Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Who's got the Suns for tonight?!!
Sccit:
--- Quote from: 7even on May 28, 2010, 08:14:56 PM ---The league is not fixing games because they like a certain team so much, but because a suspenseful 7 game series is just so much better than a lousy sweep.
4 games, with for the last noone caring anymore - or 7 games, the last being a huge hit? What would you prefer if you owned the NBA?
--- End quote ---
youre on the money with that one...if the nba were fixing games, that would be the sole reason. extending a series.
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on May 28, 2010, 08:29:11 PM ---
--- Quote from: NIKCC on May 28, 2010, 07:59:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on May 28, 2010, 01:13:31 PM ---^Tim Donaghy admitted that they fixed the Lakers/Kings Western Conference Finals Series years back.
why would the league go against them now?
--- End quote ---
LOL. I'm not even gunna reply to you anymore, man.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---The 2002 Western Conference Finals is widely regarded as one of the classic series in NBA history, with the final four games coming down to the final seconds. Two games were decided on game winning shots and Game 7 was decided in overtime. It was, however, marred by corruption allegations. On June 10, 2008, convicted NBA referee Tim Donaghy's attorney filed a court document alleging, among other things, that Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and Sacramento Kings was fixed by two referees. The letter states that Donaghy "learned from Referee A that Referees A and F wanted to extend the series to seven games. Tim knew Referees A and F to be 'company men', always acting in the interest of the NBA, and that night, it was in the NBA's interest to add another game to the series." The Lakers won Game 6, attempting 18 more free throws than the Kings in the fourth quarter, and went on to win the 2002 NBA Finals. The referees were not named, but the Western Conference Finals was the only seven-game series that year.
The document claimed that Donaghy told federal agents that in order to increase television ratings and ticket sales, "top executives of the NBA sought to manipulate games using referees". It also said that NBA officials would tell referees to not call technical fouls on certain players, and states that a referee was privately reprimanded by the league for ejecting a star player in the first quarter of a January 2000 game. Stern denied the accusations, calling Donaghy a "singing, cooperating witness".
--- End quote ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_NBA_Playoffs#.281.29_Sacramento_Kings_vs._.283.29_Los_Angeles_Lakers
- "He (Donaghy) said he won several bets in a row for putting money on the Lakers because the league was going to favor their star, Kobe Bryant."
Donaghy - "Kobe Bryant was going to be given the opprotunity to go to the line if a defender so much as breathed on him" LOL.
- Donaghy says "no secret that Dick Bavetta was the NBA's 'go-to-guy' to be put in certain games to bring a certain outcome"; around the two minute mark.
Dick Bavetta was reffing Game 6.
the facts are all there, but obviously with your Laker goggles on & the Kobe sperm on your chin, you'd defend it to the death before you admit the Lakers were handed the chance to go seven games in 2002.
i mean, eighteen MORE free throws in the last quarter? live in denial all you want, brothaman.
--- End quote ---
read what se7en said and think why your question sounds dumb.
Chamillitary Click:
^lol, of course 7even is right when he's supporting you.
you've called him a brainless, moron in 2,385 consecutive threads & NOW he's right lol.
i'm not saying that might not be true, but that's what they did for the Lakers in 2002.
i think they side with Superstars, not length of series.
Kobe & Shaq > the Kings; that's what happened in 2002.
you think David Stern wants to see Lakers/Celtics or Suns/Celtics?
a match-up with decades of history & a re-match of the Finals a few years back, with massive ratings or give Steve Nash the chance to win? lol.
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on May 29, 2010, 08:34:54 AM ---^lol, of course 7even is right when he's supporting you.
you've called him a brainless, moron in 2,385 consecutive threads & NOW he's right lol.
i'm not saying that might not be true, but that's what they did for the Lakers in 2002.
i think they side with Superstars, not length of series.
Kobe & Shaq > the Kings; that's what happened in 2002.
you think David Stern wants to see Lakers/Celtics or Suns/Celtics?
a match-up with decades of history & a re-match of the Finals a few years back, with massive ratings or give Steve Nash the chance to win? lol.
--- End quote ---
How old are you, kid? Honestly?..The fact that I disagree with 7even on most of the shit he says doesn't mean he can't be right in some instances. And i never called him a moron, I just think a lot of the shit he says is moronic, but on this occasion, dude was on the money. Now, I already told you, I'm done debating with you. You don't really make sense most of the time.
Chamillitary Click:
^dodging, much?
i mean, going into it, i didn't expect you to say, "you're right, the NBA refs fixed Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals & the Lakers really didn't deserve to win".
i think they fix games to get certain players & have certain match-ups in the Finals & you think that they extend series for money.
i'm wrong & you're right because...? you're NIK & you're a genius? your & 7even's theory could very well be true, but the fact either of you would put it past the league to favor it's favorite players is ridiculous.
Tim Donaghy said the league favored players; i remember him telling a story about Jordan being called for a travel & said "that's not a travel for me".
but OBVIOUSLY you know more than the officials involved in the scam, i should of figured that. :laugh:
why on Earth would a guy like you, the biggest homer in sports discussion history, ADMIT that his favorite team got special treatment because it had two of the leagues premier players?
if you're going to try to make a point, at least defend yourself & not use that retarded arguing tactic of yours by calling the other person "stupid" or "you know nothing" because you have nothing to say.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version