KAT tore his meniscus

[Coolbreeze44]

Good post, Lip. Kek has done a good job of pointing out how easy we are to score on when Naz has to play center, but it's also important to recognize how good our defense has been the past two games...especially against an offensive juggernaut like the Pacers. We are going to struggle defensively with KAT gone when Naz has to play center, but I think we can mostly weather those non-Rudy minutes because of the scoring Naz gives us. We're not going to win those minutes very often, but I think we can at least weather them. But if Rudy gets suspended for a few games (and I don't think it's unlikely...the NBA isn't going to tolerate a player accusing a ref of cheating), we are going to struggle like we did in OT last night.

I'm not quite as concerned as you are about our offense though. We are still a good 3-point shooting team with KAT out with Mike, Ant, Jaden, NAW and Naz, and last night's shooting was an aberration...come on, 1 for 19 shooting from everyone but Naz...really? KAT is difficult to replace, and I think his absence will cost us 4-5 wins the rest of the season. But I still don't see any of the teams out of the top 4 making up 5 1/2 games or more with so few to play, so we can look forward to a first round home court advantage. Let's hope KAT is back by then and we're at full strength.

But the refs are likely cheating, corrupt or gambling still (it's been proven they were). You cannot explain how bad the officiating has been this year unless you come to that conclusion. Every game should be analyzed by several independent officials (non NBA) and then grade each call and non call (if they are not completely already). THEN the lowest / worst ones get fired. The top ones get raises.

You need to incentivize making the right calls and good officiating. Bad / corrupt officials get terminated. Easy.

The teams are worth billions and the players make hundreds of millions. Having corrupt officiating or simply bad is a relatively super cheap fix. It's unbelievable how stupid this major sports leagues are at times. You have a product worth billions and you need to protect the quality and reputation of it.

I myself have watched less basketball because of it and I have no doubt others do as well. You can't just put a shit product out (at times) and expect people to support or watch it.

I'm with you on this but the problem is the league doesn't want to have perfect officiating. It's the one way they can still show favor to certain players and markets. What they did for the Lakers down the stretch last year was simply criminal. And unfortunately, the Wolves being a top team is not good for the financial health of the league, even with Ant. I sometimes wish all the small-mid market teams would break off and start their own league. You wouldn't have all the star power but at least it would be true competition.

[Wolvesfan21]

Good post, Lip. Kek has done a good job of pointing out how easy we are to score on when Naz has to play center, but it's also important to recognize how good our defense has been the past two games...especially against an offensive juggernaut like the Pacers. We are going to struggle defensively with KAT gone when Naz has to play center, but I think we can mostly weather those non-Rudy minutes because of the scoring Naz gives us. We're not going to win those minutes very often, but I think we can at least weather them. But if Rudy gets suspended for a few games (and I don't think it's unlikely...the NBA isn't going to tolerate a player accusing a ref of cheating), we are going to struggle like we did in OT last night.

I'm not quite as concerned as you are about our offense though. We are still a good 3-point shooting team with KAT out with Mike, Ant, Jaden, NAW and Naz, and last night's shooting was an aberration...come on, 1 for 19 shooting from everyone but Naz...really? KAT is difficult to replace, and I think his absence will cost us 4-5 wins the rest of the season. But I still don't see any of the teams out of the top 4 making up 5 1/2 games or more with so few to play, so we can look forward to a first round home court advantage. Let's hope KAT is back by then and we're at full strength.

But the refs are likely cheating, corrupt or gambling still (it's been proven they were). You cannot explain how bad the officiating has been this year unless you come to that conclusion. Every game should be analyzed by several independent officials (non NBA) and then grade each call and non call (if they are not completely already). THEN the lowest / worst ones get fired. The top ones get raises.

You need to incentivize making the right calls and good officiating. Bad / corrupt officials get terminated. Easy.

The teams are worth billions and the players make hundreds of millions. Having corrupt officiating or simply bad is a relatively super cheap fix. It's unbelievable how stupid this major sports leagues are at times. You have a product worth billions and you need to protect the quality and reputation of it.

I myself have watched less basketball because of it and I have no doubt others do as well. You can't just put a shit product out (at times) and expect people to support or watch it.

I'm with you on this but the problem is the league doesn't want to have perfect officiating. It's the one way they can still show favor to certain players and markets. What they did for the Lakers down the stretch last year was simply criminal. And unfortunately, the Wolves being a top team is not good for the financial health of the league, even with Ant. I sometimes wish all the small-mid market teams would break off and start their own league. You wouldn't have all the star power but at least it would be true competition.

Thats true, the league does have the incentive to rig the games to some extent for big market / star power / more views. That is the scariest part as a Wolves fan. But at least we have Ant becoming a star and that should help us not get wrecked hopefully.

Also if they fire old officials then all of a sudden they can go tell all possibly at some point. Better to keep them employed but then they have immunity to rig/cheat/gamble on games themselves. Now I don't think every official is in on it, but they also don't have to be. You just need the head guy to make a few more calls and non calls here and there. Major swing in points can be had. So I can see why they keep certain guys around. It's a bad spiral to go down though because it can only keep getting worse.

[Lipoli390]

But the refs are likely cheating, corrupt or gambling still (it's been proven they were). You cannot explain how bad the officiating has been this year unless you come to that conclusion. Every game should be analyzed by several independent officials (non NBA) and then grade each call and non call (if they are not completely already). THEN the lowest / worst ones get fired. The top ones get raises.

You need to incentivize making the right calls and good officiating. Bad / corrupt officials get terminated. Easy.

The teams are worth billions and the players make hundreds of millions. Having corrupt officiating or simply bad is a relatively super cheap fix. It's unbelievable how stupid this major sports leagues are at times. You have a product worth billions and you need to protect the quality and reputation of it.

I myself have watched less basketball because of it and I have no doubt others do as well. You can't just put a shit product out (at times) and expect people to support or watch it.

I'm with you on this but the problem is the league doesn't want to have perfect officiating. It's the one way they can still show favor to certain players and markets. What they did for the Lakers down the stretch last year was simply criminal. And unfortunately, the Wolves being a top team is not good for the financial health of the league, even with Ant. I sometimes wish all the small-mid market teams would break off and start their own league. You wouldn't have all the star power but at least it would be true competition.

Thats true, the league does have the incentive to rig the games to some extent for big market / star power / more views. That is the scariest part as a Wolves fan. But at least we have Ant becoming a star and that should help us not get wrecked hopefully.

Also if they fire old officials then all of a sudden they can go tell all possibly at some point. Better to keep them employed but then they have immunity to rig/cheat/gamble on games themselves. Now I don't think every official is in on it, but they also don't have to be. You just need the head guy to make a few more calls and non calls here and there. Major swing in points can be had. So I can see why they keep certain guys around. It's a bad spiral to go down though because it can only keep getting worse.

No doubt officials favor stars and big market teams. I can accept special treatment for stars, but not big market teams. Unfortunately, the corruption doesn’t end with favoring big markets. The Cavs are a case in point. They’re not a big market team by any stretch; yet we saw inexplicably one-sided officiating in the second half last night. The corruption runs deep and needs to be rooted out.

[FNG]

I've learned two new things this week about this devoted band of Wolves brothers we have here beyond the broad basketball knowledge that is so apparent and appreciated. I've learned:

1) We have an unusual amount of meniscus tears.

2) We also have a lot of conspiracy theorists here!

I'm clearly in the minority here, because I'm not in either group...no meniscus tear, and not a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I admit I kind of enjoy hearing them, but I think about 2% of them end up having much substance. I believe the moon landing was real, the Holocaust happened, the 9/11 attacks were planned and carried out by a group of Islamic extremists, children died at Sandy Hook, and the earth is not flat! And I also don't believe there is a conspiracy by the NBA to alter the outcome of games, and as shitty a job as he did reffing last night, I don't believe Scott Foster had a big bet on the Cavs last night.

Let's address the theory that the league conspires to make big market teams win. If they do, they're doing a very bad job of it! If you look at the last 25 NBA champions, almost half of them (12 champions) have come from teams with a smaller TV market size than our hapless Minnesota Timberwolves...where's the love for us? Further, 3 of the biggest 4 markets (NY/Brooklyn, Chicago and Philadelphia) haven't had a champion during the past quarter of a centuryI Try telling Tom Thibodeau that the league is cheating for help him win. It's an interesting theory and as an avowed capitalist, I understand why this theory might make sense...the NBA wants to make money. But the results just don't support it. I have a difficult time believing that in the heat of battle, a referee is evaluating market size before he makes his call..."okay, Dallas is bigger than Houston, so I'm going to assess a charging foul on the Houston player". Not happening.

What about Rudy's theory that Foster had a betting interest in last night's game. Again, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Why not?

-Scott Foster makes $550,000 a year for running up and down a basketball court for about 9 hours a week...that's a nice hourly wage! And he gets at least 4 months vacation every year. Is he really going to jeopardize that money tree by changing calls because he has a wager on a game? "Fired for betting on NBA games" doesn't look good on a LinkedIn page, and he'd probably end up making $12 an hour in a car wash where the only thing he can steal is the towels. It's difficult to get away with anything these days, and betting on games would be difficult to hide. Who might report him to the league? Maybe a bookie he stiffed. Maybe an unhappy ex-girlfriend or wife that wants a little revenge. Maybe even a former friend after a relationship went south. WAY too risky!

-But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Foster indeed is betting on games where he can influence the result. Why would he pick a nationally televised game on a Friday night between two contenders with a huge TV audience watching? Even worse, the point spread was less than 2 points, so any phony calls he would make to win his bet would also likely alter the outcome of the game. No, if he's going to bet on a game he's reffing, he's going to take Washington +15 on a Tuesday night in Sacramento. Nobody is watching, and he can make just enough favorable calls to make sure Sac-town only wins by 12...nobody would notice, and he cashes out. I still don't think he's stupid enough to risk his career, but he's certainly not going to do it in a game that Adam Silver is actually watching.

So while I'm not buying the conspiracy stuff, I'm as frustrated with sloppy reffing as anyone...I thought the two Wolves games were some of the worst reffed games I've ever seen...one in our favor, and one not. So I would support some kind of an evaluation process like WolvesFan suggest...might help get rid of the Ed Malloys out there!

[Wolvesfan21]

I've learned two new things this week about this devoted band of Wolves brothers we have here beyond the broad basketball knowledge that is so apparent and appreciated. I've learned:

1) We have an unusual amount of meniscus tears.

2) We also have a lot of conspiracy theorists here!

I'm clearly in the minority here, because I'm not in either group...no meniscus tear, and not a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I admit I kind of enjoy hearing them, but I think about 2% of them end up having much substance. I believe the moon landing was real, the Holocaust happened, the 9/11 attacks were planned and carried out by a group of Islamic extremists, children died at Sandy Hook, and the earth is not flat! And I also don't believe there is a conspiracy by the NBA to alter the outcome of games, and as shitty a job as he did reffing last night, I don't believe Scott Foster had a big bet on the Cavs last night.

Let's address the theory that the league conspires to make big market teams win. If they do, they're doing a very bad job of it! If you look at the last 25 NBA champions, almost half of them (12 champions) have come from teams with a smaller TV market size than our hapless Minnesota Timberwolves...where's the love for us? Further, 3 of the biggest 4 markets (NY/Brooklyn, Chicago and Philadelphia) haven't had a champion during the past quarter of a centuryI Try telling Tom Thibodeau that the league is cheating for help him win. It's an interesting theory and as an avowed capitalist, I understand why this theory might make sense...the NBA wants to make money. But the results just don't support it. I have a difficult time believing that in the heat of battle, a referee is evaluating market size before he makes his call..."okay, Dallas is bigger than Houston, so I'm going to assess a charging foul on the Houston player". Not happening.

What about Rudy's theory that Foster had a betting interest in last night's game. Again, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Why not?

-Scott Foster makes $550,000 a year for running up and down a basketball court for about 9 hours a week...that's a nice hourly wage! And he gets at least 4 months vacation every year. Is he really going to jeopardize that money tree by changing calls because he has a wager on a game? "Fired for betting on NBA games" doesn't look good on a LinkedIn page, and he'd probably end up making $12 an hour in a car wash where the only thing he can steal is the towels. It's difficult to get away with anything these days, and betting on games would be difficult to hide. Who might report him to the league? Maybe a bookie he stiffed. Maybe an unhappy ex-girlfriend or wife that wants a little revenge. Maybe even a former friend after a relationship went south. WAY too risky!

-But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Foster indeed is betting on games where he can influence the result. Why would he pick a nationally televised game on a Friday night between two contenders with a huge TV audience watching? Even worse, the point spread was less than 2 points, so any phony calls he would make to win his bet would also likely alter the outcome of the game. No, if he's going to bet on a game he's reffing, he's going to take Washington +15 on a Tuesday night in Sacramento. Nobody is watching, and he can make just enough favorable calls to make sure Sac-town only wins by 12...nobody would notice, and he cashes out. I still don't think he's stupid enough to risk his career, but he's certainly not going to do it in a game that Adam Silver is actually watching.

So while I'm not buying the conspiracy stuff, I'm as frustrated with sloppy reffing as anyone...I thought the two Wolves games were some of the worst reffed games I've ever seen...one in our favor, and one not. So I would support some kind of an evaluation process like WolvesFan suggest...might help get rid of the Ed Malloys out there!

One thing that seems to ring true throughout history is that power corrupts. Don't watch the Donaghy story on Netflix.

[FNG]

I've learned two new things this week about this devoted band of Wolves brothers we have here beyond the broad basketball knowledge that is so apparent and appreciated. I've learned:

1) We have an unusual amount of meniscus tears.

2) We also have a lot of conspiracy theorists here!

I'm clearly in the minority here, because I'm not in either group...no meniscus tear, and not a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I admit I kind of enjoy hearing them, but I think about 2% of them end up having much substance. I believe the moon landing was real, the Holocaust happened, the 9/11 attacks were planned and carried out by a group of Islamic extremists, children died at Sandy Hook, and the earth is not flat! And I also don't believe there is a conspiracy by the NBA to alter the outcome of games, and as shitty a job as he did reffing last night, I don't believe Scott Foster had a big bet on the Cavs last night.

Let's address the theory that the league conspires to make big market teams win. If they do, they're doing a very bad job of it! If you look at the last 25 NBA champions, almost half of them (12 champions) have come from teams with a smaller TV market size than our hapless Minnesota Timberwolves...where's the love for us? Further, 3 of the biggest 4 markets (NY/Brooklyn, Chicago and Philadelphia) haven't had a champion during the past quarter of a centuryI Try telling Tom Thibodeau that the league is cheating for help him win. It's an interesting theory and as an avowed capitalist, I understand why this theory might make sense...the NBA wants to make money. But the results just don't support it. I have a difficult time believing that in the heat of battle, a referee is evaluating market size before he makes his call..."okay, Dallas is bigger than Houston, so I'm going to assess a charging foul on the Houston player". Not happening.

What about Rudy's theory that Foster had a betting interest in last night's game. Again, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Why not?

-Scott Foster makes $550,000 a year for running up and down a basketball court for about 9 hours a week...that's a nice hourly wage! And he gets at least 4 months vacation every year. Is he really going to jeopardize that money tree by changing calls because he has a wager on a game? "Fired for betting on NBA games" doesn't look good on a LinkedIn page, and he'd probably end up making $12 an hour in a car wash where the only thing he can steal is the towels. It's difficult to get away with anything these days, and betting on games would be difficult to hide. Who might report him to the league? Maybe a bookie he stiffed. Maybe an unhappy ex-girlfriend or wife that wants a little revenge. Maybe even a former friend after a relationship went south. WAY too risky!

-But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Foster indeed is betting on games where he can influence the result. Why would he pick a nationally televised game on a Friday night between two contenders with a huge TV audience watching? Even worse, the point spread was less than 2 points, so any phony calls he would make to win his bet would also likely alter the outcome of the game. No, if he's going to bet on a game he's reffing, he's going to take Washington +15 on a Tuesday night in Sacramento. Nobody is watching, and he can make just enough favorable calls to make sure Sac-town only wins by 12...nobody would notice, and he cashes out. I still don't think he's stupid enough to risk his career, but he's certainly not going to do it in a game that Adam Silver is actually watching.

So while I'm not buying the conspiracy stuff, I'm as frustrated with sloppy reffing as anyone...I thought the two Wolves games were some of the worst reffed games I've ever seen...one in our favor, and one not. So I would support some kind of an evaluation process like WolvesFan suggest...might help get rid of the Ed Malloys out there!

One thing that seems to ring true throughout history is that power corrupts. Don't watch the Donaghy story on Netflix.

It's an a amazing doc, WF. Everyone should watch it, and I suspect every NBA ref has. And what they learned is they're not going to get away with it. Donaghy lost his marriage and his job, and spent 15 months in prison. I have a difficult time believing an NBA ref would want to go down that path. Plus. the NBA significantly strengthened its vetting and monitoring policies for refs in the aftermath of the scandal. They watch them like hawks. Is it possible an NBA ref is still betting on games he's involved in? I guess. Just like it's possible Selma Hayek would go on a date with me if I asked her out .

[Q-is-here]

Conspiracy theories are man's way of coping with outcomes we don't like.

[Carlos Danger]

It's an a amazing doc, WF. Everyone should watch it, and I suspect every NBA ref has. And what they learned is they're not going to get away with it. Donaghy lost his marriage and his job, and spent 15 months in prison. I have a difficult time believing an NBA ref would want to go down that path. Plus. the NBA significantly strengthened its vetting and monitoring policies for refs in the aftermath of the scandal. They watch them like hawks. Is it possible an NBA ref is still betting on games he's involved in? I guess. Just like it's possible Selma Hayek would go on a date with me if I asked her out .

I'm in the same camp as you FNG. But, I do believe there is some wiggle room for both sides of this debate. Specifically, everyone (including refs) is going to have baked in biases. It's why star players get more/better calls than non-stars. And then there are always going to be generally disliked players who may get more calls against them because they are pain in the asses - etc. This happens in all walks of life. At school, at work...there are the teachers pets/stars and the black sheep/rebels that are treated differently - fair or not. Now, that's very different that what is being talked about here i.e. specially throwing a game. But I'm just pointing out I don't think it's 100% possible for anyone to be completely neutral since we all have our own biases.

[FNG]

It's an a amazing doc, WF. Everyone should watch it, and I suspect every NBA ref has. And what they learned is they're not going to get away with it. Donaghy lost his marriage and his job, and spent 15 months in prison. I have a difficult time believing an NBA ref would want to go down that path. Plus. the NBA significantly strengthened its vetting and monitoring policies for refs in the aftermath of the scandal. They watch them like hawks. Is it possible an NBA ref is still betting on games he's involved in? I guess. Just like it's possible Selma Hayek would go on a date with me if I asked her out .

I'm in the same camp as you FNG. But, I do believe there is some wiggle room for both sides of this debate. Specifically, everyone (including refs) is going to have baked in biases. It's why star players get more/better calls than non-stars. And then there are always going to be generally disliked players who may get more calls against them because they are pain in the asses - etc. This happens in all walks of life. At school, at work...there are the teachers pets/stars and the black sheep/rebels that are treated differently - fair or not. Now, that's very different that what is being talked about here i.e. specially throwing a game. But I'm just pointing out I don't think it's 100% possible for anyone to be completely neutral since we all have our own biases.

Fair points, Anthony, and you raise another issue critical to the Wolves: is Ant liked or disliked by the refs? As much as we love him, I think it's clear that the refs don't. I thought the tech foul against him Friday night for flexing was ridiculous. But I think he's more likely to not get calls (or get called for a tech) because he is constantly criticizing the refs. Refs are a tight group, and they talk together. And I suspect one of the topics is what players respect them the least. And Ant complaining EVERY time he drives to the basket and a foul isn't called doesn't make the refs like him. Nobody likes it when someone says they are bad at their job, and Ant says it more than almost anyone in the Association. He needs to "change his face", or the refs are going to continue to target him.

[Wolvesfan21]

I've learned two new things this week about this devoted band of Wolves brothers we have here beyond the broad basketball knowledge that is so apparent and appreciated. I've learned:

1) We have an unusual amount of meniscus tears.

2) We also have a lot of conspiracy theorists here!

I'm clearly in the minority here, because I'm not in either group...no meniscus tear, and not a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I admit I kind of enjoy hearing them, but I think about 2% of them end up having much substance. I believe the moon landing was real, the Holocaust happened, the 9/11 attacks were planned and carried out by a group of Islamic extremists, children died at Sandy Hook, and the earth is not flat! And I also don't believe there is a conspiracy by the NBA to alter the outcome of games, and as shitty a job as he did reffing last night, I don't believe Scott Foster had a big bet on the Cavs last night.

Let's address the theory that the league conspires to make big market teams win. If they do, they're doing a very bad job of it! If you look at the last 25 NBA champions, almost half of them (12 champions) have come from teams with a smaller TV market size than our hapless Minnesota Timberwolves...where's the love for us? Further, 3 of the biggest 4 markets (NY/Brooklyn, Chicago and Philadelphia) haven't had a champion during the past quarter of a centuryI Try telling Tom Thibodeau that the league is cheating for help him win. It's an interesting theory and as an avowed capitalist, I understand why this theory might make sense...the NBA wants to make money. But the results just don't support it. I have a difficult time believing that in the heat of battle, a referee is evaluating market size before he makes his call..."okay, Dallas is bigger than Houston, so I'm going to assess a charging foul on the Houston player". Not happening.

What about Rudy's theory that Foster had a betting interest in last night's game. Again, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Why not?

-Scott Foster makes $550,000 a year for running up and down a basketball court for about 9 hours a week...that's a nice hourly wage! And he gets at least 4 months vacation every year. Is he really going to jeopardize that money tree by changing calls because he has a wager on a game? "Fired for betting on NBA games" doesn't look good on a LinkedIn page, and he'd probably end up making $12 an hour in a car wash where the only thing he can steal is the towels. It's difficult to get away with anything these days, and betting on games would be difficult to hide. Who might report him to the league? Maybe a bookie he stiffed. Maybe an unhappy ex-girlfriend or wife that wants a little revenge. Maybe even a former friend after a relationship went south. WAY too risky!

-But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Foster indeed is betting on games where he can influence the result. Why would he pick a nationally televised game on a Friday night between two contenders with a huge TV audience watching? Even worse, the point spread was less than 2 points, so any phony calls he would make to win his bet would also likely alter the outcome of the game. No, if he's going to bet on a game he's reffing, he's going to take Washington +15 on a Tuesday night in Sacramento. Nobody is watching, and he can make just enough favorable calls to make sure Sac-town only wins by 12...nobody would notice, and he cashes out. I still don't think he's stupid enough to risk his career, but he's certainly not going to do it in a game that Adam Silver is actually watching.

So while I'm not buying the conspiracy stuff, I'm as frustrated with sloppy reffing as anyone...I thought the two Wolves games were some of the worst reffed games I've ever seen...one in our favor, and one not. So I would support some kind of an evaluation process like WolvesFan suggest...might help get rid of the Ed Malloys out there!

One thing that seems to ring true throughout history is that power corrupts. Don't watch the Donaghy story on Netflix.

It's an a amazing doc, WF. Everyone should watch it, and I suspect every NBA ref has. And what they learned is they're not going to get away with it. Donaghy lost his marriage and his job, and spent 15 months in prison. I have a difficult time believing an NBA ref would want to go down that path. Plus. the NBA significantly strengthened its vetting and monitoring policies for refs in the aftermath of the scandal. They watch them like hawks. Is it possible an NBA ref is still betting on games he's involved in? I guess. Just like it's possible Selma Hayek would go on a date with me if I asked her out .

If I remember correctly is he claimed that the league from the top would tell them they want certain outcomes on certain games. Extend playoff series for example to make more money. Now you can say he is not credible sure. But maybe he is. Then you have to look at the facts of how certain teams somehow get the whistle and others don't.

A long time ago I had a bet on a game and the refs swallowed their whistles. They inbounded the ball to Webber after the opposing team scored with a 3-4 seconds left. Two players immediately hacked him. Assuming he makes two puts the game in my favor they were up by 2 I believe and the line was 3. The refs never called a foul even. They let the clock run out for three seconds of hacking. I couldn't fucking believe it. Now am I biased, sure. But you will have a hard time seeing a non call like that ever. The other team was purposely fouling to hopefully get a chance. I said I would never bet on a game again after seeing that fucking shit.

After that the only conclusion I could come up with is the refs were either completely incompetent, didn't care and wanted to leave or had some other influence effecting the non call. The most logical one is they had outside influence. Money on the game themselves or others paying them to help certain outcomes happen.

There is another Netflix doc that covered a college basketball scandal. They had players getting paid to shave points.

To think that what we do know there is probably 90-99% what we have never heard of. Shit/corruption happens every day and we don't know about it.