Wes at end

[bartmiller#1]

2001 Eastern Conference Semifinals.

I rest my case.

The Bucks absolutely got jobbed in that series, but is it part of a league sponsored conspiracy of some kind?  Would the league really prefer Iverson to move on before Ray Allen? 

The 76ers are the like the Indiana University of pro franchises.  They were relevant 30 years ago, but they haven't been a top-tier team in a long, long time. 

I agree wholeheartedly that the Bucks got screwed, but I don't think it was because the league preferred the 76ers-- who were a really boring team featuring one really good player-- to advance in the playoffs. 

[bma725]

The Bucks absolutely got jobbed in that series, but is it part of a league sponsored conspiracy of some kind?  Would the league really prefer Iverson to move on before Ray Allen? 

The 76ers are the like the Indiana University of pro franchises.  They were relevant 30 years ago, but they haven't been a top-tier team in a long, long time. 

I agree wholeheartedly that the Bucks got screwed, but I don't think it was because the league preferred the 76ers-- who were a really boring team featuring one really good player-- to advance in the playoffs. 

The idea behind the conspiracy theory doesn't have so much to do with the Bucks versus the 76ers as it does with TV.

Philly is one of the Top 5 TV markets in the country, Milwaukee is outside of the Top 30.  Couple that with the fact that Iverson was one of the biggest stars in the game that people all over the country would watch, while Bucks had no one like that.  The conspiracy goes, the Bucks got jobbed because the NBA wanted to make sure to get the highest ratings possible, and you don't get those ratings with the Bucks in the finals.

[MerrittsMustache]

The idea behind the conspiracy theory doesn't have so much to do with the Bucks versus the 76ers as it does with TV.

Philly is one of the Top 5 TV markets in the country, Milwaukee is outside of the Top 30.  Couple that with the fact that Iverson was one of the biggest stars in the game that people all over the country would watch, while Bucks had no one like that.  The conspiracy goes, the Bucks got jobbed because the NBA wanted to make sure to get the highest ratings possible, and you don't get those ratings with the Bucks in the finals.

Exactly. Not to mention that Iverson was a polarizing player. Theoretically, people would watch hoping to see him win a title or they'd watch hoping to see him fall on his face. Either way, they'd be watching.

[bartmiller#1]

Exactly. Not to mention that Iverson was a polarizing player. Theoretically, people would watch hoping to see him win a title or they'd watch hoping to see him fall on his face. Either way, they'd be watching.

I understand the theory, I just don't buy it.  How do you explain when it applies and when it doesn't?  

San Antonio beats the Lakers in '03?  Or PHX in '05?  Those are larger TV markets and teams that certainly have more polarizing players and/or more popularly appealing players, yet the Spurs win.  Is it because SA is clearly better in those years and the series isn't close enough for the NBA minions to sway the outcome?  

Detroit beat Miami, Philly, New Jersey, etc. in its deep playoff runs.  Again-- those  teams had star power-- Kidd, Iverson, Wade-- and bigger TV markets.  

My problems with all of these theories isn't that they're not interesting-- they are, I think it's fascinating stuff. I just don't buy that there could be such a relatively large number of people in on the plan without it being revealed in some sort of tell-all interview.

Crappy calls happen, as do really crappy matchups.  The '07 Finals, for example, are probably the least palatable TV matchup in recent years-- despite the fact that LeBron was playing-- that series was virtually unwatchable.  Teams get screwed-- '01 Bucks, '03 Kings, '94 Bulls, '05 Mavs, etc.  Bad calls are part of the game.  I don't see a pattern or a plan in them-- they happen all the time.  

Just my two cents.  The opinion you guys share is way more interesting.  

[Markusquette]

I understand the theory, I just don't buy it.  How do you explain when it applies and when it doesn't? 

San Antonio beats the Lakers in '03?  Or PHX in '05?  Those are larger TV markets and teams that certainly have more polarizing players and/or more popularly appealing players, yet the Spurs win.  Is it because SA is clearly better in those years and the series isn't close enough for the NBA minions to sway the outcome? 

Detroit beat Miami, Philly, New Jersey, etc. in its deep playoff runs.  Again-- those  teams had star power-- Kidd, Iverson, Wade-- and bigger TV markets. 

My problems with all of these theories isn't that they're not interesting-- they are, I think it's fascinating stuff. I just don't buy that there could be such a relatively large number of people in on the plan without it being revealed in some sort of tell-all interview.

Crappy calls happen, as do really crappy matchups.  The '07 Finals, for example, are probably the least palatable TV matchup in recent years-- despite the fact that LeBron was playing-- that series was virtually unwatchable.  Teams get screwed-- '01 Bucks, '03 Spurs, '94 Bulls, '05 Mavs, etc.  Bad calls are part of the game.  I don't see a pattern or a plan in them-- they happen all the time. 

Just my two cents.  The opinion you guys share is way more interesting. 

Well said, and I agree.

[brewcity77]

Crappy calls happen, an I'm not a Bucks fan, but for Big Dog to go an entire game without getting fouled once is laughable. Supported the Bulls all my life, but if that wasn't a screwjob, then the officials must have been working with forks in their eyes.

[MerrittsMustache]

I understand the theory, I just don't buy it.  How do you explain when it applies and when it doesn't? 

San Antonio beats the Lakers in '03?  Or PHX in '05?  Those are larger TV markets and teams that certainly have more polarizing players and/or more popularly appealing players, yet the Spurs win.  Is it because SA is clearly better in those years and the series isn't close enough for the NBA minions to sway the outcome? 

My problems with all of these theories isn't that they're not interesting-- they are, I think it's fascinating stuff. I just don't buy that there could be such a relatively large number of people in on the plan without it being revealed in some sort of tell-all interview.

Just my two cents.  The opinion you guys share is way more interesting. 

Good points. I understand where you're coming from, but you're missing the point a little bit (my point, at least). I don't think that the NBA has officials flat-out fix games. Like you said, there would be too many people involved and someone would squeal. I do, however, firmly believe that the league assigns certain officials to certain games (ie homers, bad guys, refs with a "vendetta" against a team, etc) in an attempt to give a specific team an advantage. It's not a "perfect" system, so to speak, because you do end up with Spurs-Pistons Finals from time to time, but IMO there are far too many instances for it to be merely coincidental.

[77ncaachamps]

How apropos that I read this thread tonight.

Wes had at least three shots to help put Utah in a winning position.
Great to see him excel at the next level but man it was tough to see the final minute...

[shaquilvaine]

He was in the perfect position for that tip at the buzzer and it just didn't fall.  He deserves to be in the floor at the end of the game and did a great job denying Kobe the inbounds with under ten to play.  Too bad it didn't fall.