Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can you imagine this scenario:

ECF- Detroit vs Indiana

WCF- Houston vs San Antonio

Finals- Indiana vs San Antonio

It would probably be the first time in history in wich no team in the conference finals or league finals breaks 90 points!!!!! I would rather see the NBA fold rather than be submitted to that level of torchure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
I like watching the Spurs more than any other western team, Twolves are behind them. I like watching the Pacers more than any other Eastern team.

Those scenarios wouldnt bother me. I'd rather watch hard nose intense basketball then two teams scoring over 100 points because the other teams defense is terrible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,840 Posts
It would probably be the first time in history in wich no team in the conference finals or league finals breaks 90 points!!!!! I would rather see the NBA fold rather than be submitted to that level of torchure.

The thing is, if playing boring as hell gets the job done, then you have to do it. Meaning, it's not like the Spurs play like that and suck; That is just their style of play, and even as a fan it is boring.


Any team other than LA Lakers would produce a non-watched NBA finals, because there are so many Lakers fans. Unfortunately for the Spurs, they don't have a lot of fans, thus the reason for low-rated finals this last season.


I personally would rather watch boring half-court basketball then watch the Lakers pound on the helpless Eastern Conference teams like they did during their 3-peat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
"I personally would rather watch boring half-court basketball then watch the Lakers pound on the helpless Eastern Conference teams like they did during their 3-peat."

But that's a compliment to the Lakers as far as I'm concerned. They may have gone through some bs during those regular seasons but when it came to the Finals they pounded those inferior eastern teams.

That's another reason why I hate to watch the Spurs, they play DOWN to the level of their competition so of course they're gonna be involved in competitive series against inferior teams. They are easily dragged down to that level.

That's why last year's Finals were so terrible because everybody and their mother knew that either the Lakers, Kings or even the Mavs would've waxed the floor with the Nets in 4 or 5 games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
That's why last year's Finals were so terrible because everybody and their mother knew that either the Lakers, Kings or even the Mavs would've waxed the floor with the Nets in 4 or 5 games.
So why is that better than the Spurs playing down to their competition if the Spurs beat the Lakers, Kings or Mavs to get there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Because my friend, like it or not, the NBA Finals are supposed to be the marquee matchup of the year. It is the series that leaves the most lasting imprint on the public and to a degree defines the season. It is the NBA's Super Bowl or World Series.

So eventhough the Spurs played great against their western rivals they played like absolute crap in the Finals and that's the series a lot of people remember. If they would've come out and blown out the Nets like they were supposed to then I think they would've recieved a lot more respect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,163 Posts
Because my friend, like it or not, the NBA Finals are supposed to be the marquee matchup of the year. It is the series that leaves the most lasting imprint on the public and to a degree defines the season. It is the NBA's Super Bowl or World Series.
For a long time the NFC Championship game was the Super Bowl.

So eventhough the Spurs played great against their western rivals they played like absolute crap in the Finals and that's the series a lot of people remember. If they would've come out and blown out the Nets like they were supposed to then I think they would've recieved a lot more respect.
The Nets were the best defensive team the Spurs faced in the playoffs last year and that contributed to how they played in the Finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Spare me the excuses PSU.

You know damn well either one of those other western teams would've blown the Nets out of the building in 4 or 5 games at the most. The 2000 Pacers, 2001 Sixers and hell even the 2002 Nets were all better defensive teams than last years Nets and they NEVER made the Lakers look as horrible as the Spurs did last year.

Remember something, it doesn't take much defense to make the Spurs offense look inept!!!

Check out the scores of the 1999 Finals when they played THE 8TH SEEDED KNICKS!!!

June 16: Wed., at San Antonio 89, New York 77
June 18: Fri., at San Antonio 80, New York 67
June 21: Mon., at New York 89, San Antonio 81
June 23: Wed., San Antonio 96, at New York 89
June 25: Fri., San Antonio 78, at New York 77

Gee, what a coincidence that the Spurs were involved in possibly the 2 worst Finals in the shot clock era! Any of the great teams from the past 25+ years would've desmantled those Knicks by an average of 20 points a game while averaging at least 110! It's no accident folks, these guys have been pulling the same shtick for years. They did it in 99', they did it last year and will do it this year if they get back there.

That's why they are a NIGHTMARE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
It still doesnt answer my question. How is a blowout finals more exciting than an obviously better team playing down to their competition and closing them out comfortably in 6 games?

and its not like they just appear in the finals. They BEAT these teams you think would be blowing out the eastern teams.

So if it doesnt take much defense to make the Spurs offense look inept, then how could they win the title?

I like watching the Spurs, you dont. Dont assume everyone thinks like you, and I dont assume everyone likes them. One thing that cant be denied, is if they are in the finals out of the west its because they are the best team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I don't assume everybody else thinks like me but definetely the vast majority of people due evidenced by last years PUTRID ratings.

I never denied the Spurs merit of playing great against the west. I just stated the very REAL fact that they play down to the level of their competition, something that REAL great champions normally don't do.

Of course nobody likes a blowout but come on? I would definetely watch a series were at least ONE team is playing great basketball instead of one were BOTH teams are absolutely stinking up the court like last years Finals even if that means the games are going to be close.

People don't like to watch mediocrity and that's exactly what they got in last year's Finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,093 Posts
I thought I was the only one who thought the worst thing that could happen is to have the Rockets vs. Spurs WCF........

.....67-69 with two minutes left in the Game

give me Sac-town vs. Dallas any day

or New Orleans vs. Indiana




thats what I want to see
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,420 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
I don't assume everybody else thinks like me but definetely the vast majority of people due evidenced by last years PUTRID ratings.

I never denied the Spurs merit of playing great against the west. I just stated the very REAL fact that they play down to the level of their competition, something that REAL great champions normally don't do.

Of course nobody likes a blowout but come on? I would definetely watch a series were at least ONE team is playing great basketball instead of one were BOTH teams are absolutely stinking up the court like last years Finals even if that means the games are going to be close.

People don't like to watch mediocrity and that's exactly what they got in last year's Finals.
Don't blame the Spurs. They don't have much offensive talents like the Kings or the Mavs so the only way is to make their opponents look worse. You can hate them but don't say anything like they 'drag down' the level of competition. They were playing to their strength, it is other teams' problem if they can't beat a 'bad offensive' team like the Spurs. Look at it both ways: If the Spurs 'drag down' the competitions, then the teams they beat were even worse and will 'drag' the league down more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
I don't assume everybody else thinks like me but definetely the vast majority of people due evidenced by last years PUTRID ratings.
Ratings have gone down every year, including when the Lakers were winning. The Spurs arent the reason the NBAs ratings are going down despite what you think and despite your hatred for them.

Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
I never denied the Spurs merit of playing great against the west. I just stated the very REAL fact that they play down to the level of their competition, something that REAL great champions normally don't do.
Dont put boundaries on what a "great" champion should or shouldnt be. Spurs were just as good if not better than the 2000 and 2002 Lakers.

Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
Of course nobody likes a blowout but come on? I would definetely watch a series were at least ONE team is playing great basketball instead of one were BOTH teams are absolutely stinking up the court like last years Finals even if that means the games are going to be close.
Thats you. I would rather watch a close game no matter what the score is, then watch a blowout.

Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
People don't like to watch mediocrity and that's exactly what they got in last year's Finals.
If the Spurs were mediocre, and they beat the other west teams to get there, then the finals would have been mediocre no matter what.

I think your beef is more with the present day NBA than it is with the Spurs. Unless your just so bias to think that if the Lakers arent in the finals then its a bad finals, I'm hoping you're not that bias. Either that, or you personally think the Spurs are boring, and you try act like everyone else does as well.

Either way, I'd rather watch hardnose in your face basketball. I dont like that no defense, chuck up three pointers style of basketball nearly as much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,761 Posts
"Spurs were just as good if not better than the 2000 and 2002 Lakers. "

Better then 2000 Lakers, please, that' pushing it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,333 Posts
the spurs were not better than the 2000 and 2001 lakers because the lakers beat them in the playoffs. THe spurs are the boringest team in the history of the nba to watch. they were the ones that dragged the ratings down with there terribly boring style. they had the lowest rating ever for a finals, the finals with the lakers drew very well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I think San Antonio vs. Detroit is worser than SA vs. IND, two defensive teams very low scoring
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
"Spurs were just as good if not better than the 2000 and 2002 Lakers. "

Better then 2000 Lakers, please, that' pushing it
Both the 00 and 02 Lakers had very close intense 7 games series. Spurs never even had to go to game 7.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top