Are NBA games pre-determined?

[nickagneta]

Listen, there are reasons referees aren"t announced until just hours before tip off, it's because they want the betting lines to be as minimally affected by the knowledge of who is officiating the games as possible.

The stats are out there on referees and referee teams and you can believe the league has even more detailed stats on them. Those stats are a huge factor and by simply  assigning certain refs or even entire ref teams to certain games, the league knows they can nudge games into certain, possibly desired, outcomes.

Do you not think the league doesn't know before assigning refs how many fouls they call per game on average, how many fouls they call on a certain team per game, how many fouls they call on certain players per game, what the outcome of games are for that ref against certain teams, how many techs the ref calls and who every player and coach is that the ref called a tech on, how many times the ref gets calls wrong, what they get wrong, how many reviews are due to a certain ref and why, how often the refs call fouls and tech fouls on favorites vs underdogs or home teams vs away teams and so much more.

The league has the stats and I am sure they have engines and algorithms that tell them what combo of refs will push an outcome a certain way, and by how many points, depending on who is playing and where.

So IF the league wanted certain outcomes, they couldn't predetermine the outcome because Smart, Horford and White could go 15-23 from three and blow it all up or a team could just roll over and suck so much, no matter how much officiating help they get, they would lose. But, with very even teams in a playoff atmosphere, a certain set of refs could sway the game a few points in a certain direction and that could be the be the difference in  the NBA getting the outcome they desire.

So though the question wants it black and white, it's not, it's very very grey. Like I don't think the NBA runs predetermined games. But they probably do push outcomes in certain directions at certain times(mostly playoffs). Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

So I didn't vote in the poll but hopefully you can understand why. The proper answer isn't given as an option

[SCeltic34]

Not pre-determined, no.  Not in the sense that you can guarantee a winner before the game even starts.

The league however clearly has a general agenda.  A set of unspoken rules to promote viewership and also to enhance admiration and marketability of its top tier players.  Some quick examples off the top of my head (not intended to be an exhaustive list):

1) Call the game more tightly against a team with a significant lead in a nationally televised game.  Yesterday's game was the most recent example, but this is routine even in the regular season.  Remember that most viewers are casual fans, not a bunch of lunatics like the posters here on CelticsStrong (I mean that in a good way).  The league doesn't want people losing interest and tuning out at halftime.  The league also doesn't want a finals series over in 4 or 5 games.  Lots of lost revenue.  That's just common business sense.
2) Star treatment.  Giannis can take 4 steps on his way to the basket without a travelling call.  LeBron is routinely allowed to use forearm shivers to clear space on his way to the basket.  Breathe on James Harden and it's a foul.  It's supposed to be the same set of rules across the board - why do star players get calls/non-calls that average players do not?  It's because of the league agenda above.
3) Addendum to #2 - officials know to do their best NOT to give star players their 6th foul or 2nd technical foul.  Javie admitted this yesterday.  I guess you can call it "situational officiating".  Because you know, the rules are rules - until they aren't.
4) Rookie treatment.  Opposite of #2.
5) Past evidence of extremely questionable officiating.  19 free throws in the 2nd quarter in game 7 for the Heat just a week ago.  21 free throws for the Lakers in the 4th quarter in game 7 of the 2010 Finals.  Game 7 Lakers vs Kings (self explanatory).
6) Tim Donoghy.  I'm not saying all NBA officials are crooked, but trust should be in short supply. 

I don't watch games that the Celtics are not involved in.  If I wasn't a Celtics fan I wouldn't watch the NBA at all.  It's product is terrible.  For example, every game Zach Zarba has been involved in this postseason has been unentertaining - downright close to unwatchable even.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Predetermined no but they absolutely control the flow.  Team A is about to blow out team B.  The NBA doesn't want that to happen so call a few fouls.  Stop the momentum and change the flow.  The refs in the NBA hold more power over any other sport.  It's sickening how much they control.

So you believe that someone communicates with the refs through a text message at halftime? Pager? Some other device that we're unaware of?

"Start calling more fouls". The ref calls the fouls, and this works?

I just don't buy that a) that happened last night and b) such an occurrence is 100% successful. What if, by an act of God, a team overcomes the NBA's wish to lose and hits shots. For instance, many were claiming that the refs were rigging games in the BKN series, even though we won four straight. Wouldn't this upset an omnipotent Silver?

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Listen, there are reasons referees aren"t announced until just hours before tip off, it's because they want the betting lines to be as minimally affected by the knowledge of who is officiating the games as possible.

The stats are out there on referees and referee teams and you can believe the league has even more detailed stats on them. Those stats are a huge factor and by simply  assigning certain refs or even entire ref teams to certain games, the league knows they can nudge games into certain, possibly desired, outcomes.

Do you not think the league doesn't know before assigning refs how many fouls they call per game on average, how many fouls they call on a certain team per game, how many fouls they call on certain players per game, what the outcome of games are for that ref against certain teams, how many techs the ref calls and who every player and coach is that the ref called a tech on, how many times the ref gets calls wrong, what they get wrong, how many reviews are due to a certain ref and why, how often the refs call fouls and tech fouls on favorites vs underdogs or home teams vs away teams and so much more.

The league has the stats and I am sure they have engines and algorithms that tell them what combo of refs will push an outcome a certain way, and by how many points, depending on who is playing and where.

So IF the league wanted certain outcomes, they couldn't predetermine the outcome because Smart, Horford and White could go 15-23 from three and blow it all up or a team could just roll over and suck so much, no matter how much officiating help they get, they would lose. But, with very even teams in a playoff atmosphere, a certain set of refs could sway the game a few points in a certain direction and that could be the be the difference in  the NBA getting the outcome they desire.

So though the question wants it black and white, it's not, it's very very grey. Like I don't think the NBA runs predetermined games. But they probably do push outcomes in certain directions at certain times(mostly playoffs). Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

So I didn't vote in the poll but hopefully you can understand why. The proper answer isn't given as an option

TP for a thoughtful response.

I've seen a lot of posts saying that the NBA is rigged. I asked if the NBA is rigged, and some of the same people are saying "well, it's not rigged, just lightly nudged in a particular direction."

I purposefully asked a pointed question. Is this a fair competition, or are we watching a fictional puppet show? To that end, I think a yes/no answer is appropriate.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Not pre-determined, no.  Not in the sense that you can guarantee a winner before the game even starts.

The league however clearly has a general agenda.  A set of unspoken rules to promote viewership and also to enhance admiration and marketability of its top tier players.  Some quick examples off the top of my head (not intended to be an exhaustive list):

1) Call the game more tightly against a team with a significant lead in a nationally televised game.  Yesterday's game was the most recent example, but this is routine even in the regular season.  Remember that most viewers are casual fans, not a bunch of lunatics like the posters here on CelticsStrong (I mean that in a good way).  The league doesn't want people losing interest and tuning out at halftime.  The league also doesn't want a finals series over in 4 or 5 games.  Lots of lost revenue.  That's just common business sense.
2) Star treatment.  Giannis can take 4 steps on his way to the basket without a travelling call.  LeBron is routinely allowed to use forearm shivers to clear space on his way to the basket.  Breathe on James Harden and it's a foul.  It's supposed to be the same set of rules across the board - why do star players get calls/non-calls that average players do not?  It's because of the league agenda above.
3) Addendum to #2 - officials know to do their best NOT to give star players their 6th foul or 2nd technical foul.  Javie admitted this yesterday.  I guess you can call it "situational officiating".  Because you know, the rules are rules - until they aren't.
4) Rookie treatment.  Opposite of #2.
5) Past evidence of extremely questionable officiating.  19 free throws in the 2nd quarter in game 7 for the Heat just a week ago.  21 free throws for the Lakers in the 4th quarter in game 7 of the 2010 Finals.  Game 7 Lakers vs Kings (self explanatory).
6) Tim Donoghy.  I'm not saying all NBA officials are crooked, but trust should be in short supply. 

I don't watch games that the Celtics are not involved in.  If I wasn't a Celtics fan I wouldn't watch the NBA at all.  It's product is terrible.  For example, every game Zach Zarba has been involved in this postseason has been unentertaining - downright close to unwatchable even.

I couldn't disagree more. I find the NBA very entertaining. If I thought it was fake, I would be right there with you.

[flybono]

There are how many referees 50 60 guys and girls ?

I have an idea, put all their names in a hat and pick at random!
Enough of the same guys working these games

[G-Bones]

Not pre-determined, no.  Not in the sense that you can guarantee a winner before the game even starts.

The league however clearly has a general agenda.  A set of unspoken rules to promote viewership and also to enhance admiration and marketability of its top tier players.  Some quick examples off the top of my head (not intended to be an exhaustive list):

1) Call the game more tightly against a team with a significant lead in a nationally televised game.  Yesterday's game was the most recent example, but this is routine even in the regular season.  Remember that most viewers are casual fans, not a bunch of lunatics like the posters here on CelticsStrong (I mean that in a good way).  The league doesn't want people losing interest and tuning out at halftime.  The league also doesn't want a finals series over in 4 or 5 games.  Lots of lost revenue.  That's just common business sense.
2) Star treatment.  Giannis can take 4 steps on his way to the basket without a travelling call.  LeBron is routinely allowed to use forearm shivers to clear space on his way to the basket.  Breathe on James Harden and it's a foul.  It's supposed to be the same set of rules across the board - why do star players get calls/non-calls that average players do not?  It's because of the league agenda above.
3) Addendum to #2 - officials know to do their best NOT to give star players their 6th foul or 2nd technical foul.  Javie admitted this yesterday.  I guess you can call it "situational officiating".  Because you know, the rules are rules - until they aren't.
4) Rookie treatment.  Opposite of #2.
5) Past evidence of extremely questionable officiating.  19 free throws in the 2nd quarter in game 7 for the Heat just a week ago.  21 free throws for the Lakers in the 4th quarter in game 7 of the 2010 Finals.  Game 7 Lakers vs Kings (self explanatory).
6) Tim Donoghy.  I'm not saying all NBA officials are crooked, but trust should be in short supply. 

I don't watch games that the Celtics are not involved in.  If I wasn't a Celtics fan I wouldn't watch the NBA at all.  It's product is terrible.  For example, every game Zach Zarba has been involved in this postseason has been unentertaining - downright close to unwatchable even.

Agree!  100%. This product the nba is pushing is terrible.  Green talking about his preferential treatment is so telling.  Trash product.

[jambr380]

I remember seeing an interview with Donaghy where he talked about how they had team/ref meetings before each game and they were instructed on what things they should focus for that particular night. I realize Donaghy isn't necessarily the most credible source, but I found this part of what he had to say interesting since it falls more into that gray area (ie, what Javie had to say).

It certainly isn't 'fixing' games, but it can certainly sway things one direction or the other. In the game last night, it seemed clear that the Cs had a much shorter leash than the Warriors to start off the game. If you remember, the Cs got off to a really hot start and a 9 point lead. That was reined in pretty quickly and we saw the FT show from the Warriors the rest of the way.

But I do agree that the Cs blew it themselves and let their focus get away in the 2nd half. Luckily I don't think we'll see as many phantom fouls in the 1st quarter next game and I doubt Draymond will get away with murder in the same way we just saw in game 2.

[angryguy77]

Silver isn't calling ime or Kerr to tell their guys to take a dive. However I absolutely believe they do what they can to influence games to get a desired result.

Deploy certain refs to call the game tight or loose to mess the flow of the game.

Look at the differences in the various refs and how they call the game. They all get the same training and you shouldn't have cases of teams having an outstanding w/l % with certain refs. One can only conclude there's something more at play than just a difference in ability.


Nba is aware of the accusations and they do nothing about it. Is it necessary to have a different ref crew every game? Why not keep the same crew for consistency sake? Just a thought. Something tells me having different refs give them cover when games are called different. How do you explain the differences in gm1 and gm2?

Remember this is the same league thay allowed Crawford who had a personal beef with pop to continue reffing spurs games. The dude showed he allowed his emotions get the best of him and still was allowed to ref for years after.

At worst the NBA is dirty, at best it's just incompetent.  In the end, the results are the same, a diminished product and loss of integrity.

We should all be mad the league is robbing us of completely enjoying this ride.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

I feel like a lot of conspiracy theories try to target a motive/reason, and fill in the gaps to achieve a particular end.

Motive: the NBA wants to make money.
Solution: fix NBA games and create artificial results to maximize money

"While all of us can be prone to seeing illusory patterns (such as a face in the clouds), a study led by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam showed that this tendency is heightened among believers in conspiracy theories. This means they are likely to see apparent connections between disparate events that the rest of us just don’t notice."

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/conspiracy-theories-belief/

[SCeltic34]

Not pre-determined, no.  Not in the sense that you can guarantee a winner before the game even starts.

The league however clearly has a general agenda.  A set of unspoken rules to promote viewership and also to enhance admiration and marketability of its top tier players.  Some quick examples off the top of my head (not intended to be an exhaustive list):

1) Call the game more tightly against a team with a significant lead in a nationally televised game.  Yesterday's game was the most recent example, but this is routine even in the regular season.  Remember that most viewers are casual fans, not a bunch of lunatics like the posters here on CelticsStrong (I mean that in a good way).  The league doesn't want people losing interest and tuning out at halftime.  The league also doesn't want a finals series over in 4 or 5 games.  Lots of lost revenue.  That's just common business sense.
2) Star treatment.  Giannis can take 4 steps on his way to the basket without a travelling call.  LeBron is routinely allowed to use forearm shivers to clear space on his way to the basket.  Breathe on James Harden and it's a foul.  It's supposed to be the same set of rules across the board - why do star players get calls/non-calls that average players do not?  It's because of the league agenda above.
3) Addendum to #2 - officials know to do their best NOT to give star players their 6th foul or 2nd technical foul.  Javie admitted this yesterday.  I guess you can call it "situational officiating".  Because you know, the rules are rules - until they aren't.
4) Rookie treatment.  Opposite of #2.
5) Past evidence of extremely questionable officiating.  19 free throws in the 2nd quarter in game 7 for the Heat just a week ago.  21 free throws for the Lakers in the 4th quarter in game 7 of the 2010 Finals.  Game 7 Lakers vs Kings (self explanatory).
6) Tim Donoghy.  I'm not saying all NBA officials are crooked, but trust should be in short supply. 

I don't watch games that the Celtics are not involved in.  If I wasn't a Celtics fan I wouldn't watch the NBA at all.  It's product is terrible.  For example, every game Zach Zarba has been involved in this postseason has been unentertaining - downright close to unwatchable even.

I couldn't disagree more. I find the NBA very entertaining. If I thought it was fake, I would be right there with you.

To each their own.  I'm not surprised that people would disagree with my take on the quality of the NBA's product, but is there anything else that I wrote that you'd refute?  I'd imagine most of us agree on "star treatment" for example.  Also, I see some typos, but I don't think I used the word "fake" anywhere in my post. 

The NBA could showcase a fantastic product if the officiating was consistent.  But the consistency just isn't there.  I don't enjoy watching certain star players end up with more free throw attempts than the entire opposing team. 

[angryguy77]

I feel like a lot of conspiracy theories try to target a motive/reason, and fill in the gaps to achieve a particular end.

Motive: the NBA wants to make money.
Solution: fix NBA games and create artificial results to maximize money

"While all of us can be prone to seeing illusory patterns (such as a face in the clouds), a study led by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam showed that this tendency is heightened among believers in conspiracy theories. This means they are likely to see apparent connections between disparate events that the rest of us just don’t notice."

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/conspiracy-theories-belief/

Proof is in the pudding. I showed several clips today and I think it was you that said it's too small a sample size. Not sure how much you would need to see honestly.

These were not 50/50 calls or events happening in the middle of several bodies obstructing their view. They were out in the open and they allowed it to happen.  Now the question is why?

Take the Poole trip of white. No one in their right mind buys thay explanation of why they didn't call a T. Human instinct to protect oneself is not to open their arms and pull on the shorts of white,  but to cover themselves if they sense contact.

You have to admit there are some games that are just reffed terribly.  Why are there no suspensions or firings of refs who don't meet a standard of excellence?

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

I don’t think NBA games are pre-determined.  I do think that the NBA has a pretty good idea how certain refs impact games and assigns the refs accordingly to attempt to keep series close for ratings.

we have seen it dating back to 2002.

What Donaghy did was tip off an old friend about who he believed was the odds-on favorite to win the game based on league mandates about fouls and other violations that would be cracked down upon regarding certain teams and players. It was a success, as Donaghy’s predictions gave the benefactors of his information an 88% success rate

https://www.sportscasting.com/almost-all-nba-referees-do-this-according-to-tim-donaghy/

[Goldstar88]

I feel like a lot of conspiracy theories try to target a motive/reason, and fill in the gaps to achieve a particular end.

Motive: the NBA wants to make money.
Solution: fix NBA games and create artificial results to maximize money

"While all of us can be prone to seeing illusory patterns (such as a face in the clouds), a study led by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam showed that this tendency is heightened among believers in conspiracy theories. This means they are likely to see apparent connections between disparate events that the rest of us just don’t notice."

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/conspiracy-theories-belief/

They do want to maximize profit and have longer series, but I don’t see how it can be an artificial result when the best team wins the series every time. Where’s Lebron? Shouldn’t the league have fixed the games so that the most popular NBA player on the planet is at least in the playoffs?

[Kuberski33]

Not pre-determined, no.  Not in the sense that you can guarantee a winner before the game even starts.

The league however clearly has a general agenda.  A set of unspoken rules to promote viewership and also to enhance admiration and marketability of its top tier players.  Some quick examples off the top of my head (not intended to be an exhaustive list):

1) Call the game more tightly against a team with a significant lead in a nationally televised game.  Yesterday's game was the most recent example, but this is routine even in the regular season.  Remember that most viewers are casual fans, not a bunch of lunatics like the posters here on CelticsStrong (I mean that in a good way).  The league doesn't want people losing interest and tuning out at halftime.  The league also doesn't want a finals series over in 4 or 5 games.  Lots of lost revenue.  That's just common business sense.
2) Star treatment.  Giannis can take 4 steps on his way to the basket without a travelling call.  LeBron is routinely allowed to use forearm shivers to clear space on his way to the basket.  Breathe on James Harden and it's a foul.  It's supposed to be the same set of rules across the board - why do star players get calls/non-calls that average players do not?  It's because of the league agenda above.
3) Addendum to #2 - officials know to do their best NOT to give star players their 6th foul or 2nd technical foul.  Javie admitted this yesterday.  I guess you can call it "situational officiating".  Because you know, the rules are rules - until they aren't.
4) Rookie treatment.  Opposite of #2.
5) Past evidence of extremely questionable officiating.  19 free throws in the 2nd quarter in game 7 for the Heat just a week ago.  21 free throws for the Lakers in the 4th quarter in game 7 of the 2010 Finals.  Game 7 Lakers vs Kings (self explanatory).
6) Tim Donoghy.  I'm not saying all NBA officials are crooked, but trust should be in short supply. 

I don't watch games that the Celtics are not involved in.  If I wasn't a Celtics fan I wouldn't watch the NBA at all.  It's product is terrible.  For example, every game Zach Zarba has been involved in this postseason has been unentertaining - downright close to unwatchable even.

This post is accurate.