Discussion in 'Archive: The Arena' started by DarthIntegral, Apr 23, 2008.
Just got back after a weekend away. I'll get an answer up tomorrow. Sorry!
First, let me say I don't personally believe that Jordan and Barkley were ever involved in fixing games. As far as I know neither fixed games and also, as far as I know, never betted on their sport.
I am simply playing devil's advocate for those conspiracy theorists and those who think players might get named. The Black Sox scandal is a perfect example of this fact.
I hardly think that in this day and age, where the players are financially compensated about a zillion times more than players from the Black Sox era were, would ever organize as a team and throw a big game, or a series of games for a few extra bucks.
Anyone that would be paranoid enough to think that something that happened almost 90 years ago, would have any bearing on today's athletes should just quit watching sports altogether.
Not paranoid. Simply playing devil's advocate.
I'm not saying that you're paranoid, but if you're going to play Devil's Advocate, than you're moderating between normal(and yes, sometimes obsessive fans), and paranoid fans.
PS, I'm going to assume that the time limit for response to these questions doesn't have a 48 hour time limit like it did in the first game Inty. Because Lisa's late, and you've been out of town. So, if any of us have pressing business that may keep us away for a few days, we'll be excused as well. Right?
1) How bad can this get for the NBA?
I think this can get really bad for the NBA. As a fan watching a sport, I want to see the fairest game possible and knowing a game I watched was fixed is going to make me not trust the league or the refs anymore. If this comes out to be true, then I'd say things are going to go downhill for the NBA, possibly what happened to the NHL years ago (but for different reasons). There will still be some hardcore fans, but I'm not paying money to go watch a game or spend my time on something where it the athletes are not being allowed to showcase their skills and competing in a fair competition.
2) How bad will this get for the NBA?
I think this is going to blow over, to be honest. If the players can get out there and be like "This is not how it is now...come watch me strut my stuff" then the fans will go "Well...it was awhile ago and it won't happen again" and allow this to pass.
3) Does this taint any accomplishments in your eyes, or will it?
Yes. If the refs were fixing games or whatnot that isn't an accomplishment of the team or the players. They should be thrown out, imo.
Yes, I was gone all weekend and was recovering and trying to do real work. My apologies. And if I know ahead of time that you'll be delayed a bit in getting your argument post up, I have no real problem holding the game a bit. I'm trying to be nicer.
Now, how about some scoring?
Juliet: Very harsh and very strong words (+2), calling on Congress (+2), calling out Stern (+2), talking about modern media (+2), and giving a harsh word of warning (+1). Great post.
Trika: Fantastic point on reactions from the public (+3), and a great image with pitchforks (+2), a wonderful painted picture of possible NBA doomsday (+3), great imaging again, and a great way to invoke other games besides Kings-Lakers (+3). Another great post.
ASG: A great shot of realism, love the counterpoint (+3), great point about the media (+2), and you know I'd love to see Stern gone (+2). Love the emphasis of IF (+2). Another great post. You ladies are putting everyone else to shame.
horsey: good points (+2), good prediction (+2), and a strong call (+1). Not bad for a rushed post.
Buy or Sell is next ...
I was going to go with more golf, thanks to the love you ladies showed for it and the amazing finale, but instead, we've got a little breaking news ...
[link=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3447973]The New York Mets are cleaning up the clubhouse[/link], firing Willie Randolph and a couple of assistants. This on the heels of an epic collapse late last season and a bad start this season.
You ladies buy or sell this move being warranted and actually helping the Mets this season?
Let's go Around the Arena and find out ...
Depends on who you get to replace him and how bad morale is impacted by this. Pulling the trigger on this before the All - Star break upcoming should minimize this some and give some reason to think "Fresh Start". However firing a coach mid - way through a year is never good. (see Chicago Bulls this year) It always damages morale in some way, shape, or form, and with injuries and what not, more than likely their year is done.
It's warranted, and has been for quite a while. The team lost faith in him as general manager a long time ago, and that transfers to fan's despair. Call him a scapegoat, call him the fallguy, call him what ever you want, but in many people's eyes, he was the one to blame for the downfall of the Mets this season.
It was time for a cleaning of the house, and that's what the Mets finally have done. In fact, if there's anything to really be disgruntled with by the players, or the fans, it's that it wasn't done a long time ago.
They needed a fresh start, but at this point in the season it's to little to late, and now they're going to have to start working on building a strong mentality for the next season.
I'd like to also add that no matter how necessary this move may have been, the way they went about it was pretty cowardly, and way to make it seem like nothing significant by releasing the info to the press in an e-mail.
Where did my post go? Did I forget to hit send? Crap! Will get this up again later.
I'm selling this. Nothing, and I mean nothing, so spineless is warranted, and it's especially not warranted at 3:12 a.m., and in an e-mail! When things go wrong in your ball club, you fire the manager. 'Nuff said. It's the way of the blame game. Randolph really is the scapegoat, and sadly, it wasn't warranted, and it's not going to help the Mets this season.
We're talking about a club that won 83 games under Randolph in his first season and 97 in his second. These past two years have been interesting, a combination of a pitching rotation held together by rubber bands and a roster plagued with injuries and poor hitting. With the rest of the Mets' roster consisting of mediocre major leaguers with Triple-A skills, what manager is going to secure a 90+ win season? I doubt that anything is really going to help the Mets, anyway, but someone's got to take the fall, and Randolph was the man early this morning.
Yes, but you also have to keep in mind the amount of money that's been invested in this particular ball club. It may not seem fair given his record the first few years, and it still may seem illogical after last season and this one. However, he's paid to produce, and last year there was an utter meltdown. His time with the club this year hasn't amounted to much, and the Met's administration, while probably waiting way to long into the season for it to make a difference, finally did what they felt necessary.
When it comes right down to it, they probably want to find a replacement ASAP, so they can build relationships and stamina between the new Manager and the players, and hopefully end the season with some momentum for next spring.
Who cares about the Mets!!! Its all about the Cubs this year. The Mets never stood a chance! That's why I shall use this time to talk about the Cubs. So what if Soriano is out for 6 weeks. The Cubs can still win and take this! Our pitching bullpen is spectacular and has been doing some awesome stuff lately!!! Go cubs!!!
Let's score these arguments ...
juliet: good all around +3
ASG: Good points all around +3, and I love you calling them, justifiably so, cowards (+2)
trika: Good all around +3, plus calling the Mets out (+1)
horsey: i loled. +2
Another round of Buy or Sell is next ...
The Celtics thumping of the Lakers last night gave Boston their 17th NBA title, and bruised the egos of Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson. In winning with such dominance, the only question we can logically ask is:
Are you buying or selling banner #18 coming next year via a repeat?
Let's go Around the Arena and find out ...
As long as they can keep their team together next year, I'm buying.
But, they have to keep their team pretty much intact and solve their problem of losing on the road that they seemed to have so much of this year.
I'm selling this one. I think there are a few other rising teams who have a shot next year. If the Celtics had won in a convincing 4 games then perhaps I'd be more willing to buy, but winning in 7 with a few incredibly close games, nah.
Plus, we all hate Boston sports so really that'll knock them down a few pegs so we can go back to loling @ Boston again. They'll develop the Patriots syndrome and blow it all. (Which incidentally, I think happened with the Lakers!)
Do I sense horsey trying to suck up her way to bonus points? And then not going the whole way?
Quick interjection - did anyone see ATH today? No scoring, no cuts, 4 people into showdown all with 0 as a score, no winner, no face time... what the heck?
I'm buying a repeat. All five starters are coming back, and while other teams are going to be going through some major drawing board work, the Celtics have the solid kernel that's sure to deliver a strong season next year. Garnett, Pierce, and Allen are playing with a vibrancy that makes a much younger players jealous, and I'd say that they've got the endurance to pull out several strong years yet. Rondo and Perkins, with a year of experience playing at this level behind them, are only going to get better. With such a dominating end to the finals, the Celtics are poised for another banner next year.
Side Note: Rogue, I didn't happen to catch it because I don't have cable. What in the world did Reali do?
I didn't happen to catch it because I don't have cable. What in the world did Reali do?
I'm not sure because I turned it on at the beginning of the first topic, missed the intros and any explanation of it. So I don't know if it was by some request or a technical difficulty, or what.
Just a heads up: I'm working tonight and will probably be offline until at least tomorrow morning at the earliest, so I probably won't be able to answer the next post until at least then.