Yoyo

The game against Dallas made me think...who are the Warriors' rivals in the NBA? Rivalries generally involve teams that dislike/hate each other and exchange wins - otherwise it'd be one-sided.

Who do you think are the Warriors' rivals? If there are none, who can be one?

__________________
Go Warriors!

Me at UCLA games:

UCLA Basketball 2006-2007 (5-0): Wins vs. BYU, UCR, CSF, Arizona, Oregon

UCLA Basketball 2007-2008 (5-2): Wins vs. Portland State, Yale, George Washington, Oregon State, and Cal, Losses at USC vs. Texas

UCLA Football 2006 (4-1): Wins vs. Stanford, Arizona, Oregon St, and USC, Loss to Washington St

UCLA Football 2007 (3-2): Wins vs. UW, Cal, and Oregon, Losses vs. WSU and ASU

Stack Jack

I'd say the Mavs consider us rivals, and i would consider the same.

__________________

essbee

only the mavs right now and for me my dislike of them goes back to some comments i think Darryl Armstrong made about us beating them a few years ago.. although they were true lol.

We haven't won enough to have developed rivals. When we won as run TMC it was the Jazz for a while but now I don't think we look at them that way. When C-Webb was talkin' and had the dunk over charles in his commercial i thought we could have a nice rivalry with the suns but that fizzled too

__________________

Stack Jack

I think there is a natural nor cal Kings Warriors rival, i always like beating them, and the lakers for sure. and kinda the suns because of the similar styles.

but i would still go with the Mavs, i dont like them, and nobody gave the Warriors a chance in the playoffs last year.

__________________

croco

I don't know about other rivals, but you can count on the Mavs. Games between those two teams will be special for a while now, there is also a chance they will meet again in the playoffs this year.

essbee

That has never existed because Sacramento is central cali and not norcal...

__________________

Stack Jack

not really. Central California is like bakersfield and fresno. Sac is north of Oakland. Yeah, they are also east of them, but they are in Northern California. Sac is a Nor Cal team.

__________________

DaRizzle

__________________

Stop staring! Read my post!
To see if and why I'm suspended click here now!
Owning Aznzen since 4/29/08 Pending ownage of NateBishop3 & Entity. Previous owner of SpeedRacer

essbee

you'll find sacramento is considered the northern part of central california. it's lumped in with central the way bay is lumped in with northern.

"North Central California"

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sto/


"A thousand VR panoramas of beautiful central California, including San Francisco, Yosemite, Monterey, Big Sur and the giant Sequoias. These amazing photographs allow you to look all the way around - it's the next best thing to being there."

http://virtualguidebooks.com/CentralCalif/EastBay.html

The reason areas like oakland and san francisco are differentiated is because of the "bay area" designation, and the "bay area" tag is more relevant to the rivalry you're talking about that doesn't exist. So people just consider the areas like Oakland etc. as the bay area to be different from Sacto. There is no rivalry because the two areas are not comparable in most people's minds despite the proximity. The 49ers and Raiders however have a natural dislike among the two fan bases for that very reason. The Giants and A's fans went at it in the battle of the bay world series because of the same reason. The Kings and Warriors never have had a rivalry and probably never will.

__________________

essbee

I think one of the mistakes people make is assuming the central/northern divide is made horizontally.

Here's an example as you see the california government's designation of northern central california. You'll notice sacramento is the southern point right at the border with central california and the map for northern california is a separate one.



Here's the map of the bay area which is generally lumped in with northern california due simply to the convenience. It's technically not norcal either but it's regarded as such. A lot of it has to do with the fact that as a counterpoint to southern california, the bay area is a economically and socially very active area, so it's countered with southern california. Despite sacto being the state capital central cali just doesn't have a lot of relevance in other ways. So in the past when people talked about either north or south cali they talked about things like the black panthers and just said they were from northern california even though "the bay area" is a more accurate, specific description. But in reality that's not the only reason.

I know this stuff is probably boring (I did a lot of political work so we had to learn the counties and boundaries etc. so i'm probably the only who finds this interesting) but Sacramento is part of the Central Valley and central valley is a term that's usually associated with central california.. As wikipedia says

Because of the ways people tend to speak of california in sections sacto is viewed as part of the central valley and that ties in the areas you're talking about like Fresno. The reason this is notable is that even though sacramento might be norther of the bay area in terms of a straight horizontal line on the map, that technically is not how the districts are regarded in large part because of the shape of the valley. The central valley sort of runs up the middle (as the name suggests) and the bay area which sits to the left of it is then grouped often with northern california because neither of these is part of the central valley. AS a result northern california is actually a kind of horse shoe in the way people generally refer to it.



link




I figure the government is the best source for explaining it. For those not from there it's explained here on the department of transportation's site. I know it's confusing.

link

__________________

essbee

it's disappointing that you're not only ignorant of all other topics but don't know anything about the history of the state you live in either..

__________________

Stack Jack