What if Stern pulls the ultimate troll move?

[kozlodoev]

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

Based on this "criterion", I'm eagerly awaiting the conspiracy theories that will sprout from Carmelo's shot selection.

Yeah, I thought so.

[fairweatherfan]

Even if Stern decides he wants the Pacers to win, what are the odds it'll actually happen?  The success rate on his many, many conspiracies seems awfully low.

On the other hand, the Pacers have shot 37 more free throws than Miami, LeBron has 2 techs and an ejection, the worst-officiated game was a Pacers must-win, the only suspension has gone to Miami...maybe the conspiracy is already happening!

[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.

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.

So because networks have have realistic projections of what happens when two small market teams meet in the Finals, the actual ratings and frequency of such an occurance doesn't matter?

You're over thinking this to the point of silliness Moranis, data/ratings matter. Its the lifeblood of the industry, ad rates, and production decisions.

And the Finals matter a ton. ABC gets 15 regular season games and then the Finals/Playoffs. Then 75 more games on ESPN + Playoffs.

The Finals are a big part of the broadcast package they pay for.

[Fafnir]

Even if Stern decides he wants the Pacers to win, what are the odds it'll actually happen?  The success rate on his many, many conspiracies seems awfully low.

On the other hand, the Pacers have shot 37 more free throws than Miami, LeBron has 2 techs and an ejection, the worst-officiated game was a Pacers must-win, the only suspension has gone to Miami...maybe the conspiracy is already happening!

There is no evidence in the world that crazy can't work into the conspiracy.

So clearly you're a Stern sockpuppet.

[fairweatherfan]

Even if Stern decides he wants the Pacers to win, what are the odds it'll actually happen?  The success rate on his many, many conspiracies seems awfully low.

On the other hand, the Pacers have shot 37 more free throws than Miami, LeBron has 2 techs and an ejection, the worst-officiated game was a Pacers must-win, the only suspension has gone to Miami...maybe the conspiracy is already happening!

There is no evidence in the world that crazy can't work into the conspiracy.

Now that I think about it, wouldn't the ultimate troll move be carefully cultivating an image as an omnipotent Machiavellian puppetmaster, causing people to waste hours and hours frothing about it on the Internet, while you just sit back, sip a nice pinot, and order more deck chairs for your retirement beach house?

So clearly you're a Stern sockpuppet.

Close, but not quite.

[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.

So because networks have have realistic projections of what happens when two small market teams meet in the Finals, the actual ratings and frequency of such an occurance doesn't matter?

You're over thinking this to the point of silliness Moranis, data/ratings matter. Its the lifeblood of the industry, ad rates, and production decisions.

And the Finals matter a ton. ABC gets 15 regular season games and then the Finals/Playoffs. Then 75 more games on ESPN + Playoffs.

The Finals are a big part of the broadcast package they pay for.

I get all that.  My point is merely that unless a Pacers/Spurs finals draws epically low it isn't going to matter.  Similarly unless the Heat/Spurs draws epically high that too isn't going to matter.  The networks, like Disney and Turner, which own the tier 1 and tier 2 rights respectively have this all accounted for in their figuring already as do Fox, NBC, CBS, and anyone else that might be interested in one of the two rights packages.  What would matter is if next year the regular season and playoff ratings take a nose dive.  A finals with two smaller markets won't affect the dollars. 

[CelticConcourse]

If the Pacers don't win, we all know who to blame: Roy Hibbert.

[badshar]

If the Pacers don't win, we all know who to blame: Roy Hibbert.

But what if refs call stupid fouls on him and get him in foul trouble? Then?

[Celtics18]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ougn3ND61r7wsbeo1_500.jpg

[tarheelsxxiii]

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.

Let's not let this comment slip by. Someone please explain how that series wasn't fixed. A rational, evidence-based explanation would blow my mind.

I'm not a Donaghy disciple either, but how on Earth could you argue refs are not strongly encouraged to pay attention to certain plays, make certain calls, etc. by those who employ them? You have to be incredibly naive to think the outcomes of some of these games are not, to an extent, affected by those in power.

[CelticConcourse]

It would be ridiculously historic and revolutionary for the Pacers to win this game.

[tarheelsxxiii]

That sucked horribly :/

[badshar]

It sure did.