Archive

Mo takes shot at Wade/Durant takes shot at competitive spirit in the NBA...

  • hoops23
    enigmaax;425944 wrote:The Finals weren't close to the highest rated ever. They were among the highest this decade - about 24 or 25 in the last 35-ish years. And I'd say Boston is Boston regardless of where they came from in the standings - the NBA pushed the history hard and that likely had a lot to do with the bump.



    True. But they are the top team of the decade and the team that draws the best numbers. The "Super Teams" were doing 15-18 ratings whereas this team has topped out at under 11. I listed several numbers in a post above.

    You can say you aren't as interested, but I'd say you are the same type of fan as ytown. Maybe you want the NBA to be one thing, but it isn't your money that counts and your angle isn't what works for the masses.

    Well, if it isn't my money that counts, then the NBA is in trouble. They've been operating in the red for a few years now with no end in sight.
  • hoops23
    jordo212000;425940 wrote:Lol. C'mon dude, how many teams did you think could win the championship this year? The number is 4, tops (Cavs, Celtics, Lakers, Magic). 1 more than your lament that there are only "2 or 3 contenders". The situation is nearly identical, this time it's not the Cavs who are a contender it's the Heat. Besides, we don't even know how good the Heat are going to be.

    That my fucking point. The NBA never has true parity. Never. On a great year, we may see 4 or 5 teams who are title contenders. The average year though, you'll see 2 or 3 legit contenders.
  • enigmaax
    hoops23;425954 wrote:Well, if it isn't my money that counts, then the NBA is in trouble. They've been operating in the red for a few years now with no end in sight.

    Um, no, that would mean what I'm saying is exactly true. The money you spend trying to be a "real" fan isn't getting the job done. They need to pull in fans that normally wouldn't care. The way to do that is to build super teams and super match-ups. Just like in the 80s and 90s when the league was rolling in dough.
  • jordo212000
    hoops23;425956 wrote:That my fucking point. The NBA never has true parity. Never. On a great year, we may see 4 or 5 teams who are title contenders. The average year though, you'll see 2 or 3 legit contenders.

    So what do you want the players to do? haha. You say only a few teams can win (meaning only a few teams have good players) thus players need to line up to play for those teams or create their own. Like it or not, Lebron was not going to win a championship any time soon in Cleveland. The landscape has completely changed. Lebron knew that.

    My point throughout this thread is that fans have no issue with the NBA's standard operating procedures while it benefits them. Then after the jig is up they whine about the way the league has operated for 20 plus years. Single stars cannot win in this league anymore. You must have 2+ superstars.

    Back to the big picture. What do you want the NBA to do? Everything the Heat did was within the rules. They were the anti-Cavaliers. They trimmed payroll, didn't overpay for quick fixes, and made a good pitch. There is nothing Stern can do outside of unilaterally declaring where players can play
  • hoops23
    enigmaax;425965 wrote:Um, no, that would mean what I'm saying is exactly true. The money you spend trying to be a "real" fan isn't getting the job done. They need to pull in fans that normally wouldn't care. The way to do that is to build super teams and super match-ups. Just like in the 80s and 90s when the league was rolling in dough.

    Um, no. There have been "super teams" in the NBA the last few years, they're called the Lakers and Celtics... However, none of those teams have 3 of the top 10 players, which is why people are hating the Heat so much.

    People like parity, player rivalries, and competition in the NBA... That was dealt a serious blow.
  • enigmaax
    hoops23;425956 wrote:That my fucking point. The NBA never has true parity. Never. On a great year, we may see 4 or 5 teams who are title contenders. The average year though, you'll see 2 or 3 legit contenders.

    I thought your point was that this super team thing was reducing parity. Now you're saying they never had it to begin with. If that is the case, then nothing is changing so nothing can be good or bad for the league.

    You may actually be right, that the NBA has never had true parity. The difference is at the top when it comes to making money and ratings. They pay players a lot more these days for a more inferior product than they had two decades ago - especially at the top. Here's another example. There have been five different franchises with titles this decade - more than each of the previous two decades. Yet ratings plummeted. They have achieved greater parity in that sense, yet money and ratings aren't keeping up. I'd take my chances on having two teams that everyone is interested in versus having five teams that no one is.
  • hoops23
    jordo212000;425972 wrote:So what do you want the players to do? haha. You say only a few teams can win (meaning only a few teams have good players) thus players need to line up to play for those teams or create their own. Like it or not, Lebron was not going to win a championship any time soon in Cleveland. The landscape has completely changed. Lebron knew that.

    My point throughout this thread is that fans have no issue with the NBA's standard operating procedures while it benefits them. Then after the jig is up they whine about the way the league has operated for 20 plus years. Single stars cannot win in this league anymore. You must have 2+ superstars.

    Back to the big picture. What do you want the NBA to do? Everything the Heat did was within the rules. They were the anti-Cavaliers. They trimmed payroll, didn't overpay for quick fixes, and made a good pitch. There is nothing Stern can do outside of unilaterally declaring where players can play

    2+ superstars does not constitute into 2 of the top 3 players playing together. I seriously don't understand what is so hard to fathom about this. No team has ever had 2 of the top 3 players. The Jordan Bulls never did, the Bird Celtics never did, the Magic Lakers never did..
  • jordo212000
    enigmaax;425974 wrote:I thought your point was that this super team thing was reducing parity. Now you're saying they never had it to begin with. If that is the case, then nothing is changing

    Which.. is exactly what I've been saying all along. Instead of the four contenders being the Magic, Celtics, Lakers, and Cavaliers it is now the Magic, Celtics, Lakers, and Heat. The only difference is that one region of the country has been switched in for another.
  • jordo212000
    hoops23;425976 wrote:2+ superstars does not constitute into 2 of the top 3 players playing together. I seriously don't understand what is so hard to fathom about this.

    smh
  • hoops23
    enigmaax;425974 wrote:I thought your point was that this super team thing was reducing parity. Now you're saying they never had it to begin with. If that is the case, then nothing is changing so nothing can be good or bad for the league.

    You may actually be right, that the NBA has never had true parity. The difference is at the top when it comes to making money and ratings. They pay players a lot more these days for a more inferior product than they had two decades ago - especially at the top. Here's another example. There have been five different franchises with titles this decade - more than each of the previous two decades. Yet ratings plummeted. They have achieved greater parity in that sense, yet money and ratings aren't keeping up. I'd take my chances on having two teams that everyone is interested in versus having five teams that no one is.

    No, my argument is that the NBA lacks parity. As in it lacks parity.. That's it.

    Two teams have over half the league titles.. How many small market teams have won multiple titles? The Spurs are most likely the smallest market to win more than 1.
  • enigmaax
    hoops23;425932 wrote:LA is a great team, but it's no "Super Team"...
    hoops23;425973 wrote:Um, no. There have been "super teams" in the NBA the last few years, they're called the Lakers and Celtics...

    People like parity, player rivalries, and competition in the NBA... That was dealt a serious blow.
    So, which is it? Super team or not?

    I've already shown you that people don't like parity. They tune in more when the same team is playing for a title year in and year out. L.A. draws the best ratings, period. But they aren't as good as the L.A. teams with 3 HOFers from the 80s, so they don't do near the numbers. And they aren't the Bulls from the 90s with a handful of personalities and intriguing talent, so they don't do near the numbers. And there is no other team that has been consistently good to serve as a worthy storyline so they don't do near the numbers. Throw Boston in there and try to rekindle the 80s rivalry and the numbers go up. Bring in a couple newcomers to the big stage (Spurs-Nets), your so-called parity, and no one watches. How difficult is that to get?
  • jordo212000
    hoops23;425976 wrote:2+ superstars does not constitute into 2 of the top 3 players playing together. I seriously don't understand what is so hard to fathom about this. No team has ever had 2 of the top 3 players.

    If you know going in your need great players, what better way than to go get 2 of the best?
  • enigmaax
    hoops23;425925 wrote:Parity trumps anything else a league can put out as a product. I'm sorry, but the NBA has struggled because of the lack of parity, I don't see that changing now.
    hoops23;425932 wrote:Fan interest has been up in the NBA because there was a bit of parity forming around the league.
    I'm sorry, but again, a league with only 2 or 3 contenders just doesn't really interest me as a whole.
    Again, you said two different things. Is the NBA struggling because of no parity or has interest been up because they have gained parity?

    Here's the point - the NBA did fine with two teams dominating the 80s. The NBA did fine with one team dominating the 90s. If the NBA isn't doing fine now, it isn't because of a lack of parity - they proved for 20 years they could thrive with no parity.
  • jpake1
    I still find it funny people have to knock the Heat for getting the best possible players they could get. People are so pissed because they don't understand what the fuck just happened. Pat Riley did something NOBODY has ever thought of doing. He did something maybe nobody else in history could have done. Not only did he get three stars, but he's getting a bench that might end up being one of the best in the league. He continues to lay down flush's while people are only holding a pair. Be pissed at LBJ for leaving the way he did, you've got a right. But why be pissed at the Miami Heat franchise for making those moves? They did their best to make themselves the best they could be. Pat wasn't going to stop at Wade and Bosh and then fillers, because lets be honest, they wouldn't beat the Lakers, and Pat knew that. Did you expect him to make that teams anyways and knowingly lose just so the NBA would be more even? He built a team that he has confidence in. It's okay to be pissed at LBJ for the way he left, it's even okay to be pissed about some of the comments after their signing, but where is the logic at being pissed for the Miami franchise for making the best team they could? There are none... just hurt feelings and jealousy.
  • wes_mantooth
    ^^^I really don't think anyone is blaming the Heat for this. Just like the Yankees...they are doing what is allowed. I think it is more of a player collusion or League problem.
  • jpake1
    Even then, I can't blame those people. Sure, we'd all like to be the man on our own team with good talent around us. Those days are gone for awhile though. The most successful teams out there don't have one man, they've gone men with good talent around them. I'm a firm believer that if all the big studs this year went their own way, or if even two of them teamed up, it wouldn't have been enough to be LA. It appears that those guys also felt that way. I can't fault them for wanting to play together. Maybe it is a league problem, but is there even a fix. There's nothing illegal about top players playing together. What can the NBA do to stop something like this ever again?
  • wes_mantooth
    ^^^I don't think there is any way of stopping it. Like you said...it isn't illegal and you cannot stop the players from talking to each other...it is just the way it is going to be.

    The only way I think it could be stopped is if you really made a big separation in pay(in terms of resigning or leaving)
  • ytownfootball
    Yeah, I'm not blaming the Heat for doing what they did at all, and the only reason I brought up the Yankees was to make a comparison to other sports. I hate the Yankees, mostly because there is no mechanism in place to keep them from being in contention year after year. They'll put asses in seats regardless of their quality of play, they've done it before. Small market teams don't have that luxury. Now I hate the Heat too. Not every market has hot chics wearing next to nothing to draw top players. Simplified of course, but the end result is the same.

    I try to be a pro sports fan as much as my ability to look past their flagrant inadequacies allow, but I do fall short from being as rabid about them as I am for college ball at every level.
  • hoops23
    I've never knocked the Heat, but I will continue to knock the NBA and LBJ. Just the same as the national media is.

    Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk
  • Footwedge
    hoops23;426108 wrote:I've never knocked the Heat, but I will continue to knock the NBA and LBJ. Just the same as the national media is.

    Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk
    I agree with Hoops on this 100%.

    Sent from my POS 1252 Laptop.
  • cbus4life
    Footwedge;426154 wrote:I agree with Hoops on this 100%.

    Sent from my POS 1252 Laptop.

    I agree with Foot on this 100%

    Sent from my head.
  • jordo212000
    Who is this "national media" you speak of? I'd like to read some of those articles.
  • AcidBurn
    first of all i agree with pretty much all of jordos and enigs posts. boston did the ame thing a few ago and they had a legit 3 of top ten stars. you haters are giving bosh way too much credit for being great on a poor raptor team. i would challenge the fact that he was/is a top ten player by himself. as for the person that said pippen wasnt a star earlier in the thread, did you even watch bball back then? hell, he's on the top 50 of all time team.

    i listen to sports radio probably 6 hours a day on average. the ONLY negative thing ive heard on a consistant basis is lbj not giving gilbert a call. who gives a damn whether he called gilbert or not. he didnt owe gilbert OR the people of cleveland shit.

    as far as collusion, karl malone and gary payton did this a few years ago with the lakers and nobody cared. the only people that care about this is cleveland fans who think they are owed something. be glad you were pathetic enough to be able to draft him in the first place. he made cleveland relevant again.

    this was a great thing for the nba like it or not. people who haven't watched in a while will tune in once again to root for the heat or to hate on them.

    i do agree nba refs are pathetic. this is probably one thing we can all agree on.
  • hoops23
    Jordo, why do we have to find the articles for you? There are 20,000 articles posted on here to begin with from Yahoo, various city news papers, a few ESPN guys, etc... You can't be that naive can you?
  • jordo212000
    I just wanted an example, guess you won't humor me. Of course there are going to be people who think it is bad for basketball, everybody has an opinion. I just wanted to see who you consider the national media to be. Like another poster said, I'm pretty plugged in and I haven't heard all that much negativity