...against the Lakers of Los Angeles for infringement against the Generals trademarked ability to look foolish while playing basketball.
Lawyer Chet Gundleburger addressed the media early Wednesday Morning after witnessing the 39 point embarrassment handed to the "LakeShow" by last years worst team in the NBA, the Boston Celtics: "any of that look familiar? I mean, come on, jeez, guys, seriously. That was classic Globetrotter/Generals shtick! Am I the only one who noticed??"
Gundleburger points specifically to instances involving the Lakers standing around with frustrated looks on their faces; cowering while being dunked on; having no-look passes whizz by them; and getting their shorts pulled down to their ankles while at the free throw line.
NBA league officials point to the fact that Harlem Globetrotter games usually stay within at least 20 points or so.
\\\\
aww snap! Burned! You got STOLE, Lakers!
Just kidding, I don't really even hate this Lakers team. I kind of like them, even though they ousted my Spurs. I was just hoping for some competitive basketball. Seriously, 39 points? In the last game of the Finals? The Celtics really are that good. Way to go Boston.
But the game did make me contemplate one theory that's only slightly less silly than the Harlem Globetrotter comparison. You may want to stop reading here if you're tired of hearing about the reffing scandals in the NBA...
OK, still with me?
Do blowouts like this happen when refs aren't fixing the spread?? Just saying. Probably not. It's just a thought. But...If there have indeed been fixed games and fixed series, as disgraced former NBA ref Tim Donaghey claimed recently, a side-effect, as I understand it, would have been a greater tendency toward closer scores and longer series. With no guidance from the refs, is it the natural tendency for NBA Playoff games to be 20+ pt home team blowouts? That happened a lot in this year's playoffs.
Again, this theory is totally unsubstantiated, and only suggests that the Celtics demolition of the Lakers might be even more credible than it would have been in previous years.
Also, it's worth noting that this isn't the first time a best of 7 series has been finished with a blowout of similar proportion. The 1965 Championship ended in a 33-point game 5 blowout by the Boston Celtics over--you guessed it--the Los Angeles Lakers.
Even that was nothing too new. The Generals have been losing to the Globetrotters since the 20's.
www.adriennedawes.com
13 years ago
2 comments:
No doubt about it the Celtics put an old fashioned beat down on the Los Angeles Kobes to bring home their trophy. I just wish it cold have been in front of Jack Nickelson, though it was good to see Boston celebrate with their home crowd. As great as it has been seeing The Spurs bring home titles over the years, I have to admit it is a bit refreshing to watch guys who break down with overwhelming and uncontrollable joy after winning it all. And like you Jason, I don't despise this Laker's team like the one from 2000 - 2005. This year's squad didn't get to the finals by having a 400 pound man on their team the league won't call fouls on. That was a dark time for the NBA and I believe every word of Donaghy's letter.
On that note, the same thought crossed my mind about Boston's blowout. I have wondered many times before why there are not more ridiculously lop-sided scores in the NBA, and if maybe part of the officiating crew's M.O. is to keep the contest competitive so people are still watching commercials in the 4th quarter. But on the other hand I have also wondered the same thing about home court advantage. You theorized that the preponderance of home team blowouts in this year's playoffs was perhaps due to the scandal rumors turning a microscope on the referees and resulting in less manipulative officiating. But my question has always been what exactly is home court advantage? For a world-class athlete who has trained in a sport his whole life, how much difference does it really make whether or not the people watching the game are cheering for him? Is it a legitimate phenomenon? Or is it an unspoken understanding across refereeing circles that pleasing the live spectators, making them feel like they have an effect, sells more tickets and is good for the game? I played one season of 7th grade B team football and whichever stadium we were playing in never seemed to make much difference to me. Of course when there are so few people in the stands that you can hear your mom cheering for you it probably isn't quite the same thing.
So if Stern and the suits puppetmaster the whole thing and it is all about the bucks, why has one of the NBA's smallest market teams won 4 of the last 9 championships? I don't know. But sometimes something smells fishy. And what I do know is that the most exciting, engaging, joyful, heartbreaking, fast-paced, beautiful sporting event in the world is the NBA playoffs, and I hope in all this current scandal talk enough people ask the right questions to demand the actions that preserve and/or repair its integrity.
Let's get commenting! Somebody please, rip my stupid conspiracy theories apart.
Go Spurs.
T
Travis, if nothing else comes of this blog, I appreciate it just as a place for us (and Adam and Norman, so far) to shoot the shit about what's going on in the NBA. Kind of a better thought out, recorded version of what we talk about anyway.
I agree with you on this subject. I think it's become obvious that something went on with the reffing of the NBA over the previous decade or so. Maybe longer. David Stern can lean on the fact that Tim Donaghey is so discredited as a person because of this scandal, to assert that other claims by Donaghey are without basis. But I don't buy it.
As for how the Spurs have been so successful during this manipulated period, I've wondered about this too. What seems the most likely to me is that most of the 'fixing' of games occurred before the very last couple of minutes in the game; that their m.o. was to keep the game as close as possible. But when a game is that close, and there's that little time left, it gets very hard to influence it decisively without being noticed. If they were trying to fix specifically for one team, they wouldn't want it to be close at the end. In that sense I think that the Kings/Lakers series was an exception to what went on most often.
Plus I think that unless the teams are at least very closely matched, it would actually be very difficult to subtley effect the outcome. The Spurs were just not going to lose to the Knicks in '99 or to the Cavs last year.
It's kind of frustrating to think about this stuff, because, for one thing, there is just no way to know for sure. We just have to wait for more information to surface about it. But I hope it does. I think it's already been good for the game.
I think that instant replay is not far off, and that with that implemented, it will be nearly impossible to fix games without being quickly scrutinized and found out.
As for the home court advantage phenomenon, I've wondered the same thing. But I will say that when I am actually in the AT&T Center, or another really packed and noisy sporting venue, it makes more sense to me. When you see a game on TV, you're conscious of the 10 guys playing, the refs sometimes, the coaches and the bench players, and that's about it. But at the stadium, you realize that thousands and thousands of people are involved. The players are mostly 19-30 year olds, and most rely on a great deal of emotion, in their own way, to be able to do what they do at that level. You'd think they might be above the influence of the crowd at that level, but I think it's enough of a energetic factor to profoundly influence games.
OK, I'll leave it at that. Thanks for reading and discussing, T.
Post a Comment