Why I Don't Want a Lakers-Cavs Finals...and Why You Shouldn't Either

“Dude I really hope there’s a Lakers-Cavs Finals this year!”
“Kobe! LeBron! That would be awesome!”
“Every true basketball fan should want two of the greatest players in the game squaring off against each other!”

I’ve heard and read those comments in some form from friends, TV analysts, sports columnists, and just people in general.

Time for me to give my input.

I’m about to make a statement that will probably shock most basketball fans in America (other than those who know me well, of course, and to whom I've already made my view extremely clear).

I would hate to see a Lakers-Cavs Finals. Hate it. And you should, too.

Have you recovered from the shock yet? No?

Let me explain.

What NBA commissioner David Stern has done over the past few years is package his brand as a game glorifying individuals at the expense of the team. It’s all about the superstar. It’s about LeBron’s breathtaking dunks. It’s about Kobe schooling three defenders on a ridiculous fadeway. What it’s not about any longer is the team. And that’s sad…because last time I checked, basketball was a team sport.

Remember those Nike ads last year featuring the Kobe and LeBron puppets? Well, they came out during the Eastern Conference Finals between the Cavs and the Magic. It was as if that series wasn’t even being played. Everyone wanted Lakers-Cavs – excuse me, Kobe-LeBron. The game was no longer about the team. It was about two individuals.

But the Magic weren’t buying it. Dwight Howard made some comments saying how offended he was that those commercials were running when the Magic hadn’t even been eliminated yet. He took it upon himself to alter the script. And I’m so glad he did. No Kobe-LeBron in last year’s Finals. Sorry, David Stern.

Speaking of Stern, we know that the good ole' commish wants a Lakers-Cavs Finals. It’s obvious. Kobe and LeBron in the Finals means better TV ratings, which means more money for the league. He wants this. But I’m going to take it a step further and say that I’m deeply suspicious that he's had the refs do their part to influence games in the past...and I'm sure he'll be doing it again in this year's playoffs.

Yeah, I'll use the word: conspiracy.

Flash back to that Magic-Cavs Eastern Conference Finals last year. The Magic were supposed to bow out obediently and play their role in Stern's script. But they didn't. They stole Game 1 in Cleveland. LeBron bailed the Cavs out in Game 2 with a game-winning three at the buzzer. The Magic won Game 3 at home convincingly. Now, Stern was getting nervous. If the Magic were to win Game 4 at home, the Cavs would all of a sudden be in serious jeopardy of losing the series.

Game 4 was close. Went down to the wire. With the Magic leading by two and the final seconds ticking down, King James (and I'm not saying that in deference, or affectionately, or with any positive connotation at all) drove the lane. Mickael Pietrus was guarding him. LeBron tripped; Pietrus barely touched him. Foul called on Pietrus. It was ridiculous, but I couldn't say I was surprised. You know, the King James thing.

He made both foul shots to tie the game. Then things really got absurd. The Magic were inbounding from half court with about a second and a half left in regulation. The ball was lobbed in to a cutting Dwight Howard -- and he got mauled. Mauled. Hit the ground hard. Since LeBron had just gotten that ticky-tack foul called in his favor, surely Dwight Howard would get the benefit of the call here, right?

Nope. No foul called. Game goes into overtime.

It was at this point that I was all but sure that Stern and the officials were trying to influence the outcome of the game. How could you not think that after watching what had just happened?

But fortunately -- and this was awesome -- Dwight Howard wasn't gonna let this bullshit break the Magic apart. He took it upon himself in overtime to will his team to victory, completely overpowering Ben Wallace and Anderson Varejao for like three rim-rattling dunks and altering the Cavs' shots to preserve the victory for Orlando and a 3-1 series lead. The Magic had prevailed over both the Cavs and the refs.

The Cavs took Game 5 back at home, but the Magic completely blew them away in Game 6 to clinch the series. And although they lost in the Finals to Kobe and the Lakers, I could take satisfaction in knowing that Orlando had spoiled the commissioner's dream matchup.

Which brings me back to this year's playoffs. I think that Stern is going to once again pull some shady maneuvers to try to create a Kobe-LeBron Finals. What might that entail? It could involve having Bennett Salvatore and Joey Crawford, two of Stern's most loyal lapdogs, officiate games that have a high degree of importance -- games that can turn or decide a series (Salvatore was the ref responsible for the LeBron call and subsequent Dwight no-call in Magic-Cavs Game 4 last year. When Magic coach Stan Van Gundy went out to argue, Salvatore simply screamed at him to "Go back to the bench!" Because, you know, refs shouldn't ever have any accountability. Crawford, meanwhile, always seems like he's on a power trip, and was the ref who allegedly challenged Tim Duncan to a fight in a 2007 NBA playoff game).

Especially if the Cavs and Magic square off again in the Eastern Conference Finals, I think Stern and his minions will try to exert their influence as much as possible.

And Stern will also definitely squelch all criticism directed toward the league; he's already done so. Look at what just happened to Dwight Howard for criticizing the officiating on his blog -- he got fined $35,000. The thing is, Howard's absolutely right; he has been treated unfairly by the refs. But Stern wants all criticism silenced, so Howard is $35,000 poorer now (not that that's a lot of money for him, but it's the principle that matters). Multiple other coaches and players have been fined the same for their criticisms of incompetent and/or biased officiating.

I've been on espn.com and other sports websites a lot recently. And it's apparent that a ton of other fans like me have just about had it. After Stern's latest shenanigans -- throwing down the gauntlet on Howard -- I was reading the user comments on the Associated Press article on the ESPN website. Some people were likening Stern to a leader of the mafia. Some were calling him a dictator. Others correctly pointed out that through his actions, Stern was trampling on the players' right to freedom of speech. Some were even calling into question the constitutionality of his actions (and while that debate is outside the scope of this post, it's a valid one. Lonnie, Jack...get on it!)

Basketball is one of the greatest sports -- and the NBA one of the most prominent professional sports leagues -- on the planet. They shouldn't be tainted because of one corrupt individual and several accomplices that have demonstrated that they'll willingly compromise the integrity of the game in order to try to maximize their profits.

So to come back full circle, I'm approaching the problem I'd have with a Lakers-Cavs Finals from two main angles: 1) the team game angle, and how Kobe-LeBron would diminish the emphasis on team, and 2) the corruption/conspiracy angle, where I'm arguing that David Stern has a vested interest in a Lakers-Cavs Finals, and will do everything in his power -- regardless of whether it violates the principles of fairness and neutrality that he and the refs are supposed to uphold -- to try to get that. It failed last year, but this is a new year, and another chance for Stern to get what he wants.

As a big fan of the team game, I'm going to be rooting for, well, two great teams to make the NBA Finals. Magic vs. Jazz would be awesome. So would Bucks vs. Spurs. For either of these matchups, we'd get to see two teams playing the game the right way...and David Stern would be pissed because his two golden boys, Kobe and LeBron -- especially LeBron -- wouldn't be in the Finals. And since I honestly think that David Stern is a corrupt NBA commissioner, that would make me happy.

So yeah, in case this hasn't been made clear already, I will be vociferously rooting against a Lakers-Cavs Finals.

I think that all fans of good, pure, untainted team basketball should do the same.

***********
Update: just found this article online. Sheds some light on the infamous Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings 2002 Western Conference Finals, as well as the whole issue of potential conspiracies throughout the history of the NBA playoffs. Check it out.

http://www.rwor.org/a/133/NBA_referee.html

The Folly of the NHL's Playoff Re-seeding

You know something I don't like? David Stern and the refs trying to influence certain outcomes of the NBA playoffs in order to maximize TV ratings and revenues. Just kidding -- this post won't be about that...although you'll probably be hearing back from me after LeBron shoots an average of 42 free throws a game in the Eastern Conference Finals against the Magic.

No, today I'm going to talk about the NHL's ridiculous policy of re-seeding teams after each round of the playoffs, which ensures that the lowest remaining seed always plays the highest remaining seed.

So the 7th-seeded Philadelphia Flyers have just eliminated the 2nd-seeded New Jersey Devils in the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs. What should happen next? Obviously, given the eight-team-per-conference playoff format that the NHL has (just like the NBA), Philly should play the winner of the 3 vs. 6 matchup between the Sabres and Bruins. It would be that way for almost every other collegiate and professional sports playoff tournament -- just take a look at the bracket, advance the two winners, and they play each other in the next round.

(Notable exception: the NFL playoffs, which also re-seeds after each round. While I don't like re-seeding there either, it doesn't have as much of an effect because each round is just one game instead of a series, thus making an upset more likely on any given day, re-seeding can affect a maximum of only two rounds, and the talent gap between the teams is usually not as enormous as larger tournaments, as only the top six teams in each conference make the NFL postseason).

But a series with Buffalo or Boston isn't in the cards for Philly. Instead, the Flyers will likely get Alexander Ovechkin and the top-seed Washington Capitals (currently up 3-1 in their series with the Canadiens) in the second round. Which is completely unfair. Now, I dislike Philadelphia sports teams as much as any New Yorker -- and Philly knocked out the Rangers on the final day of the regular season -- but the Flyers deserve better. They worked their butts off and played an excellent series against a favored Devils squad. And their reward for pulling off the upset is a date with the top seed in the conference?

Let's go back to this year's March Madness to demonstrate how absurd this way of thinking is. After 14th-seeded Ohio stunned the nation and upset 3rd-seeded Georgetown in the first round, they rightly got to play the winner of the 6-11 matchup in their region -- the two teams next to them in the bracket. But using the NHL's logic, Ohio would've drawn Kansas -- the highest remaining seed in their region -- in the second round. And that would have been ridiculous.

(On second thought, given what happened to the Jayhawks, maybe that draw would've worked out better for Ohio).

The point is, a team that pulls off an upset in the postseason should be rewarded, not punished, for their efforts.

I guess that's one area where the NBA playoffs actually have it right.

Girardi's Conservative Management

As the espn.com recap read after the Yankees 10-0 dismantling of the Rays this past Saturday, "C.C. Sabathia was going to lose his no-hit bid one way or another."

Yep, he sure was.

That's because even before Sabathia surrendered a sharp single to left to Tampa Bay's Kelly Shoppach with two outs in the bottom of the eighth, Yankees manager Joe Girardi had already decided to take C.C. out after facing Shoppach regardless of what happened because of a high pitch count (111).

"Watching that pitch count go up and up and up, that was what was on my mind the most. Shoppach was his last hitter no matter what," Girardi said. "He did not know that going out. I told him when he came out. It's not something you want to do, but you have to think big picture."

"The big picture was the month of October. You have to think ahead. You can't be short- sighted," Girardi continued. "I would have loved to see him walk out with no hits and eight innings. I would have loved to see it, but it didn't happen. It made it real easy to go get him."

I completely disagree, and I believe the large majority of baseball fans do too.

Girardi's been a decent manager since he came to New York before the 2008 season, but sometimes he overmanages and acts too "mechanical." Yes, C.C.'s pitch count was high. Yes, it is about the "big picture." But sometimes you have to step back and really evaluate what you're doing rather than just "going by the book."

We're talking about a no-hitter here. There have been 263 no-hitters thrown in MLB history, 221 in the modern era (since 1900). That's less than one per year -- this ain't the most common occurrence in the world. You have a pitcher in Sabathia who was competing his heart out; do you think he wanted to come out? Of course not.

Sabathia's take on the situation: "It makes it easy now, but there would have been fighting out there on the mound."

He wanted to be given the chance to seal the deal and get the damn no-hitter. Any other pitcher would have felt the exact same way.

It's one game; did Girardi really think one high pitch count was going to render Sabathia useless in October should the Yankees make it back to the playoffs?

Bottom line, Girardi's mentality should've been to keep Sabathia in the game until the no-hitter was broken up. In admitting that he would not have done so, Girardi showed a lack of appreciation for one of the game's most difficult achievements.

The Championship Game and Its Larger Significance

One inch.

That was the difference between a probable Butler win and...well, reality, which was a Duke win.

Butler, down by five with just over two minutes to play, had cut the Duke lead to one on a pair of Matt Howard layups. And after an ugly Kyle Singler shot that barely grazed the rim, Butler got the ball back with just over 35 seconds left. All the Bulldogs needed was one score to complete the dream.

But Gordon Hayward's high-arching shot over the outstretched arm of Duke's Brian Zoubek was a smidgen (I would never normally use that word, but that's the best way I can describe it) too long, bouncing off the rim back to Zoubek, who was immediately fouled with three seconds left. Zoubek made the first before intentionally missing the second (which, in retrospect, was a stupid decision, when you consider what happened next...what could have been). Hayward grabbed the rebound, took a few dribbles until he was a little over half court, and let the shot fly.

A whole nation waited.

It looked good. It was going in. The movie Hoosiers was going to have nothing on the ending of this game.

And then cold, hard reality hit as the ball hit the backboard, then the front rim, and finally the hardwood. Game over. Duke had won. Goliath had won. A team from a power conference had (once again) won the national championship.

Had Hayward's shot over Zoubek been an inch (or less) shorter, or had his final desperation heave hit the backboard slightly softer, Butler would have won. David would have won. A team from the small mid-major Horizon League would have won the national championship.

But maybe that underscores a larger reality...that while the score says that Duke won the game and the 2010 national championship, Butler was perhaps just as much a winner as its opponent. The normally-outlandish Gregg Doyel of CBSSports.com astutely wrote about this idea in his column on Monday (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13162720/butler-loses-battle-wins-war-for-our-memories?tag=headlines;other). Doyel basically said that, much like George Mason is the defining memory of the 2006 tournament, what we're going to remember from the 2010 tournament is not Duke winning the national championship. We're going to remember Butler. We're going to remember a small mid-major with an enrollment of just over 4,000 defying the odds and knocking out three heavyweights from major conferences to reach the championship game.

Doyel went on to say that had Duke totally destroyed Butler, obviously the enduring memory of the tournament would have been completely different. It would have legitimized the idea that Butler was "an overmatched pretender not worthy of being in this game, much less being in our memory." But of course, that did not happen. The Bulldogs hung neck-and-neck with the Devils for the entire game; they just fell a bounce short in the end.

So for every fan of underdogs and upsets, there is much positive to take away from this game, and really this tournament as a whole, even though it didn't have the storybook ending that we had all hoped for.

This tournament demonstrated that so-called mid-majors can play with and beat the big boys. And obviously Butler's journey to the finals (as well as impressive performances from other mid-majors like St. Mary's and Northern Iowa) will only help with recruitment for these programs, and for mid-majors in general. We all saw that a mid-major can actually win the NCAA tournament -- not have a nice little run, maybe win a couple games, but actually win it all. Recruits know it. And while maybe schools like Duke, UNC, Kentucky, and Kansas will continue to be the top choices of most top-notch recruits across the country, I think this year's tournament will have a long-lasting effect of making highly talented recruits more willing to play for a mid-major -- or at least less averse to playing for one.

Bottom line, there's little doubt in my mind that a team from outside the "Big 6" will eventually win it all. I could see it happening within the decade.

*************
Random sidenote: the CBS camera crew, or whatever executive was in charge of the camera angles, should be fired immediately for sheer idiocy. Who the hell wants to watch a good chunk of the game (including key parts of the last few minutes) from an overhead view or awkward diagonal sideview? Not me. Not any sane human being. I was watching the game with my dad, and the first time they went to one of the weird angles we looked at each other like, "This has got to be a joke, right?" And then it kept on happening. And happening. And we eventually realized that, no, they weren't trying to be funny...they're just terrible at life.