Draymond Green
- Thread starter ulismyman
- Start date
Isn't intent irrelevant to the NBA's decision to suspend or not? I get that it's relevant to whether to get all worked up online about it, but pretty sure the NBA isn't looking at intent.
Is "many gamblers" the equivalent of "some say?" Who are these gamblers? Haralabob has mentioned stuff about Tim Doughnehy (sp), but haven't seen anyone complain about corruption now or under Silver.
I don't think Durant and Westbrook are really much less of a draw than Curry. For popularity it's Curry >= Lebron > Durant, but Westbrook is probably the 4th most popular player left and the gap is not huge. Seems like a huge stretch.
And again, who are "many gamblers?" Is it like using anonymous scouts to trash draft prospects, or "some sources" to do likewise for almost any story? Or are there actual gamblers saying the NBA, at this moment, is the most corrupt (which is different than, say, incompetently officiated, which is a whole 'nother argument) sports league? Many of them?
Keep believing that pro sports are 100% legitimate if you want to, and hey as a sports fan I would like to beleive they are. Unfortunately there are millions and millions of dollars on these games that is wagered , not counting the NBA telling officials to tighten up blow out games in the 4th quarter to bolster TV ratings as was said by the referee that got busted.
So you do not, in fact, have "many gamblers" to back up your statement? I take it you made that part up since you don't even pretend to address it (like by saying you talk to "many gamblers" but do not have documented proof of their sentiments)? I'm just looking for the same information you claimed to have been provided so I can inform my analysis. Thanks.
I personally know of 2 gamblers that broke 5 different bookies on "information" they claimed to have been getting on NBA games. They told me that much of the scores in the NBA are manipulated, they did not say games were fixed to determine winners and losers. Ask yourself this, if you are a official and Golden State is favored by 15 over over Chicago and someone offers said official 10,000$ to either ensure the spread is covered or not he would not be tempted? Your crazy to think that no one would entertain such a proposition for thousands of dollars. For Christ sakes look at some of the calls that went against UK the last 2 years that defy logic to ensure spreads were not covered. These guys were winning around 80% of the time according to them.
I lived in Las Vegas for 10 years, and anyone who claims an 80% win rate for any extended period of time is a liar or was in on something shady themselves. True story. Look, I don't doubt that there can be things that are shady, but making broad statements (like "many gamblers") based on personal anecdotes and hypothetical situations ($10k offers to officials) is not a good way to support an argument that the league, and the commissioner, is corrupt. It's much easier, and almost certainly more correct, to attribute "fishiness" to either/all of incompetence, difficulty (reffing in real time is hard), and plain old dumb luck (ref had blocked sight line).
Even if I believe your 80% win rate gambler friends, and your hypothetical about $10k for the ref, and even that Donaghy (sp) was far from an outlier, that addresses referee corruption. I would think in the Draymond case here the issue would be corruption by the league, as opposed to rogue officials looking to make a buck or ten thousand. Leagues have incentives to ensure ratings, yes, and two (of many more) parts of that are 1) markets and 2) the perception of integrity in the results. The league certainly doesn't benefit from a ref taking $10k as that diminishes #2 and, unless they have marching orders, does not reliably (as in the risk is not worth the reward) impact #1. Propping up one and ignoring the other without real evidence is pretty weak, but to each their own.
And what does the reffing in UK games have to do with Adam Silver and the NBA front office? You're throwing conspiracy/corruption spaghetti against the wall here, and you're making a mess.
Even if I believe your 80% win rate gambler friends, and your hypothetical about $10k for the ref, and even that Donaghy (sp) was far from an outlier, that addresses referee corruption. I would think in the Draymond case here the issue would be corruption by the league, as opposed to rogue officials looking to make a buck or ten thousand. Leagues have incentives to ensure ratings, yes, and two (of many more) parts of that are 1) markets and 2) the perception of integrity in the results. The league certainly doesn't benefit from a ref taking $10k as that diminishes #2 and, unless they have marching orders, does not reliably (as in the risk is not worth the reward) impact #1. Propping up one and ignoring the other without real evidence is pretty weak, but to each their own.
And what does the reffing in UK games have to do with Adam Silver and the NBA front office? You're throwing conspiracy/corruption spaghetti against the wall here, and you're making a mess.
Apparently you live with a tin foil hat on, there is corruption at all levels I would say. If there are rouge refs you could certainly have rouge NBA officials as well as players on the take. Any entity that is worth millions and millions of dollars involved definitely has the motive to play with the outcome of things, no different that Wall Street.
Last edited:
^ dude, tin foil hat is for people that believe all the conspiracies. I demand relevant evidence. As I stated, there may well be corruption, even at all levels, but speculating on ref corruption on UK games is not even remotely support for NBA league office corruption. It's just... not.
So after some of the calls and no calls you have seen in NCAA games you do not think there could be rouge officials? UK was an example of games we have watched that have had some calls that really make you wonder.
Can't tell either. Not sure how anyone could conclude with absolute certainty one way or the other.
Because the NBA values the Warriors being in the finals over OKC for the monetary reasons. That is the only reason for Green not being suspended.
Cat's Illustrated, that is where I am at right? Nba.com has forums. Espn NBA has some 2. There are others that focus on the NBA. Green was just a maybe Cat back in the day.
Sigh. Yes, of course there can be. I don't find the calls/no calls to be much more than incompetence/difficulty/luck in 99% of things I've seen, but it could be evidence of rogue (rouge is blush) officials in college basketball. But the issue in this thread (sorry, UKvisitor, but this board often discusses the NBA) is whether the NBA front office is corrupt in not suspending Green. Throwing out one in support of the other is rubbish.