Celtics Giving Up?

RikenContributor IJune 11, 2008

We all saw the score. We all saw how much time was left on the clock. Question: Why did the Celtics gave up and not try to foul someone? Were they tired? Was this a coaching decision? Was it a marketing ploy to extend the series and keep everyone "happy" and content with their own team? To earn advertising dollars?

Personally, I hate to think that way, but I HATE to win that way more! Yes, I'm rooting for the Lakers but, before you strangle me please, help me make some sense of last night's game.

When you have rumors circulating about fixed games, allegations for this and that, one of the last things I want in my life is the notion of feeling 'cheated.' In my eyes the Lakers deserved to lose. They started the game well (maybe Boston's Big Three helped the matter instead), Kobe was on fire, just like everyone expected and the game seemed close enough to end well. Anyone could have won.

All I know is if I was a hardcore Celtics fan, I would have been disappointed by the lack of effort. These are professional players. This is their job. To go hard after balls. To go all out for your team and organization. Kinda like the way Laker fans felt after watching them play the first two games. Lackluster and sloppy.

In the side of business, it's obvious that in professional sports only a handful of organizations end the regular season with a single game. The Super Bowl is a major one. Ad revenues are staggering and TV commercial time gets ridiculous every year. The National Hockey league, MLB, WNBA and NBA all have a series of championship games to determine who's the next champion. Is that really necessary?

Going back to the question on top of the heading then. Why did the Celtics give up towards the end? Were they tired? A mental mistake? Business to extend the series to "Baushton"? Or is it normal not to foul the opposing team when there are no more fouls to give? A penny for your thoughts.