What if Stern pulls the ultimate troll move?

[badshar]

Here are somethings we know and expect from tonight's game:

1. NBA favors the Heat most of the time.
2. Heat in the Finals would keep the TV Ratings intact.
3. Stern earns more money with Heat in the Finals than them not being in the Finals due to viewership.
4. Similar to above, more people want to see LeBron in the Finals than watching Hibbert.
5. Refs favor home teams
6. Due to all the reasons above, Miami will get all the calls and easily win.

Additionally, we know that the betting league has Miami winning it all, with much of their logic being the same as what was posted above...

But...

What if Stern pulls the ultimate troll move in his last NBA Finals and gets the Pacers to win?
How mad would people be and how much money would be lost in betting?

[Moranis]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

[LarBrd33]

I don't like these conspiracy theories.  If you are the type of person who accepts that Stern fixes games, then you basically are saying that we only won in 2008, because David Stern wanted a "Lakers/Celtics" Finals. 

[badshar]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

You failed to understand the point. I'm disappointed.

[badshar]

I don't like these conspiracy theories.  If you are the type of person who accepts that Stern fixes games, then you basically are saying that we only won in 2008, because David Stern wanted a "Lakers/Celtics" Finals.

Its not like those conspiracy theories are baseless. If you watched Game 6 for example, some of the calls were complete garbage.

But that is not the point of this thread.

[D.o.s.]

I don't like these conspiracy theories.  If you are the type of person who accepts that Stern fixes games, then you basically are saying that we only won in 2008, because David Stern wanted a "Lakers/Celtics" Finals.

Dude, everyone wanted a Lakers/Celtics Finals. I'd imagine Stern was beyond stoked.

That said, I don't think that there is any conspiracy that goes beyond basic business acumen and referee bias (I'm no Tim Donaghy disciple, but he made a good point in his book--that there's no real way players, refs, etc. start gambling only once they retire.) because the game contains way too many variables to control. Especially with the rise of the internet and subsequently the visibility and permanence of any sports moment worth remembering.

[Moranis]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

You failed to understand the point. I'm disappointed.

I got your point.  You believe in all sorts of weird conspiracy theories which are identified in your post as 1-6, then said how funny would it be if the pacers won.  The problem is, your 1-6 are all total rubbish and hogwash and not grounded in reality, which means that Stern has no control over the Pacers winning either.

Anyone that believes the NBA fixes games is just a little bit off especially because like you they come up with reasons that don't make sense (like dollars, when there are no dollars at stake).

[Monkhouse]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

You failed to understand the point. I'm disappointed.

I got your point.  You believe in all sorts of weird conspiracy theories which are identified in your post as 1-6, then said how funny would it be if the pacers won.  The problem is, your 1-6 are all total rubbish and hogwash and not grounded in reality, which means that Stern has no control over the Pacers winning either.

Anyone that believes the NBA fixes games is just a little bit off especially because like you they come up with reasons that don't make sense (like dollars, when there are no dollars at stake).

The Lakers and Kings have got to be one of the most disgustingly officiated series in the history of the NBA.

[Fafnir]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

Future money is at stake every Finals.

Averages of the previous deals ratings are huge factors in rights auctions.

[lightspeed5]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

Future money is at stake every Finals.

Averages of the previous deals ratings are huge factors in rights auctions.

less people will not opt out of watching next years finals  just because this year the finals would have pacers/spurs. everyone knows that big teams bring big audiences, including advertisers.

[Fafnir]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

Future money is at stake every Finals.

Averages of the previous deals ratings are huge factors in rights auctions.

less people will not opt out of watching next years finals  just because this year the finals would have pacers/spurs. everyone knows that big teams bring big audiences, including advertisers.

Everytime you get low rated Finals due to matchups just shows the probability of getting such matchups is higher.

Thus the rights are worth less money.

[badshar]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

You failed to understand the point. I'm disappointed.

I got your point.  You believe in all sorts of weird conspiracy theories which are identified in your post as 1-6, then said how funny would it be if the pacers won.  The problem is, your 1-6 are all total rubbish and hogwash and not grounded in reality, which means that Stern has no control over the Pacers winning either.

Anyone that believes the NBA fixes games is just a little bit off especially because like you they come up with reasons that don't make sense (like dollars, when there are no dollars at stake).

So home teams don't get ref bias?
So heat in the finals wouldn't attract more viewers than pacers?
So watching LeBron isn't more exciting than watching Hibbert?

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it is "garbage" and "rubbish."

[badshar]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

You failed to understand the point. I'm disappointed.

I got your point.  You believe in all sorts of weird conspiracy theories which are identified in your post as 1-6, then said how funny would it be if the pacers won.  The problem is, your 1-6 are all total rubbish and hogwash and not grounded in reality, which means that Stern has no control over the Pacers winning either.

Anyone that believes the NBA fixes games is just a little bit off especially because like you they come up with reasons that don't make sense (like dollars, when there are no dollars at stake).

The Lakers and Kings have got to be one of the most disgustingly officiated series in the history of the NBA.

[nickagneta]

The ratings definitely have an effect on future money. If bad ratings occur because of the teams involved when ABC goes to sell advertising in the future, advertisers could balk at the costs because the chances for low ratings because of small market teams or unestablished stars being in the Finals have increased and proven to ruin ratings and hence the amount of people viewing the advertising.
 
If the people who bye the advertising do not see any value because of lower ratings and do not by future advertising and the network doesn't make money on the television deal, the next deal will be significantly less.

It absolutely behooves the NBA to have the most marketable, liked and watched teams in the Finals. Now whether the NBA does things to get those teams and players into the Finals is another story, but getting marketable teams and players in the Finals for higher ratings absolutely matters.

[Moranis]

um the NBA has already signed its tv deal and thus will make the same amount of money on the finals whether they are watched by 1 billion people or 1 person.  Now sure the better the ratings the more likely the next tv deal is bigger and better but there is no direct money at stake here.

Future money is at stake every Finals.

Averages of the previous deals ratings are huge factors in rights auctions.

less people will not opt out of watching next years finals  just because this year the finals would have pacers/spurs. everyone knows that big teams bring big audiences, including advertisers.

Everytime you get low rated Finals due to matchups just shows the probability of getting such matchups is higher.

Thus the rights are worth less money.

but ABC, TNT, and the other bidders all know this.  Nothing is changed because of that.  In fact if a Pacers/Spurs series drew pretty well, it might actually increase the bids more than the Heat/Spurs even if the former draws less than the latter.  What drives the dollars in the tv bidding cycles are the ratings during the season and the playoffs on the whole, which account for teams like the Heat sure, but also teams like the Bobcats.