Wow. If you're David Stern, the headline "NBA Ref in Mob Betting Scandal" is not something you want to read with your morning bagel.

We should probably avoid getting carried away with what this all means, but the nightmare scenario goes like this: NBA ref confesses to betting on games he officiated. NBA ref confesses to making calls to deliberately affect the outcome of said games. The results of hundreds of games placed under a microscope. Wins, records, championships perceived as invalid. NBA's credibility questioned once again.

This could be uglier than the Pete Rose affair in baseball. I know that seems ridiculous. But there's never been any evidence that Rose, despite his freighter of faults, actually bet against his own team while manager of the Cincinnati Reds. Thus, it's possible Rose's gambling may never have had an impact on the results of games.

A referee, on the other hand, has the power to change an outcome with a single call. If we discover this referee was making calls to adjust scores, what are we to think of every close game that took place with him carrying a whistle?

No matter the outcome of this, there will be a serious examination of who the NBA hires to officiate its games and the programs it has in place to ensure that those referees are competent and fair. My guess is there will also be an exploration of whether other referees were involved or at least knew that the referee under investigation had a gambling problem, as has been reported.

It's Mike Vick versus the NBA Ref scandal for the biggest off-the-field sports story of 2007.

-- Tim Lemke