PDA

View Full Version : The NBA is weak



HouRealCoach
08-09-2009, 04:01 AM
Most of the guys are only good because of their Athleticism they dont have much skills IMO. We havent hadratings 10+ since the 2004 Season(notice that was the last season that Shaq and Kobe played together).

2005 Finals: Great matchup but was boring as hell
2006 Finals: WAYYYYYYY 2 many fouls called
2007 Finals: 6.2 speaks for itself the worst season ever
2008 Finals: There was not a team that could touch Boston
2009 Finals: Injury hit playoffs but the finals were garbage

And not to mention the fouls that have been called.... play after play after play after play. Theratings use to be high because great players had classic teams the only classic team there is now is Boston IMO. Im just saying the NBA needs to do better....

EastCoastBaller
08-09-2009, 04:09 AM
Agree.

Theanswer76
08-09-2009, 04:11 AM
Agree.

i like your signatures and im not talking about lebron =]

The_Mac22
08-09-2009, 04:23 AM
i agree....

kEviN21
08-09-2009, 04:28 AM
What are you expecting?

Boston Faithful
08-09-2009, 05:08 AM
Most of the guys are only good because of their Athleticism they dont have much skills IMO. We havent hadratings 10+ since the 2004 Season(notice that was the last season that Shaq and Kobe played together).

2005 Finals: Great matchup but was boring as hell
2006 Finals: WAYYYYYYY 2 many fouls called
2007 Finals: 6.2 speaks for itself the worst season ever
2008 Finals: There was not a team that could touch Boston
2009 Finals: Injury hit playoffs but the finals were garbage

And not to mention the fouls that have been called.... play after play after play after play. Theratings use to be high because great players had classic teams the only classic team there is now is Boston IMO. Im just saying the NBA needs to do better....

In theory, you're right. But the 2008 Finals did some of the best ratings since Jordan left. If LeBron joins New York, D-Wade goes to Chicago and the Lakers and Celtics stay very good, you will have four classic teams and a major spike in ratings.

Lakerfrk
08-09-2009, 05:21 AM
Most of the guys are only good because of their Athleticism they dont have much skills IMO. We havent hadratings 10+ since the 2004 Season(notice that was the last season that Shaq and Kobe played together).

2005 Finals: Great matchup but was boring as hell
2006 Finals: WAYYYYYYY 2 many fouls called
2007 Finals: 6.2 speaks for itself the worst season ever
2008 Finals: There was not a team that could touch Boston
2009 Finals: Injury hit playoffs but the finals were garbage

And not to mention the fouls that have been called.... play after play after play after play. Theratings use to be high because great players had classic teams the only classic team there is now is Boston IMO. Im just saying the NBA needs to do better....

So.. do you only mean that because KG was injured that it was an injury hit playoffs? Or are you including Yao?

The finals were crap? The first series since the 90s I think it was to have 2 finals games with overtimes.... Just because the Lakers won 4-1 doesn't make it crap.

Did you really just say that Boston is the only "classic" team that is in it? So.. the Lakers aren't a classic team?

I just don't really understand this post...

It kind of seems to me... just by reading it... that BECAUSE the Celtics were not in the finals, or won the finals... the NBA was at a loss....

I dunno....

Apophis
08-09-2009, 05:48 AM
So.. do you only mean that because KG was injured that it was an injury hit playoffs? Or are you including Yao?

The finals were crap? The first series since the 90s I think it was to have 2 finals games with overtimes.... Just because the Lakers won 4-1 doesn't make it crap.

Did you really just say that Boston is the only "classic" team that is in it? So.. the Lakers aren't a classic team?

I just don't really understand this post...

It kind of seems to me... just by reading it... that BECAUSE the Celtics were not in the finals, or won the finals... the NBA was at a loss....

I dunno....

I agree.. samething I was thinking...

B.JenningsMVP
08-09-2009, 06:01 AM
In theory, you're right. But the 2008 Finals did some of the best ratings since Jordan left. If LeBron joins New York, D-Wade goes to Chicago and the Lakers and Celtics stay very good, you will have four classic teams and a major spike in ratings.

yes agreed.. that'd be great for the nba.... we need teams like the 76ers and stuff to be great again..

HouRealCoach
08-09-2009, 06:11 AM
So.. do you only mean that because KG was injured that it was an injury hit playoffs? Or are you including Yao?

The finals were crap? The first series since the 90s I think it was to have 2 finals games with overtimes.... Just because the Lakers won 4-1 doesn't make it crap.

Did you really just say that Boston is the only "classic" team that is in it? So.. the Lakers aren't a classic team?

I just don't really understand this post...

It kind of seems to me... just by reading it... that BECAUSE the Celtics were not in the finals, or won the finals... the NBA was at a loss....

I dunno....

Injuries.... T-Mac, Yao, Iverson, KG, Brand, Nelson, Mutombo and Ginobili(probably more)

That Orlando team just got by as did Cleveland and neither one of those teams are Finals teams with KG Boston would have swept thru them both and they just had more of an advantage. We all know that Dwight cant post pass out of double team or hit a midrange jumper. Orlando is not the team they are hyped up to be.... That is why when healthy the Celtics DOMINATE the NBA because they are the best. Boston has 3 Future HOF's.... Lakers only have Kobe.... You can put them up against almost any other championship team and they dont come close. They barely beat Houston.... A team without a center and their best wing players and undersized PG's.... Thats unacceptable.

and I am expecting two teams going at it and I want to see big names in the Finals like 1998 and back it was a future HOF or two on each team that made the Finals.

Like Magic, Bird, Mchale, Kareem, Worthy, Parish in a series evenly matched.... and not to mention those BULLSHITTING fouls that are called every two plays

azkarraga
08-09-2009, 06:36 AM
so, because your team didnt make it, the whole thing is a mess?

azkarraga
08-09-2009, 06:40 AM
but you might have a point. yes, we may lack some stars like magic or bird; but to me the biggest failure is too many fouls. D-rules gotta change. We cant go back to 90's players, but we can go back to d-rules then.

SteveNash
08-09-2009, 06:43 AM
Most of the guys are only good because of their Athleticism they dont have much skills IMO. We havent hadratings 10+ since the 2004 Season(notice that was the last season that Shaq and Kobe played together).

2005 Finals: Great matchup but was boring as hell
2006 Finals: WAYYYYYYY 2 many fouls called
2007 Finals: 6.2 speaks for itself the worst season ever
2008 Finals: There was not a team that could touch Boston
2009 Finals: Injury hit playoffs but the finals were garbage

And not to mention the fouls that have been called.... play after play after play after play. Theratings use to be high because great players had classic teams the only classic team there is now is Boston IMO. Im just saying the NBA needs to do better....

So what point are you trying to make? You want "classic" teams, but you find a seven game series with two hard working no nonsense teams to be boring?

DetroitRipCity
08-09-2009, 07:39 AM
i dont understand this post all im seeing is a Beantown fan *****ing because the Celtics are not always in teh finals

BHBrad
08-09-2009, 08:13 AM
Well, there is something to be said about too many teams in the NBA. But using the ratings is dumb, because the NBA for whatever reason has been very dependant on the big market teams (And to some extend "Classic" NBA fanbases) and besides LA, the finals have been pretty much devoid of that. Baseball has the exact same issue.

DetroitRipCity
08-09-2009, 08:16 AM
you know how ****** basketball would be if it was always Boston v LA or Big Market v Big Market People dont want to see that unless its your team... The NBA needs to level out talent wise so every team has a shot to make the finals

Lo Porto
08-09-2009, 08:29 AM
We need the refs to start treating everyone the same. It started with Jordan, and now it has just spun out of control. Most basketball purests and intense college bball fans hate the NBA because it's so biased. You won't ever see a small market team called the same as big market team unless they have large amounts of success over a long amount of time (San Antonio comes to mind). The stars rule for obvious reasons. I understand Kobe or LeBron getting a call or two extra a game because of ref anticipation, but what we have now is ridiculous.

magichatnumber9
08-09-2009, 08:32 AM
Your obviously not a true fan. Your in the Michael Jordan fanclub status. All those people who just like the flashy dunks and deep 3pt shots and superstars. No team ball, just one guy against 5. Its like gladiator basketball

arkanian215
08-09-2009, 08:47 AM
maybe if the nets move to brooklyn, the league will force them to sell their best player to philly again to compensate for the shared market.

28+24+5=3champs
08-09-2009, 09:31 AM
i agree that there is WAYYYY too many fouls called but the rest of this post just sounds like a celtics fan *****ing

i could tell your bias as soon as you talked about injuries hitting this years playoffs and nothing about last year how a team without a 7 footer in bynum and great defender and sparkplug ariza matched up against a stacked celtics team.

and come on dude you lost all credibility saying that Boston is the only classic team left. you cant even give the lakers any credit?

DetroitRipCity
08-09-2009, 10:05 AM
and come on dude you lost all credibility saying that Boston is the only classic team left. you cant even give the lakers any credit?

he lost credibility when he didnt mention the 2004 finals (not a stab at the lakers, i like the lakers)

lakerboy
08-09-2009, 10:21 AM
Not a team touched the Celtics?

They were taken to game 7, twice.

Super.
08-09-2009, 10:28 AM
Not a team touched the Celtics?

They were taken to game 7, twice.

That 2nd game 7 against Cleveland was one of my favorite playoff games of all time

G-Menfan4lyfe
08-09-2009, 10:36 AM
Injuries.... T-Mac, Yao, Iverson, KG, Brand, Nelson, Mutombo and Ginobili(probably more)

That Orlando team just got by as did Cleveland and neither one of those teams are Finals teams with KG Boston would have swept thru them both and they just had more of an advantage. We all know that Dwight cant post pass out of double team or hit a midrange jumper. Orlando is not the team they are hyped up to be.... That is why when healthy the Celtics DOMINATE the NBA because they are the best. Boston has 3 Future HOF's.... Lakers only have Kobe.... You can put them up against almost any other championship team and they dont come close. They barely beat Houston.... A team without a center and their best wing players and undersized PG's.... Thats unacceptable.

and I am expecting two teams going at it and I want to see big names in the Finals like 1998 and back it was a future HOF or two on each team that made the Finals.

Like Magic, Bird, Mchale, Kareem, Worthy, Parish in a series evenly matched.... and not to mention those BULLSHITTING fouls that are called every two plays

This dude must be joking. All the Lakers have is Kobe? Now I hate he Lakers but they certainly have more than Kobe. And now that Artest has gone to LA, dont you think Kobe, Gasol and Artest with a supporting cast of Odom and Bynum is better than Pierce, Allen and Garnett with Rondo and who else really? And to say the Celtics would have swept through the Cavs and Magic if they had KG is ridiculous. The Cavs dominated the Celtics in the regular season before KG went down. Your arguments just come off as shameless homerism.

And as for all the bullshitting fouls that are called every 2 plays, Jordan used to get those calls all the time and last year when the Celts won the title they had quite a few of those calls too. So take it for what it is.

MacFitz92
08-09-2009, 10:37 AM
Although there is some truth to what you are saying. Most games don't end up in overtime with a game winning shot.

DetroitRipCity
08-09-2009, 10:38 AM
This dude must be joking. All the Lakers have is Kobe? Now I hate he Lakers but they certainly have more than Kobe. And now that Artest has gone to LA, dont you think Kobe, Gasol and Artest with a supporting cast of Odom and Bynum is better than Pierce, Allen and Garnett with Rondo and who else really? And to say the Celtics would have swept through the Cavs and Magic if they had KG is ridiculous. The Cavs dominated the Celtics in the regular season before KG went down. Your arguments just come off as shameless homerism.

And as for all the bullshitting fouls that are called every 2 plays, Jordan used to get those calls all the time and last year when the Celts won the title they had quite a few of those calls too. So take it for what it is.

Rondo doesnt count hes only good cause of the big three

Madskillz77
08-09-2009, 11:03 AM
This is real life not a movie. Things cannot play out perfectly.

Iron24th
08-09-2009, 11:19 AM
i dont understand this post all im seeing is a Beantown fan *****ing because the Celtics are not always in teh finals

Exactly,he's just a frustrated homer,great...

DetroitRipCity
08-09-2009, 11:23 AM
2008 Finals: There was not a team that could touch Boston


Lets See
Atlanta took you to 7
Cleveland took you to 7
Detroit took you to 6
Lakers took you 6

But no one could touch you huh?

BRoy23
08-09-2009, 11:29 AM
This dude must be joking. All the Lakers have is Kobe? Now I hate he Lakers but they certainly have more than Kobe. And now that Artest has gone to LA, dont you think Kobe, Gasol and Artest with a supporting cast of Odom and Bynum is better than Pierce, Allen and Garnett with Rondo and who else really? And to say the Celtics would have swept through the Cavs and Magic if they had KG is ridiculous. The Cavs dominated the Celtics in the regular season before KG went down. Your arguments just come off as shameless homerism.

And as for all the bullshitting fouls that are called every 2 plays, Jordan used to get those calls all the time and last year when the Celts won the title they had quite a few of those calls too. So take it for what it is.

And thats the truth

DCSportsIsPain
08-09-2009, 11:39 AM
Exactly,he's just a frustrated homer,great...

Who isn't? That doesn't mean every frustrated homer should start a thread about nothing.

DetroitRipCity
08-09-2009, 11:44 AM
Who isn't? That doesn't mean every frustrated homer should start a thread about nothing.

i think you miss-understood what he said

Lakerfrk
08-09-2009, 12:07 PM
Injuries.... T-Mac, Yao, Iverson, KG, Brand, Nelson, Mutombo and Ginobili(probably more)

That Orlando team just got by as did Cleveland and neither one of those teams are Finals teams with KG Boston would have swept thru them both and they just had more of an advantage. We all know that Dwight cant post pass out of double team or hit a midrange jumper. Orlando is not the team they are hyped up to be.... That is why when healthy the Celtics DOMINATE the NBA because they are the best. Boston has 3 Future HOF's.... Lakers only have Kobe.... You can put them up against almost any other championship team and they dont come close. They barely beat Houston.... A team without a center and their best wing players and undersized PG's.... Thats unacceptable.

and I am expecting two teams going at it and I want to see big names in the Finals like 1998 and back it was a future HOF or two on each team that made the Finals.

Like Magic, Bird, Mchale, Kareem, Worthy, Parish in a series evenly matched.... and not to mention those BULLSHITTING fouls that are called every two plays

So, because the Celtics have 3 HOF players, they are unbeatable?
So, when the O4 Lakers had 4 HOF players, though only 2 were in their prime, and the Pistons had 0 HOF players, the Lakers were unbeatable?

The Lakers JUST getting by Houston is unacceptable?
So, when this year, Boston JUST got by the Bulls, that was unacceptable?
So, last year when it took Boston 7 games to get past the Cavs, that was unacceptable?
So, last year when it took Boston 7 games to get past the HAWKS, that was unacceptable?

I get it,, the Celtics were injured... but really.. it just sounds like you are whining....

The Magic were not "over-hyped"... they made it to the FINALS.. they may have over-achieved, but they were obviously UNDER-hyped.

PLUS, don't even talk about those "BULL****" calls that have been made. If I have to watch Pierce go around a pic and role, run around a defender and flail his arms EVERY time he creates the contact 25 feet from the basket, and get a blocking foul called, I'm going to puke...

I think the playoffs were great this year....
Hey, I think the playoffs were great last year!
The Celtics were the better team, and they won.

But just because the Celtics didn't win, doesn't mean that the NBA is in shambles.

There are classic teams that are winning: Lakers, Celtics, Bulls on the rise, Spurs have always been there.
There are NEW teams raising up: Thunder, Cavs, Magic....

THAT is what the NBA is all about... if the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics and 76ers won EVERY YEAR the other 28 teams would just be absolved...

So enjoy the differences, don't hate them.

mdabstar
08-09-2009, 12:28 PM
i agree but 2008 finals were pretty great

Raidaz4Life
08-09-2009, 12:40 PM
its amazing how much people whine over nothing.

MajorFloridaFan
08-09-2009, 12:50 PM
So.. do you only mean that because KG was injured that it was an injury hit playoffs? Or are you including Yao?

The finals were crap? The first series since the 90s I think it was to have 2 finals games with overtimes.... Just because the Lakers won 4-1 doesn't make it crap.

Did you really just say that Boston is the only "classic" team that is in it? So.. the Lakers aren't a classic team?

I just don't really understand this post...

It kind of seems to me... just by reading it... that BECAUSE the Celtics were not in the finals, or won the finals... the NBA was at a loss....

I dunno....

I agree with this..it could have easily gone the other way in two of those games

theuuord
08-09-2009, 01:09 PM
this thread is very yawn-inducing.

Boston Faithful
08-09-2009, 01:44 PM
So, because the Celtics have 3 HOF players, they are unbeatable?
So, when the O4 Lakers had 4 HOF players, though only 2 were in their prime, and the Pistons had 0 HOF players, the Lakers were unbeatable?

The Lakers JUST getting by Houston is unacceptable?
So, when this year, Boston JUST got by the Bulls, that was unacceptable?
So, last year when it took Boston 7 games to get past the Cavs, that was unacceptable?
So, last year when it took Boston 7 games to get past the HAWKS, that was unacceptable?

I get it,, the Celtics were injured... but really.. it just sounds like you are whining....

The Magic were not "over-hyped"... they made it to the FINALS.. they may have over-achieved, but they were obviously UNDER-hyped.

PLUS, don't even talk about those "BULL****" calls that have been made. If I have to watch Pierce go around a pic and role, run around a defender and flail his arms EVERY time he creates the contact 25 feet from the basket, and get a blocking foul called, I'm going to puke...

I think the playoffs were great this year....
Hey, I think the playoffs were great last year!
The Celtics were the better team, and they won.

But just because the Celtics didn't win, doesn't mean that the NBA is in shambles.

There are classic teams that are winning: Lakers, Celtics, Bulls on the rise, Spurs have always been there.
There are NEW teams raising up: Thunder, Cavs, Magic....

THAT is what the NBA is all about... if the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics and 76ers won EVERY YEAR the other 28 teams would just be absolved...

So enjoy the differences, don't hate them.

First of all there are 30 teams, so take away those four and you got 26. Now, I think it's widely considered classic teams are the Celtics, Lakers, Knicks, 76ers, Bulls, Pistons and Rockets. If those teams won the championship most of the time, the NBA would be fine.

And to say the Spurs are a classic team is pathetic. They've only been good this decade and they produce the worst ratings in all their NBA Finals.

Lakerfrk
08-09-2009, 02:10 PM
First of all there are 30 teams, so take away those four and you got 26. Now, I think it's widely considered classic teams are the Celtics, Lakers, Knicks, 76ers, Bulls, Pistons and Rockets. If those teams won the championship most of the time, the NBA would be fine.

And to say the Spurs are a classic team is pathetic. They've only been good this decade and they produce the worst ratings in all their NBA Finals.

Whoops about the 30 teams.. I guess I was thinking of football.. they have 32 right?

I did not mean to imply that the Spurs are a "classic" team.. just that they have been consistent for 10 years now.. so they are a standard in this era.

True, the NBA would probably be fine if those teams won all the time... but WHAT is wrong with the other teams getting love too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Laker fan.. to see a Lakers/Celtics finals every year would be heaven for me. But I think it is GOOD for the league to see teams like the Blazers and Thunder.

ko8e24
08-09-2009, 02:15 PM
i dont understand this post all im seeing is a Beantown fan *****ing because the Celtics are not always in teh finals

ya, thats a lot of nerve for a franchise that was in a 22 yr coma and now think they the ****

Ironman5219
08-09-2009, 02:26 PM
I disagree... you cite ratings... well in the 80's we did not have near as many options for channels and entertainment as we do now. I believe the NBA is as strong as it ever was. There are great player rivals such as Kobe, Lebron, Mello, Wade. PG battles ( D-will and CP3 ) Up and comming teams like Portland, returning powerhouse SA LA, Boston Orlando. Not to mention the East fianlly caught up to the west. The Clippers are even going to be interesting this year ( so you know the NBA is doing well) Stern has really cleaned up the image, I say the NBA is as good as its ever been.

DetroitRipCity
08-09-2009, 02:40 PM
ya, thats a lot of nerve for a franchise that was in a 22 yr coma and now think they the ****

lol and during that 22 year coma i bet none of these guys on here cared about the Celtics... Then you get Garnett and Allen and everyone jumps on the Bandwagon


http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/newsblog/bandwagon.jpg
http://www.projo.com/a/2008/6/02/192_bandwagon.jpg

bigsams50
08-09-2009, 02:47 PM
first off, you cant just call every celtic fan a bandwagon, thats like callin every laker fan a bandwagon fan

DetroitRipCity
08-09-2009, 02:50 PM
first off, you cant just call every celtic fan a bandwagon, thats like callin every laker fan a bandwagon fan

if your not a bandwagon fan then you dont have anything to worry about the bandwagoners know who they are

ko8e24
08-09-2009, 02:50 PM
first off, you cant just call every celtic fan a bandwagon, thats like callin every laker fan a bandwagon fan

lol, no its not. even when lakers went 34-48, 45-37, 42-40, we still existed. even during 91-94, the post-magic pre shaq, kobe, eddie jones, nick the quick era, lakers fans still existed. u guys were on cloud nine thinking about guys like pierce, antoine walker, and a guy by the name of walter mccarty for a good part of the late 90s and the early to mid 2000s

Giants-49ers-Ws
08-09-2009, 03:03 PM
agreed

njnets
08-09-2009, 03:03 PM
part of the reason that the NBA and the 4 major sports have seen an increase in crappy teams is expansion in the league. think about it, 20 years ago, each league had about 24 teams, keeping the talent on the teams. with the talent spread out, now more teams are not as good as before. this is overlooked a lot in sports.

itsripcity32
08-09-2009, 03:05 PM
those of u guys who agree... gtfo of nba forums and dont watch the nba. plain and simple.

mrtrey1992
08-09-2009, 03:10 PM
i think the nba is doing gud so far i mean u do have a few gud points but i don't think that its weak rite now

Earmuffed1
08-09-2009, 03:34 PM
i really think the source of the problem is this: until 10 years ago most guys went to college for at least 2 or 3 years and learned how to play basketball. Now we have a bunch of athlete's who really don't play great basketball.

look at t lebron. I know he is great, but why? He is great because he's 6' 8 260 pounds and can jump and run and is coordinated. Why was MJ great, because he had basketball skills that made him great. Not that lebron doesn't have some, but he isn't even in the same league, most of his point are dunks, and that's it. Even AI how did a 5' 11 guy dominate the NBA, say what you will but he went to college learned how to play basketball.

the NBA is basically a highlight reel and nothing else. There are lots of good players but 90% of the league is incredible athlete's who are mediocre basketball players, but that athleticism makes up for a lot. Jerry West wasn't crazy athletic, he knew how to play basketball.

jakesmail123
08-09-2009, 03:41 PM
Most of the guys are only good because of their Athleticism they dont have much skills IMO. We havent hadratings 10+ since the 2004 Season(notice that was the last season that Shaq and Kobe played together).

2005 Finals: Great matchup but was boring as hell
2006 Finals: WAYYYYYYY 2 many fouls called
2007 Finals: 6.2 speaks for itself the worst season ever
2008 Finals: There was not a team that could touch Boston
2009 Finals: Injury hit playoffs but the finals were garbage

And not to mention the fouls that have been called.... play after play after play after play. Theratings use to be high because great players had classic teams the only classic team there is now is Boston IMO. Im just saying the NBA needs to do better....

the nba tries to have la and boston in the finals every year. thats their goal. is that classic enough for you?

Toenail Clipper
08-09-2009, 03:47 PM
NBA is not weak, in fact, it is getting stronger as they have athleticism :D:D:D

RLundi
08-09-2009, 04:33 PM
Wow OP, homer much? You seem just bitter that the Celtics got beaten by a better Magic team and got pushed to seven games by the Bulls.

The NBA isn't weak.

Your logic and reasoning are.

tr4shb0t
08-09-2009, 04:42 PM
You forgot to mention how weak Paul Pierce is...

bigsams50
08-09-2009, 07:17 PM
pierce isnt weak, bynums knees are...

Lakerfrk
08-10-2009, 01:51 PM
pierce isnt weak, bynums knees are...

That hurts cause its true..... :(

badinger7
08-10-2009, 01:59 PM
I didn't watch the finals as much as I did the ECF and WCF this year- just better matchups IMO

broncofangene
08-10-2009, 02:12 PM
atleast its not MLB, that s*@t's weak

IAMLordRaider
08-10-2009, 02:57 PM
The game has changed since the late 80's. The three point line needs too be moved back about 2-3 feet. Teams depend on it too much. Very few players have a mid-range game.

Make these kids stay in college at least 3 years.

Remove dunking from the college game so these kids can learn to shoot.

just my opinion

Statik1
08-10-2009, 03:05 PM
In a perfect world.....................

TheMicrowave
08-10-2009, 03:11 PM
I have only gotten more and more interest in the NBA. I could care less about the rating.

Next season seemsinteresting and exciting.

Cavs shocked everyone by not making the playoffs. They just got Shaq.
Kobe just won by himself or without Shaq sounds better, Lakers got Artest.
Magic shocked everyone and change their team.
Spurs may be back in the picture.
Celtics are healthy, and this year tells a lot about the big three's future.

RaiderLakersA's
08-10-2009, 03:32 PM
Theratings (sic) use to be high because great players had classic teams...

This argument is moot. The top 5 teams going into the season next year will be heavily stacked with skilled players, who play with high basketball IQ's and not just athleticism. If all goes well, you are going to have a "clash of the titans" type Finals.



... the only classic team there is now is Boston IMO...

Opinion. But even opinions can be deeply flawed. Having one doesn't validate the claim.

The fact is, the Celtics have only been competitive these last 2 years. That doesn't make them classic by any definition. The players on this roster currently may be NBA legends (e.g., Garnett), team legends (e.g., Pierce), or great players for the era (e.g., Ray Allen, Rasheed Wallace), but that doesn't make the team "classic" as a whole. This unit has only won 1 title, and made one Finals appearance. Rarified air for the C's who haven't sniffed such success in, what, 22-23 years previously? Maybe if they put up another banner in the next 2-3 years, we can nudge them closer to the "classic" threshold as a team. But not yet. Not yet.

And if by some chance you meant the Celtics organization as the only classic franchise, I feel very, very sorry for you and your eye doctors. That is tragically myopic.

Mavrix
08-10-2009, 03:32 PM
Dallas should have easily won the championship in 2006 if it weren't for the refs wanting Wade's dick with all those controversial calls.