Not at all. (And, off topic, I would never say the Spurs are boring; I like teams that actually play as a team. I can't stand the "give it to Star X, and stand around with your thumb up your butt for 22 seconds" offense. The Spurs play great team defense too. TEAM being the operative word; too many NBA teams play defense like they're five guys at the YMCA who met each other 3 minutes ago. And yet, I digress...)
The only way a ref could conceivably fix a game to make money, without getting easily noticed, would be to bet the over-under. If the over-under for a game was, say, 203, as a ref, you're going to whistle every call you can. Why? More fouls = more foul shots. More foul shots = more points. More points is what you need to win the bet. Who's scoring the points is irrelevant, be it the Suns or Spurs in that situation.
The ref seems to have called the game to force a particular outcome; a higher point total. Whether he was consciously favoring the Spurs or not is irrelevant; the way the game was called clearly favored the Spurs and hurt the Suns.
I don't think he set out to give one team or another a win. I think he set out to call a ton of fouls, and it happened to go one way. It would be way too easy to get busted by slanting the calls to one team and betting on that team, not to mention the fact that it would be too unpredictable a bet. Some nights, one team just does not show up, and if you're calling everything under the sun to get them to the line, and nothing the other way, it's more likely to get noticed.
But calling a ton of fouls all over the court just makes it look like a tightly officiated game. Big difference. The 38-9 FT disparity in that Knicks-Heat game is bizarre, but there's no way that he'd be dumb enough to bang the Knicks and only call fouls for them. (That doesn't make it any less egregious for the Heat, mind you; they still got robbed.)
