rand wrote:SNPA wrote:rand wrote:They also got to be billionaires by assessing relative risk vs reward. It's not worth risking the dozens of eggs their golden goose will naturally lay each year for one additional corrupt egg.
I have the opportunity to cheat at work to my own $ gain every day and the odds of getting caught each day are miniscule but why bother when the gain is proportionately tiny to what I can gain through regular legitimate business operations and the consequences of exposure would be catastrophic?
Your argument is basically anti corporate malfeasance, just in the NBA context. Why would any corporation take a risk to make more than they otherwise could have? I’m sorry, I’ve enjoyed the conversation but that’s just not a level of naive I can get it.
They would poison the basketball and slowly kill of fans in the front row from exposure if it made billions and they thought they could get away with it. What we are talking about with refs is nothing, it’s so small time. Zero ethical concerns. It’s a nothing burger. Of course they would. No one even gets physically hurt. It’s just blowing a whistle a little differently and getting rewarded for it, all under the proven guise of plausible deniability. It’s actually pretty genius.
Hi
The people who run any corporation would be expected to take any hypothetical risk if it was justified in a risk/reward analysis be the size of the reward vs the size of the risk. Here it is not. This is not a blanket argument against the existence of corporate corruption, which is obviously real. It is an argument that not every conceivable scheme for corrupt gain is always followed, risk/reward be damned.
Funny, I've never said anything about ethics but you keep straw manning it anyway.
Just like applying fairness in officiating a game between two parties, this is about ethics. I don’t trust giant corporations ethics, no one should. There’s no reason to do so, billions of reason not to.
Commissioner has interests. The concept I’ve put forward aligns with his interests. The risk is mitigated by the process. No smoking gun means less risk, which means more incentive to get more reward.
I’ll finish with one question:
1) Why hasn’t the NBA, with all this public talk about “rigged,” simply taken the issue off the table by handing over ref oversight to a neutral third party that doesn’t financial benefit from anything but impartiality? Doesn’t that squash this whole drama, and future dramas? Isn’t that good for business and profit? For a truly ethical company that didn’t want even the perception of unfairness occurring…isn’t this the best path?
Why not just invite a neutral third party for ref oversight like they do for draft lotto oversight with the accounting firm that oversees the process? Hmmm…