If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   With his retirement fast approaching, David Stern can't resist giving one final "fark you" to the city of Seattle   (blog.seattlepi.com) divider line 130
    More: Obvious, Seattle, Adam Silver, Memphis Grizzlies, deputy commissioner, Seattle SuperSonics, Safeco Field, expansion team, Clay Bennett  
•       •       •

3667 clicks; posted to Sports » on 26 Oct 2012 at 9:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-26 05:44:04 AM
"I don't have any current view on where such a team comes from," Stern said at a news conference Thursday,

Here is a helpful list
 
2012-10-26 09:49:56 AM
So ... what about an expansion team for Seattle?

"What I would say is, I wouldn't preclude it," Stern said.


An expansion team would be fun. I would support this. And nowadays, you can probably make an expansion team competitive very quickly -- it's every GM's dream to have minimal salary commitments and one high draft pick. (Of course, in the expansion draft the unprotected players are likely to be all unwanted contracts so you'll wind up with some unwanted salaries, but presumably enough low-salary scrubs will be available around the league that you can just take on a couple of those as luxury picks.)
 
2012-10-26 09:57:49 AM

mr_a: "I don't have any current view on where such a team comes from," Stern said at a news conference Thursday,

Here is a helpful list


Nice to see Seattle has no problem choosing a new team arbitrarily from a list. But BOOOOOOOO OKC! You team-stealing hicks!!
 
2012-10-26 10:11:10 AM
Next up the Seattle Coyotes of the NHL
 
2012-10-26 10:16:43 AM
I like the cities Stern mentioned:

KC, Virginia Beach, Pitt, Columbus, Louisville, Anaheim, Vancouver and Vegas

KC probably wouldn't be a bad choice. They have a nice venue just sitting there not being used for anything except concerts and arena football. I actually thought the Kings would move (back) there.
Virginia Beach and Louisville? Eh, no.
Vancouver already had their chance.
Anaheim.. venue is there, but could the LA area really support a third team? Whatever happened to the Clippers moving there?
Pittsburgh and Columbus.. eh Pittsburgh maybe.. can't really see Columbus when the Cavs have trouble drawing.
Vegas.. will never happen.
 
2012-10-26 10:17:04 AM
I read today his last goal is to bring ball back to Seattle. I hope he succeeds.
 
2012-10-26 10:26:54 AM

Yanks_RSJ: Nice to see Seattle has no problem choosing a new team arbitrarily from a list. But BOOOOOOOO OKC! You team-stealing hicks!!


Seattle = Lakers
Thunder = Chris Paul
OKC = Clippers
"Basketball reasons" = "Seattle won't build my friend a $500M arena a decade after a $200M upgrade to their current arena."
Kings/Hornets/Bobcats = Steve Nash/Dwight Howard

Stern used his own personal power to f*ck people and people/teams that should've been moved in the first place eventually will get taken by a more deserving place. The Hornets would've been out of NO in the first place if it weren't for Stern protecting them because of Katrina.
 
2012-10-26 10:31:03 AM

Super Chronic: So ... what about an expansion team for Seattle?

"What I would say is, I wouldn't preclude it," Stern said.

An expansion team would be fun. I would support this. And nowadays, you can probably make an expansion team competitive very quickly -- it's every GM's dream to have minimal salary commitments and one high draft pick. (Of course, in the expansion draft the unprotected players are likely to be all unwanted contracts so you'll wind up with some unwanted salaries, but presumably enough low-salary scrubs will be available around the league that you can just take on a couple of those as luxury picks.)


An expansion team in a league where execs are talking about contraction?

An expansion team in a league where a half dozen teams (or more) lose money every year?

An expansion team in a league where there isn't enough competitive talent to fill the squads they have?

Sounds like a great idea. The NBA really needs more crappy teams.
 
2012-10-26 10:35:22 AM
God knows I love Pittsburgh but they already had the The Pythons but couldn't hold onto them
 
2012-10-26 10:37:00 AM

grinding_journalist: Super Chronic: So ... what about an expansion team for Seattle?

"What I would say is, I wouldn't preclude it," Stern said.

An expansion team would be fun. I would support this. And nowadays, you can probably make an expansion team competitive very quickly -- it's every GM's dream to have minimal salary commitments and one high draft pick. (Of course, in the expansion draft the unprotected players are likely to be all unwanted contracts so you'll wind up with some unwanted salaries, but presumably enough low-salary scrubs will be available around the league that you can just take on a couple of those as luxury picks.)

An expansion team in a league where execs are talking about contraction?

An expansion team in a league where a half dozen teams (or more) lose money every year?

An expansion team in a league where there isn't enough competitive talent to fill the squads they have?

Sounds like a great idea. The NBA really needs more crappy teams.


"What I would say is, I wouldn't preclude it," Stern said.

But of course, he's just David Stern and I wouldn't expect him to understand the current state of the NBA business model, competitive environment and growth projections as much as some guy posting on Fark.
 
2012-10-26 10:38:27 AM

JohnBigBootay: God knows I love Pittsburgh but they already had the The Pythons but couldn't hold onto them


.. approaching that rare "obscure on Fark" threshold
 
2012-10-26 10:41:40 AM
I honestly could not care less if we get an NBA team.

Hockey is a whole other matter.
 
2012-10-26 10:44:19 AM

Super Chronic: But of course, he's just David Stern and I wouldn't expect him to understand the current state of the NBA business model, competitive environment and growth projections as much as some guy posting on Fark.


"I wouldn't preclude it" is his way of saying "We have no plans for that at this time.", and I understood that.

What I don't understand is someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do) thinking that another team would be "fun".
 
2012-10-26 10:53:31 AM

grinding_journalist: What I don't understand is someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do) thinking that another team would be "fun".


The NBA is better off than it's ever been, both from a talent and a money perspective. There's a reason the owners don't show their books when they say they're going broke - they're not (at least not from their basketball investments; they might be outside of basketball, but that has nothing to do with the success of the league).

The articles that discuss an attendance problem note that attendance was the same after a lockout in 2012 as it was in 2011, while TV viewership was up. How is that an attendance problem? That's more people watching the game. Then they cite several teams whose attendance went down...because the team sucked and stopped competing. When you have cheap f*ckholes like Robert Sarver running things, yeah, you're going to lose fans every time you refuse to pay to keep stars, and keep the most marketable one only, just trying to kill his career and refusing to trade him to a contender because he makes too much money for you.
 
2012-10-26 10:54:03 AM
The NBA in Pittsburgh? I don't see that happening.

For Seattle, I don't see the NBA expanding anytime soon for reasons already discussed. So if they get a team they're going to have to poach it from one of the league's bottom feeders. I'd say Bobcats, but I don't know if they'd move them so quick after coming back to the Charlotte market.
 
2012-10-26 10:54:09 AM

Yanks_RSJ: mr_a: "I don't have any current view on where such a team comes from," Stern said at a news conference Thursday,

Here is a helpful list

Nice to see Seattle has no problem choosing a new team arbitrarily from a list. But BOOOOOOOO OKC! You team-stealing hicks!!


Also FTFA: "By the way - that relocation committee is chaired by none other than Clay Bennett. Yes, he who bought the Seattle SuperSonics in 2006 and moved them to Oklahoma City in 2008."
 
2012-10-26 10:55:03 AM

grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)


I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.
 
2012-10-26 11:05:45 AM

Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.


Missing out the leagues great right now.
 
2012-10-26 11:14:50 AM

Gunny Highway: Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.

Missing out the leagues great right now.


But I was assured that there isn't enough talent to go around, teams are losing money all over the place and contraction is on the horizon! Make up your minds, people!
 
2012-10-26 11:15:20 AM
Thats what you get Seattle. Thats what you get for unleashing the Trollhawks.
 
2012-10-26 11:23:08 AM
Pittsburgh gives zero farks about basketball, they aren't getting a team.
 
2012-10-26 11:23:51 AM
Left my n***** house paid
Picked up a girl been tryin to fark since the twelfth grade
It's ironic, I had the blunt she had the chronic
The Lakers beat the Supersonics


Timeless Ice Cube
 
2012-10-26 11:23:57 AM

Super Chronic: But I was assured that there isn't enough talent to go around, teams are losing money all over the place and contraction is on the horizon! Make up your minds, people!


When one person disagrees with another, it's not a contradiction.

Gunny Highway: Missing out the leagues great right now.


I'm going to assume this is a typo, as Gunny is pretty coherent- but as is, I don't know what this means. The league's greatest players are playing right now? Pretty sure that's a subject of endless debate. The talent level is higher than ever? That depends if you're talking on a per-team or per-player basis. That the greatest games and competition are happening right now? Also debatable.

I'm not going out of my way to hate on the NBA- I'm doing FBB for the first time this year, and I've slowly been watching more and more basketball over the past few years. I just can't possibly see how addiing more teams is what the NBA needs right now. Relocating the ones that exist? Sure, that's a good idea. But adding more to an already saturated market? How would that improve things?
 
2012-10-26 11:27:04 AM
All of the sympathy I had for Sonics fans would get tossed out the window if they readily embrassed another fan base's hijacked team. The King's, which is the team I've read about most being relocated, have a very passionate fan base just so long as the team doesn't suck (which holds true with every fan base). Don't be hypocrites, Seattle.
 
2012-10-26 11:32:51 AM

Gunny Highway: Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.

Missing out the leagues great right now.


Only if you live in :

New York
Chicago
Miami
LA
San Antonio
Dallas
Boston

No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.
 
2012-10-26 11:33:55 AM

grinding_journalist: Super Chronic: But I was assured that there isn't enough talent to go around, teams are losing money all over the place and contraction is on the horizon! Make up your minds, people!

When one person disagrees with another, it's not a contradiction.

Gunny Highway: Missing out the leagues great right now.

I'm going to assume this is a typo, as Gunny is pretty coherent- but as is, I don't know what this means. The league's greatest players are playing right now? Pretty sure that's a subject of endless debate. The talent level is higher than ever? That depends if you're talking on a per-team or per-player basis. That the greatest games and competition are happening right now? Also debatable.

I'm not going out of my way to hate on the NBA- I'm doing FBB for the first time this year, and I've slowly been watching more and more basketball over the past few years. I just can't possibly see how addiing more teams is what the NBA needs right now. Relocating the ones that exist? Sure, that's a good idea. But adding more to an already saturated market? How would that improve things?


Come on now... there's a lot more competition right now than it's been in the past. We don't see teams win 11 times out of 13 years. We don't see just 2 teams pretty much dominate a decade like the Boston/LA in the 80s. We don't see a team win 6 championships in 8 years like the Bulls.
 
2012-10-26 11:36:57 AM

grinding_journalist: Super Chronic: But I was assured that there isn't enough talent to go around, teams are losing money all over the place and contraction is on the horizon! Make up your minds, people!

When one person disagrees with another, it's not a contradiction.

Gunny Highway: Missing out the leagues great right now.

I'm going to assume this is a typo, as Gunny is pretty coherent- but as is, I don't know what this means. The league's greatest players are playing right now? Pretty sure that's a subject of endless debate. The talent level is higher than ever? That depends if you're talking on a per-team or per-player basis. That the greatest games and competition are happening right now? Also debatable.

I'm not going out of my way to hate on the NBA- I'm doing FBB for the first time this year, and I've slowly been watching more and more basketball over the past few years. I just can't possibly see how addiing more teams is what the NBA needs right now. Relocating the ones that exist? Sure, that's a good idea. But adding more to an already saturated market? How would that improve things?


He is missing out by not watching. The last two seasons have been really exciting. I am not interested in open ended debates concerning this eras place in basketball history.

I am the first to admit that I am a fanboy so my opinions should be viewed that way.

/at a conference
//apologies for the vague post earlier
 
2012-10-26 11:39:35 AM

Decillion: Gunny Highway: Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.

Missing out the leagues great right now.

Only if you live in :

New York
Chicago
Miami
LA
San Antonio
Dallas
Boston

No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.


I don't deny that the big markets have an advantage over the smaller markets but just as San Antonio has proven that good leadership in the GM office with an owner that's willing to spend the money, just about any team can become competitive. And we've just had a major change in the CBA that's soon going to bite the teams that accumulate superstars hard in the pocketbook. As a fan of the Lakers I don't like it but I do believe it'll bring more parity to the league. Maybe not like the NHL where we've had different winners for the past 10 years but teams like OKC will become more of the norm than the exception.

There will always be the allure to play for a storied franchise and there will always be one or two superstars that will take a paycut to play there but that will be the exception once the luxury cap pentaly increases in the years to come.
 
2012-10-26 11:43:28 AM

The Bestest: JohnBigBootay: God knows I love Pittsburgh but they already had the The Pythons but couldn't hold onto them

.. approaching that rare "obscure on Fark" threshold


Heh. I'm so old I saw it in the theater...
 
2012-10-26 11:43:38 AM

ElwoodCuse: Pittsburgh gives zero farks about basketball, they aren't getting a team.


Look at how well Pirates games are attended. The Penguins and Steelers have set the bar way too high in that city.
 
2012-10-26 11:44:54 AM

ElwoodCuse: Pittsburgh gives zero farks about basketball, they aren't getting a team.


Assuming there had been a team in Pittsburgh, then LeBron would've stayed with the Cavs just because.
 
2012-10-26 11:44:59 AM

Decillion: Gunny Highway: Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.

Missing out the leagues great right now.

Only if you live in :

New York
Chicago
Miami
LA
San Antonio
Dallas
Boston

No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.


So fans in say Indiana, Denver, OKC, Utah (always good), and Brooklyn shouldn't be excited for putting together solid units with potential for being one of those "one-off" teams?

The Knicks? shiat ownership so they won't win. SA? On the backslide but why cant there be another Duncan who shows allegiance to a great coach and builds a new powerful franchise? He may be the exception to the rule but saying only a handful of teams can win a titles for the next 30 years is unimaginative.
 
2012-10-26 11:59:05 AM
Dear Seattle:

Your city didn't give a shiat about your team. You lost it. Stop whining already. Also, do yourselves a favor and stop dreaming about an expansion team that isn't going to happen.
 
2012-10-26 11:59:25 AM

Gunny Highway: So fans in say Indiana, Denver, OKC, Utah (always good), and Brooklyn shouldn't be excited for putting together solid units with potential for being one of those "one-off" teams?

The Knicks? shiat ownership so they won't win. SA? On the backslide but why cant there be another Duncan who shows allegiance to a great coach and builds a new powerful franchise? He may be the exception to the rule but saying only a handful of teams can win a titles for the next 30 years is unimaginative.


And I like the implication that no one in the other leagues ever leaves a team to try to win a championship somewhere else. Hell, if players get more in control of things, more teams could have a shot at winning titles. Instead of having to be in a super-desirable location with a great front office and fanbase, you can just get a few players who like the area (or one who can convince others to go there).
 
2012-10-26 12:04:01 PM

Gunny Highway: Decillion: Gunny Highway: Super Chronic:

No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.

So fans in say Indiana, Denver, OKC, Utah (always good), and Brooklyn shouldn't be excited for putting together solid units with potential for being one of those "one-off" teams?

The Knicks? shiat ownership so they won't win. SA? On the backslide but why cant there be another Duncan who shows allegiance to a great coach and builds a new powerful franchise? He may be the exception to the rule but saying only a handful of teams can win a titles for the next 30 years is unimaginative.


The last 30 years:

Houston
Chicago
Miami
LA Lakers
San Antonio
Detroit
Boston

Add in Dallas and Philly as one-offs. I actually think other teams had more of a chance back then. Even against a league of Jordan, Bird, et al. Still can't believe the Suns, Jazz and even the Knicks never won.
 
2012-10-26 12:12:39 PM
Seattle is too busy thinking the MLS is a good soccer and the Seahawks are a legit football team
 
2012-10-26 12:15:03 PM

Decillion: Gunny Highway: Decillion: Gunny Highway: Super Chronic:

No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.

So fans in say Indiana, Denver, OKC, Utah (always good), and Brooklyn shouldn't be excited for putting together solid units with potential for being one of those "one-off" teams?

The Knicks? shiat ownership so they won't win. SA? On the backslide but why cant there be another Duncan who shows allegiance to a great coach and builds a new powerful franchise? He may be the exception to the rule but saying only a handful of teams can win a titles for the next 30 years is unimaginative.

The last 30 years:

Houston
Chicago
Miami
LA Lakers
San Antonio
Detroit
Boston

Add in Dallas and Philly as one-offs. I actually think other teams had more of a chance back then. Even against a league of Jordan, Bird, et al. Still can't believe the Suns, Jazz and even the Knicks never won.


The Blazers, Pacers, Kings, Sonics all had really strong teams. Did they win titles? No. This does not mean they aren't good franchises. Titles are important but shouldn't be the only thing you care about as fans. The big dogs have advantages but I don't think it makes the league boring for the fans.
 
2012-10-26 12:16:31 PM

Decillion: Gunny Highway: Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.

Missing out the leagues great right now.

Only if you live in :

New York (as much as I hope I'm wrong...meh)
Chicago
Miami
LA
San Antonio
Dallas (for this year, meh)
Boston
OKC
Denver
Memphis
Indiana
Atlanta (yeah, I said it)
Utah (yeah, I said it)
Philly if Bynum's healthy
Minnesota if they're full strength



No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.


FTFY. All of those teams are at least competitive and entertaining. And yeah, there are the favorites for the championship, but there's a lot of talent to go around.
 
2012-10-26 12:21:39 PM
FTFY. All of those teams are at least competitive and entertaining. And yeah, there are the favorites for the championship, but there's a lot of talent to go around.

Philly has 0 chance of winning in 2012-13...even if Bynam is 100%

They've gone from a average team to an above average team in the offseason.

The only teams who can really compete are Miami, Chicago, LA and OKC.
 
2012-10-26 12:21:49 PM

FreakinB: Decillion: Gunny Highway: Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.

Missing out the leagues great right now.

Only if you live in :

New York (as much as I hope I'm wrong...meh)
Chicago
Miami
LA
San Antonio
Dallas (for this year, meh)
Boston
OKC
Denver
Memphis
Indiana
Atlanta (yeah, I said it)
Utah (yeah, I said it)
Philly if Bynum's healthy
Minnesota if they're full strength


No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.

FTFY. All of those teams are at least competitive and entertaining. And yeah, there are the favorites for the championship, but there's a lot of talent to go around.


Was there ever a time when the league had 100% was competitive? There have always been shiatty teams I have to image. If you don't play team defense you will a really tough time winning a title.
 
2012-10-26 12:24:22 PM

Yanks_RSJ: mr_a: "I don't have any current view on where such a team comes from," Stern said at a news conference Thursday,

Here is a helpful list

Nice to see Seattle has no problem choosing a new team arbitrarily from a list. But BOOOOOOOO OKC! You team-stealing hicks!!


soonerpsycho.com
 
2012-10-26 12:25:04 PM

MugzyBrown: FTFY. All of those teams are at least competitive and entertaining. And yeah, there are the favorites for the championship, but there's a lot of talent to go around.

Philly has 0 chance of winning in 2012-13...even if Bynam is 100%

They've gone from a average team to an above average team in the offseason.

The only teams who can really compete are Miami, Chicago, LA and OKC.


Before the start of last season would you have said the same thing? Boston was one game away from the finals? I don't think anyone had them as a competitor.

I don't think the Bulls are a contender this season. Solid D but if Rose comes back will be be his old self and if he doesn't come back who will score the ball?
 
2012-10-26 12:27:08 PM

Gunny Highway: Was there ever a time when the league had 100% was competitive? There have always been shiatty teams I have to image. If you don't play team defense you will a really tough time winning a title


I think you're agreeing with me. That list I just made of at-least-good teams (in my opinion, of course) consists of over half the teams in the NBA. That's pretty damn good. There will always be shiatty teams, but the overall competitiveness of the league is high right now.
 
2012-10-26 12:28:24 PM

Gunny Highway: Before the start of last season would you have said the same thing? Boston was one game away from the finals? I don't think anyone had them as a competitor.


Before the start of last season I would have said Miami, Chicago, Dallas, and OKC and would have picked both finals teams.

If I made a bet with you: I get Miami, LAL, Chicago, & OKC for the NBA champion, and you get the field, would you take that bet?
 
2012-10-26 12:28:46 PM

FreakinB: Gunny Highway: Was there ever a time when the league had 100% was competitive? There have always been shiatty teams I have to image. If you don't play team defense you will a really tough time winning a title

I think you're agreeing with me. That list I just made of at-least-good teams (in my opinion, of course) consists of over half the teams in the NBA. That's pretty damn good. There will always be shiatty teams, but the overall competitiveness of the league is high right now.


I was. I was adding to your previous point and did a poor job of transitioning and tethering questions to your post.
 
2012-10-26 12:30:36 PM

MugzyBrown: Gunny Highway: Before the start of last season would you have said the same thing? Boston was one game away from the finals? I don't think anyone had them as a competitor.

Before the start of last season I would have said Miami, Chicago, Dallas, and OKC and would have picked both finals teams.

If I made a bet with you: I get Miami, LAL, Chicago, & OKC for the NBA champion, and you get the field, would you take that bet?


No. At the start of any season in any sport if I gave you the 4 best teams against the field would you take it?
 
2012-10-26 12:30:50 PM

FreakinB: FTFY. All of those teams are at least competitive and entertaining


Indiana I think did as best as that roster could possibly do last season, and I personally think they're at their ceiling: I just don't see Hibbert and Paul George developing much more beyond what they currently are, and Danny Granger, who is already kinda overrated, will turn 30 this season.

Denver to me is interesting though. They're so deep with "good" players that can play multiple positions, but don't have a defined go-to guy in late game situations.
 
2012-10-26 12:32:03 PM

Decillion: I actually think other teams had more of a chance back then.


Do you have any particular reason to believe this?

1980s: FIVE teams made an NBA Finals (everyone went at least twice)
1990s: ELEVEN teams made an NBA Finals (six that went once)
2000s: ELEVEN teams made an NBA Finals (seven that went once)
2010s: Five teams have made an NBA Finals in three years (one team has gone more than once - though every team that has been is also a contender this year...but that doesn't mean they'll win. SA and Chicago, both top seeds from last year, haven't made a Finals this decade.)
 
2012-10-26 12:38:38 PM

Gunny Highway: No. At the start of any season in any sport if I gave you the 4 best teams against the field would you take it?


Honestly, I probably would, largely because the nature of those sports and playoff setups are so much more inviting for upsets. The NBA championship is far more likely than any other sport to actually have the best team win the title (except when the league decides to get all Draconian when it comes to interpreting rules for certain teams and ignore them for others in order to suspend key players for pivotal games).

In the NHL, the season doesn't matter if you get a hot goalie (Kings). 162 games of baseball don't count for sh*t if your hitters go on a cold streak in the playoffs (Yankees, apparently now Tigers). The NFL? Anyone can win a one-and-done. The No. 6 seed in the NFC has won the Super Bowl two consecutive seasons - they probably wouldn't be in the top 4 list for anyone even heading into the playoffs, much less pre-season.
 
2012-10-26 12:38:48 PM

Killer Cars: FreakinB: FTFY. All of those teams are at least competitive and entertaining

Indiana I think did as best as that roster could possibly do last season, and I personally think they're at their ceiling: I just don't see Hibbert and Paul George developing much more beyond what they currently are, and Danny Granger, who is already kinda overrated, will turn 30 this season.

Denver to me is interesting though. They're so deep with "good" players that can play multiple positions, but don't have a defined go-to guy in late game situations.


Agreed on Indiana, but even so they're good. And that Denver team is going to be so unbelievably fun to watch. I could see them as the 3 seed in the West. Just crazy deep and athletic. But yeah, the lack of one standout player is a little weird.
 
Slu
2012-10-26 12:40:57 PM

Decillion: Gunny Highway: Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.

Missing out the leagues great right now.

Only if you live in :

New York
Chicago
Miami
LA
San Antonio
Dallas
Boston

No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.


It has been like this for 30 years.
 
2012-10-26 12:48:34 PM
No. At the start of any season in any sport if I gave you the 4 best teams against the field would you take it?

Link

Let's see, the start of the MLB season be Philly, NYY, Boston, & LA ... so I'd win

Link

NHL - Pitt, Vancouver, Boston, & Wash - Win again


Link

NFL last year - Philly, NE, Green Bay, & San Diego -- so I'm 3 for 3.
 
2012-10-26 12:49:52 PM

IAmRight: Gunny Highway: No. At the start of any season in any sport if I gave you the 4 best teams against the field would you take it?

Honestly, I probably would, largely because the nature of those sports and playoff setups are so much more inviting for upsets. The NBA championship is far more likely than any other sport to actually have the best team win the title (except when the league decides to get all Draconian when it comes to interpreting rules for certain teams and ignore them for others in order to suspend key players for pivotal games).

In the NHL, the season doesn't matter if you get a hot goalie (Kings). 162 games of baseball don't count for sh*t if your hitters go on a cold streak in the playoffs (Yankees, apparently now Tigers). The NFL? Anyone can win a one-and-done. The No. 6 seed in the NFC has won the Super Bowl two consecutive seasons - they probably wouldn't be in the top 4 list for anyone even heading into the playoffs, much less pre-season.


True. I still think a majority of people will take the safe bet. The NBA is different and people find the boring and think it is a problem. I do not.
 
2012-10-26 12:50:11 PM

Slu: It has been like this for 30 years.


It has been like this ever since the sport was created. Oh, the best teams actually WIN more often in basketball. BORING.

Let's change the entire game to a coin flip before each game, and whoever wins the coin flip wins the game. And then we'll do just a 32-team tournament of that instead of a season. Then EVERYONE has a chance to win! YAYYYY
 
2012-10-26 12:53:21 PM
My local team is the Bucks. The Bucks' chief legacy to the NBA is being the place Kareem Abdul-Jabbar farked over when he said he'd only play in New York or Los Angeles and having a bearable-to-watch team maybe one season a decade. And also being the place that was so stupid in its Glenn Robinson contract that they had to make a rule to keep GM's from being that stupid in the future.

I'm pretty sure if the Bucks announced plans to relocate, the resulting Save The Bucks rally might draw, like, 30 people. We'd rather have hockey.
 
2012-10-26 12:53:34 PM

Gunny Highway: The NBA is different and people find the boring and think it is a problem.


In real life, it's not an issue. Just with Fark's hockey-centric crowd. "Our sport isn't popular so we have to act as though we're superior to the other winter sport/arena competitor! They totally start it by crashing our threads!"

Newsflash to hockey fans: The people that make fun of how no one cares about hockey, for the most part, aren't basketball fans, either. There are a few of us who will sh*t on you and remind you that you're the fourth sport when you come and tell us how no one cares about basketball, or try to threadjack every damn thread you can find 8 hours before a game, then whine about how it's only going to be green FOUR hours before the game...meanwhile, basketball playoff threads are hit-or-miss as to whether they even happen.
 
2012-10-26 12:55:03 PM

IAmRight: Just with Fark's hockey-centric crowd.


Hell, I like hockey a lot, but I'll never understand how the NHL and pro wrestling gets so much fanfare on this site.
 
2012-10-26 12:55:46 PM

Gosling: I'm pretty sure if the Bucks announced plans to relocate, the resulting Save The Bucks rally might draw, like, 30 people. We'd rather have hockey.


They lost Bogut and Section 6? Yeah, they damn well might. Too bad, that was a really cool experiment/deal.
 
2012-10-26 01:00:34 PM

BiffDangler: Dear Seattle:

Your city didn't give a shiat about your team. You lost it. Stop whining already. Also, do yourselves a favor and stop dreaming about an expansion team that isn't going to happen.


This is so wrong that I don't even know where to start. We got hit with an ultimatum that we had to bend over and pull $500 million out of our asses for a palace of an arena, and didn't take the league's bullshiat. There are many thousands of people that were/are passionate Sonics fans, and the NBA would have a ridiculous amount of support upon its return. I just hope we get an expansion team instead of taking another city's team.
 
2012-10-26 01:02:42 PM

MugzyBrown: No. At the start of any season in any sport if I gave you the 4 best teams against the field would you take it?

Link

Let's see, the start of the MLB season be Philly, NYY, Boston, & LA ... so I'd win

Link

NHL - Pitt, Vancouver, Boston, & Wash - Win again


Link

NFL last year - Philly, NE, Green Bay, & San Diego -- so I'm 3 for 3.


Who did you put money on at the start of those season?
 
2012-10-26 01:04:47 PM
Who did you put money on at the start of those season?

How is that relevant at all to the criticism of the predictable nature of the NBA?
 
2012-10-26 01:12:21 PM

BiffDangler: Dear Seattle:

Your city didn't give a shiat about your team. You lost it. Stop whining already. Also, do yourselves a favor and stop dreaming about an expansion team that isn't going to happen.


This is one of the dumber things I've read in a while.
 
2012-10-26 01:25:56 PM

MugzyBrown: Who did you put money on at the start of those season?

How is that relevant at all to the criticism of the predictable nature of the NBA?


I thought that was the original question.

As I said above I don't find the predictable nature to be a bad thing. I enjoy it.
 
2012-10-26 01:29:25 PM
As I said above I don't find the predictable nature to be a bad thing. I enjoy it.

Because you enjoy predictability does not make it less of a criticism.

I am not sure the value of an 82 game season and 4 rounds of playoffs if the end result is almost without doubt
 
2012-10-26 01:31:29 PM

MugzyBrown: Because you enjoy predictability does not make it less of a criticism.


And because you enjoy randomness and overall mediocrity does not make it a more enjoyable product.
 
2012-10-26 01:32:14 PM

The Bestest: JohnBigBootay: God knows I love Pittsburgh but they already had the The Pythons but couldn't hold onto them

.. approaching that rare "obscure on Fark" threshold


please explain...we're on the edge of our seats-
 
2012-10-26 01:32:37 PM

MugzyBrown: As I said above I don't find the predictable nature to be a bad thing. I enjoy it.

Because you enjoy predictability does not make it less of a criticism.

I am not sure the value of an 82 game season and 4 rounds of playoffs if the end result is almost without doubt


I understand your criticism. As a NBA fan I hear it all the time. What is your realistic solution to the problem?
 
2012-10-26 01:33:14 PM

Tanukis_Parachute: The Bestest: JohnBigBootay: God knows I love Pittsburgh but they already had the The Pythons but couldn't hold onto them

.. approaching that rare "obscure on Fark" threshold

please explain...we're on the edge of our seats-


one more time...hopefully with less hotlink fail..

a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
 
2012-10-26 01:37:05 PM
And because you enjoy randomness and overall mediocrity does not make it a more enjoyable product.

There can be some "randomness" without mediocrity. It's not about randomness, it's about teams being able to improve themselves from year to year. In the NBA if you find yourself as a mid-seed, you're typically capped out and won't get anything in the draft, so you're stuck as a 2nd round loser for several years until you fall off the map again to start over.

What is your realistic solution to the problem?

Change the salary cap rules to allow teams to escape bad contracts easily.
 
2012-10-26 01:38:11 PM

Gunny Highway: As a NBA fan I hear it all the time. What is your realistic solution to the problem?


Clearly you have to handicap it so that you can never have more than one superstar on any team. Then, because there are fewer than 30 of those, you have to let each team borrow one for 1/3 of the season. Then, when the playoffs begin, whichever teams qualified for the playoffs can bid for the right to use that superstar in the postseason.
 
2012-10-26 01:49:01 PM

MugzyBrown: it's about teams being able to improve themselves from year to year


Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?

I mean, if you want to go back and look at why certain teams are what they are, feel free to go back and look at that Grantland column about the Warriors. They made what, 40 of probably the worst possible moves they could make throughout the years, and that's why they never seem to have a shot at a title. Allowing people out of bad contracts rewards inept front offices. There are often big contributors throughout the first round of the draft - good teams hit on them more often than not, bad teams don't. Good teams trade for guys that fit in and have a plan for what they want their team to be, bad teams don't.
 
2012-10-26 01:52:47 PM
The NBA Postseason has been incredibly exciting. The NBA Regular season is what it has always been: An over-long seeding process for the 10 teams we know are going to be in the post-season.
 
2012-10-26 01:55:33 PM

IAmRight: Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?


2-3 years?

In the past 10 years, the following teams have not had a legit chance of winning a title:

Toronto
NY
Philly
Indiana
Milwaukee
Atlanta
Washington
Charlotte
Minnesota
Utah
Denver
Portland
Golden State
Sacramento
LA Clippers
Houston
Memphis
New Orleans

Wow, there are a lot of bad front offices in the NBA

Plus teams that were kinda close, but really never had a chance

Brooklyn/NJ
Phoenix
Orlando
 
2012-10-26 01:56:28 PM

Daniels: The NBA Postseason has been incredibly exciting. The NBA Regular season is what it has always been: An over-long seeding process for the 10 teams we know are going to be in the post-season.


It's not even that, it's just to determine who wins the 7 & 8 seeds to lose in the first round.
 
2012-10-26 02:08:11 PM

IAmRight: MugzyBrown: it's about teams being able to improve themselves from year to year

Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?


This. There is nothing magical about San Antonio that makes it a perpetual contender - they're a well run franchise with an underrated (and aging) superstar. Dallas is only a perennial contender because they have an owner who makes it a priority. And as was noted upthread there have been a growning amount of contending teams by decade.

I mean, if you want to go back and look at why certain teams are what they are, feel free to go back and look at that Grantland column about the Warriors. They made what, 40 of probably the worst possible moves they could make throughout the years, and that's why they never seem to have a shot at a title. Allowing people out of bad contracts rewards inept front offices. There are often big contributors throughout the first round of the draft - good teams hit on them more often than not, bad teams don't. Good teams trade for guys that fit in and have a plan for what they want their team to be, bad teams don't.

That article was a great read. It really is decades of mismanagement, and I don't think the article even mentions paying Kwame Brown seven million dollars. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7714701/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy -steps
 
2012-10-26 02:10:54 PM
I still cannot believe the closed minded people who actually believe Seattle didn't support the sonics, bennett bought the team, they sent most of the talent away, demanded a $500 arena and banned the players from talking to the media.

The guy ran the team right into the ground so he could move it, that was their plan from the start, and there are emails from the owners where they admit that.

So to the people who open your holes spouting ignorant bs about Seattle not supporting the sonics please think about what your saying and maybe do even the tinyest bit of research before you open your mouth spewing that garbage. Because you really don't know what your talking about and it makes you look like a fool.
 
Slu
2012-10-26 02:12:16 PM

IAmRight: Slu: It has been like this for 30 years.

It has been like this ever since the sport was created. Oh, the best teams actually WIN more often in basketball. BORING.

Let's change the entire game to a coin flip before each game, and whoever wins the coin flip wins the game. And then we'll do just a 32-team tournament of that instead of a season. Then EVERYONE has a chance to win! YAYYYY


Hey, I agree. I like the NBA. I don't like the notion that "competitive balance" in the NBA is any different now than it ever was. Especially in a game like basketball where one player can make a huge difference.

And this just in, people who are at the top of their profession and can choose where they work, choose cities that have a broad appeal. Film at 11.
 
2012-10-26 02:16:14 PM
"one final 'fark you'?" More like 14 more months of it, subby.
 
Slu
2012-10-26 02:20:56 PM

MugzyBrown: IAmRight: Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?

2-3 years?

In the past 10 years, the following teams have not had a legit chance of winning a title:

Toronto
NY
Philly
Indiana
Milwaukee
Atlanta
Washington
Charlotte
Minnesota
Utah
Denver
Portland
Golden State
Sacramento
LA Clippers
Houston
Memphis
New Orleans

Wow, there are a lot of bad front offices in the NBA

Plus teams that were kinda close, but really never had a chance

Brooklyn/NJ
Phoenix
Orlando


I know you said 10 years, but Philly was in the finals in 2001. And both the Nets and Orlando have been in the finals in the last 10 years. I'd call those "shots" at winning. But for the most part you are right. But I would argue that it doesn't matter. At least to me. I still find the games entertaining.
 
2012-10-26 02:23:31 PM

Willas Tyrell: IAmRight: MugzyBrown: it's about teams being able to improve themselves from year to year

Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?

This. There is nothing magical about San Antonio that makes it a perpetual contender - they're a well run franchise with an underrated (and aging) superstar. Dallas is only a perennial contender because they have an owner who makes it a priority. And as was noted upthread there have been a growning amount of contending teams by decade.

I mean, if you want to go back and look at why certain teams are what they are, feel free to go back and look at that Grantland column about the Warriors. They made what, 40 of probably the worst possible moves they could make throughout the years, and that's why they never seem to have a shot at a title. Allowing people out of bad contracts rewards inept front offices. There are often big contributors throughout the first round of the draft - good teams hit on them more often than not, bad teams don't. Good teams trade for guys that fit in and have a plan for what they want their team to be, bad teams don't.

That article was a great read. It really is decades of mismanagement, and I don't think the article even mentions paying Kwame Brown seven million dollars. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7714701/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy -steps


Meh. Not that it was a good move, but there are far worse things that taking a one-year flier on a guy. Doesn't compare to most of the things in that article.
 
2012-10-26 02:32:58 PM

Slu: I know you said 10 years, but Philly was in the finals in 2001. And both the Nets and Orlando have been in the finals in the last 10 years. I'd call those "shots" at winning. But for the most part you are right. But I would argue that it doesn't matter. At least to me. I still find the games entertaining.


And Memphis has lost 4-3 in each season in the playoffs, once after upsetting the Spurs. In one of those series (2011), they lost a 3OT game which means it's possible that they win the series if they hit one more bucket at any point in regulation, OT1, or OT2. Hardly "no chance". And last year in the series against the Clippers they lost two games by one point each and an OT game.

/the 10 years is specifically chosen since a few teams would be off that list if we included a couple more years
//most of the other teams, yeah, inept management

Slu: And this just in, people who are at the top of their profession and can choose where they work, choose cities that have a broad appeal. Film at 11.


Also, players, who are fully aware that their entire careers will be defined by championships or lack thereof, will go to teams that provide them a good chance of winning one.
 
2012-10-26 02:37:35 PM
I just find it funny how the most consistent "valid criticism" of the NBA (i.e. not "too black" or "all the players are tall") is that "You already know what's going to happen, and it's not like the NFL, where every team can win, unlike basketball, where my team isn't going to be able to compete for two years." It just confirms what I'm now beginning to believe about American sports, that fans have become more interested in the act and chance of seeing their team win, rather than actually enjoying the sport itself. (I'm sure that having ESPN as an overbearing megaphone for all sports journalism has something to do with this, I just haven't been able to figure out how they do it.) That's why football is running away with the title of "most popular sport in the country", why the NCAA tournament maintains its popularity in spite of the dreadful (and decreasing) level of play, and why mixed martial arts is replacing boxing, where you have more possible options beyond "flash knockout", now expanded to "fighter winning in a completely unexpected way". (Oh, and I'm aware that the ability to easily place money on these sports no doubt fuels the fire.) It's the only reason that anyone would support instant replay, because if you're actually interested in the act of enjoying the aesthetic pleasures of your favorite sport, there is absolutely no reason that you want replay time-outs bogging down the game.

Oh, and for those of you complaining that the NBA doesn't have enough parity, the period from 1977-1979 (the period leading directly out of the ABA merger) was the epitome of parity in the sport. In 1977, only one of the 22 teams lost fewer than thirty games and the Lakers got the top seed with 53 wins. In 1978, the 44-win Washington Bullets won the title. In 1979, 11 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs were separated by nine games. And you know what? As it's been determined through the popular narrative of the sport, this period is considered the nadir of the NBA, where Kermit Washington punched a white guy and scared the shiat out of white America by doing so. And then the NBA attained its highest status through a series of dynasties and second-tier doormats, where the Los Angeles Lakers of the 80s played nearly .800 ball through the Western Conference playoffs and the Chicago Bulls won 72 games in a year where a starting lineup of Terrell Brandon, Chris Mills, Danny Ferry, Bobby Phills, and a thirty-four-year-old Michael Cage won 47. But you didn't have a national media outlet to show highlights of every game, and if you got an NBA game on Sunday afternoon, it would either feature the Celtics or the Lakers, so you didn't have to pay attention to all those lousy teams. So let's not act like the casual fan has ever wanted parity. They've just been spoiled by the NFL's marketing campaign to transform mediocrity into "OMFG ANYONE CAN WINNNNNN". Because at the end of the day, superteams beating the shiat out of superteams gives you the best level of play possible, and if you're actually a fan of a sport (and not a fan of watching your team win), that's what you want.
 
2012-10-26 02:40:19 PM
Memphis, Minnesota, Sacramento, and Portland haven't been legit title contenders in the last 10-12 years?
 
2012-10-26 02:40:58 PM
At some point in the last 10-12 years rather.
 
2012-10-26 02:44:04 PM

IAmRight: I know you said 10 years, but Philly was in the finals in 2001. And both the Nets and Orlando have been in the finals in the last 10 years. I'd call those "shots" at winning. But for the most part you are right. But I would argue that it doesn't matter. At least to me. I still find the games entertaining.

And Memphis has lost 4-3 in each season in the playoffs, once after upsetting the Spurs. In one of those series (2011), they lost a 3OT game which means it's possible that they win the series if they hit one more bucket at any point in regulation, OT1, or OT2. Hardly "no chance". And last year in the series against the Clippers they lost two games by one point each and an OT game.

/the 10 years is specifically chosen since a few teams would be off that list if we included a couple more years
//most of the other teams, yeah, inept management


Just because a team makes it to the finals from a weak conference means they had a chance.

In the Early '00s the East was awful, so it didn't matter which team made it out, they would be big underdogs to the team who came out of the West.

The Nets and 6ers didn't combine to have enough wins to win the title in the 3 years they reached the finals

And Memphis? They didn't reach the conference finals.
 
2012-10-26 02:44:18 PM

IAmRight: Also, players, who are fully aware that their entire careers will be defined by championships or lack thereof, will go to teams that provide them a good chance of winning one.


This so much. Anyone who is well-versed in basketball will tell you that LeBron James is a better player than Kobe Bryant ever was. But since Kobe has RINGZZZZZ, you have casual fans telling you that Kobe is better, regardless of what Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, and half of the media says. (The smart part of the media, of course. Not idiots like Chris Palmer who think Kobe will pass Jordan if he wins another title this year.)
 
2012-10-26 02:56:59 PM

gtfan92: IAmRight: Also, players, who are fully aware that their entire careers will be defined by championships or lack thereof, will go to teams that provide them a good chance of winning one.

This so much. Anyone who is well-versed in basketball will tell you that LeBron James is a better player than Kobe Bryant ever was. But since Kobe has RINGZZZZZ, you have casual fans telling you that Kobe is better, regardless of what Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, and half of the media says. (The smart part of the media, of course. Not idiots like Chris Palmer who think Kobe will pass Jordan if he wins another title this year.)


I'm a Kobe fan but I'll admit that LeBron has more physical abilities than Kobe. But the difference that I see (and I know I'm bias here) is the will to win which LeBron has not always shown.

I don't like to get into debates about who's the greatest player ever in any sport because in my opinion when you get to the top 5-10 players it's a matter of style preference over anything else since most players have ring(s) and individual awards. Personally I prefer watching Magic control the flow of a game over Jordan's style or Bird's amazing shooting so I tend to maybe overvalue Magic.

sidenote but I also believe that if Shaq had the motivation of Kobe or Jordan he would have been the most dominant players to ever play the game no questions asked.
 
2012-10-26 02:57:19 PM

MugzyBrown: Just because a team makes it to the finals from a weak conference means they had a chance.


They never had a chance, unless they won, in which case it was to be expected that they won. Such is the mindset of history revisionists. I would say that yes, the Lakers were heavy favorites, but having a 30% chance to win a title is pretty goddamn good, especially if you were to have those odds from the beginning of the year.

MugzyBrown: And Memphis? They didn't reach the conference finals.


So? Sometimes the biggest challenge for a championship team takes place before the conference finals.

I mean, if you're going to say that teams that were within one basket of potentially winning a series and having a good shot at beating the next team "had no chance" and tell everyone that Finals teams "had no chance" to win a title, then I don't see why you bother watching anything. I mean, I guess everyone in the AFC outside of New England, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh should stop watching football, because their teams have no chance to win a title.
 
2012-10-26 02:59:19 PM

Gunny Highway: The Blazers, Pacers, Kings, Sonics all had really strong teams. Did they win titles? No.



The Sonics won a title back in 1979.
 
2012-10-26 03:00:08 PM

Mike_LowELL: I just find it funny how the most consistent "valid criticism" of the NBA (i.e. not "too black" or "all the players are tall") is that "You already know what's going to happen, and it's not like the NFL, where every team can win, unlike basketball, where my team isn't going to be able to compete for two years." It just confirms what I'm now beginning to believe about American sports, that fans have become more interested in the act and chance of seeing their team win, rather than actually enjoying the sport itself. (I'm sure that having ESPN as an overbearing megaphone for all sports journalism has something to do with this, I just haven't been able to figure out how they do it.) That's why football is running away with the title of "most popular sport in the country", why the NCAA tournament maintains its popularity in spite of the dreadful (and decreasing) level of play, and why mixed martial arts is replacing boxing, where you have more possible options beyond "flash knockout", now expanded to "fighter winning in a completely unexpected way". (Oh, and I'm aware that the ability to easily place money on these sports no doubt fuels the fire.) It's the only reason that anyone would support instant replay, because if you're actually interested in the act of enjoying the aesthetic pleasures of your favorite sport, there is absolutely no reason that you want replay time-outs bogging down the game.

Oh, and for those of you complaining that the NBA doesn't have enough parity, the period from 1977-1979 (the period leading directly out of the ABA merger) was the epitome of parity in the sport. In 1977, only one of the 22 teams lost fewer than thirty games and the Lakers got the top seed with 53 wins. In 1978, the 44-win Washington Bullets won the title. In 1979, 11 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs were separated by nine games. And you know what? As it's been determined through the popular narrative of the sport, this period is considered the nadir of the N ...


Holy shiat, factual, relevant, not funny... someone hacked your account?

/ has you farkied as "Pocket Ninja Lite"
 
2012-10-26 03:00:24 PM
God I wish Stern had died on 9/11.
 
2012-10-26 03:03:17 PM

MugzyBrown: they had a chance.


Please define "a chance," because it's beginning to seem like you have to have an over 50% chance of winning the title to be considered as having had a chance. Which is impossible for more than one team to have.
 
2012-10-26 03:03:36 PM

The_Sponge: Gunny Highway: The Blazers, Pacers, Kings, Sonics all had really strong teams. Did they win titles? No.


The Sonics won a title back in 1979.


True but they were a 1 seed and in my mind that makes you a legit title contender.

/Joe Hassett was a coach of mine growing up
//Sonar
 
2012-10-26 03:05:51 PM

LL316: All of the sympathy I had for Sonics fans would get tossed out the window if they readily embrassed another fan base's hijacked team. The King's, which is the team I've read about most being relocated, have a very passionate fan base just so long as the team doesn't suck (which holds true with every fan base). Don't be hypocrites, Seattle.



The situations aren't the same.

Clay Bennett (Stern's lemon party buddy) kept putting out a bullshiat story about how he wanted to keep a team in Seattle.
 
Slu
2012-10-26 03:05:53 PM

Mike_LowELL: I just find it funny how the most consistent "valid criticism" of the NBA (i.e. not "too black" or "all the players are tall") is that "You already know what's going to happen, and it's not like the NFL, where every team can win, unlike basketball, where my team isn't going to be able to compete for two years." It just confirms what I'm now beginning to believe about American sports, that fans have become more interested in the act and chance of seeing their team win, rather than actually enjoying the sport itself. (I'm sure that having ESPN as an overbearing megaphone for all sports journalism has something to do with this, I just haven't been able to figure out how they do it.) That's why football is running away with the title of "most popular sport in the country", why the NCAA tournament maintains its popularity in spite of the dreadful (and decreasing) level of play, and why mixed martial arts is replacing boxing, where you have more possible options beyond "flash knockout", now expanded to "fighter winning in a completely unexpected way". (Oh, and I'm aware that the ability to easily place money on these sports no doubt fuels the fire.) It's the only reason that anyone would support instant replay, because if you're actually interested in the act of enjoying the aesthetic pleasures of your favorite sport, there is absolutely no reason that you want replay time-outs bogging down the game.

Oh, and for those of you complaining that the NBA doesn't have enough parity, the period from 1977-1979 (the period leading directly out of the ABA merger) was the epitome of parity in the sport. In 1977, only one of the 22 teams lost fewer than thirty games and the Lakers got the top seed with 53 wins. In 1978, the 44-win Washington Bullets won the title. In 1979, 11 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs were separated by nine games. And you know what? As it's been determined through the popular narrative of the sport, this period is considered the nadir of the NBA, where Kermit Washington punched a white guy and scared the shiat out of white America by doing so. And then the NBA attained its highest status through a series of dynasties and second-tier doormats, where the Los Angeles Lakers of the 80s played nearly .800 ball through the Western Conference playoffs and the Chicago Bulls won 72 games in a year where a starting lineup of Terrell Brandon, Chris Mills, Danny Ferry, Bobby Phills, and a thirty-four-year-old Michael Cage won 47. But you didn't have a national media outlet to show highlights of every game, and if you got an NBA game on Sunday afternoon, it would either feature the Celtics or the Lakers, so you didn't have to pay attention to all those lousy teams. So let's not act like the casual fan has ever wanted parity. They've just been spoiled by the NFL's marketing campaign to transform mediocrity into "OMFG ANYONE CAN WINNNNNN". Because at the end of the day, superteams beating the shiat out of superteams gives you the best level of play possible, and if you're actually a fan of a sport (and not a fan of watching your team win), that's what you want.


This is a great post. Could not agree more.

The other stupid NBA criticism is "no defense". Whenever I hear anyone say that, I immediately stop listening because they obviously know nothing about basketball.

The fact is that the NBA is doing great. Right now there are some amazing players doing amazing things and the game is as entertaining as ever. If one doesn't like the sport fine, but saying it used to be better makes one look like an old man yelling at clouds. And I started watching basketball in the mid-80s, so I remember the Jordan/Bird/Magic era well.
 
2012-10-26 03:12:08 PM

Slu: The other stupid NBA criticism is "no defense". Whenever I hear anyone say that, I immediately stop listening because they obviously know nothing about basketball.

The fact is that the NBA is doing great. Right now there are some amazing players doing amazing things and the game is as entertaining as ever. If one doesn't like the sport fine, but saying it used to be better makes one look like an old man yelling at clouds. And I started watching basketball in the mid-80s, so I remember the Jordan/Bird/Magic era well.


This.
 
2012-10-26 03:12:12 PM

ddam: But the difference that I see (and I know I'm bias here) is the will to win which LeBron has not always shown.


Ah yes, because that always works so well.
 
2012-10-26 03:17:28 PM

gtfan92: ddam: But the difference that I see (and I know I'm bias here) is the will to win which LeBron has not always shown.

Ah yes, because that always works so well.


The pre-Miami Heat LBJ would've passed to a wide open Fisher (who was wide open for a reason, as Charles Barkley would say). Then, during the loser's portion of the press conference, when asked about why he didn't take the potential game-winner, he would've talked about how he was playing within the offense and how much he trusted his teammates.

Anyway, it's a moot point now because he's tasted the champagne and wants more. The sleeping dog finally woke up and I do not think we'll hear that "lacks the will to win" talk anymore.
 
2012-10-26 03:21:51 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: The pre-Miami Heat LBJ would've passed


In LeBron's last season in Cleveland, no player in the league took as many shots as he did in the final two minutes of the game. It's not even close, really.

But please, continue to meme away.
 
2012-10-26 03:26:18 PM

IAmRight: They never had a chance, unless they won, in which case it was to be expected that they won. Such is the mindset of history revisionists. I would say that yes, the Lakers were heavy favorites, but having a 30% chance to win a title is pretty goddamn good, especially if you were to have those odds from the beginning of the year.


30% is pretty good, but the Nets and 6ers had about a 1% chance of upsetting the Lakers. They were totally outclassed.

IAmRight: I guess everyone in the AFC outside of New England, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh should stop watching football, because their teams have no chance to win a title.


Except for the fact the the Giants did beat the Patriots and the Saints did beat the Colts. Upsets actually happen in the other sports leagues, unlike the NBA when the favorites headed into the season are usually the teams who end up in the finals.
 
2012-10-26 03:28:24 PM

LL316: All of the sympathy I had for Sonics fans would get tossed out the window if they readily embrassed another fan base's hijacked team. The King's, which is the team I've read about most being relocated, have a very passionate fan base just so long as the team doesn't suck (which holds true with every fan base). Don't be hypocrites, Seattle.


All depends on the definition of "hijacked." Sometimes, occasionally, teams need to move. They get no support from the local fans even when they win, and are constantly in rebuilding mode as a result. The Montreal Expos, for example. In that case, I wouldn't feel bad about moving a team. Sure, there are a small number of mouth-breathing tards who believe Clay Bennett's line that Seattle didn't/couldn't support the team, but everyone who pays attention knows that it's beyond stupid.

So, yes, if Seattle truly "hijacked" a team like Bennett, I would consider it hypocritical if I "embrassed" (sic.) such team. But that doesn't necessarily apply to any team relocation.
 
2012-10-26 03:44:14 PM

gtfan92: Mitch Taylor's Bro: The pre-Miami Heat LBJ would've passed

In LeBron's last season in Cleveland, no player in the league took as many shots as he did in the final two minutes of the game. It's not even close, really.

But please, continue to meme away.


Reputations aren't earned or shed overnight. Maybe in his last season, he was starting to "get" it? I dunno. I really don't care about him as a player other than to marvel at his athletic ability. I guess I was a borderline hater, though, since I really didn't relish the thought of player collusion leading directly to a championship. But now that it's done, it's done. He's a champion and he earned it.
 
2012-10-26 04:11:27 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Holy shiat, factual, relevant, not funny... someone hacked your account?


Oh, I make serious, important posts in the sports and video game threads, i.e. "the important threads". I apologize if this caught you off guard.

Slu: The other stupid NBA criticism is "no defense". Whenever I hear anyone say that, I immediately stop listening because they obviously know nothing about basketball.


I've mentioned this in a couple of football threads, but it's funny how the NBA has a reputation for coddling its marketable star players and designing a rule set where it is very difficult (compared to other levels and leagues) to play a physical defensive style. But when the NFL does the same thing by changing the rules so marketable pocket-passing quarterbacks and high-powered offensive passing games tear up the NFL record books, nobody speaks a word. It's all horseshiat.

Slu: The fact is that the NBA is doing great. Right now there are some amazing players doing amazing things and the game is as entertaining as ever. If one doesn't like the sport fine, but saying it used to be better makes one look like an old man yelling at clouds. And I started watching basketball in the mid-80s, so I remember the Jordan/Bird/Magic era well.


The National Basketball Association is probably the most talented and exclusive sports league on the entire planet. As far as I know, the only other warm-weather sports organization or organizations (i.e. "sport whose growth isn't limited by climate factors") that draw from a global talent pool are the European soccer leagues, and the National Basketball Association is limited to roughly 500 players in a world where the best players believe winning an NBA championship is the ultimate goal of any level of play that doesn't involve a national team. And right now, the NBA is as good as it's ever been, period. The international talent pool finally filled the roster slots made available by the rapid expansion of the league during the late eighties into the mid-nineties, and it's awesome. Most people in the United States do not realize how good the level of play is because they 1) still think the hero-ball trash of the early 00's still exemplifies professional basketball, 2) confuse "I LUV MY ALMA MATER" with "college basketball is watchable and entertaining", and 3) FOOTBALL LOLLLLLLL. Most of the complaints about the league can be easily rebutted (lack of defense, too predictable, stars try to win the game on their own), and while there are obviously valid issues with the sport (too many games per season, refereeing issues), the public negative perception of the NBA hardly reflects what the league actually is now.
 
2012-10-26 04:44:35 PM
Also: Looks like he didn't give blessing to Stan Van Gundy being on ESPN's NBA telecasts.

And that's not exactly going over well with Jeff (hint, hint TNT).
 
2012-10-26 04:45:48 PM

ddam: Left my n***** house paid
Picked up a girl been tryin to fark since the twelfth grade
It's ironic, I had the blunt she had the chronic
The Lakers beat the Supersonics


Timeless Ice Cube


YAY, YEAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY~!
 
2012-10-26 04:47:06 PM

Gunny Highway: The Knicks? shiat ownership so they won't win.


Jim Dolan makes Donald Sterling look like Dr. Jerry Buss. 'nuff said.
 
2012-10-26 05:03:51 PM

ddam: Left my n***** house paid
Picked up a girl been tryin to fark since the twelfth grade
It's ironic, I had the blunt she had the chronic
The Lakers beat the Supersonics


Timeless Ice Cube


And the inspiration for my Fark handle.
 
2012-10-26 05:15:39 PM
Seattle resident.

The whole Sonic debacle ensured I will never again support the NBA.

I will never support any NBA team in Seattle. As others have already pointed out - how can Seattle NBA fans possibly support taking a team from a different city after what the NBA did to Seattle.

Stern can and should DIAF.

Stern moved a long established team from a city that supported it for 40 years in the 13th largest media market to the 49th largest media market. That's some fine business acumen there Lou.

I love hockey but if the NHL moves a team from a different city I will not support it. I can not and will not support leagues moving teams. If a team is not successful fold it. If another city wants a team the answer is expansion not relocating.
 
2012-10-26 05:46:56 PM
Stern moved a long established team from a city that supported it for 40 years in the 13th largest media market to the 49th largest media market. That's some fine business acumen there Lou.

Yes, it has obviously worked out quite poorly.
 
2012-10-26 05:57:05 PM

Yanks_RSJ: mr_a: "I don't have any current view on where such a team comes from," Stern said at a news conference Thursday,

Here is a helpful list

Nice to see Seattle has no problem choosing a new team arbitrarily from a list. But BOOOOOOOO OKC! You team-stealing hicks!!


They can have the Bobcats, and maybe six people not named Michael Jordan would care.
 
2012-10-26 06:06:17 PM
Pro Basketball sucks, unless we're talking about those UK Wildcats, YOUR National Champs! Repeat, baby!!
 
2012-10-26 06:09:12 PM

UNC_Samurai: Yanks_RSJ: mr_a: "I don't have any current view on where such a team comes from," Stern said at a news conference Thursday,

Here is a helpful list

Nice to see Seattle has no problem choosing a new team arbitrarily from a list. But BOOOOOOOO OKC! You team-stealing hicks!!

They can have the Bobcats, and maybe six people not named Michael Jordan would care.


I wouldn't be cool with having what happened here happen to another city, but there are some teams out there aching to be moved. I don't want Hansen just going out and buying the first team for sale and ripping it out of the city like Bennett did, though.
 
2012-10-26 06:09:55 PM

Friction8r: Pro Basketball sucks, unless we're talking about those UK Wildcats, YOUR National Champs! Repeat, baby!!


Well, at least you admit it.
 
Slu
2012-10-26 06:42:47 PM

Friction8r: Pro Basketball sucks, unless we're talking about those UK Wildcats, YOUR National Champs! Repeat, baby!!


Sigh.
 
2012-10-26 06:46:41 PM

Mike_LowELL: rather than actually enjoying the sport itself.


If your argument is about "the sport," then these people probably don't talk much about the NBA or care about the BS politics of the league, because there's so much more basketball in the world.

Hell, they probably care more about the way NBA officials allow players to bend the rules with such ease, particularly star players.
 
2012-10-26 06:51:38 PM

Slu: Friction8r: Pro Basketball sucks, unless we're talking about those UK Wildcats, YOUR National Champs! Repeat, baby!!

Sigh.


We are moving backwards aren't we?
 
2012-10-26 07:02:19 PM
This is how rigged the NBA is:

I have more faith that the Seattle Mariners will win a World Series than any team west of Texas/Oklahoma, outside of the Lakers, in the next decade. Even the Clippers, who are drastically improving compared to a decade ago, probably won't come that close.

Sacramento and Portland had good chances to compete a decade ago, and in both cases, the refs shiat on them (though the screwjob against the Kings is more memorable). The Thunder were, of course, the Sonics, who had the key cog to OKC's success before relocation (but he had no time to try to turn things around).

It's interesting, this league ignores that parity is a large reason why the NFL is doing so well. It seems that they look at "scientific studies" that claim that the league is more watchable when big-name franchises succeed, all the while ignoring WHY that is the case (that the media spends more of their time talking about these specific teams, creating a self-perpetuating cycle... see: Beavis & Butthead's comments about famous people on TV). Sure, teams like Pittsburgh are always in the conversation in the NFL, but now long-time struggling franchises are capable of having great seasons, and even becoming powerhouses; the league wants big-name, memorable teams, but they also want to grow the brand as a whole. The NFL used to be more like the NBA, where many teams just stay at the bottom (of course, a single incredible pick in the NBA draft can make a huge difference, but those guys are clearly rare), but that's changing. The Bills, for example, have been down and out, but they're improving. Just 15 years ago, they were playing in Super Bowls every year.
 
2012-10-26 07:11:27 PM

Friction8r: Pro Basketball sucks, unless we're talking about those UK Wildcats, YOUR National Champs! Repeat, baby!!


The Sacramento Kings would beat the Kentucky Wildcats by forty points. Therefore, I give no farks. And no, this is not theory, because the best college basketball teams have roughly a half-dozen future NBA players (players who have not fully grown into their bodies and developed their skill set), whereas NBA teams have fifteen NBA players, most of whom are at their peak of performance. Enjoy your minor league ball. The quality is roughly on-par with your performance in this thread.

puffy999: If your argument is about "the sport," then these people probably don't talk much about the NBA or care about the BS politics of the league, because there's so much more basketball in the world.


Understanding the business of sports/media/entertainment is one of the easiest ways to understand how it functions and provides you the product/peformance you see on the floor/stage/whatever. And for me personally, I'd probably watch more European basketball if it had a regular cable presence on any of the sports networks. Outside of this, I don't waste my time watching anything less than an international basketball tournament because the level of play doesn't merit it.

puffy999: Hell, they probably care more about the way NBA officials allow players to bend the rules with such ease, particularly star players.


I'll repeat what I wrote earlier in the thread:

NBA tailors its rule set to protect marketable star players and enhance the amount of offense in the game by reducing the amount of physical contact, leading to an increase in scoring = "No one plays defense in the NBA and David Stern protects LeBron."
NFL bends its rule set to protect marketable pocket-passing quarterbacks and enhance the amount of offense in the game by reducing the amount of physical contact at the receiver/quarterback positions, leading to an increase in scoring = ?????

You fill in the blank.
 
2012-10-26 07:14:09 PM

puffy999: This is how rigged the NBA is:

I have more faith that the Seattle Mariners will win a World Series than any team west of Texas/Oklahoma, outside of the Lakers, in the next decade. Even the Clippers, who are drastically improving compared to a decade ago, probably won't come that close.

Sacramento and Portland had good chances to compete a decade ago, and in both cases, the refs shiat on them (though the screwjob against the Kings is more memorable). The Thunder were, of course, the Sonics, who had the key cog to OKC's success before relocation (but he had no time to try to turn things around).

It's interesting, this league ignores that parity is a large reason why the NFL is doing so well. It seems that they look at "scientific studies" that claim that the league is more watchable when big-name franchises succeed, all the while ignoring WHY that is the case (that the media spends more of their time talking about these specific teams, creating a self-perpetuating cycle... see: Beavis & Butthead's comments about famous people on TV). Sure, teams like Pittsburgh are always in the conversation in the NFL, but now long-time struggling franchises are capable of having great seasons, and even becoming powerhouses; the league wants big-name, memorable teams, but they also want to grow the brand as a whole. The NFL used to be more like the NBA, where many teams just stay at the bottom (of course, a single incredible pick in the NBA draft can make a huge difference, but those guys are clearly rare), but that's changing. The Bills, for example, have been down and out, but they're improving. Just 15 years ago, they were playing in Super Bowls every year.


They had Durrant but the rest were selected by a GM hired by Bennett. There is no guarantee this Thunder team would have been in Seattle.

The NBA isn't perfect but it is the best basketball in the world.
 
2012-10-26 07:39:09 PM

Gosling: My local team is the Bucks. The Bucks' chief legacy to the NBA is being the place Kareem Abdul-Jabbar farked over when he said he'd only play in New York or Los Angeles and having a bearable-to-watch team maybe one season a decade. And also being the place that was so stupid in its Glenn Robinson contract that they had to make a rule to keep GM's from being that stupid in the future.

I'm pretty sure if the Bucks announced plans to relocate, the resulting Save The Bucks rally might draw, like, 30 people. We'd rather have hockey.


THIS.

As much as I love my Bucks, and as much as they give me false hope before every season.....I'd rather have an NHL team in their place, without a doubt
 
2012-10-26 07:54:08 PM

Mike_LowELL:
I'll repeat what I wrote earlier in the thread:

NBA tailors its rule set to protect marketable star players and enhance the amount of offense in the game by reducing the amount of physical contact, leading to an increase in scoring = "No one plays defense in the NBA and David Stern protects LeBron."
NFL bends its rule set to protect marketable pocket-passing quarterbacks and enhance the amount of offense in the game by reducing the amount of physical contact at the receiver/quarterback positions, leading to an increase in scoring = ?????


Just because no one is pointing out that the NFL is doing some shiatty shiat doesn't mean we should ignore that the NBA is doing shiatty shiat.
 
2012-10-26 08:16:50 PM

Foxxinnia: Just because no one is pointing out that the NFL is doing some shiatty shiat doesn't mean we should ignore that the NBA is doing shiatty shiat.


Basketball isn't the sport that is running away with the national popularity contest.
 
2012-10-26 09:57:11 PM

seumasokelly: UNC_Samurai: Yanks_RSJ: mr_a: "I don't have any current view on where such a team comes from," Stern said at a news conference Thursday,

Here is a helpful list

Nice to see Seattle has no problem choosing a new team arbitrarily from a list. But BOOOOOOOO OKC! You team-stealing hicks!!

They can have the Bobcats, and maybe six people not named Michael Jordan would care.

I wouldn't be cool with having what happened here happen to another city, but there are some teams out there aching to be moved. I don't want Hansen just going out and buying the first team for sale and ripping it out of the city like Bennett did, though.


Fark that. The entire damn state will help them pack.
 
2012-10-26 10:16:04 PM

Mike_LowELL: Oh, and for those of you complaining that the NBA doesn't have enough parity, the period from 1977-1979 (the period leading directly out of the ABA merger) was the epitome of parity in the sport. In 1977, only one of the 22 teams lost fewer than thirty games and the Lakers got the top seed with 53 wins. In 1978, the 44-win Washington Bullets won the title. In 1979, 11 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs were separated by nine games.


It was probably a bit of a fluke, but don't forget that in 1976 the Suns made the Finals with a blistering 42-40 record...and even that was good enough for 3rd seed in the West.
 
2012-10-26 10:54:44 PM

Mike_LowELL: Foxxinnia: Just because no one is pointing out that the NFL is doing some shiatty shiat doesn't mean we should ignore that the NBA is doing shiatty shiat.

Basketball isn't the sport that is running away with the national popularity contest.


Oh sorry, I forgot that only popular things should be criticized.
 
2012-10-26 11:28:57 PM

schief2: It was probably a bit of a fluke, but don't forget that in 1976 the Suns made the Finals with a blistering 42-40 record...and even that was good enough for 3rd seed in the West.


I didn't mention it because that was the last year of the ABA, and you could make the case that the quality of play in the NBA had been severely hurt by it. There was more mediocrity than parity.

Foxxinnia: Oh sorry, I forgot that only popular things should be criticized.


No, you're just being stupid. Let's try this again: Both the National Football League and the National Basketball Association have tweaked their rule sets to limit physical contact. One league has been mercilessly criticized for it, leading to an ill-informed perception that its players "do not play defense". The other league has profited tremendously from those rule changes, and has been characterized as a "Golden Age of Quarterbacks". Should the level of scoring in the NFL continue on its current rate, the league will easily set a modern record for scoring (and probably a league record, since when I looked this up a while back, I only checked back to 1970), with a league average for scoring nearly a full point per game higher than last season.

When I point out the blatant hypocrisy of this, that does not mean "Oh, you're just trying to downplay the problems with the league." It means that the average American sports fan is dumb as bricks and only hears the narrative coming through their own personal echo chamber, whether it's coming through the sports journalism megaphone or other ill-informed idiots in both their personal circle. And unlike the NFL, the reduction of physical play in the NBA was actually offset by rule changes designed to benefit defenses, most namely the elimination of illegal defense in favor of limited types of zone defenses. And because of it, LeBron James never got the same luxury that Michael Jordan did, where Jordan never had to face a single double team off the ball. So as a result, defenses have become much more complex, even if players can't be nearly as physical as they used to be. So if you want to claim any league has players that "don't play defense", it's the NFL, the league where all its offensive records are currently in the process of being destroyed, and a league which looks more and more like the Canadian Football League every day. But then again, you have a country of mouthbreathers who think football is a combat sport, and "YEA WHY DON'T U TEL RAY LOUIS THAT HE DOES'NT PLAY DEFENSE LOLL", and stop being fat, god damn.
 
2012-10-27 02:24:23 AM

Mike_LowELL: No, you're just being stupid.


Yeah, I was just messing with you on that on. I agree with you though. I like defense in sports, probably because I'm a weirdo, and seeing it get gutted in sports is sort of depressing. But the audience loves lots of points and lots of yards and the antique vision of a glorious leader guiding his team to victory, and leagues acknowledge that and makes that vision easier to fulfill. There's no glory in defense and there's no leader. The defense of football team is about as well acknowledged as a squad of mooks from a 007 film. The average football viewer could maybe rattle off four defensive players' names in the entire league while knowing the names of second-string QBs. I admit I don't know much about basketball, but I'm guessing it's the same. Are any of the NBA stars known because they steal the ball and block shots amazingly well?
 
2012-10-27 03:10:16 AM

Foxxinnia: Yeah, I was just messing with you on that on.


Fair enough.

Foxxinnia: I agree with you though. I like defense in sports, probably because I'm a weirdo, and seeing it get gutted in sports is sort of depressing. But the audience loves lots of points and lots of yards and the antique vision of a glorious leader guiding his team to victory, and leagues acknowledge that and makes that vision easier to fulfill. There's no glory in defense and there's no leader. The defense of football team is about as well acknowledged as a squad of mooks from a 007 film. The average football viewer could maybe rattle off four defensive players' names in the entire league while knowing the names of second-string QBs.


Step 1: Sell professional football to the public under the narrative that every player on a team has to be able to contribute in order to win.
Step 2: Sell a narrative that defense wins championships.
Step 3: If you're not a quarterback or a runningback, you do not win Most Valuable Player ever.
Step 4: Yeah, it's stupid.

Foxxinnia: I admit I don't know much about basketball, but I'm guessing it's the same. Are any of the NBA stars known because they steal the ball and block shots amazingly well?


Only if they're a center like Dwight Howard or Tyson Chandler. Which is actually kind of weird, because seven out of the first nine players to win Defensive Player of the Year (first issued in '82-'83) were either guards or forwards. Since then, 15 out of 16 have been centers. Usually, when it comes to the casual fans, players don't get respect for their defensive accolades unless they're very good offensive players. However, it usually becomes obnoxious, because players like Kobe Bryant (who are hardly all-world on the defensive end) will continue to get All-NBA Defensive Placement.
 
2012-10-27 04:15:45 AM
fark stern...for not suspending Artest for 7 godzillion games for the Harden elbow.
 
2012-10-27 10:01:11 AM

Mike_LowELL: No, you're just being stupid. Let's try this again: Both the National Football League and the National Basketball Association have tweaked their rule sets to limit physical contact. One league has been mercilessly criticized for it, leading to an ill-informed perception that its players "do not play defense". The other league has profited tremendously from those rule changes, and has been characterized as a "Golden Age of Quarterbacks". Should the level of scoring in the NFL continue on its current rate, the league will easily set a modern record for scoring (and probably a league record, since when I looked this up a while back, I only checked back to 1970), with a league average for scoring nearly a full point per game higher than last season..


I'm not quite sure what you're going on about in terms of media coverage and popular descriptions of what's happening in the NFL. I've read article after article after article about how various rule changes have handcuffed NFL defenses and favored the passing game, and nothing that I can think of saying "gee, today's quarterbacks sure are spiffy, as you can see by an apples-to-apples comparison of their stats to 1960s stats." Maybe we just read different stuff.
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report