I know, I know, there are still a lot of fans out there who have the opinion that only losers cry about the officiating and that "the calls all even themselves out in the end." Not to mention a couple of my favorites: 1) At the end of the game, officials often "swallow the whistle" so they can "let the players decide the game." And 2) When discussing a star player getting favorable calls, it's always, "He's earned it," according to the announcers.

Let me address these points. First of all, it is true that the team or players usually criticizing the officials were on the losing end. But to dismiss this simply as sour grapes would be much too broad of a statement. If a game is well officiated, you very seldom hear the losing team mention the officials. Instead, they will say things like "We fought hard but just came up short. I'm proud of our guys . . ." etc. We've all seen games where a few bad calls have cost a team a game or a chance to win. As much as athletes like to complain, they usually do so post-game only after they felt they had a chance taken away from them. As for the calls evening themselves out, maybe they do, maybe they don't. There are countless calls in any game that could go either way; charge or block, who last touched the ball before it went out of bounds, was it goaltending or wasn't it. Officials are going to miss some of those. That's inevitable. It's the blatantly obvious ones where you see the call and wonder how they can possibly be watching the same game that really gets everyone riled up. And there are far too many of those that happen. As for letting the players decide the game, which you often hear after a no-call late in the game, does that mean we don't need officials at all? That would truly be letting the players decide the game, wouldn't it? Or does it imply that what was a foul or violation in the first half is no longer one in the fourth quarter? Is there a separate rule book for late in the game situations? Just curious. And as for a player "earning" the calls because he's a star player, I've never understood the logic in that one. A star player is usually more gifted athletically than his counterparts. I wouldn't think a player like that needs to also get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to officiating, yet we've all seen countless examples of a star player being guarded by a nobody and we all know who is going to get the calls nine times out of ten.

In my last blog, I mentioned Mark Cuban getting fined for his criticism of officials. I guess the fine was worth it. It sure seems to me that the Mavs have gotten the better treatment from the officials in Games 3 and 4 of that series. I would like to see some consistency, that's all. And no, consistently bad doesn't count. I've always thought it sort of funny that you can watch a full day of NCAA tournament action and see only a handful of obviously bad calls, yet it's hard to even watch a quarter of NBA games without seeing at least four or five.

So I see where Mark Cuban has been fined yet again by the NBA. I'm almost expecting him to put the team up for sale any day now, saying that he can't afford to keep paying fines and salaries both. Interesting to note that part of his most recent fine was assessed because of things he said in his blog. Maybe it's just me, but I would think the league has more pressing issues than monitoring an owner's blog. The NBA certainly drew more attention to the issue by fining Cuban for that. The amount of fans that were aware that he even had a blog just increased tenfold. But I guess they'll get the fine money, so apparently they view that as an acceptable trade-off. Here's a revelation, at least in my mind; the NBA has fined dozens, maybe hundreds, of players, coaches, executives, etc. due to comments regarding the officiating over the last twenty years or so. (I can't help but recall Shaq complaing about Dikembe Motumbo in the 2001 finals, saying that Motumbo shoudn't be flopping "every time I back him down," as Shaq put it. I wonder if I was the only one who felt the following question begged to be asked: "How do you 'back him down' without committing an offensive foul?") It doesn't appear that too many folks associated with the game have been pleased with the referees. (Certainly Shaq didn't genuinely think that he hasn't gotten more than his share of calls, did he? I mean, how else do you consistently get the ball eight feet from the rim and wind up shooting three-footers. Quickness?) Hasn't the league collected enough in fines by now to improve the situation? Maybe some better officials? Surely there must be some solution.

Rumor has it that the NFL is actually considering increasing the number of playoff teams in the next couple years. I say to heck with the playoffs-just have everybody play in a bowl game and then we can all vote on who the best team is. That should work, shouldn't it? As it stands now, 12 out of 32 teams make it to the post-season, or 37.5%.I guess when I think of a playoff team, I would expect them to be in the top third (at least) of their league. In the interests of the NFL fan, (I'm way out of line here, I know), how about two less teams in the playoffs? I am well aware that more playoff teams mean more money for the league through broadcasts, commercials, etc. But it would also mean more wear and tear on the players in a sport where our stars already have a very short time to make an impact. Not to mention the fact that this could be a very real possibility: "Welcome to Cleveland, where the 8-8 Browns are set to do battle with the 8-8 Buffalo Bills . . ." Uh, no. I don't think .500 teams, or less, are anyone's idea of a playoff team. I know the NHL and the NBA do it, which is what makes them, well, the NHL and the NBA. This is the NFL we're talking about here, and they've clearly separated themselves as the premier sports league. They should keep it that way.

Shawn Marion of the Suns seems to get some heat whenever he has a bad game or two in the playoffs. I haven't figured out why. This is a guy who was top twenty in everything in the league this season except popcorn sales, while guarding a center one game, a power forward the next, followed by an assignment on a guard after that. Marion recently went from defending Elton Brand of the Clippers to Sam Cassell, the point guard, in subsequent games. Not only are there only a few guys in the league who could do that, and I literally mean a few, but how many would even be asked to do so by their teams? Look at Marion's minutes the last few years along with all his other numbers. No one in the league can do what he does on both ends of the court. Without him, the Suns win about 30 games this year. Yes, you could say the same about Nash, probably. But I'm referring to Marion here because he get the brunt of the criticism. Rest assured that the Suns are well aware of his worth

Speaking of the Suns, they are playing with house money right now, and any advancement they make after the first round victory over the Lakers has to be considered a bonus. Don't forget the fact that they started the season without three starters from last year's Western Conference Finals team, including Amare Stoudemire, the best young big man in the game. To think at the season's beginning that this team would still win the Pacific Division with 54 victories and get to the second round has to be viewed as an accomplishment, especially when they lost their starting center, Kurt Thomas, with about a quarter of the season to go. They are an extremely resilient team and, win or lose, are a credit to their profession. Not to mention a joy to watch. Everyone involved with the product they put on the court is to be commended. By the way, next time you're killing time on the internet, take a look at the Suns' organization and note how many former players of theirs are employed by the team. That says a lot right there. 

One final note, for now. I heard yet another radio personality lamenting the decrease in attendance, and TV ratings, for pro sporting events. The reality is, unless it's a significant rivalry or a very meaningful game, the attendance is not going to be what it used to be. There are simply too many things to take up our time these days. You know, important stuff, like reading blogs on the internet, for example. Not to mention video games, a glut of cable and satellite channels, and people just flat out finding alternatives to spending their time and money on attending a game. The decrease in average attendance that most teams have seen the last 20 years should surprise no one. And now, if you'll excuse me, I have a PlayStation2 that is calling my name.

ricko