What's better for the league long term. A Celtics win, with 3 very good players of historical significance, winning a significantless second title, or league darling Kobe Bryant winning his 5th, putting him one behind the greatest player in league history, a guy named Michael Jordan? I think we all know the answer to that. Kobe, who is a great player, but is no where near Jordan, creates more interest, and thus more money for the league. His "legacy" needs to be as fluffed up, and fattened as is humanly possible. The league needs someone to carry the generational torch of historical porportion, following the Bird/Magic era, to MJ. Whether the league wrigged the game, who knows, but it's interests are much better served by Kobe winning, than the Celtics. After watching the Sacramento fix game against the Lakers some 10 years ago or so, I do think the league influences referees. Watching this game, and seeing the tale of two games, one where they put the whistle away for close to 3 quarters, and another where they made 75-80% favor one team, I can't help but go hmmm....
I hate the NBA anyway. It's too much of an MTV, Vegas Show, thug league for me. They barely play basketball anymore. All they do is play music during the game, shoot 3 pointers, or drive selfishly to the net. The fundamental talent is horrible. There's barely any ball movement, mid range game, or pure shooting. Now we hear the term "volume shooter". Guys who shoot 8 for 25 and become allstars. The NBA = GROSS.
