Tim Donaghy interview

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Many posters on both this Forum and the NFHS Basketball Forum know my background and know my passion for the basketball officiating profession. Tim Donaghy had the best and greatest job in basketball officiating and he pi$$ed on every man and woman who has ever officiated a basketball game at any level, so why in the wide world of basketball offficiating in particular and sports officiating in general would I giving a flying f*** about anything that an a$$hole like Tim Donaghy has to say.

MTD, Sr.

this is my first trip into this thread, but all I can really say at this point, Mark, is

+1

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by theboys

"Donaghy said that the way the playoff series have played out confirm his theory on how officials extend series by giving the trailing teams an edge.

This is obviously true. Just look at how this year's playoff series have played out. The officials obviously gave Chicago the edge in the first round because they took the Cavs to -- 5 games. Ok, so that's not a good example. But look at the Charlotte series. It's their first time ever in the playoffs, so obviously the officials helped them to extend the series to -- oh wait, they were swept.

Well, never mind the first round. In the second round, the refs were giving the edge to the Hawks, except that -- oh, they lost 4 straight. But in the other Eastern semi, the league OBVIOUSLY needed a Game 7 in Cleveland. I mean, ratings-city for a Celts/Cavs, Bron/KG Game 7, right? Um, no. Boston wrapped it up in Game 6.

But the Western Semis were really close matchups. The officials surely played a part in prolonging the Lakers/Jazz series, except that the Lakers swept. And that great Suns/Spurs rivalry series? Yeah, a sweep.

So, uh. . . what were we talking about?

[Jay R]

Good point Scrapper,

His so-called theory works out once in a while and we're supposed to buy it.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So, uh. . . what were we talking about?

At least the refs kept all the games close anyhow........well, except for the ones that were blowouts!

[theboys]

I appreciated the fact that Dan Patrick "hard balled" him on the interview.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by theboys

"Donaghy said that the way the playoff series have played out confirm his theory on how officials extend series by giving the trailing teams an edge. Donaghy said they're trained that way because it helps the league financially."

Uh, what? There were 4 sweeps that I can think of off the top of my head and another 5 game series. Maybe more I can't remember. And I guarantee the league would have wanted a game 7 in the Boston-Cleveland series. 4 sweeps is a lot. This almost DISPROVES the assertion, it surely doesn't support it.

[Texas Aggie]

I consider the source. He was accused of betting on games by giving information to betters to help decide point spreads. He was never accused of fixing games or claiming to fix games.

As far as I know, he hasn't lied about anything in this matter. He wasn't charged with lying to the feds, which is almost ALWAYS part of any federal prosecution (usually thrown in there in case they can't prove what they are really after and why you should NEVER, EVER speak to a federal LEO without an attorney, but I digress). Yes, he's proven he can take a good thing and piss it away, but I'm not sure we can automatically say that because he's a felon, he isn't telling the truth here.

My question is, what incentive does he have to make these remarks if not true? Getting back at the NBA? Perhaps, but if these things are not true, that will be exposed and he won't get his desired effect of improving his reputation.

By all means, treat what he says with skepticism, but I wouldn't outright ignore it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

My question is, what incentive does he have to make these remarks if not true? Getting back at the NBA? Perhaps, but if these things are not true, that will be exposed and he won't get his desired effect of improving his reputation.

I'm not sure you can say it will be exposed if it's not true. He's perpetuating conspiracy theories. For the people who latch on to conspiracy theories, the lack of evidence is often all the proof they need.

His word means nothing to me, without corraborating evidence or witnesses (who would need more credibility than he has).