foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/KnicksMuse/status/1638567087349149703

pick aside what the play-in has done is so great. All these games are so meaningful and riveting when for decades nobody would care. It not only helps kill the tankathon but also keeps teams from coasting and resting because nobody wants to be 7-10 if they dont have to be

Here's a random thought...

Some believe the lottery is rigged, given the stakes involved.

Okay. Let's run with that....

If the lottery is rigged, why would any team full-on tank?

To make it look convincing?

Even when a team like the Pelicans jump the field in order to get Zion?

Hmmmm...

Inquiring minds want to know.

Because pick #2 is still pretty good? Cause pick 3-5 is still better than 6-10?

Because in some drafts someone ****s up and draft Marvin Bagley over Doncic?

Don't be this daft.

If whoever gets the #1 selection is chosen by a consortium of competing NBA owners, why wouldn't the owners also select who picks 2-14?

If you want to argue teams tank to qualify FOR the lottery (a premise I agree with) that's one thing. But what's the argument for teams tanking to finish near of the bottom of win totals when having 15 wins versus 25 wins is irrelevant because the competing orders decide the order?

I may be daft but god save the king I bloody don't understand why any team would compete for the very bottom of the lottery when it doesn't matter.

Open to explanations (as always).

Who made that dumbass assumption?

Who else would? Adam Silver represents the owners.

If someone else other than the owners or the guy who represents the owners by proxy is making the selection, I admit I don't understand who it could be.

So I'd appreciate the insight. If owners/Silver doing the rigging isn't a natural conclusion from the theory the lottery is rigged, what are the alternatives? Who rigs it?

And since you're asking questions, would be cool if you answer why teams would tank to the bottom if the owners are aware the lottery is subjectively selected and not determined by mathematical odds?

Why do you think a consortium of competing NBA owners needs to be involved? It's a jump with zero basis

Because at you and others have stated, 'billions are a stake.' Those billions belonging to the owners.

Who else is in the equation here?

It's a simple question. I don't understand the delay in answering. If the owners aren't decided who gets the college players, who is? And why?

I don't think you really have a base level understanding of how businesses operate in the real world or how the NBA operates.

You made an assumption, it's a bad one and you haven't been even inclined to realize or consider this. It's a moot discussion after that.

Specifically, at who's direction do you feel the draft being fixed and who is involved in implementation of the fix? If you or others are going to allude to a conspiracy at least share some thoughts on the specifics.

My thoughts are that a fix of the draft for a $10 Billion professional league that has built its revenue on the backs of generational/recreational fanaticism and "on the level" competition would be out of its mind from a risk management standpoint to risk any of that revenue stream should a scandle of "fixing" be revealed. Also, assuming Silver is behind the draft fixing (if not him then whom?)...why would he risk his $10M annual salary on this should he be found out?

The second principle needed for a "base level understanding" of the topic of who Adam Silver is and who the NBA Board of Governors are.

The latter is simple. That's a fancy term for the 30 owners. They are who makes decisions for the NBA. Period.

The commissioner - Adam Silver - is not an independent third party. He is appointed by, and answers to, the Board of Governors. He is their employee. He holds no power over the Board of Governors. The power he holds is a product of the NBA Constitution and By-Laws (a public document btw). He simply exercises the power afforded to him by the by-laws and by the CBA.

The draft is a product of collective bargaining with the Player's Association (put a pin in that) and it's rules which are determined by a 2/3rd's majority by the owners.

The (presumed) premise and the owners appointed employee holds personal, discretionary, subjective power (which violates the by-laws and arguably the CBA) over competitive balance, and thereby the individual team valuations, and that the owners all agree to his discretion in lock-step solidarity is frankly, almost too insipid to type out.

Take Knicks owner James Dolan, a petty man who can't let a slight pass without doing something small and embarrassing to the franchise in retaliation, simply accepting Adam Silver's theoretical personal decision-making which has arguably never favored the Knicks in well over 2 decades.

The idea that Adam Silver gets to decide where Wembayana goes, and the teams that DON'T get him just knowingly abide by his decision, given the stakes involved, is dead on arrival.

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/KnicksMuse/status/1638567087349149703

pick aside what the play-in has done is so great. All these games are so meaningful and riveting when for decades nobody would care. It not only helps kill the tankathon but also keeps teams from coasting and resting because nobody wants to be 7-10 if they dont have to be

Here's a random thought...

Some believe the lottery is rigged, given the stakes involved.

Okay. Let's run with that....

If the lottery is rigged, why would any team full-on tank?

To make it look convincing?

Even when a team like the Pelicans jump the field in order to get Zion?

Hmmmm...

Inquiring minds want to know.

Because pick #2 is still pretty good? Cause pick 3-5 is still better than 6-10?

Because in some drafts someone ****s up and draft Marvin Bagley over Doncic?

Don't be this daft.

If whoever gets the #1 selection is chosen by a consortium of competing NBA owners, why wouldn't the owners also select who picks 2-14?

If you want to argue teams tank to qualify FOR the lottery (a premise I agree with) that's one thing. But what's the argument for teams tanking to finish near of the bottom of win totals when having 15 wins versus 25 wins is irrelevant because the competing orders decide the order?

I may be daft but god save the king I bloody don't understand why any team would compete for the very bottom of the lottery when it doesn't matter.

Open to explanations (as always).

Who made that dumbass assumption?

Who else would? Adam Silver represents the owners.

If someone else other than the owners or the guy who represents the owners by proxy is making the selection, I admit I don't understand who it could be.

So I'd appreciate the insight. If owners/Silver doing the rigging isn't a natural conclusion from the theory the lottery is rigged, what are the alternatives? Who rigs it?

And since you're asking questions, would be cool if you answer why teams would tank to the bottom if the owners are aware the lottery is subjectively selected and not determined by mathematical odds?

Why do you think a consortium of competing NBA owners needs to be involved? It's a jump with zero basis

Because at you and others have stated, 'billions are a stake.' Those billions belonging to the owners.

Who else is in the equation here?

It's a simple question. I don't understand the delay in answering. If the owners aren't decided who gets the college players, who is? And why?

I don't think you really have a base level understanding of how businesses operate in the real world or how the NBA operates.

You made an assumption, it's a bad one and you haven't been even inclined to realize or consider this. It's a moot discussion after that.

Specifically, at who's direction do you feel the draft being fixed and who is involved in implementation of the fix? If you or others are going to allude to a conspiracy at least share some thoughts on the specifics.

My thoughts are that a fix of the draft for a $10 Billion professional league that has built its revenue on the backs of generational/recreational fanaticism and "on the level" competition would be out of its mind from a risk management standpoint to risk any of that revenue stream should a scandle of "fixing" be revealed. Also, assuming Silver is behind the draft fixing (if not him then whom?)...why would he risk his $10M annual salary on this should he be found out?

Finally, what you fully grasp foos are the REAL stakes involved and their true scale. Not the stakes arrived upon though pedestrian logic.

The NBA draft is essentially illegal. It violates anti-trust laws. It is made legal because a draft is agreed upon with the player's union via collective bargaining (the CBA).

The CBA dictates players enter the NBA by declaring eligibility for the draft. The CBA doesn't stipulate the means by which the draft order is determined, the Board of Governors by-laws do. But inherent in the players agreeing to a draft is the basic principle it is an unbias merit based system of some kind competitive process.

Adam Silver and/or the Board of Governors effectively deciding where a player goes (even for sake of argument considering the premise 30 owners could) while publicly presenting an unbias process while not a slam dunk starts to broach the concept of collusion.

Now as highlighted previously, the 30 individual members of the Board of Governors compete with one another (as necessary as stay on the right side of anti-trust laws), but more specifically, the Board of Governors and the Players Association often have conflicting interests and often have a very adversarial relationship. Just a few years ago the NBAPA sued the league on collusion/anti-trust grounds.

The NBA would be flirting with danger by fixing the draft order in what according to the conspiracy theory is the sports world's worst kept secret.

And as others have astutely asked, for what?

What has the conspiracy-based draft results done for the league?

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Specifically, at who's direction do you feel the draft being fixed and who is involved in implementation of the fix? If you or others are going to allude to a conspiracy at least share some thoughts on the specifics.

My thoughts are that a fix of the draft for a $10 Billion professional league that has built its revenue on the backs of generational/recreational fanaticism and "on the level" competition would be out of its mind from a risk management standpoint to risk any of that revenue stream should a scandle of "fixing" be revealed. Also, assuming Silver is behind the draft fixing (if not him then whom?)...why would he risk his $10M annual salary on this should he be found out?

Sorry, I've been caught up on life, been meaning to get back to you.

OK, this will take a bit of back and forth, let me know if you are up for it.

Also, if you have already closed the possibility, just let me know as that would be a waste of both of our time. I obviously don't have literal proof of such a thing but it seems that if there is enough circumstantial stuff going on, there should at least be the possibility of it happening. It does take that leap.

Definitely open to hearing it out.

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Specifically, at who's direction do you feel the draft being fixed and who is involved in implementation of the fix? If you or others are going to allude to a conspiracy at least share some thoughts on the specifics.

My thoughts are that a fix of the draft for a $10 Billion professional league that has built its revenue on the backs of generational/recreational fanaticism and "on the level" competition would be out of its mind from a risk management standpoint to risk any of that revenue stream should a scandle of "fixing" be revealed. Also, assuming Silver is behind the draft fixing (if not him then whom?)...why would he risk his $10M annual salary on this should he be found out?

Sorry, I've been caught up on life, been meaning to get back to you.

OK, this will take a bit of back and forth, let me know if you are up for it.

Also, if you have already closed the possibility, just let me know as that would be a waste of both of our time. I obviously don't have literal proof of such a thing but it seems that if there is enough circumstantial stuff going on, there should at least be the possibility of it happening. It does take that leap.

Definitely open to hearing it out.

Couple more baseline things. And again, this is going to come slow, I am just all over the place these days, so bare with me. Let me know if you can be with me on this baseline.

1) I don't view this as some sort of conspiracy theory level stuff. I don't imagine Stern or Silver sitting in a leather chair in a dark room next to the fireplace with bourbon in one hand while petting his cat with the other all the while whimsically calling the lottery shots and who will get picks 1-3 and then telling his minions that they can leave the rest of the lottery results in place. For me, I am viewing this as plainly just another business decision that is made by an organization - a unique one no doubt, both in terms of type of decision and type of organization - but just the same type of decision and steps as any other well run company employs. A well run company evaluating a unique situation and making a unique decision and then carrying it out.

2) I am not here to convince you that it happens and how it happens. I am laying the groundwork as to why there are enough check boxes that seem to be checked off that has ME convinced that the likelihood of it happening has crossed my threshold to YES. At a very high level, for literally any topic that you and I could discuss in a situation like this, there is a large swath of grey area - stuff that we have to lean on that would have to have enough informed information that will push you or I or anyone past a point that we will start to nod our heads that's it's likely Yes or keep shaking our heads to indicate No and need to continue to assess or maybe come to a conclusion. Every one of us has a different range of grey area and the number of check boxes that need to be crossed off before we either start to nod our heads or keep shaking them. We do this in life all the time on all sorts of topics. Like with Climate Change (if you can work with me on an example that may not be exact but has enough substance that we can use as hypothetical); I can't explain climate change to you enough to PROVE climate change, but you and I could cover enough highlights and check boxes that could have us both nodding our heads (you know, without reading sourced stuff on Internet or whatnot, just discussion level stuff). Could we have done that 30 years ago? Or 50 year? For me, in my 20's, I was already to the point of having enough check boxes marked, and I think it is also far to say that a lot of people were still not there, even if I gave them my same EXACT baseline (and not fully informed) understanding of what Climate Change from today to the 30 years ago discussion. And that's OK, that's just how things shake out between different vantage points.

Consider this sequence of scenarios to inform my #2: if the magic number for the Lakers to secure a playoff spot was 5 and there were 5 games left in the season AND there was something specifically unique going on with LeBron like somehow he was having a historic season in what could be his last.... AND THEN the refs totally bagged (not every call enough of them) each of the 5 games for the Lakers in close games, you and I probably could both come to an agreement that something shady is going on and the NBA was somehow involved to make this happen (it's a stupid hypothetical situation that would never happen but you get my drift). 5 out of 5 games of close critical calls will get you and I enough check boxes, not to mention that we are layering that with the LeBron farewell tour and marketing the NBA and Nike and all the other sponsors have put into the full season cause we saw that going on too. If the refs only did this in 4 out of 5 games and the Lakers won all 5... same situation and we would perhaps just say the NBA was doing shady stuff. 3? Maybe you and I are still there. 2 games? Just 1 game that went into overtime? Just the last one? Maybe not for 1 or 2.

In the scenario of LeBron winning 5 out of 5 games where too many of the close/critical calls went to LA, I would not be able to explain to you the logistics of how this happened and how Silver met with the owners to get approval of such a situation or whatnot, we would just throw our hands up and call it shady. If it only happened on the very last call of OT in the very last game.... I don't envision Silver whipping out his batphone and chatting with the reffing crew during a timeout in the last minutes of a tied game but I also wouldn't put it past Silver having a discussion before the game with at least 1 ref who the front office had enough leverage on discussing a late game situation and raising his eyebrows while offhandedly musing how sad he will be that it's LeBron's last season while hoping he will be able to win and continue his glorious farewell tour deep into the playoffs.

Let me know if you are OK with the above and can work with me from there.

Rookie wrote:Why is there a lottery? I can’t think of any other league or sport that uses a lottery system. The fact that a lottery system exists does make it possible for the results to be manipulated.

The NHL, whose 82 games schedule and playoff former most closely resembles the NBA, uses a lottery system ... to get that out of the way.

The answer to your question is to prevent tanking, which I think most NBA observers would agree has existed.

As to why tanking is more of an issue than the other two major sports that don't have a lottery - the NFL and MLB - there are several factors.

The first is the schedule. The NFL only plays 17 games. The issue just isn't as glaring for that reason alone.

But that is secondary to the talent make-up of both leagues. The premium talent isn't weighted to the first few picks of the draft the way it is the NBA.

The NBA went to a 2 round system years back for this reason.

The development of MLB players just doesn't resemble any other sport (and least resembles the NBA), making tanking over 162 games nearly pointless. Sure, there's a premium prospect every now and again that teams would LOVE to draft, but MLB prospects almost all go through years of development and the relationship between MLB success and draft position doesn't resemble the NBA at all.

And that isn't even mentioning the international talent pool that isn't even subject to the/a draft, which is also utterly unique.

As for the NFL, again, there are prospects that teams dream on (Trevor Lawrence comes to mind) and yes, some level of tanking DOES occur. But again with 7 rounds on the draft and 53 man rosters, the talent distribution simply isn't concentrated to the top 1-10 picks like it is the NBA.

The NBA, with it's 5 man starting line-ups, 10 man rotations, and 15 man rosters is a unique animal in terms of talent. There is less of it, and it's harder to acquire.

More than any other sport (by far) it lends itself to that one premium guy (like a Lebron or Jordan or Hakeem or Duncan) being far more valuable than premium players in other sports. The greatest NFL QB and arguably player of of all time was selected 199.

It's that simple. Racing to the bottom makes little to no sense in MLB when you are trying to draw fans to 81 home games.

Teams do tank to some degree in the NFL, but NFL parity exists because of it's unique talent structure and the amount of games just makes it less of a glaring issue for that reason alone.

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Specifically, at who's direction do you feel the draft being fixed and who is involved in implementation of the fix? If you or others are going to allude to a conspiracy at least share some thoughts on the specifics.

My thoughts are that a fix of the draft for a $10 Billion professional league that has built its revenue on the backs of generational/recreational fanaticism and "on the level" competition would be out of its mind from a risk management standpoint to risk any of that revenue stream should a scandle of "fixing" be revealed. Also, assuming Silver is behind the draft fixing (if not him then whom?)...why would he risk his $10M annual salary on this should he be found out?

Sorry, I've been caught up on life, been meaning to get back to you.

OK, this will take a bit of back and forth, let me know if you are up for it.

Also, if you have already closed the possibility, just let me know as that would be a waste of both of our time. I obviously don't have literal proof of such a thing but it seems that if there is enough circumstantial stuff going on, there should at least be the possibility of it happening. It does take that leap.

Definitely open to hearing it out.

Couple more baseline things. And again, this is going to come slow, I am just all over the place these days, so bare with me. Let me know if you can be with me on this baseline.

1) I don't view this as some sort of conspiracy theory level stuff. I don't imagine Stern or Silver sitting in a leather chair in a dark room next to the fireplace with bourbon in one hand while petting his cat with the other all the while whimsically calling the lottery shots and who will get picks 1-3 and then telling his minions that they can leave the rest of the lottery results in place. For me, I am viewing this as plainly just another business decision that is made by an organization - a unique one no doubt, both in terms of type of decision and type of organization - but just the same type of decision and steps as any other well run company employs. A well run company evaluating a unique situation and making a unique decision and then carrying it out.

2) I am not here to convince you that it happens and how it happens. I am laying the groundwork as to why there are enough check boxes that seem to be checked off that has ME convinced that the likelihood of it happening has crossed my threshold to YES. At a very high level, for literally any topic that you and I could discuss in a situation like this, there is a large swath of grey area - stuff that we have to lean on that would have to have enough informed information that will push you or I or anyone past a point that we will start to nod our heads that's it's likely Yes or keep shaking our heads to indicate No and need to continue to assess or maybe come to a conclusion. Every one of us has a different range of grey area and the number of check boxes that need to be crossed off before we either start to nod our heads or keep shaking them. We do this in life all the time on all sorts of topics. Like with Climate Change (if you can work with me on an example that may not be exact but has enough substance that we can use as hypothetical); I can't explain climate change to you enough to PROVE climate change, but you and I could cover enough highlights and check boxes that could have us both nodding our heads (you know, without reading sourced stuff on Internet or whatnot, just discussion level stuff). Could we have done that 30 years ago? Or 50 year? For me, in my 20's, I was already to the point of having enough check boxes marked, and I think it is also far to say that a lot of people were still not there, even if I gave them my same EXACT baseline (and not fully informed) understanding of what Climate Change from today to the 30 years ago discussion. And that's OK, that's just how things shake out between different vantage points.

Consider this sequence of scenarios to inform my #2: if the magic number for the Lakers to secure a playoff spot was 5 and there were 5 games left in the season AND there was something specifically unique going on with LeBron like somehow he was having a historic season in what could be his last.... AND THEN the refs totally bagged (not every call enough of them) each of the 5 games for the Lakers in close games, you and I probably could both come to an agreement that something shady is going on and the NBA was somehow involved to make this happen (it's a stupid hypothetical situation that would never happen but you get my drift). 5 out of 5 games of close critical calls will get you and I enough check boxes, not to mention that we are layering that with the LeBron farewell tour and marketing the NBA and Nike and all the other sponsors have put into the full season cause we saw that going on too. If the refs only did this in 4 out of 5 games and the Lakers won all 5... same situation and we would perhaps just say the NBA was doing shady stuff. 3? Maybe you and I are still there. 2 games? Just 1 game that went into overtime? Just the last one? Maybe not for 1 or 2.

In the scenario of LeBron winning 5 out of 5 games where too many of the close/critical calls went to LA, I would not be able to explain to you the logistics of how this happened and how Silver met with the owners to get approval of such a situation or whatnot, we would just throw our hands up and call it shady. If it only happened on the very last call of OT in the very last game.... I don't envision Silver whipping out his batphone and chatting with the reffing crew during a timeout in the last minutes of a tied game but I also wouldn't put it past Silver having a discussion before the game with at least 1 ref who the front office had enough leverage on discussing a late game situation and raising his eyebrows while offhandedly musing how sad he will be that it's LeBron's last season while hoping he will be able to win and continue his glorious farewell tour deep into the playoffs.

Let me know if you are OK with the above and can work with me from there.

Couple of things here...

Addressing point #2 first: While I appreciate the preamble qualifying this matter as highly subjective, prone to individual interpretation, and based on circumstantial evidence, and laying the groundwork that because in your view multiple conclusions can legitimately be reached, you don't expect to change anyone's mind or your's to be changed, that's (in my view) a very different take on this matter that you previously presented.

A week or so back in another thread, when I expressed the idea I didn't think the draft was rigged (with no more or less certainty or argument than that), you responded that because the NBA is a multi-billion dollar business (and for that reason alone), you questioned how it could not be rigged, which is a pretty definitive statement.

Your previous replies in THIS thread continue this tact, referring to the questions you seem now ready to qualify as legitimate (if someone else asks them) and subjective in nature as "dumbass" and "daft" and reiterating the premise that for no other reason that the NBA is a billions-dollar business, to question this simple precept was to not have a base-level understanding of how business or the NBA operates in the "real world."

Now I've never given you any indication I don't possess a base-level understanding of anything much less the NBA or business, so your dismissive, hostile responses seems based solely on the premise I don't agree with you ABOUT your conclusions about the lottery and your ONLY stated reasoning (so far) is the fact that it is a multi-billion business directly explains why the lottery has to be rigged.

A premise we'll get to next...

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Specifically, at who's direction do you feel the draft being fixed and who is involved in implementation of the fix? If you or others are going to allude to a conspiracy at least share some thoughts on the specifics.

My thoughts are that a fix of the draft for a $10 Billion professional league that has built its revenue on the backs of generational/recreational fanaticism and "on the level" competition would be out of its mind from a risk management standpoint to risk any of that revenue stream should a scandle of "fixing" be revealed. Also, assuming Silver is behind the draft fixing (if not him then whom?)...why would he risk his $10M annual salary on this should he be found out?

Sorry, I've been caught up on life, been meaning to get back to you.

OK, this will take a bit of back and forth, let me know if you are up for it.

Also, if you have already closed the possibility, just let me know as that would be a waste of both of our time. I obviously don't have literal proof of such a thing but it seems that if there is enough circumstantial stuff going on, there should at least be the possibility of it happening. It does take that leap.

Definitely open to hearing it out.

Couple more baseline things. And again, this is going to come slow, I am just all over the place these days, so bare with me. Let me know if you can be with me on this baseline.

1) I don't view this as some sort of conspiracy theory level stuff. I don't imagine Stern or Silver sitting in a leather chair in a dark room next to the fireplace with bourbon in one hand while petting his cat with the other all the while whimsically calling the lottery shots and who will get picks 1-3 and then telling his minions that they can leave the rest of the lottery results in place. For me, I am viewing this as plainly just another business decision that is made by an organization - a unique one no doubt, both in terms of type of decision and type of organization - but just the same type of decision and steps as any other well run company employs. A well run company evaluating a unique situation and making a unique decision and then carrying it out.

2) I am not here to convince you that it happens and how it happens. I am laying the groundwork as to why there are enough check boxes that seem to be checked off that has ME convinced that the likelihood of it happening has crossed my threshold to YES. At a very high level, for literally any topic that you and I could discuss in a situation like this, there is a large swath of grey area - stuff that we have to lean on that would have to have enough informed information that will push you or I or anyone past a point that we will start to nod our heads that's it's likely Yes or keep shaking our heads to indicate No and need to continue to assess or maybe come to a conclusion. Every one of us has a different range of grey area and the number of check boxes that need to be crossed off before we either start to nod our heads or keep shaking them. We do this in life all the time on all sorts of topics. Like with Climate Change (if you can work with me on an example that may not be exact but has enough substance that we can use as hypothetical); I can't explain climate change to you enough to PROVE climate change, but you and I could cover enough highlights and check boxes that could have us both nodding our heads (you know, without reading sourced stuff on Internet or whatnot, just discussion level stuff). Could we have done that 30 years ago? Or 50 year? For me, in my 20's, I was already to the point of having enough check boxes marked, and I think it is also far to say that a lot of people were still not there, even if I gave them my same EXACT baseline (and not fully informed) understanding of what Climate Change from today to the 30 years ago discussion. And that's OK, that's just how things shake out between different vantage points.

Consider this sequence of scenarios to inform my #2: if the magic number for the Lakers to secure a playoff spot was 5 and there were 5 games left in the season AND there was something specifically unique going on with LeBron like somehow he was having a historic season in what could be his last.... AND THEN the refs totally bagged (not every call enough of them) each of the 5 games for the Lakers in close games, you and I probably could both come to an agreement that something shady is going on and the NBA was somehow involved to make this happen (it's a stupid hypothetical situation that would never happen but you get my drift). 5 out of 5 games of close critical calls will get you and I enough check boxes, not to mention that we are layering that with the LeBron farewell tour and marketing the NBA and Nike and all the other sponsors have put into the full season cause we saw that going on too. If the refs only did this in 4 out of 5 games and the Lakers won all 5... same situation and we would perhaps just say the NBA was doing shady stuff. 3? Maybe you and I are still there. 2 games? Just 1 game that went into overtime? Just the last one? Maybe not for 1 or 2.

In the scenario of LeBron winning 5 out of 5 games where too many of the close/critical calls went to LA, I would not be able to explain to you the logistics of how this happened and how Silver met with the owners to get approval of such a situation or whatnot, we would just throw our hands up and call it shady. If it only happened on the very last call of OT in the very last game.... I don't envision Silver whipping out his batphone and chatting with the reffing crew during a timeout in the last minutes of a tied game but I also wouldn't put it past Silver having a discussion before the game with at least 1 ref who the front office had enough leverage on discussing a late game situation and raising his eyebrows while offhandedly musing how sad he will be that it's LeBron's last season while hoping he will be able to win and continue his glorious farewell tour deep into the playoffs.

Let me know if you are OK with the above and can work with me from there.

As to #1...

I appreciate you qualify the NBA as a unique billions-dollar business, as we certainly agree on that and it's central to the premise here.

The question of who makes the decision and why they make it is inherent to the question here, however.

It's important to understand Adam Silver is NOT a CEO. He is also not an equity shareholder in the league. His function is to mainly carry about the league's Constitution and bylaws and to make certain the CBA is adhered to on both sides.

You've seemingly rejected the premise the Board of Governors determines who receives the #1 pick and perhaps the full lottery order in general, which leaves only Silver.

So the question become:

1. How does Silver make this determination?
2. Why does each individual owner abide by his subjective decision making so faithfully?

Both of those questions come into play if we look at the 2019 lottery, one which as Knicks fans we have had interest in and knowledge of.

The Knicks, the NBA's worst team the season before had the best odds to finish #1.

But the team with the 7th best odds got the first pick, the team with the 8th best odds got #2, and the team with the 11th best odds got #4.

Now to some, this may serve as exhibit A on why the lottery is rigged, and then our ability to rationalize our conclusions kick and some start explaining why the New Orleans Pelicans got Zion Williamson (to try to elevate the lowest valuexed franchise? pay back for the Pelicans sending AD to the Lakers).

But to others (like me), I ask why do the owners of the Knicks, Cavs, Suns, Bulls, Hawks and Wizards (all of whom had better odds and therefore a legit argument and legit need for a Williamson) agree before or after Silver makes that series of decisions?

Why do the owners of the Mavs, Wolves, Hornets, Heat, and Kings silently abide the Lakers moving into the top 4 when they don't?

If we're to look at real world business, there are public disputes between CEO's and shareholders, and CEOs and Boards of Directors, and disputes with ex-employees and whistle-blowers. This is commonplace. But yet in the NBA, this gang of 30 individual billionaire owners, all of whom do have a collective interest but also compete with one another (and HAVE to to retain their anti-trust exemption, far more valuable to the league than Zion Williamson) agree with Adam Silver's individual decision making DIRECTLY affecting the revenue and valuation of their individual franchise in lockstep every year?

James Dolan just looks the other way in 2019, as do five other franchises the Pels and Griz leap-frogged, and the 7 other franchises the Lakers leapfrogged and 4 others not afforded the opportunity the Lakers received? NOBODY breaks rank... ever?

Even a guy part of that lottery who was publicly embarrassed a few years later by a league investigation, suspended for a year and then sold his franchise. HE protects the secret TOO?

It doesn't pass the logic test in of itself much less combined with all the other relevant factors.

If interpretation of Silver's logic is the "circumstantial" part of any argument the lottery IS rigged, any theory opens up a myriad of questions of why his logic is good for the OTHER teams negatively impacted and why the owner(s) of those teams accept his unilateral decision making.

Because 30 billionaires putting aside their individual interests in deference to their employee and remaining silent about it to a fault isn't how business works in the real world at all.

Rookie wrote:Why is there a lottery? I can’t think of any other league or sport that uses a lottery system. The fact that a lottery system exists does make it possible for the results to be manipulated.

The NBA lottery exists because of a league conspiracy to help the Knicks, starting with getting us Ewing.

As J. Edgar Hoover used to say: "We must ensure that our investigation does not end up pointing back at us as the culprits"