Quote:
Originally Posted by balance
How exactly does does "tanking" and "conspiracy" not go hand-in-hand?
|
Tanking - team president/GM/coach/whoever exaggerates an injury to keep a good player out and increase losses. Basically it's completely one sided, one person conspiring to do something isn't really a conspiracy. i.e., Doc Rivers wants to lose games, so he tells everyone Pierce is injured and doesn't play him.
Conspiracy - Several different people/sides all work together to make something happen. This is multi-faceted and seedy. i.e., the NBA wants to keep basketball in the Northwest, so the league contacts those teams and tells them to lose, which they do, then the lottery is rigged by technicians and David Stern acts surprised when it happens. Many sides working together, way more variables, way harder/impossible to prove, brings the entire sport into question (depending on the scope).
Conspiracy theories don't interest me, because they're ludicrously hard to prove, and they just result in meaningless insults (if you believe everything you're told, you're a sheep who can't think for himself -- if you believe in conspiracies, take off your tinfoil hat and get a girlfriend). A tanking discussion is way more provable and a result can actually be reached.