OAK: NBA HAS REAL PROBLEM
SAYS REF IS RIGHT, MORE TO COME
By FRED KERBER

June 15, 2008 -- Knicks New York Knicks favorite Charles Oakley, a veteran of the celebrated New York-Chicago series of the '90s, said he believes NBA officials and league executives exert too much control over the outcome of games. Oakley also said he feels the biggest surprise in the allegations by disgraced referee Tim Donaghy is that they didn't come sooner.

"I'm just surprised he hasn't put more stuff out about the league because everything he put out is the truth," Oakley told The Post. "There's a lot more going on behind this. Some official some day is going to come out with a book and tell the whole story.

"They should have asked about this a long time ago," added Oakley, who played for the Knicks for 10 seasons, from 1988 to 1998, when they made the playoffs every year. "When you can talk to officials at halftime about calls they made in the first half, that's control. When you control something, that's cheating."

Donaghy, 41, faces sentencing next month after admitting to betting on games he worked and supplying gamblers with inside information. He alleged last week that the league in the past wanted to extend certain playoff series to seven games for better ratings and bigger bucks while also providing superstars with favorable calls - or non-calls. Commissioner David Stern labeled Donaghy's charges "baseless."

Oakley disagrees and cited the treatment afforded his buddy and one-time rival, Michael Jordan.

"Whenever you have superstar calls, that tells you right there it's cheating. It's controlled," Oakley said.

Oakley, though, said he didn't believe the length of a series mattered to the league as much as the outcome.

"I don't know about getting it to seven games, but they knew who they were marketing for the business," Oakley said. "You look back and look at the teams and think who can make the money for the league. Who made the league shine in their careers, Michael Jordan or Patrick Ewing? No question it was Michael Jordan. He's the best player to ever play, but he got more calls. I know I was in a couple situations where I didn't foul at all and they called fouls."

Oakley offered two examples from this season's playoffs for support. He pointed to the controversial end of Game 4 in the Lakers-Spurs Western semifinals. After no foul was called against LA's Derek Fisher for bumping the Spurs' Brent Barry, the league came out afterward and said a foul was warranted. Oakley also highlighted Lakers coach Phil Jackson complaining about the free-throw disparity in Games 1 and 2 of the Finals, both won by Boston.

"In this year's playoffs [Barry] took a shot at the end of the game. That was a blatant foul and there was no foul called. Anybody who watches basketball knows it's a blatant foul," Oakley said.

"A ref is just doing what the league calls. . . . You can't tell a guy you can't blow a whistle in the last 30 seconds of the game. That's cheating."

Oakley contends the control extends beyond the officiating and cited frequent rule changes. Oakley was one of the toughest players in the NBA and often was rankled about rules that were added to give harsher penalties for rough fouls.

"Whenever you can change the rules every year to make somebody better, that's cheating," Oakley said.

Great Read. I read this yesterday.

Don't take too much credit playa. People were calling this for quite sometime. My first memory of it, specifically, was the season the Lakers won their first championship and people were calling it. You weren't the one to make this stuff up.

Oakley disagrees and cited the treatment afforded his buddy and one-time rival, Michael Jordan.

"Whenever you have superstar calls, that tells you right there it's cheating. It's controlled," Oakley said.

Oakley, though, said he didn't believe the length of a series mattered to the league as much as the outcome.

"I don't know about getting it to seven games, but they knew who they were marketing for the business," Oakley said. "You look back and look at the teams and think who can make the money for the league. Who made the league shine in their careers, Michael Jordan or Patrick Ewing? No question it was Michael Jordan. He's the best player to ever play, but he got more calls. I know I was in a couple situations where I didn't foul at all and they called fouls."

thank you Oak... couldn't agree w/u more.

[Edited by - TMS on 06-16-2008 1:49 PM]

The problem I have with Oakley is where he talks about how the NBA wants certain teams winning. Please tell me how theres ANYWAY the NBA ever wanted the Spurs to win one championship, let alone 4. Do they have a great player in Tim Duncan? Sure do. Is Tim Duncan marketable? Not really.

Posted by playa2:

And you guys thought I was the only one who knew.

Jordan always got the call. "Jordan Rules".

We all know that superstars get better treatment.

Heat Also got the benefit when the knicks left the bench? WE beat them every year but that year.

Its a nice cop out to blame the refs, but until its found out, we can all guess.

Blaming the refs been done since the beginning of time.

blueseats returns...all is right with the world...

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TMS:

the Spurs were the best team over the past decade & they made the shots when they counted, bottomline... referees can't always determine the outcome of games, but they can highly influence them surely, & giving preferential treatment to certain players just because they're Michael Jordan or whoever else is tantamount to cheating just like Oak is talking about here.

Precisely. And great teams exploit the opportunity. My problem with the Knicks is, for all the complaining about Jordan's treatment, we were the recipeints of two of the most heavily referee decided outcomes in recent history and we still couldn't exploit them for championships.

For instance, it has always been assumed by us faithfl that if it weren't for MJ we'd have multiple championships. However, even with MJ out the the league, it took a blatant favor from Hugh Hollins (on Hubert Davis' 3) to get us past the Bulls and into the finals against the Rockets - where we lost, fair and square.

Later, I forget his name but I always hated him, that curly white haired ref, blessed us with the LJ 4 pt play to get us past the Pacers, but again we couldn't make hay against the Spurs and went down in 5.

So lots of teams get a little favor from time to time, not the least of them the Knicks, but it still takes a special team to make some good of it.

Thank God. Welcome back Blue.

Mike Mathis?

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TMS:

the Spurs were the best team over the past decade & they made the shots when they counted, bottomline... referees can't always determine the outcome of games, but they can highly influence them surely, & giving preferential treatment to certain players just because they're Michael Jordan or whoever else is tantamount to cheating just like Oak is talking about here.

Precisely. And great teams exploit the opportunity. My problem with the Knicks is, for all the complaining about Jordan's treatment, we were the recipeints of two of the most heavily referee decided outcomes in recent history and we still couldn't exploit them for championships.

For instance, it has always been assumed by us faithfl that if it weren't for MJ we'd have multiple championships. However, even with MJ out the the league, it took a blatant favor from Hugh Hollins (on Hubert Davis' 3) to get us past the Bulls and into the finals against the Rockets - where we lost, fair and square.

Later, I forget his name but I always hated him, that curly white haired ref, blessed us with the LJ 4 pt play to get us past the Pacers, but again we couldn't make hay against the Spurs and went down in 5.

So lots of teams get a little favor from time to time, not the least of them the Knicks, but it still takes a special team to make some good of it.

AWWWWWWW YOU MOTHER******!!!!!


Where have you been?

Posted by BlueSeats:

Precisely. And great teams exploit the opportunity. My problem with the Knicks is, for all the complaining about Jordan's treatment, we were the recipeints of two of the most heavily referee decided outcomes in recent history and we still couldn't exploit them for championships.

For instance, it has always been assumed by us faithfl that if it weren't for MJ we'd have multiple championships. However, even with MJ out the the league, it took a blatant favor from Hugh Hollins (on Hubert Davis' 3) to get us past the Bulls and into the finals against the Rockets - where we lost, fair and square.

Later, I forget his name but I always hated him, that curly white haired ref, blessed us with the LJ 4 pt play to get us past the Pacers, but again we couldn't make hay against the Spurs and went down in 5.

So lots of teams get a little favor from time to time, not the least of them the Knicks, but it still takes a special team to make some good of it.

Well if it isn't Mr. BlueSeats.

Glad to see you back.

Posted by eViL:

I've said it before, superstars get calls in every league conceivable. From HS, to rec leagues, the most active, skilled, aggressive players get the calls. I've played in enough leagues to know that this happens consistently. I'm not saying it is impossible that the refs have been crooked, I'm just saying we can't pin it all on the existence of "superstar calls". Superstar calls have been a part of life for leagues in every sport, world-wide.

i'm trying to think of other sports where superstars get preferential treatment & i can't think of many other than hoops where it can so seriously effect the game & its outcome... maaaaaaybe baseball on questionable strike calls or non-calls for certain star players, or football where certain vets are allowed to get away w/a little more contact downfield than other guys might, but most of the time it's only hoops where it's as blatantly biased for certain star players over others IMHO... i can't really comment on soccer or hockey since i never watch them to begin with... definitely doesn't happen in Tennis though... the line judges call them the same no matter who's playing IMO.