From: bewillia@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Maj. Devon McKnight)
Subject: Re: Will the NBA ever let
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 13:50:09 EDT

Daniel Reid Helsten writes:
>
>I would like to take a sort of opinion poll.  Do you think the NBA would
>ever let a team like Utah (the smallest NBA market) win the championship?

	I think that the operative question here should be whether Utah will
ever allow Utah to win the NBA Championship.  The Jazz are a classic example of
an excellent team that hasn't yet been able to get over the hump and take their
game to the next level.  The refereeing has nothing to do with that.  But 
anyway, go on.

>I believe the NBA has there own way of controlling the outcome of very
>"costly games.  

	As an aside, as soon as I read this, I had an odd feeling that I was
going to be doing a lot of typing today...

>Say Utah played Cleveland last year in the finals.  The
>NBA would have lost literally millions of dollars in TV and promotions. 
>Consequently both teams lost in very much the same way, and in my
>opinion, some poor reffing.  

	Referees are not perfect.  At every level that I have played, from
High School to backwater summer league, the refereeing has not been perfect. I
guess that clouds my judgement, but the refereeing in the playoffs was no worse
than it was during the regular season, and ten times better than anything that
I have ever played under.

>Is it no coincidence that the the teams in
>the finals, with the exception of Portland, have come from very large
>cities.  

	It's also no coincidence that the teams in the finals have been some
pretty damned good teams.  You're saying that Chicago didn't deserve to be in
the Finals?  Please.  Chicago, as much as I hate to admit it, was the class of
the Eastern Conference.  New York and Cleveland played valiantly, but were
simply outclassed by the Bulls.
	Using that logic, why hasn't New York been in the finals every year
since the NBA instituted its insidious game-fixing scheme?  I mean, New York is
the biggest city in the United States, isn't it?  Wouldn't 8 million rabid 
Knick fans bring the NBA some pretty impressive bucks?  I know what you're 
thinking.  The Bulls have Michael Jordan, and he represents more money than
the people of New York.  That would probably be a good surmise.  Well, then, 
why doesn't David Stern "lean" on the Bulls to trade their star to the Knicks?
In fact, why did he allow the Bulls to draft him in the first place?  Couldn't
they have manipulated the referees into making the Knicks worse than the Bulls
that year, so they could've drafted him?  I think we need an investigation, and
we need it now.
	
	Explain to me, sir, why the NBA saved the Cleveland Cavaliers, a small
market team, when they were in grave danger of dying under the constraints of
a horrible pre-Wayne Embry front office and ineffective ownership?  Isn't it
better for the NBA to be rid of a team in a market like Cleveland?  Or, failing
that, isn't it better to have a _bad_ team in Cleveland than a _good_ one?  I
mean, that would put the big money teams in jeopardy of not winning it all, and
thus costing the NBA some bucks.
	Your argument is preposterous.  

				- Dev