Ten Years Later: NBA's Greatest Shame

Unbeknownst to many, in two days the NBA will mark a particularly embarrassing anniversary for the league.  On April 31, 2002, the Lakers and Kings played the worst-officiated game the NBA has ever seen.  Rarely does one game rest in the dubious annals of officiating fame, mainly because very few officials make bad calls throughout the entirety of one game.  Many think of the Tuck Rule Game or the Gold Medal basketball game in 1972 when we consider egregiously officiated games in sports.

But, Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals best illustrates the pinnacle of officiating decadence.  Make no mistake, that year the Lakers played very well, but the Sacramento Kings had the Lakers dead to rights, up 3-2 going to Staples Center.  That team boasted Chris Webber, Doug Christie, Mike Bibby, Scott Pollard, Vlade Divac, and others at the peak of their powers.  Games 4 and 5 both came down to the buzzer and yet the Kings, chiefs of small market success at the time, looked poised to advance to the Finals and finish the Laker juggernaut seeking a threepeat.

What ensued can be indignantly yet righteously certified as ridiculous, terrible, egregious, stupid, and heartbreaking.  Over the course of the game, questionable calls by referees Dick Bavetta, Tim Donaghy, and Bob Delaney permeated from the first whistle to the last.  Bavetta and Delaney were well-tenured, well respected refs at the time, but the crew’s calls, particularly in the fourth quarter, defy the imagination.  The Lakers attempted 27 foul shots in the fourth quarter to the 9 of the Kings (even fans not from Boston can complain about that), many of those by Lakers center Shaquille O’Neal.  The Kings big men dealt with foul trouble from the get go, with Divac and Scott Pollard both fouling out with six (Pollard fouled out in ten minutes of game-time), many of those fouls on Shaq despite his own dubious three step post moves.  At the end of the game, with the Lakers leading by one Kobe Bryant elbowed Mike Bibby in the face trying to reach a loose ball, only to have the foul called on Doug Christie, with the resulting foul shots icing the game for Los Angeles.  The Kings lost the game by four points, even with that many calls against them.  You may say, “what about Game 7?” but that does not mean their title chances, on the verge of fruition, weren’t blocked by the officials.

In the ten years since the 2002 game, the NBA has not changed all that much in officiating.  Most fans who watch might enjoy the stars and the talent, but almost everyone can agree the officiating in the NBA is trash, in everything from foul calls to traveling violations.  As I wrote a few months ago, the NBA has greater talent but the college game continues to project basketball that’s more by the book on the court.  Bad foul calls happen all over, of course, but the kind of spotty, ambiguous, and unjustified technical fouls during last night’s Heat-Celtics matchup rarely happen in college.  And, who’s surprised the Heat, who bring the NBA tons of attention, received those calls in a critical Game 1?  I’m not. 

Watch the montage from the Kings-Lakers game ten years ago…those are harsh calls, all in favor of the big-market team destined to give the NBA more audience revenue.  I am not going to allege anything, but I will make clear my insinuation.  Officials in basketball blow their whistles more than any other referees in sports and, unlike other sports, the calls in basketball often translate directly to points.  Given the NBA’s huge desire for revenue, I do think it possible refs in the NBA know they can be a huge factor in a game and, often, might use that power.  Is that cynical?  Absolutely, but Dick Bavetta had clear looks at three of the worst calls he made in the Game 6 and still made them, all in favor of the Lakers.

Unfortunately, that’s a tough insinuation to prove.  The only man to allege this, former NBA ref Tim Donaghy from the ill-fated game, is a convicted felon currently serving jail time related to illegal bets he made on NBA games.  An excerpt from his book details the alleged conversation before the game, in which Dick Bavetta as elder statesman made comments that the game should go to the Lakers for a much-hyped Game 7.  Sure, Donaghy’s a felon, but he also served time as ref and made tons of money off his knowledge about how games were officiated.  No offense, but I think he might know more about that than David Stern.  And even if he’s incorrect, considering how many times NBA refs call fouls and the subjective nature of those calls, rational thought tells us something like that could happen.  The calls against Boston last night, especially the technicals, had very little basis and should not be called in a conference final.  Jeff Van Gundy hit it right on the head: doesn’t matter what level, at least three of those calls should not be made at any point.

If you think I like railing against the NBA and this whole piece displays more bias than fact, you may be right.  I’m very short on numbers in here, undoubtedly.  But, watch an NBA game sometime, and the eye test almost always proves one thought: a foul as stated in the rules occurs on almost every single NBA possession.  The calling of fouls truly affects how the game will end, since free throws are free for a reason and directly translate to points.  In such a case, the NBA needs to figure out how to officiate games properly, or at the very least to recruit refs who will no longer make questionable calls to benefit star players or teams.  Because, before too long, if the NBA recruits those kinds of refs the college game will do the same (watch the last six minutes of Cuse-UNC Asheville in the NCAA Tournament this year to see an example of what could happen).  It does not bode well that a guy who worked for years in that world can provide explicit anecdotes alleging the NBA uses refs as pawns to reach certain outcomes.

Again, I cannot allege anything, but I know dozens who share this opinion: the NBA calls so many fouls that not only is the game slowed but the very integrity of how the league is called comes into question.  Yes, there has not been a game as poorly officiated since 2002, but games like Game 7 in 2010 (large foul shot disparity again for the Lakers against the Celtics) do create the impression that NBA refs might not be as unbiased as you might think.  I believe in the eye test, and that leads me to believe that insinuation might be more than just rumor.

Bit #1: The Giants should not hire Barry Bonds

Home run king* Barry Bonds announced on Tuesday that he would like to return to the San Francisco Giants in some capacity, mentioning the aqueous term “instructor” when asked what position he’d want.  While Bonds receives an amazing amount of applause in San Fran to this day, his attempts to get a job ring very, very hollow.

In a statement, Bonds addressed his ridiculous immature behavior as a player as qualification for a future job, but not in the way you’d expect.  In his words, “I created that guy out there for entertainment only” Bonds forgets crucial details of his own life story (a side-effect of something, I just can’t tell what).  Barry Bonds may have filled AT&T Park, but he also alienated members of the media and, most importantly, teammates.  This guy would consistently harangue media members for no reason, creating rifts in the clubhouse.  The best comparions to present-day Bonds, Mark McGwire, never acted with such immaturity and remained beloved by his fellow players.  The taint of steroids does not disqualify Bonds, what precludes him is his behavior, totally churlish in nature.  San Francisco would make a “Orlando hires Shaq” size mistake giving him a job.

Bit #2: Ridiculous suspension in Miami

Last year, Marlins pitcher Leo Nunez was found to be living not just a charmed life as a pro ball player, but a fake one as well.  Truly named Juan Carlos Oviedo, the Dominican pitcher was forced to return back to the Dominican Republic to re-apply for an American visa.  The Marlins, well aware of his situation, gave him a 1-year, $6 million contract before this season.

Clearly MLB and Miami aren’t communicating very well, because baseball suspended Oviedo for 8 weeks on Tuesday.  Eight whole weeks for something Hollywood actors do 75% of the time.  In addition, Oviedo did not “steal” an identity and, even then, his employer not only knew about the fraud but rewarded him for excellent performance on the field.  I wonder then if it’s baseball’s business to step in when the Marlins clearly did their due diligence and gave Oviedo some incentive to come back.  Also, is there a precedent for an 8 week suspension?

The suspension reeks of politics to me.  Baseball thrives in the Americas and clearly wants no player to take liberties with his age to play in the U.S.  I’d say this kind of suspension, excessive and somewhat unfounded, has an agenda behind it.  Oviedo certainly did wrong, but 8 weeks’ worth?

Bit #3: Further proof character should not be disregarded at draft time

Lions defensive tackle Nick Fairley found himself in police custody over the long weekend for a slew of “moving violations.”  Police clocked Fairley at 100 mph and, upon giving chase, found him resistant enough to charge him with evading arrest.  Needless to say, Fairley did not have proof of insurance (you need that kids).  Also, he was drunk.

The most recent in a spate of offseason arrests for Detroit Lions players continues to prove that character matters on draft day.  Fairley, a standout at Auburn, had top-5 talent in the 2011 NFL Draft, but dropped in most rankings because teams expressed concern over his character.  Truthfully, he’s lucky to not kill someone driving that fast while drunk, but will likely feel the weight of Roger Goodell on his paycheck at some point this year.  The Lions also should take some action, since Fairley and wide receiver Titus Young both received citations this offseason.  Add in the precarious status of Ndamukong Suh in the NFL headquarters, and the Lions have some image control to undertake.  Obviously we can’t speak for that locker room, but I’d say the whole team needs a stern discussion to understand such actions will hurt the team in the form of fines and suspensions.

Bit #4: Some things never, ever change

On Tuesday, the Allen Wranglers, an indoor football team of the IFL, released former NFL wide receiver Terrell Owens.  In a statement by their owner, the Wranglers admitted Owens “could no longer be tolerated by our organization.”  And this guy wonders why no NFL teams came to his televised workout before last season?

Regardless of his talent which continues to be extensive, Owens remains a cancer in the locker room, seemingly incapable of unselfish behavior regardless of the team he plays for.  The Wranglers gave Owens an ownership stake in the team and a six-figure salary, a fortune in the Indoor Football League.  Still, Owens did not show up for a visit to a children’s hospital, sparking the decision to jettison him from town.

Don’t get me wrong, Owens plays well, but no team in the NFL should add this guy to their roster, period.  His tenure with the Bengals impressed many, but if the team loved him so much they would have re-upped his contract.  Unlike his times in San Fran, Philly, and Dallas, we did not hear horror stories from Cincinnati’s locker room, but the hesitation to pay Owens belies that he has no place in the league.  Happy trails, T.O.

Bit #5: For some reason, Serena’s exit does not inspire sympathy

I gave up liking Serena Williams a long time ago.  In the awful state of American tennis, the Williams sisters capture American attention on the court.  At the same time, Serena has always played with a major chip on her shoulder, chirping at media members, often refusing to congratulate or acknowledge opponents after losses, and, occasionally, threatening to kill line judges.

For that reason, Williams’ loss to the 111^th ranked player in the world, Virginie Razzano, on Tuesday at the French Open does not strike me in any way as bad or gutwrenching.  Serena Williams did almost die last year with an embolism, but her attitude every year contradicts, often grossly, the sportsmanship encouraged and traditional in tennis.  Add in Razzano’s loss of her husband last year, and I’d say this match ended up properly.

Throw the Dice: Be Careful of Sports Gambling

On Thursday, New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie announced that his state government would move towards allowing patrons in casinos and race tracks to legally bet on the outcome of sporting events, including baseball, basketball, horse races, football, etc.  You name the sport, and you will be able to bet on it in New Jersey starting this fall.  Needless to say, casino operators have kicked their feet on top of their desk in the corner office with a bottle of Scotch to celebrate.

Gambling in sports always ruffles feathers.  Plenty of folks might make bets with their buddies, but fans in general don’t bet heavily on sports because, by and large, such activity is illegal.  In only four states; Montana, Nevada, Delaware, and Oregon, can you gamble on sports.  New Jersey, like all other states, could have passed sports gambling tolerance laws in 1991 to meet a federally-stipulated deadline, but did not do so.  And yet, estimates put the sports gambling business, legal or otherwise, close to half a million dollars every year.  In the 1990s, a study found it to be around $380 million, so the “industry” certainly continues to grow.

But sporting leagues have never cast a sympathetic eye towards gambling in any sense.  Not only did sports teams lobby against widespread legalization of sports gambling in the early 90s, but players who gamble receive the harshest possible penalties.  In 1963, Paul Hornung a Hesiman winner and NFL MVP, gambled on football games.  Amazingly, few people remember this, but the NFL immediately suspended him indefinitely before Hornung fully admitted to every accusation and missed only one season. For Pete Rose, however, the all-time hits leader of baseball, rejected accusations he gambled on baseball games while managing the Cincinnati Reds, but voluntarily accepted a lifetime ban from baseball (and consequently the Hall of Fame) to avoid further angst.

The speech announcing Rose’s ban best encapsulates the main argument against gambling; the purity of the game must be preserved.  Then-commissioner Bartlett Giamatti said, “One of the game’s greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which has stained the game.”  Stained the game.  What does that mean?  Granted those who participate in sports should not be allowed to gamble (Black Sox scandal anyone?) mainly because that would affect their effort for a fairly insidious reason.  But, the question remains: can fans “stain” the game and affect its purity?

Without a doubt, fans can stain any sport.  The events last year at Dodger Stadium and the cowardly, brutal beating of Dodgers fan Bryan Stow by Giants fans (since caught and charged) which left him in a coma suggest that sports creates not just positive emotions, but malignant ones as well.  The Pistons fan who created the Brawl at the Palace in 2004 sparked the most disgraceful episode in NBA history, all by tossing a beer.  The reaction of the Pistons fans that night added to the embarrassment.  Such incidents aren’t the norm, but they prove that fans can at points do more to dirty the game’s image than the players themselves.

Beatings and fights, however, do not equate to gambling.  If sports teams want to claim the purity of the game is compromised when people bet outside money on their play, why aren’t the obscene prices of concessions at sporting events any less ridiculous?  Obviously, I go to a game to watch my team play, but when I can’t bring in my own food and must pay $5 for a three inch hot dog, I feel I could sit at home and maybe make the $5 into $10 or $15.  Be honest with yourself: of all privately-held enterprises, very few have the benefits of sports teams.  Not only anti-trust protection, but other special protections: for the NFL as an example, the ability to draw fans to games or otherwise black them out on local channels.  Throw in concessions and TV revenue, and I have to wonder if sports teams don't want gambling because they can’t stand someone besides themselves making money in sports.

That might be cynical, but every time you buy a $7 bag of peanuts ask yourself where the money goes…fans are gouged every time they attend a game.  Gambling, at the very least, allows someone to say, “instead of spending $50 on a ticket, I’ll put that on the team to win and watch the game on TV.”  Maybe the fan loses the $50, maybe they gain $25, but at the very least they lose the game atmosphere, with the sun, sweat, paunches, guts, and beer bellies that come with it.  Strikes me as a decent trade (best seat in the house is usually your TV anyway) but there are some backdrops that would require regulating the size of individual bets.

A major one: gambling pervades most things it touches.  If people start gambling a lot, kingpins arise and begin to influence the actual sports, promising pay-outs to individual players.  If you’ve seen The Sting or even The Replacements, you know someone in the sporting world (be it the media, official scorer, or athletes) would eventually find themselves a way to a dishonorable payoff.  And, if the idea supporting gambling is to provide a little more equity to the fan, the presence of kingpins and gambling czars defeats the point.

So, I’d suggest a few rules to enable gambling but also to decrease the chances of gambling czars.  First, eliminate online sports gambling.  Not only are those connections likely insecure but it’s much harder to enforce limits on bets through the Web.  Many of these measures are enacted now, so that would not change the status quo.  Second, require a driver’s license at a casino or track to make bets.  And, lastly, bets cannot exceed $1000.

Those ideas sound really pathetic to some of you, but the only way to keep gambling from truly staining the game is to keep it away from the playing field.  To do that, limits on bets must be small enough to not present a real incentive to millionaire players who might want to throw games for more money.  Unlimited gambling would (and did in the 1910s) create a culture that would stain any sport, and should not be supported because it would directly change the level of play in some cases.

All that said, most teams have their followers now and I don’t think gambling would change the deep-rooted support for one team or another.  Those folks will still come to games and watch on TV.  But, uncontrolled gambling, the kind New Jersey wants to create, would in turn engender malicious consequences that directly contradict the romanticism and appeal of sports.  In a generation or so, it’s not hard to imagine fans refusing to support one team or another and instead choosing to “play the market” and bet their way through the sports landscape.  Add in the possibility for powerful controlling interests and the compulsive nature of gambling for many, and sports gambling could really change how folks view sports.  Instead of identifying with your hometown team, you identify with those who make you money, potentially lots of it.  I don’t think anyone wants that.

Bit #1: Rangers-Devils very different from 1994

Rangers fans are quick to tell everyone who will listen that they’ve been down 3-2 before on New Jersey’s ice and passed the test.  With a trip to the Finals on the line, the Rangers defeated the Devils in 1994 on a Mark Messier natural hat trick (a hat trick that occurs on three consecutive goals in one period), one of the times a player has willed his team to victory and taken them there.

This series, however, looks very different from the 1994 days.  Not only are the Rangers endowed with a better goaltender, but the Rangers have no personality like a Messier, full of talent and veteran savvy begging them to move on in the playoffs.  Amazingly, Devils goalie Martin Brodeur played in that series 18 years ago as young ‘un and while he admits 1994 haunted him for a long time, the man has won three Cups since then.  In what will likely be his final season, Brodeur played his best in the playoffs this year.  The oldest Ranger, Martin Biron, was 17 when Messier won the game for the Rangers.

Admittedly, New York’s hockey scene has died since that day.  No real excitement until now, with the Rangers clawing towards the Stanley Cup final but needing three 7-game series to do it.  This team’s victory would revitalize a lagging fan base, but the same could be said of the Devils who now have New Jersey to themselves after the Nets leave this summer for the city.  Lots on the line in this series and well worth your attention.

Bit #2: Soccer will take over the summer yet again

Last summer the U.S. women captured headlines by gaining the World Cup Final.  This summer, soccer will again dominate a month of your lives with the European Championships.  On June 8^th, Greece and Poland begin the competition in Warsaw and for two weeks we will be regaled with the best players in the world doing their thing.

Some things to keep in mind ahead of time: Group B will be the most entertaining by far.  Defending champs Germany, World Cup finalists the Netherlands, and perennially dangerous Portugal all play in Group B and only two of them can advance.  I bet on Germany and Portugal, but these will be worthwhile matches to DVR. 

Spain’s David Villa, their primary striker, will not play in this tournament so look for them to experience some issues as they navigate the competition.  Their groupmates Italy, however, are currently part of a youth movement to replace old (not aging) players.  While both teams will be powerful, I would not expect either to win at this point.

Bit #3: How much longer do the Celtics have?

In the former Soviet bloc, governments began three-year plans, in effect centrally planned economic efforts that, almost halfway through, were revised in favor of a new three year plan, since almost all of them failed.

Not to liken GM Danny Ainge to a Communist dictator, but the Celtics are in Year 5 of their initial 3-Year plan.  Celtics fans should thank Rajon Rondo for emerging like he has, because without him I bet the Celtics wouldn’t have made the conference championships last year.  Ray Allen has come close to being a bench player a few times this season not to mention almost being dealt at the trade deadline.  Garnett has played well in this year’s playoffs, but is by no means a sure thing to come back next year.  Both he and Allen are free agents and while Paul Pierce remains under contract next season his window for more titles is tightening very fast.

If the Celtics win Game 7 tomorrow, we will see the Big Three again.  But if they lose, this trio which has done so much to reverse the fortunes in Boston will be broken up, whether by retirement, free agency, or trades.  Enjoy it while it lasts, Boston.

NBA: Star-Struck at the Expense of Coaching

Every professional athlete bears and often suffers the yoke of a coach.  Coaches, similarly, make their living teaching someone else how to better execute in the game environment.  Sometimes, that responsibility can grow; many players cite their coaches as role models, surrogate parents, and sometimes non-legal guardians in whom all trust can be placed.  In most sports, coaches receive the benefit of the doubt and can stake a claim to the high ground of wisdom and knowledge.  As in the case of Bobby Petrino, some coaches abuse that pedestal, not understanding their special place in the hearts of younger men and women.  Still, rarely have players received the emphasis and the higher ground, until the last few years in the NBA.

On Tuesday, the Orlando Magic announced coach Stan Van Gundy would not return to the team.  Despite statements to the contrary, I find it extremely likely that star center (and large child) Dwight Howard asked Magic officials to change to a coach he can understand better and would be willing to play for.  Many insiders cite Howard’s disinterest in hard practices as causing the player-coach rift in this regard, but regardless of reasoning the point still stands: one star player forced out a top-5 coach who strung together more 50-win seasons that any Magic coach before him and drove the Magic to a Finals appearance.  And in their statement, Magic brass claimed Van Gundy and his staff did not meet the standards the club had come to expect.  A fantastic reason…unless the coach you’re ousting hadn’t created those same standards.

The superstar, in this case, made his recommendation over the course of this season and, eventually, the team listened.  The next coach of the Magic will need to be lighter in practice and less competitive with Dwight to salvage the situation next year.

But Howard is by no means the first star to tank his coach, but the first to do so openly and seemingly without remorse.  Two seasons ago Jerry Sloan, the longtime bench general of the Utah Jazz, resigned midseason rather than be fired for not getting along with star point guard Deron Williams.  Sloan, a 23 year institution for Utah, left over the objections of almost anyone in the Jazz front office, seeing the writing on the wall that Utah would rather keep their superstar than him.  All because he couldn’t get along with a superstar, albeit a great superstar.  A similar attitude pervaded the decision to fire Mike Brown in Cleveland.  Despite multiple 60-win seasons, the team did not value his efforts enough to keep him after the LeBron era.  Much like what happened to Jim Caldwell of the Colts, the team purged all at once rather than bridge eras with holdover personas.  That makes a little more sense, but the guy won Coach of the Year and tons of regular season games.  It was never about Brown but about LeBron.  At points, I’ve wondered if the only coaches safe from superstars are those like Phil Jackson, who was begged back to the Lakers so he could deal with the egos running around LA’s locker room.

Of course teams must placate their stars.  Teams invest heavily in these players and want to see their investment fulfilled through championships.  But the modern NBA continues to act as if players and not coaches have a stranglehold on basketball knowledge.  And the truth hurts for lots of coaches: really good coaches are more abundant than really good players, the kind of players who can bring large amounts of revenue to the league and teams individually.  Without Dwight Howard, the Magic receive very little acclaim.  No one comes to see Phil Jackson or Gregg Popovich, they buy seats to watch Kobe and Duncan.  Player jerseys not coach’s blazers grace the shelves in stores around the world.

So it’s easy to understand why teams will dump coaches even if their star player refuses to act his age and be professional.  Even then, the trend disturbs me because franchises are following the example of fans all over the world who clearly underestimate the effect of coaching.  NBA players might have vacant stares during timeouts on the bench, but behind closed doors coaches act as confidants and instructors, helping players work on different facets of their game.  Obviously some teams become very good with subpar coaching (Miami Heat anyone?) but good coaching can elevate teams to a higher degree of efficiency and, concordantly, success.  Coaches matter, but less and less it would seem.

Like most fans, I don’t like watching grown men act unprofessionally and get bailed out by their teams, but such is the reality of the business in the NBA.  Business, however, should not be totally about money.  Football understands that while T.O. might catch 10 touchdowns, his locker room attitude does not justify keeping him for more than a year.  Granted, there are plenty more football players on the roster in football than basketball, but in that environment players must get along with their coach or else they are released, not vice versa.  I would support seeing teams like Orlando support their coaching staffs more when the staff does not represent the impediment to a championship.  Even when Howard played well for the Magic, they could not win the championship.  But as long as elite coaches in the mold of Jackson and Popovich continue to be scarce, NBA franchises will work hard to please their stars above all else.  Stan Van Gundy is the most recent, and arguably the highest-profile, coach to suffer from this change in NBA business, and he deserved better than to be blamed for the team’s faults.  But he will not be the last by any means and business will never be fair to all parties, no matter what.

Bit #1: Pacers-Heat getting chippy and showing some bias

I rarely agree with Charles Barkley.  He might be the worst analyst ever, but he gives his opinions with aplomb and without reservation.  A few nights ago on TNT, he told his studio buddies how tired he is of the Heat expressing disgust at the antics of the Pacers.  LeBron James, after raising elbows to the facial area of Danny Granger, called Granger’s reactions “stupid.”  Dwayne Wade couldn’t believe how much the Pacers celebrated after winning Game 2, despite the Heat’s celebrations at beating the Celtics last year (a lot like the Orioles when they beat the Red Sox at the end of the season).

What bothers me is this: the Heat want every team to kiss their feet.  Every one of the Granger reactions came about due to a needlessly high elbow from LeBron James during basketball plays, typical in any hard-fought playoff game.  Sure, the Pacers are young and must learn some reserve, but don’t let the media attention fool you into thinking the Pacers caused lots of this.  The Heat commit hard fouls like any playoff team, and you know if someone raised an elbow to either James or Wade they’d run to a ref and probably get the call or at the very least would complain after wards about being “disrespected.”

What’s worse: that principle seems to apply to the entire team.  On Tuesday in Game 5, Tyler Hansbrough of the Pacers committed a flagrant-1 on Dwayne Wade (good call by the refs) for unnecessary contact, often following through after making initial contact.  Hansbrough connected with Wade’s arm then his head, so the call seems fine.  On the other end of the floor, however, Udonis Haslem fouled Hansbrough hard, bringing two hands down hard on his head and not even acting like he wanted to block the ball.  Fits the flagrant-2 definition of excessive and unnecessary contact (not to mention a revenge foul) and should have resulted in an ejection, but I can understand refs not calling that in Miami’s arena.

The third flagrant of the game, however, might deserve a suspension.  On a rebound, Pacers forward Lance Stephenson hurtled into the paint looking for the board, only to be clotheslined in his throat area by the Heat’s Dexter Pittman.  Stephenson made a choking gesture from the bench in Game 3 when LeBron missed a free throw, so the foul by Pittman not only exacted revenge but also could have truly injured Stephenson.

The Heat are important and deservedly so.  And, the officiating did nothing to decide the outcome of this blow-out.  But, the NBA cannot let these kinds of fouls to continue.  That refs called Hansbrough’s foul as equivalent to those of Haslem and Pittman exhibits the omnipresent double standard in the NBA: prove you’re worthy and refs will judge in your favor more often.  But, are Haslem and Pittman truly worthy of that status?

Bit #2: Mark my words…Dustin Brown will make headlines in the Cup finals

Dustin Brown, the captain and emotional leader of the Finals-bound Los Angeles Kings, makes an impact in every game.  In truth, he makes tons of them, physically intimidating and hitting anyone possible.  His play has resulted in an 8-0 road record for the Kings in the playoffs, a feat never before accomplished by an NHL club.  His hit on Coyotes defenseman Michal Rozsival in overtime of Tuesday’s game caught Rozsival with his head down, a hit guaranteed to arouse an opponent’s anger.  He will not moderate his play, but I don’t think will get off so easy in the next round.

If the Rangers play LA, Brandon Prust and Brian Boyle will not let Brown make those kinds of hits on their players.  I bet now that Brown will engage in some kind of feud with one of those guys if the Rangers win.  On the Devils side, David Clarkson would take issue with Brown.  Brown benefitted this past round from playing a Coyotes team without its main tough guy, Raffi Torres, to keep the peace.  That will be something to watch in the Finals.

Bit #3: Jerry Sloan in Charlotte?

I have yet to decide if former Utah Jazz coach Jerry Sloan would work with the Charlotte Bobcats or even the Orlando Magic.  If offered both jobs, he’d have some considerations.  While Dwight Howard plays great defense (Sloan’s forte) he also seems unable to work with a coach that pushes his players hard, another calling-card of Sloan’s style.  For the Bobcats, he would be paired with maybe the worst owner in basketball but there’s nowhere to go but up for the Charlotte Bobcats.

One great aspect about Sloan as a coach is his ability to work in a smaller market.  Charlotte and Orlando attract lots of attention now (for totally opposite reasons) but his ability to reach the playoffs consistently in Utah while keeping local excitement for the team high set the standard for small market success (since duplicated and surpassed by the San Antonio Spurs).  Charlotte would be a good landing place for Sloan, as he would be without diva stars who refuse to buy into his system.  Overall, I’m excited he might be coming back.

Bit #4: Tennis talent to retire

Few sports are as top-heavy right now as men’s tennis.  Four guys (arguably three) rule the world.  When it comes to majors, we might see one of the Big Four miss out on the semifinals but one of them always seems to win for the past three years.

At one point, women’s tennis was like that, dominated by the Williams sisters, Maria Sharapova, Justine Henin, and Kim Clijsters.  On Tuesday, Clijsters snnounced she will retire after the 2012 U.S. Open, on the face of it just another retirement by a former champion.

But Clijsters has a great story.  Winning five Grand Slam titles before her first retirement in 2007, Clijsters had reached number one in the world before citing injuries for retirement.  In 2009, she elected to return to professional tennis.  Fourteen matches later, she held the US Open trophy, defeating the 2^nd, 3^rd, 6^th, 9^th, 13^th, 18^th, and 20^th ranked players in the world during those matches.  Last year, she completed the career Grand Slam and has won a total of three majors after her return to the game.  Very impressive stuff and while she’s not flashy (i.e. doesn’t scream like a banshee on the court), Clijsters played well enough to deserve recognition as a great tennis player.

Bit #5: Long wait over for Roman Abramovich

At one point I considered myself a Chelsea fan before realizing it’s difficult to hate the Yankees and like Chelsea.  That’s the approach taken by Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, a Russian oil magnate who lured top tier talent to Chelsea annually in pursuit of a title.  His fiddling and experimentation resulted in 3 Premier League titles and plenty of other championships, but never the ultimate prize of a Champions League title.

This past weekend, he watched Chelsea win its first Champions League title in dramatic fashion.  Didier Drogba, the Ivorian striker with a penchant for late game heroics and midseason slumps, scored the tying goal against Bayern Munich in regulation before scoring the deciding penalty kick in the shootout.  For those who remember my Bits well, you know Chelsea won all of this under an interim head coach, the previous coach a victim of Abramovich’s patented purges at season’s end.

But the owner can finally rest easy.  His team won the biggest club championship in the world, defeating heavily-favored Barcelona in the semis (somehow) and beating Bayern in their home city.  While Drogba announced he will be leaving Stamford Bridge for greener pastures, the win ends his Chelsea tenure perfectly, as a champion.

Bit #6: April 22, 2003 – Sorenstam competes on PGA Tour

On this day in 2003 Annika Sorenstam became the first woman to compete on the PGA Tour in 58 years.  She missed the cut at the Colonial in Fort Worth, TX but opened a firestorm of controversy.  My mother hates Vijay Singh to this day after Vijay vocally commented he felt she did not belong on the men’s tour, and then withdrew from the event in protest.  Since 2003, Michelle Wie has competed on the men’s tour 13 times, only making the cut once in Japan.    PGA rules do not preclude women from competing now but the women who want to would be unable to win, decreasing their desire to ever play.  An interesting idea might be to use the tennis model of shared events where the men and women play on the same course at the same time.  Courses would hate it (and ultimately I bet that would eliminate the possibility) but as we progress into an era wishing to lessen differences between male and female athletes, this may become an issue in the future.

Cultural Sports Tour: Cincinnati

Based on my previous blog posts, many of you probably know I’ve spent substantial time in two cities over the past two months.  Six weeks total in Jacksonville and Baton Rouge meant nice weather and decently rabid football fans, both college and professional.  I can’t explain how many times I entered conversations about the Saints.  Roger Goodell may look calm but were he to visit Louisiana anytime soon, those expensive suits would need a trip to the shredder.  The best aspect of this trip: seeing the different sports cultures all around the country.  Growing up within the political confines of DC, sports held a prominence but many in the DC area hold white-collar jobs and might not have as much time to religiously follow sports.

Not so in Cincinnati, Ohio, a riverfront town steeped in industrial, working-class tradition.  Like much of the MidWest (not sure if it qualifies but they think it does) many current residents grew up in the area and never left.  Plenty of those I’ve met work for industrial corporations in warehouses or industrial business parks.  Shipping trucks and forklifts gracing trailers dot the highways all around this area, known as the Tri-State with the confluence of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana (the Cincinnati beltway passes through three states).  Downtown Cincinnati does not overwhelm you and sits right on the Ohio River looking into Kentucky on the other side.

So, a small market certainly, but not one bereft of impressive sports tradition.  The Bengals made two Super Bowls in the 1980s, losing to the 49ers on both occasions.  Their most famous quarterback, Boomer Esiason, now fills your home with intelligence on Sundays but at one point could play with any hurler in the NFL, no mean feat in the days of Marino, Montana, Kelly, Elway, and Simms.  He won the NFL MVP in 1988, again no small accomplishment.

Since then, however, the Bengals shrunk into relative obscurity.  Their owner, Paul Brown, died in 1991 and his son Mike Brown took over as owner and the de facto general manager.  A slew of top picks by the Bengals, including Madden overachiever Akili Smith, refused to pan out for the team throughout the 90s.  Mike Brown as owner could not make a good football decision for almost twenty years before last year’s Carson Palmer trade, over which period the Bengals boasted a grand total of two winning seasons.  Any city with such a bad team perennially will start losing interest, and Cincinnati definitely has.  Last year the Bengals made the playoffs.  The team played well and showed some promise for the future.  Still, fans didn’t show up.  A late September game was the lowest attendance number for Paul Brown stadium in its 11-year existence even with the team paying well.  Unfortunately, when you spend lots on a team to make it great and things don’t work out, as a fan you look elsewhere.

And that’s the issue: Cincinnati, and by extension its fans, pays a lot to keep the Bengals in town.  Ticket prices of $72 are higher than 15 other teams, including the infinitely more exciting Eagles.  Bengals fans should not pay more to watch 20 years of obscurity than Eagles fans that watch entertaining, at least halfway decent football.  In addition, the lease between Hamilton County and the Bengals for Paul Brown Stadium will tank municipal finances.  Once Mike Brown threatened to move in the mid-90s (over too small luxury boxes), the county gave in and built a new stadium with the most generous agreement in the NFL.  Under its terms, the county must pay for any improvements to the stadium that are made by 14 other NFL stadiums and, eventually, pay the team for occupying the building. (Brief aside: the owners won’t even pay for an indoor practice facility, and it gets cold up here.  Should show you their attitude towards the team.)  Add in the Great American Ballpark which the city paid for, and Hamilton County will be in the hole by as much as $43 million in 2013.  And how will the county get out of that?  Raising taxes on the primarily blue-collar populace.  Ouch.  Now that many Bengals games are blacked out locally, many in Cincinnati eagerly anticipate Brown’s departure, above ground or below, from the team.  When the Bengals need to beg fans to come to a playoff game they must understand how dire the situation truly is.  In the words of one fan I spoke with, “every owner of the Bengals has been a cheapskate.”

So barring the Bengals, the city revolves around the Reds.  Unlike the Bengals, the Reds not only compete consistently but can boast a serious championship pedigree.  They’ve won five World Series titles, the most recent in 1990.  The days of Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, and Johnny Bench still live on in Cincinnati lore (seriously, you hear Bench’s name every day around here).  That team, the Big Red Machine, won the Series in ’75 and ’76 (Game 6 in ’75 still goes down as one of the best playoff games ever) and were the last NL team to repeat as champions.  While the much-maligned trade for Ken Griffey, Jr. in 2000 deserves a little more credit (his injuries, not his play created issues) Cincinnati faithful love their Reds.  The emergence of Joey Votto in Cincinnati has the city on a baseball buzz, believing this team could compete for another championship.  The Reds currently stand 2.5 games behind the Cardinals for the division lead and starting pitcher Johnny Cueto has a gaudy 1.89 ERA.  The Reds made the playoffs last season and stand a good chance of doing so again this year, and their fans love it, though some wonder if they should be better with their $250 million plus payroll.  The Great American Ballpark, next to Paul Brown Stadium, receives accolades from lots of observers for being one of the better baseball environments in the majors.  The county still has financing issues, but at the very least the on-field product brings some recognition to the city.

As far as the other major sports, interests wanes.  A few Cavaliers fans, a few Pacers fans abound but the NBA has little foothold in an area within two hours of Louisville, Lexington, Columbus, Bloomington, and right in Cincinnati.  Xavier and University of Cincinnati carry on a heated rivalry.  The brawl last season displays the lack of affection between both fan bases, at least where basketball is concerned.  Being Ohio there are plenty of Ohio St. faithful with Columbus only 100 miles to the north, but everyone in Ohio shows an interest in Ohio State regardless of alma mater.  I’ve encountered less UC fans, but some occasionally come out of the woodwork.

All in all, Cincinnati has its own small-market feel but with plenty of teams to follow.  While the Bengals frustrate residents to no end, there’s lots to cheer for with the Reds and the different colleges playing well.  I’ve appreciated seeing a different side of sports culture, one infused with blue-collar values and a rabid following after championship years.  What is also a little pleasing to see is that, despite the reliance and fixation on sports, fans refuse to let the wool be pulled over their eyes.  Many here tell me “I boycott Bengals games because I hate Mike Brown” much the same way a dog spits out a half-eaten meal.  Brown fools no one, his record speaks for itself as lousy, and its refreshing to see fans refuse to play along.  Hopefully Cincinnati sees a champion soon, but overall they have demonstrated to me during my visit here the kind of sports religion many of the bigger markets (looking at you LA) lack.  Their teams aren’t flashy and might not be good, but plenty of Cincinnati time is spent watching and paying attention.

Bit #1: Good contributions to football from the Bengals

Amazingly, tons of football inventions we take for granted started in Cincinnati.  Equally amazing is that the inventions achieved greater fame for other teams, perhaps a constant fact of Bengals history.  In 1988, the Bengals first used the no-huddle offense throughout an entire game, elapsing 5-10 seconds between plays and forcing the NFL to enact new rules regulating the new tactic.  These rules came about also because the multiple AFC playoff games between Cincinnati and Buffalo featured two teams who used the no huddle almost exclusively.

The West Coast offense, a scheme based on shorter high-percentage passes, also started in the MidWest in Cincinnati.  Bill Walsh, the architect of the offense, served as a Bengals coordinator in the ‘70s.  The first season of its application, the offense gave the Bengals quarterback the highest completion percentage in the league.  Ken Anderson, the quarterback before Esiason, used the West Coast offense to reach four pro bowls and an MVP award.  Not surprisingly, the foil to the West Coast Offense also started in Cincinnati when Dick LeBeau (probably the best defensive mind ever) formulated the zone blitz, a scheme based on dropping would-be pass rushers into coverage to confuse offensive linemen.  LeBeau coordinated the Bengals in both their Super Bowl appearances and three of the Steelers Super Bowl appearances.

So, the Bengals clearly are not irrelevant in the grand scheme of the NFL, but it’s fun to imagine Bill Walsh and Dick LeBeau coordinating on the same team, even though their times had very little overlap.

Bit #2: Nail in the coffin for the Heat?

If Dwayne Wade continues to shoot poorly, this series will end badly for the Heat.  LeBron played poorly down the stretch last night, but again the issues go deeper.  The Pacers once again dominated the boards on both sides of the court, further cementing Chris Bosh’s reputation as fairly valuable.  But, the true value of the Pacers comes from internal ball movement.  Watch the game last night and Indiana was able to penetrate and dish extremely well (a lot like the Spurs who whipped the Clips) whether to Roy Hibbert for a lay-up or Danny Granger for a three.  Hibbert outshined all last night, blocking shots and playing like a true center, something the NBA really lacks right now preferring more versatile power forwards at the center position.  Should the Pacers go up 3-1, I view the series as all but over.  About 82% of Game 3 winners go on to win the series so there’s a chance the Eastern Conference representative this year will be from way out of left field.

Bit #3: Conference realignment heating up in lower levels

All lovers of the CAA in Virginia have been cut in half this week.  After VCU announced it would be leaving for the Atlantic 10, Old Dominion yesterday announced it will leave for Conference USA.  The move makes tons of sense for Old Dominion, who will now play football at the highest possible level, even if C-USA doesn’t boast a robust football roster, especially with UCF and SMU leaving.  For basketball, however, Old Dominion will add firepower to a conference that still must decide its fate with Memphis leaving for the Big East.  We’ve seen this realignment game before and while football continues to be the dominant justification, the implications for basketball remain intriguing.  The ending of intra-conference rivalries like Kansas-Missouri and now VCU-Old Dominion distresses the traditionalist in me since everyone wants to chase the money, but I remember many of the alumni and boosters of these teams still want the money and the rivalry game each year, so the rivalries will continue just not in previous glory.  For football though, I wonder how many rivalries will end as a result of all the shuffling.  Will we not see Texas-Texas A&M for the next few years?  I hope not, but it might come to that.

Bit #4: Finally someone follows the Rose Bowl model

The SEC and Big 12 announced today that they have reached an agreement for the champions of their respective leagues to meet in a New Year’s Day bowl for five years starting in 2014.  Should one of the champions be selected for the new playoff format, another team will be selected for the game.

This idea is great, mainly because it finally pits two of the better football conferences (both had at least one top four team simultaneously 11 of 14 years) but also provides a big boost to the college bowl landscape by making it clear that frivolous bowl will no longer be appreciated.  While host sites have yet to be announced (Jerry Jones has probably already called both commissioners), the only remaining question is how this game would interact with the four team playoff format.  Would this game and the Rose Bowl serve as playoffs in years where all four conference champions were selected?  I also worry if the conference champions are both in the playoffs, this becomes basically the Cotton Bowl just one day later.  As far as a tradition, however, it goes a long way in trying to bring New Year’s Day back to the elites in college football.  Still a little concerned about the formatting and all, but why not watch two conference champions duke it out?

Bit #5: Champions League Final tomorrow

Chelsea-Bayern Munich from Munich, Germany.  Watch it on FOX.  And before you think no one watches soccer, keep in mind the worldwide audience for this even dwarfs the Super Bowl every single year.  My prediction: Munich 2-1.

Too Early for "LeBron Ain't Clutch" Criticism

Here we go again.  Another playoffs, a disappointing Heat finish, and intrigue from media members about the ending of the Heat’s loss to the Pacers on Tuesday night 78-75.  In an abysmal offensive performance, the Heat sorely missed injured forward Chris Bosh who, until now, was considered sidekick to the Big Two.  While the media and fans might say otherwise now, very few people give Chris Bosh his due as a critical cog to the Heat team.  Not anymore.

In Game 2, the Pacers won the rebounding battle by 10 and the non-All Stars of the Heat scored 21 points on 7-for-22 shooting.  And yet, the furious fourth quarter comeback led by Wade and LeBron kept the Heat in the game, so much so it came down to a final shot…..by Mario Chalmers.  The Heat lost an Eastern Conference playoff home game for the first time since the Big Three.  So, where was the best player on the planet at the end?

If you don’t pay any attention to basketball, Chalmers’ name means very little compared to the guys who could be taking the clutch three-point shot to tie or win the game.  Turns out the play design called for a Chalmers shot, but it does make you wonder why LeBron didn’t ask for the ball.  (For a perfect example of this, watch the end of Hoosiers…or just watch this).  Perhaps coach Spoelstra didn’t trust LeBron in that situation, considering he just missed two foul shots that would have put the Heat ahead with under a minute left?  Perhaps he knew Wade would likely miss after a 8-for-22 shooting night?  Maybe he thought back to Chalmers’ clutch three pointer last year in the Finals?

Who knows, but the point holds: even if King James did not take that last shot, his play did not define this game.  Understandably, great players want the ball in these moments (tough to imagine Kevin Durant not taking the final Thunder shot in the playoffs) but I preach a bit of caution.  We are discussing Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Semifinals.  Sure, clutch moment, but a little too early to open age-old questions about LeBron’s ability at the end of games.  As I said around the All-Star Game, the sense of what classifies as “in the clutch” seems to be amplified in LeBron’s case.  Even then, why aren’t folks clamoring about Wade not taking game-winning shots?  He’s top five in the league and plays championship caliber basketball, after all.

The rebound and bench scoring numbers also tell us LeBron James did not lose this game.  Maybe you want him to take the shot and, I agree, he should take that kind of shot.  But, as questions about this swirl it’s as if that one decision lost the game for the Heat.  He and Wade combined for 69.3 percent of the Heat points.  In addition, LeBron filled Chris Bosh’s defensive spot admirably, holding David West to 16 points and only 5 field goals.  He played very well all things considered.

You might take the angle that regardless of how well he played, James should still be taking the shot.  Fine sentiment, but even if he missed the shot, the questions would still linger, maybe even double in intensity.  To silence his critics, James must hit a shot to win a conference championship or a Finals.  I can hear now what Sam Amick calls the “chastising chatter” blaming LeBron for the Heat loss regardless of how he might have played during the game.  If we want LeBron to take the game-winning shot, he has achieved the status where his team’s success and failure depends on his play for most fans, regardless of fact or truth on the court.  When teams do poorly, the best player receives most of the blame in sports culture, and LeBron will continue to experience that until he wins it all.  But should he hear that during Game 2 of the second round?

I admit, I don’t like LeBron James, but the Heat have much bigger problems than him not firing the last shot.  Shooting 1-for-16 from three point land doesn’t help either, so why not start talking about that instead of jumping on the “It’s LeBron’s Fault” train?  I would also remind you all that there are multiple games left in this series and, if history can be the judge, the Heat can win on the road in the playoffs.  When we get to Game 5, tied 2-2, and the game’s tied, if LeBron doesn’t take the shot I’ll jump on board.  But, for right now, let’s enjoy the basketball of what should be a good series.

Bit #1: Conference realignment continues

This past week VCU announced it would move from the Colonial Athletic Association to the Atlantic 10 this fall.  Like most things about conference realignment, the big boys went first and, a few months later, the little guys start filtering through to make their own decisions.  For the CAA, it means losing another team after Georgia State announced it will bolt next year to the Sun Belt conference (low academic performance rating would keep them from postseason).  In addition, VCU continues to draw national attention in March after their improbable Final Four run two tournaments ago.    While other schools will likely want to join the CAA, the A-10 made off like a bandit with this deal.  Pairing the addition of VCU with Butler’s arrival next season, the A-10 expanded its market despite losing Temple and Charlotte, a fact that TV officials will acknowledge with better revenue deals.

All in all, however, conference realignment continues behind the scenes.  Rumblings from Louisville of the school’s unhappiness at being left out of the SEC and Big 12 perpetuate the theory that Louisville may leave the immeasurably weakened Big East.  I expect more to happen in the next three years which will move towards five-ish major conferences with lots of member schools.  Until everyone can be happy with their position, the landscape will keep shifting.

Bit #2: What does Clemens trial prove?

The Roger Clemens trial keeps wasting taxpayer money…there’s nothing more to say.  Clemens, on trial for lying to Congress when claiming in 2008 he had never used human growth hormone, has gathered a pretty good defense team.  Putting former trainer Brian McNamee on the witness stand allowed the Clemens team to brutally examine the chief accuser in the case this week.  Glancing through the testimony, not much jumps out other than McNamee’s long silences before answering questions…as if he doesn’t remember details.  I have another theory: like all of us, he’s tired of this saga and wants it to end.

Be real with yourself: the first accusation against Roger Clemens tainted his career forever.  Steroids in baseball have that effect on legacies.  No one cares Barry Bonds was found innocent of perjury, especially the writers who vote for the Hall of Fame.  If Pete Rose can be maligned for gambling, those who gain leverage physically will receive nothing but contempt, from writers and fans of the game.  Perhaps some new revelation will come out like McNamee created the web of lies for his own personal reason, but barring that level of shock even a not guilty verdict will not save Clemens from ridicule.  Which begs the question, why devote five weeks to this trial?  Two jurors have already lost their seats for sleeping during testimony.  When the people involved with the issue are dozing off, it’s a good sign the greater world cares not about the verdict.

Bit #3: A libel suit against a sports media outlet?

Libel suits happen a lot in smaller towns or in more politically charged atmospheres.  Local newspaper prints fabrications and draws the ire of a public official who publicly stands on the courthouse steps and makes it official he’s suing.  Much rarer, however, is a libel suit towards a sports media entity, especially when that entity is ESPN.

Bernie Fine, former assistant coach at Syracuse accused of molesting ballboys decades ago, saw the media gamut firsthand at the beginning of the season, being fired for the federal investigation into his activities.  ESPN reported during the Bernie Fine saga in October that Fine’s wife, Laurie Fine, knew about her husband’s alleged abuses of boys inside her own home.  She contends ESPN took the scandal at Penn State last year and decided to include her name to boost television ratings about both Syracuse and Penn State scandals.  ESPN denied the charge.

This will be very interesting to watch, especially as she might bring forward alternate evidence not previously heard in public.  To prove libel, Laurie Fine must show the ESPN charges to be incorrect (more legal jargon inserted here but you get the picture) before a court so may need to unearth new facts to make that happen.

Bit #4: First NASCAR Bit Ever

Enjoy it while it lasts.  NASCAR becomes interesting when drivers act like small children.  Kurt Busch has done the for sure many times, but last weekend he received a $50,000 fine for speeding through fellow driver Ryan Newman’s pit stall, almost hitting multiple members of Newman’s crew.  When informed he would have to start at the back on the next lap, Busch began one of his trademark rants that left little intelligible syllables or sounds.  He’s had issues in the past with his temper and currently drives on a one year contract with his owners and, should this behavior continue, he might find himself out of a job for a while unless he can own his own race team (hint: you have to win to do that).  I hope you feel smarter after reading this Bit.