Both Game 6's in the West were classics, how can you say they are not entertaining? I agree the refs do seem to be a little biased, but we all expect that somewhat I think. Who could ever forget that ridiculous crew who called Game 6 in the Lakers-Kings a few years ago. Those guys should have been fired on the spot.
It is why you can't really bet it actually. Other than taking shots at series prices the NBA is a sport where betting on the games is basically trying to figure out who the refs have and go from there.
If as team doesn't win SU they basically do not cover the spread in the play offs. Of the 75 games played in the play offs, the fave is 45-19 SU, and 37-27 ATS. That means that the dog has "covered" only 8 games, and actually it could be as low as 6 depending on where you got your line, as with my spot the dog covered by just half a point in two of those games. Even in the games where there are DD spreads, the dog only "covered" once.
So while it seems the refs have an agenda, and I am sure they do, for the most part the best teams do win, and if a dog does win it is generally in a spot where it extends the series.
Last night's game was the total opposite of that. Pho was the dog, so them losing wouldn't be a great shock, and it would have made a game seven payday in a year where the only game 7 was an unwatchable one between Indy/Bos.
Other than degenerate gamblers I can't think of anyone watching these play offs so far. I am betting on the series and still have only watched maybe 5 minutes cumulative of these 75 games, "exciting" or not.
If as team doesn't win SU they basically do not cover the spread in the play offs. Of the 75 games played in the play offs, the fave is 45-19 SU, and 37-27 ATS. That means that the dog has "covered" only 8 games, and actually it could be as low as 6 depending on where you got your line, as with my spot the dog covered by just half a point in two of those games. Even in the games where there are DD spreads, the dog only "covered" once.
So while it seems the refs have an agenda, and I am sure they do, for the most part the best teams do win, and if a dog does win it is generally in a spot where it extends the series.
Last night's game was the total opposite of that. Pho was the dog, so them losing wouldn't be a great shock, and it would have made a game seven payday in a year where the only game 7 was an unwatchable one between Indy/Bos.
Other than degenerate gamblers I can't think of anyone watching these play offs so far. I am betting on the series and still have only watched maybe 5 minutes cumulative of these 75 games, "exciting" or not.
royalfan said:
Iverson does not make his team any better, he just accumulates stats for himself. Yes he scores more than any other guy his size and he plays through injuries and all that. But he also takes more shots than any player in the league, shoots a low percentage, and leads the league in turnovers.
How many points has Nash had in the last 3 games where he is taking 20 shots per game? There are a ton of NBA players who could average 30 points if they took as many shots as AI.
