Nedew Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Tim-buck-two Sorry to be so anal, but I think you mean Timbuktu. When people refer to it, it's a real place, not someone called Tim with 200 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Wouldn't it be 102 cents? (A buck & two) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistaken Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Wouldn't it be 102 cents? (A buck & two) now that's picking nits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 This whole thing could have been avoided if the NBA didn't pay their players so much money and rely on money from tv deals and ticket sales so they could turn a profit. Think of how much more entertaining the Pro games would be if it were ran like the college series are. As in 1 and your done! To take people with the talent that the pro's have and actually make them " fight for it " so to speak. What does any of this have to do with ANYTHING? I love the series system, and it has nothing to do with paying players millions. It also has nothing to do with this problem. (I feel like people forget that owners were making millions off professional sports before players became millionaires: players only make as much as the ownership is willing to spend) And for that matter, it's not as if college basketball isn't run as a money-making scheme every March. As far as this whole thing goes Vince already had the venue booked, the arena allowed him to do it. Unless it was stated in his contract with them " We the venue reserve the right to bump or cancel any event if it conflicts with the scheduling of our Denver Nuggets (NBA)" blah blah blah." Judging by Vince's reaction No such clause exists. Therefore whether you live in denver or Tim-buck-two a contract is a contract. They are LEGALLY binding thats the whole point in having a contact. The NBA has agreements with every NBA arena though, and that has to include the playoffs, where the exact dates of particular games is uncertain. It's not as if WWE has a contract and the NBA doesn't. They both have a contract, and since the arena was double-booked, the Nuggets organization told WWE to go home. Does WWE have the right to sue for breach of contract? Sure. But the franchise made the right call; the only dumb thing was confirming the venue in March/April when they couldn't be sure the arena would be available. I've never been to Denver but its a decent sized state, am i right? Well i live in Ohio and there's more than one arena. If the same thing were to happen between the cavs and the Vince, I would hope the Cavs would play in a different arena. Not only would it boost the economy in those areas but it shows the loyalty and belief in your team. No, that wouldn't happen. The Cavs wouldn't relocate at the expense of their season ticket holders, vendors, fans, etc. to accommodate professional wrestling, a traveling circus, or any other wacky traveling event. When there's money involved, it's not as easy as just picking up shop and moving someplace else. What I will say is that I would be fine with 16 teams if the playoffs would be sped up AND they got rid of a few teams to stop the dilution of talent. I wouldn't mind 16 playoff teams if you'd see more talented teams. We're off-topic now, but this is also ridiculous, since the talent has improved greatly in the past decade and even with the 16 team system, the Suns missed the playoffs with 46 wins, and the Warriors missed the playoffs winning 48 a year ago. Not to mention two years ago the Warriors won as an 8 seed, and the Atlanta Hawks challenged the Celtics to 7 games last year. The globalization of the game has improved talent in a big way, and an NBA team only needs 15 players, so the NBA doesn't suffer from a "dilution of talent" the way a sport like baseball does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 While dilution might be too strong a term, the 80s were a far better time for basketball (look at the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons rosters from the mid/late 80s)...far better talent top to bottom than what you see now. I'm not saying that every player was better then than they are now, but 1-12 you had more talent on fewer teams which I felt made for a better game. As for the second point, that same Hawks team made the playoffs with a sub-.500 record. The series should be shorter, because over 7 games the better team will usually prevail. It doesn't much bother me, because I stopped following the games. But that's probably WHY I stopped following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 While dilution might be too strong a term, the 80s were a far better time for basketball (look at the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons rosters from the mid/late 80s)...far better talent top to bottom than what you see now. I'm not saying that every player was better then than they are now, but 1-12 you had more talent on fewer teams which I felt made for a better game. As for the second point, that same Hawks team made the playoffs with a sub-.500 record. The series should be shorter, because over 7 games the better team will usually prevail. It doesn't much bother me, because I stopped following the games. But that's probably WHY I stopped following. You admit you don't follow the games, which is probably why you're so wrong on this point. I'll readily admit there was a point a few years ago where you would've been right: there was a time where the Eastern Conference didn't have a single legitimate contender and Lakers/Spurs was essentially a championship series every year. But now, the talent is there: all four teams that are left in the post-season are championship caliber: Dwight Howard is the best young center in the NBA, and has a supporting cast that includes two marksmen shooters that are both over 6'10. Denver has the best pure scorer in the league along with one of the best point guards of the past decade in Chauncey Billups, and role players that would make the 80's Pistons proud: Birdman was second in the league in blocks off the bench, and is nearly as insane as Rodman, and then you've got K-Mart, the guy that single-handedly gives the "Thuggets" their nick-name. The Cavaliers have LeBron, but they also have a talented backcourt, an underrated defensive center and a former defensive player of the year coming off the bench with Ben Wallace. Finally, the Lakers have Kobe, plus a 6'10 second scoring option in Lamar Odom, plus a double-double machine in Pau Gasol, plus an incredibly athletic youngster in Andrew Bynum and a very good supporting cast including guys like Trevor Ariza and Luke Walton, plus a guy with a ton of experience at point in Derek Fisher. And that's just the four teams that made it: the Celtics have three superstars and are out, the Bulls have a dynamic young team, Chris Paul and Deron Williams are two of the best point guards in the league and both are under 25, the Spurs have a hall of famer in Duncan with Tony Parker and Ginobli both making cases in a system that's won several championships. Hell, the Houston Rockets have not only two true superstars (albeit often injured ones), they have a supporting cast that features talents like Luis Scola and Shane Battier that dragged the Lakers to 7 games with unselfish, team basketball. The NBA right now is as good as it's been since about 1992; you're arguing a point that's been obsolete for about two years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 What I meant to say is that I don't WATCH the games. Kind of impossible to not follow when that's all they talk about on sports radio. Ever since the Lakers 3-Peat, they have been alternating between Easter Conference & Western Conference. And any Finals with the Spurs or the Pistons was a snoozefest. You are overestimating the abilities of Cavalier players. If you did a draft between Orlando & Cleveland RIGHT NOW obviously LeBron goes first. The next Cavs player might be #6. And even he is only shooting somewhere around 30% for the series. Even with the Lakers, Odom is inconsistent, and Bynum has mailed it in. And the fact that Houston without ANY superstars (Yao was out most of the series) stretching the Lakers to 7 doesn't speak too well of the Lakers supporting cast. The last series I remember watching start to finish was Lakers vs Indiana whenever that was. Ever since, I can take them or leave them. Simply not compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Okay, basketball's not for everyone, agree to disagree time. It's really not worth arguing the even more off-topic stuff I disagree with you on, especially since you're not a fan and therefore unwilling to see the other side of things. What's frustrating is when you complain about talent dilution and then at the same time call team basketball or defense boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Black Phenom Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Lakers and Cavs are both one-men teams. Moreso the Cavs, at least the Lakers can afford a bit of back-up at times, Fisher and Odom do shine when needed or on clutch time, but not always. They're the two popular teams though, because of all the love/media hype for KB and King J, myself included in there. While I'd love for either one of the teams to reach the finals, it'd be cool to see Orlando with a title. Denver.. never been high on them, although I do agree they're playing sweet for a team which wasn't even heavily predicted to get this far. And I hate the Spurs tbfh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Haha, not "high" on Denver. I get it. And I used to be a fan. I guess it's the same as people complaining about a wrestling product when they don't watch anymore. IF the Nuggets beat the Lakers, I'd love to see Stan Van Gundy get a ring. Otherwise, it'd be great to see Phil get one for the thumb and have him limp away. Plus it would silence Shaq. Can't stand that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Lakers and Cavs are both one-men teams. Moreso the Cavs, at least the Lakers can afford a bit of back-up at times, Fisher and Odom do shine when needed or on clutch time, but not always. They're the two popular teams though, because of all the love/media hype for KB and King J, myself included in there. While I'd love for either one of the teams to reach the finals, it'd be cool to see Orlando with a title. Denver.. never been high on them, although I do agree they're playing sweet for a team which wasn't even heavily predicted to get this far. And I hate the Spurs tbfh. No. Just no. There's five guys on the court. The Lakers two years ago struggled to win half their games. This year they won nearly 80%. Just because Kobe and LeBron have the ball in their hands at important moments doesn't make them one man teams. Basketball is a team game. Every player on the court has a role. How effective a player is at fulfilling that role is key to a team's success. To discount the other 11 guys on the Lakers or Cavs just shows that you really don't understand basketball. Michael Jordan is one of the most dominant players in the history of the league: he had a season where he averaged about 35 points, 7 boards, 7 assists, and 3 steals a game. But his team only became successful after guys like Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, and even John Paxson were there to play supporting roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 The way I read it is that the other guys on the team (mostly Cleveland) have been underperforming (or they overachieved during the regular season). The big men on Cleveland don't seem to have an answer to the Magic perimeter guys (who are all pretty big). And Mo Williams is simply not showing up this series. LeBron is the only one doing his job (and then some). Thus, he IS Cleveland right now. The Magic sweeping Cleveland (which they basically are doing if not for 1 LeBron 3 pointer) proves that it IS a team game and Cleveland is currently 1 guy. The Lakers at least have some semblance of balance (when they decide to play). Gasol can step up. Odom stepped up yesterday. And Kobe is Kobe. Ariza I'll give you is a solid player. But Bynum has been non-existent & Fisher has been out of it since before the end of the regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Black Phenom Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 No. Just no. There's five guys on the court. The Lakers two years ago struggled to win half their games. This year they won nearly 80%. Just because Kobe and LeBron have the ball in their hands at important moments doesn't make them one man teams. Basketball is a team game. Every player on the court has a role. How effective a player is at fulfilling that role is key to a team's success. To discount the other 11 guys on the Lakers or Cavs just shows that you really don't understand basketball. Michael Jordan is one of the most dominant players in the history of the league: he had a season where he averaged about 35 points, 7 boards, 7 assists, and 3 steals a game. But his team only became successful after guys like Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, and even John Paxson were there to play supporting roles. Nobody's discounting anything towards the term "one-man team". It just means what you exactly said, that they have the ball on them at important moments. Every other player has their own little contribution on the court, but it happens that for the Cavs - k, maybe not so much for the Lakers, they aren't much of a one-man team in retrospect but most other guys besides Kobe are quite inconsistent, and the Cavs on the other hand - have only one raw source in the team. That's why they're losing, and it's all well and good citing the definition of basketball, but it's another thing when see which teams actually show the meaning of team basketball. That's why the future is looking bright for Orlando, and to a lesser extent, Denver(they still have a chance against the Lakers, can go either way). MJ.. well that's bloody obvious. Both versions of the Bulls were well-rounded players who all had solid contribution on the court. Truly a team game. These teams I'm talking about though, different ballgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbergey_2005 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 It looks like the NBA faired well Monday Night. Surprising the NBA seems to be having their best ratings in years. I only say surprising because the 1st two rounds had so many lackluster games I would have guessed casual fans might have lost interest. http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/26/nuggetslakers-game-3-%e2%80%93-abc%e2%80%99s-most-viewed-nba-conference-telecast-ever/19421 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.