Why Do I Follow the NBA?

There are lot of people a generation older than me that have lost touch with the NBA. They no longer keep up with it. The league they followed as kids is no longer enjoyable to watch. It's not fun anymore. I never imagined I would go down that path as well. I never imagined I would fall into the same category, but after tonight's Game 3 of the 2010 NBA Finals I am there.

This has nothing to do with me rooting for Boston or my loathing of Lakers it has to do with the sport of basketball. It has to do with watching the highest level of a sport and realizing that the game is not decided by the players, or coaches, but by the referees.

You think the NFL, college basketball and football are bad? Please! You have not experienced the NBA. You have not "enjoyed" a basketball game where at the end of the night you really asked yourself, "Did Team A ever have a chance tonight?"

I have always stood by the NBA. People have bashed it and strayed away, but I have stood by it. I am a loyal fan. I believed the league had good intentions and would let the players decide the outcome.

In the summer of 2008 the scandal of former NBA referee Tim Donaghy hit its peak. Donaghy reported that Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals was called in a way that favored the Lakers. Plain and simple: NBA referees cheated. Donaghy took the fall and the NBA swept the mess under a rug. Donaghy was the outcast. The NBA said he was the lone person involved in this operation. We, the fans, were lead to believe that officiating was fine now that Donaghy was brought to justice.

Foolishly I actually believed this.

But after Game 3 tonight I am again faced with the reality that the league has not changed. The ticky-tack fouls are always coming and the referees always control the outcome of the game. And tonight in Boston it was disturbingly evident. The offensive foul on Kevin Garnett in the final thirty seconds of the game was yet again another confusing call by the NBA referees.

David Stern has done a lot for the league from expanding the teams, to globalizing it to the world, but I can not for the life of me understand why he, year after year, keeps the same group of referees on the court. Does a 58 year old man have the same eye sight as a 30 year old? The NBA thinks so. Donaghy has been prosecuted, but still the NBA's games remain heavily influenced by the officials. They really make you think as the viewer, "Now why should I think things are being called fairly again?"

I want to believe the league has integrity and is being fair, but I all too often experience games where the referees play a huge part. Basketball is an aggressive sport. Stern wants to remove that and in turn he has created a league that centers around favoritism towards star athletes all while making the game a free throwing shooting contest.

The officiating in 2010 NBA finals has not been bad, not it has sucked. It has painful to say the least. This continuous presence of a terrible officiating crew night in and night out of the NBA has drained me of my motivation to watch anymore NBA games. I was anxious to watch a Celtics/Lakers series. I was anxious to see a rematch of the Finals from two years ago, but after Game 3 I could care less. I am lost for words as to why I keep coming back and defending this league.

David Stern will continue to ignore the fans and continue to implement a style of basketball that drains the sport of emotion and aggression. I still believe the league fixes games and after tonight's game I have no reason to think otherwise.

Watching the NBA is not fun anymore.

The Lure of Overcoming a 3-0 Deficit

The idea of the 3-0 deficit is pretty incredible to grasp. A team loses three straight games, then turns it on and wins four straight? It's the most removed thought. Admit it - your team is down 3-0 and the only thing entering your mind is, "We couldn't even win one lousy game?" or "Coach needs to be fired!" In the history of the NBA, MLB, and NHL playoffs only four times has a team ever recovered from a 3-0 deficit. In 1942 the Maple Leafs came back in the Stanley Cup Finals to beat the Red Wings. 33 years later the New York Islanders pulled off the same stunt. In 2003 the Red Sox famously did it against the Yankees and this year the Philadelphia Flyers rallied against the Boston Bruins. Though through it all no team has ever pulled off in the NBA. It remains untouched. Only 3 times out of 93 series that were 3-0 has a team even FORCED a Game 7. (I'm probably one of seven people my age that actually knows these three series.)

(Note: Of those three series that did go to a Game 7 never has the team that trailed 3-0 had Game 7 on their court. Orlando does.)

This is what the Orlando Magic are up against. History. The basic logic that no way can a team in a professional league win three straight, then lose four straight. It's so far removed it's laughable. Yet in the span of only a couple days that thought has slowly transformed into a possibility. The once flawless Boston defense has lost its edge and in turn momentum has shifted to the Sunshine State.

This series and it's current state reminds me a lot of 1996 NBA Finals between the Chicago Bulls and Seattle SuperSonics. Now without looking at the obvious differences (Paul Pierce is not Michael Jordan among other things) there are similarities that I think will hold true to this series as well.

In 1996 the Chicago Bulls had the best record in NBA history (72-10). The Bulls were 11-1 going into the Finals. In Game 1 Chicago won by 17, Game 2 by four, and the critical Game 3 (much like Orlando) Chicago cruised to a 22 point victory. Seattle was assumed dead. (Sound familiar yet?) But in Game 4 Seattle showed up and won by 21, in Game 5 the Sonics again overcame the Bulls and prevailed with an 11 point victory.

In three days the series went from an absolute sweep to "can it really happen?" status. This is exactly what's going in with the Orlando Magic and Boston Celtics. The lure of seeing an NBA team come from 3-0 is all too tempting to witness. Despite consecutive wins the Magic (and Sonics) remained two games away from the advancing.

Michael Jordan, the greatest player to play the game, was on a team that flirted with giving up a 3-0 lead. The talks of a championship, surprisingly, were halted because of his team's shocking back to back losses in which they lost by an average of 16 points. The point is the Boston Celtics are the same victim of the same spell. But more so than the 1996 Bulls (which did win Game 6 despite a 5 of 19 shooting day for Michael Jordan) the Celtics do have a real chance of losing four straight.

How Game 6 turns out is directly parallel to how the Boston Celtics look back at their disturbing Game 5 loss. Do they learn from it and rebound or do they foolishly bury their heads in the press clippings and start to listen to the voices of history they are up against?