games, everyone thinks the league is making it go longer. But wouldn't you want your biggest stars to play the most games on the biggest stage in the finals? I would think the league would want to make this last as long as possible

While I do not think the NBA is rigged, I do believe there is player favoritism. Like when Jordan would get crazy calls in favor. Or when you rarely see LeBron being called for fouls.

Or the opposite: Like Jrue never gets any calls. Maybe it is because he doesn't really complain or work the refs ear.

Warriors have 2 superstars, 1 perennial all-star, and 1 all-star whiner. That combination will yield more favorable calls to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Durant definitely resigns. He already took a big pay cut to be there this year, not sure why he wouldn't next year, especially considering that next year will be his third season with the Warriors, thus giving them bird rights in the following free agency and allowing them to go over-cap to resign him. As far as I can tell, it's really a question of if the front office will pay the tax, rather than whether or not he stays.

Klay is a different type of situation, but even so that's two years out from now. That will mean that 2015,16,17,18, and 19, at a minimum, will be Golden State and there's nothing we can do about it.

---

I've been wondering, if Durant opts out how can the Warriors re-sign him? They will already be over the cap, and they dont have his bird rights, so they shouldnt have a way to re-sign him without shedding alot of salary (Iggy, Klay)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soggymoss

I've been wondering, if Durant opts out how can the Warriors re-sign him? They will already be over the cap, and they dont have his bird rights, so they shouldnt have a way to re-sign him without shedding alot of salary (Iggy, Klay)

---

I'm not a cap expert, but I'm fairly sure that they have his non-Bird rights due to him having played there for two seasons now, and non-Bird rights allow a team to re-sign their own free agents for up to 175% of their previous years salary, in contracts that must last at least two seasons and cannot last more than four seasons. So theoretically they could have him opt out of his $26m and resign him for something like 2 years $70m.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

The easy solution is make minimum deals not count towards the cap. Two way players would not count towards the cap either.

---

I didn't think minimum deals counted towards the cap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I'm not a cap expert, but I'm fairly sure that they have his non-Bird rights due to him having played there for two seasons now, and non-Bird rights allow a team to re-sign their own free agents for up to 175% of their previous years salary, in contracts that must last at least two seasons and cannot last more than four seasons. So theoretically they could have him opt out of his $26m and resign him for something like 2 years $70m.

---

Ahhh, ok.. Yeah I just read up on it, they have his early bird rights.. Damn, I was hoping that would be a reason for them to have to gut their team:bah:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wnelson

I didn't think minimum deals counted towards the cap.

I am pretty sure Thompson isn't resigning with GS.

They would have to get rid of iggy.

---

I've seen mentioned ALOT that Klay is willing to leave something like 50-80 million on the table to stay with the Warriors because he has a 100 million shoe deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wnelson

I didn't think minimum deals counted towards the cap

---

They count but you can still sign players to Minimum deals no matter what as long as you have a roster spot. Also veteran players who sign minimum deals recieve higher pay while counting for a smaller cap hit than their pay. It's a way to keep getting deals for veterans when normally they'd cost so much more than rookies that it wouldn't make sense to sign them.

Yea cause it makes so much sense for the NBA to have a team go up 3-0 and possibly end the NBA Finals in a sweep.. must be a good business plan to lose out on millions and millions of dollars to have the Warriors win even though it doesn’t benefit the NBA in anyway.. makes total sense now.. Oh and the proof is they had a rogue referee years back so they must have all been bad!! In case anybody was wondering the earth is flat and planes leave chem trails!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

Yea cause it makes so much sense for the NBA to have a team go up 3-0 and possibly end the NBA Finals in a sweep.. must be a good business plan to lose out on millions and millions of dollars to have the Warriors win even though it doesn’t benefit the NBA in anyway.. makes total sense now.. Oh and the proof is they had a rogue referee years back so they must have all been bad!! In case anybody was wondering the earth is flat and planes leave chem trails!!

---

Believing that it is possible for a giant corporation which has previously been plausibly suspected of rigging things on multiple occasions may be rigging things again is not on, near, comparable to, or analogous to believing in chemtrails or flat Earth.

The fact is, Golden State are the league's biggest team. That's not debatable. Two of the top five biggest selling jerseys are Warriors players. Three of the top 15 (Klay is number #14), Golden State. They have had full, sell-out attendance every year for the last six years. They are the NBA's third most valuable team by franchise value ($3.1bn in 2018). During the Warriors 4 finals runs, they league has experienced an increase in revenue every year, with the total income jumping nearly $2bn between the 2016/17 season and the 2017/18.

Given all of this information, is it by no means ''flat earth'' levels of crazy to think that it's possible, what with the NBA being a for-profit corporation and all, that they might be favouring the team that brings them in more cash than any other team. Especially when that team is China's favourite team (most followers on Sina Weibo, most Chinese Facebook traffic, most games played in China over the last 10 years, Curry and Klay visiting China every summer, etc), and China is the world's largest market.

But yes, you're right, it somehow doesn't benefit the NBA in any way to have the Warriors win.