Phil Sheridan's Conspiracy Theory

Phil Sheridan touches on the NBA's conspiracy theories that have resurfaced after Derek Fisher's foul of Brent Barry in the Lakers-Spurs series.

I'm a huge Sheridan fan, but unfortunately this column is like all too many about the league-influence on referee calls. Sheridan raises the issue under the guise of generic fan suspicions, gently touches on evidence to bolster these beliefs but then winds up defending the leagues - in this case, again the NBA - by picking apart one questionable call and by suggesting that it is unthinkable or inconceivable that a league would risk its reputation to tilt games for TV ratings (i.e., money).

Alas, Sheridan falls into the same old traps as so many others.

One, Stern does not send "encrypted messages dictating the outcome of games." No, that is too blatant. Sheridan needs to understand how these things are done in Washington. It's called "plausible deniability."

I always have to laugh at the radio half wits who complain that no "smoking gun" has ever emerged about a commissioner's complicity in influencing games. As if Stern would ever dare to put on paper (much less utter) some instructions like, "Crawford, make sure the Lakers win tonight."

No, the messages are much more subtle and deniable. Ref assignments, vague comments, etc. Those within the league, in this case the refs, get the message loud and clear. But the actual words are harmless or can be argued to be misconstrued if a ref ever tried to make it public.

Second, Sheridan writes,

"The key to a successful conspiracy is to make everything look as if it's on the level. Second, if the motive for all this is to set up a Boston-L.A. matchup to boost TV ratings, then why push the Spurs to the brink of elimination in Game 4?

I would say, precisely. Stern wants to give the appearance that everything is on the level. How easy it is to fix an early game in a series - like game 4. The series has yet to fully play out and the details of games 5 and 6 will easily displace the controversy of game 4. And isn't it preferable to fix an early game than a game 6 or 7 when everyone KNOWS the series is on the line. As it is, the NBA has tilted the series to the Lakers by giving them one game and only requiring them to win 3 of the next 6. Again, the NBA isn't blatantly "fixing" games per se, but they are tilting the playing field in favor of certain teams by certain calls being made or not made.

Interestingly, Sheridan glosses over "poor officiating" after "too many big games" but doesn't cite even one example.

Here's one: Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings 2002 conference finals (see a theme among this incidents?) By general consensus the worst officiated NBA game in the 21st century. The game in which the Kings' two centers (Divac and Pollard) both fouled out, the Lakers shot 27 free throws to the Kings 9 in the 4th quarter, and was so bad even Ralph Nader demanded an investigation at its conclusion.

Finally, Sheridan doesn't mention the elephant in the room. The rampant suspicion that the NBA and Stern fixed the 1985 draft lottery to send Patrick Ewing to the Knicks. If you want to discuss sports conspiracies, that is the incident from which the NBA has never really recovered and which has ultimately led to such deep-seated fan skepticism.

Indeed, Sheridan is wrong to conclude that the fans won't watch if it is ever proved the games are fixed. Crooked ref Tim Donaghy has already shown that. No, the real risk to the integrity of the game itself is the constant whispers - to the point they are published by respected columnists in papers like the Inquirer - that the integrity isn't real.