When did people think the NBA became Fixed?

The NBA Finals are just days away and this nagging feeling has been bothering me for some time. For years, even decades, there has been a public perception that professional basketball is run by a higher power than the players and coaches. It has become assumed in the thoughts of the general public and by the masses that either wager on or follow the NBA that enough (not every) games are predetermined similar to professional wrestling.

I’ve personally heard this for years and have become increasingly fascinated, especially come playoff time, when the discussion and contemplation reach a fever pitch.

For me, it’s the “why factor” and wondered why elements changed from things like aliens in Roswell, NM and the U.S. Government setting up 9/11 in New York City, to the “accepted” point of view by so many that follow or bet on the NBA that it is in some way fixed.

While perusing numerous forums to see what people are thinking as I usually do, I was struck this year more than ever about comments that people shared about the NBA playoffs.

Among the various quotes found were these

“The Lakers will be in the Finals because that what (David) Stern wants.”

“The Suns and Magic have no shot (in conference finals), they (the NBA one would surmise) want the Celtics and Lakers for TV ratings.”

“Kobe (Bryant) will get every call and the Lakers will win the NBA Finals again, the series will have to go 7 to get max dollars for the league.”

While these statements in and of themselves are harmless, the follow up comments by almost everyone were in agreement.

For those under the age of 30, the single greatest impact for this belief was referee Tim Donaghy being caught and prosecuted for admitting betting on games. For the suspicious mind, this created validation of belief, that yes; it was very possible to fix a NBA game. While Donaghy stuck to his story of not fixing games, public perception was altered in their minds the fix was in.

Trying to understand where this idea was formulated in the first place, possibly it starts with the history of championship teams.

The NBA more than any other sports league, has the best teams being crowned champions. It remains the last bastion in sports where a team doesn’t just get hot and win the whole thing. How else could one explain how other the Houston Rockets of 1995-96, they are the only team other than a top three seed to win a NBA title since the current 16-team format was changed in 1984. The Rockets (sixth seed) were the defending NBA champs at the time and suffered an injury-riddled regular season before getting healthy late and became back-to-back champions.

In one way it’s easy for people to be jaded. Boston won 11 titles in 13 years in the late1950’s and 60’s and 17 overall. The Los Angeles Lakers lost to the Celtics in the finals six times in the 1960’s and have 15 titles if you count the Minneapolis Lakers who won five of the first eight when the NBA was formulated.

The Chicago Bulls won six in eight years with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen and more recently, Tim Duncan and the San Antonio Spurs captured four rings in nine years. Add them up and that is 42 titles among four teams in the league’s 63 years of existence, 66.6 percent and the number is guaranteed to go higher with this year’s finalists.

A good friend who I can talk candidly about these types of topics who works on the Vegas Strip doesn’t believe games are fixed, because of fixed limits on NBA contests and the lack of unusual movement, plus the sportsbooks themselves have a stake because if it were true this was happening, nobody would ever bet on professional basketball again.

I questioned a professional gambler in Nevada I’ve known for some time.

His name is Sal, who bets daily. “It is at times understandable why amateur bettors would believe the NBA has games that appear fixed, it just isn’t factual. If the league was so desperate for money and ratings, why wouldn’t every series go six or seven games, every year?

“In order for games to be fixed, you need a common denominator. Somebody that has money and wants to make more and someone else who needs money and once they taste it, wants more.”

“No NBA player is in need of cash other than maybe a 12th man on any team and they have no influence on the outcome. Would they be a source of information about team problems with the coach or girl friend problems, sure, but do you chase around making max bets at all different outlets on this information without a track record. Not me.”

Sal added, “Referees are the easiest targets because they believe they are underpaid, but their true influence has to do more with totals, since they can either blow or swallow the whistle.”
Nevertheless, public perception is still prevalent.

I put the question of fixed games in the NBA to the StatFox Forum and by the time I had to write this article, every person responded with a “yes”.

The responses were numerous, but all in agreement.

“All are fixed, easy money”.

“….billions being bet .......now when that many can control the masses who wager...why wouldn't they fix the games when the money is tilt by a 80/20 margin it is simple economics”

“Of course it’s fixed. One ref gets arrested and says I’m not the only one, and no one wants to investigate who else?

“Yes I do believe all sports are fixed. The reason is quite simple to me and that is the fact that with the amount of cash being wagered on games, there is no way they will leave the outcome to pure chance or luck.”

“Yes-because anytime money is involved it corrupts”

“Did the caveman invent fire? Is Ed "Too Tall" Jones to tall?

It certainly is intriguing subject and while there is no way to prove it one way or another, the public has spoken and they see it only one way.

Of course your comments welcome.

NBA boss rethinking sports betting stance

David Stern is the boss of the NBA and like many sports czars, has taken a hard line on sporting wagering on team sports. He was particularly affronted by former referee Tim Donaghy revelations of betting on games he worked, which was in strict violation of the rules of conduct in the league.

At that point, print and television commentators coast to coast suggested the NBA was about to go the way of the Arena Football League, because its public trust had been comprised. And while many wondered what would happen to the NBA, something unexpected occurred that Stern’s minions and most other supposed “know it all’s” didn’t see coming, nothing.

All the presumed outrage, people thinking the NBA was going to become the WWE with predetermined winners (enough people believed that already), however once they started playing basketball, it was business as usual and television ratings have gone up, with attendance hurt by the recession, not by wagering allegations.

Stern recently sat down with Sports Illustrated’s Ian Thomsen and betting on the NBA was brought up during the interview.

During this conversation, it was clear Stern has changed his views on people betting on the NBA for a variety of reasons.

With many country’s worldwide accepting wagers on team or individual sports, Stern was asked about potential for scandals.

"We used [the Donaghy revelations] as an opportunity to get better, to coordinate with law enforcement and go through a variety of processes that I don't necessarily want to detail publicly, but you are on ready alert," he said. "And we're mindful of what can happen, because we're more-than-interested bystanders in the European football scandal. Two-hundred [soccer] games are being looked at by law enforcement across the continent. It's fascinating to see what's happening. And we're mindful of the cricket [2007 World Cup match-fixing] issues, of the football referees in Germany -- there's a lot going on."

He then spoke as someone with a greater understanding of the marketplace and where our country is in general. "The betting issues are actually going to become more intense as states in the U.S. and governments in the world decide that the answers to all of their monetary shortfalls are the tax that is gambling."

While Stern stopped short of saying he would approve of such activity openly at this time, when asked if it were in the best interests of the league to seek legalization of sports wagering in the NBA, Thomsen observed a shift in body language of someone who was going to make a point that could later be used against him, but believed his own words.

"It has been a matter of league policy to answer that question, 'No,' " he said."But I think that that league policy was formulated at a time when gambling was far less widespread -- even legally."

In looking at the landscape, where most states have lotteries, Indian casinos and Delaware presently above revenue expectations just allowing NFL parlays, Stern has absorbed all this information and reformulated his thought process. “Considering the fact that so many state governments -- probably between 40 and 50 -- don't consider it immoral, I don't think that anyone [else] should," Stern went on. "It may be a little immoral, because it really is a tax on the poor, the lotteries. But having said that, it's now a matter of national policy: Gambling is good.

"So we have morphed considerably in our corporate view where we say, Look, Las Vegas is not evil. Las Vegas is a vacation and destination resort, and they have sports gambling and, in fact, there's a federal statute that gives them a monopoly of types [on sports betting]. And we actually supported that statute back in '92."

While Stern has often been considered stubborn and bullish, the whole Donaghy experience has brought out a different side of Stern, one more enlightened and not as close-minded in his beliefs. He sees the popularity of the NFL and has widely varied figures on something related to his sport, basketball, with March Madness, which fills Vegas hotels annually for the opening weekend, and also seemingly everyone filling out a pool sheets and making a bet amongst friends. He understands the revenue potential.

“Gambling, however it may have moved closer to the line [of becoming acceptable], is still viewed on the threat side," he said. "Although we understand fully why, buried within that threat there may be a huge opportunity as well."Of course Stern will have opposition, but will also have those on side like the Maloof brothers who own the Sacramento Kings and the Palms Hotel and Casino just off the Vegas Strip.

Originally when the Palms was opened, they were allowed to have a sportsbook, but not able to take action on NBA games. The Maloof’s later stated their case after the city hosted the NBA All-Star game, wanting to take wagering action on all NBA games, except those involving the Kings and it was approved.

Stern’s latest comments were music the Sacramento owners’ ears.

“I’m thrilled to hear him say that,” Joe Maloof told Yahoo! Sports on Monday. “I think it does two things: First, it legitimizes gambling. It regulates it. That’s the most important thing. It’s clean. It’s honest. It’s fair.

“And then it creates a tremendous excitement for your product. People react differently when they have a bet on a game versus when they don’t. This is going to bring in great interest. If it’s regulated properly, this can be a tremendous revenue source for the league.”

Nationally, there is too much opposition from groups that want a sanitized world more reminiscent of the 1950’s and early 60’s. However, as individual states look to hang on to government programs and continue to see shortfalls, sports gambling will eventually be pursued more actively as another revenue source that will be taxed and monitored and be enjoyed more openly, as sports leagues like the NBA admit the world won’t end if people bet on sports.


Separate articles from Sports Illustrated.com and Yahoo.com provided the quotes for this piece.