PDA

View Full Version : ESPN: All-time Franchise Rankings



JordansBulls
09-07-2009, 02:27 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro


TOP 10
No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
No. 2: Boston Celtics
No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
No. 4: Chicago Bulls
No. 5: Phoenix Suns
No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers
No. 7: Utah Jazz
No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers
No. 9: Indiana Pacers
No. 10: Houston Rockets

No. 11: Milwaukee Bucks
No. 12: Oklahoma City Thunder
No. 13: Detroit Pistons
No. 14: Miami Heat
No. 15: Orlando Magic
No. 16: New York Knicks
No. 17: Dallas Mavericks
No. 18: Denver Nuggets
No. 19: Cleveland Cavaliers
No. 20: Golden State Warriors
No. 21: New Jersey Nets
No. 22: Atlanta Hawks
No. 23: Washington Wizards
No. 24: New Orleans Hornets
No. 25: Sacramento Kings
No. 26: Minnesota Timberwolves
No. 27: Toronto Raptors
No. 28: Charlotte Bobcats
No. 29: Los Angeles Clippers
No. 30: Memphis Grizzlies

BkOriginalOne
09-07-2009, 02:34 PM
how come the knicks are so mid-tier.
Does not having MSG even put them in the top 10?

Raps18-19 Champ
09-07-2009, 02:36 PM
We have only been around for 13 years.

ko8e24
09-07-2009, 02:37 PM
how come the knicks are so mid-tier.
Does not having MSG even put them in the top 10?

I guess currently being an embarassment and not having won a title in 36 yrs may have done that :hide:

Redsox3339
09-07-2009, 02:42 PM
Swap 1 and 2

Raps18-19 Champ
09-07-2009, 02:44 PM
Cool

D Roses Bulls
09-07-2009, 02:47 PM
arnt you kind of a couple months late putting this out?

anyways kind of surprised the bulls arnt at least 3rd a head of the spurs. i mean it wasnt that long ago they were winning championships and they have had some playoff success since then and had the greatest baller in history and the fans are great. they sell out every game even when they werent making the playoffs.

MackSnackWrap
09-07-2009, 02:48 PM
rankings seem alright

Hellcrooner
09-07-2009, 02:50 PM
any list about this should have ALL champions ranked ABOVE non champions, Period.

I dont mind if Kings won when they were the Royasl a tousned years ago winning should always be rated higer you can argue if spurs 4 are more than bulls 6 regrding better ratio of winning or whatver but teams withno champs cant go ovr champs.

scottie
09-07-2009, 02:53 PM
:mad::dance::dance:The Detroit Piston should be very much higher. At least in the top 6 teams. They were the only team to hold the bulls back. Kobe's Lakers couldn't hold a candle to any of the Bad Boy teams nor Detroit's last Championship team. And lets not forget the Pistions beat up on the lakers in the late 80-early 90s too. This ranking is flawed!

ChiSox219
09-07-2009, 02:54 PM
Seattle retains the rights to the Sonics, correct?

If so, I think the Thunder should have their own history, like the Baltimore Ravens in the NFL when they moved from Cleveland but the city kept the Browns name

Hellcrooner
09-07-2009, 02:59 PM
1 Lakers 15 rings and godknows how many finals.

2 Celtics 16 Rings

3 Spurs 4 Rings and a lot of consistency

4 BUlls 6 rings, they sucked befor Mj and after but still 6 is an acomplsihment

5 Pistons 3 Rings and some more Finals

6 Sixers 3 Rings

Thn Warriors, Knicks 2 Rings each

Then Sonics, Blazers, Heat, Hawks, Bucks ,Wizards one ring for each

Then aba winers, Pacers and Nets

then those with finals like Suns, Mavs etc

AIsixersFK
09-07-2009, 03:02 PM
there was already a thread 4 this like 2 months ago....but go sixers

AllTheWay
09-07-2009, 03:04 PM
Wasn't that before the Lakers got number 15?

So it should solidify our spot, no?

goku
09-07-2009, 03:09 PM
houston had back to back why are they number ten the jazz never won and indiana since idk how long

jimbobjarree
09-07-2009, 03:11 PM
haha Bobcats above the Clips and Grizz despite only being around like 5 years

GCOOKIE7
09-07-2009, 03:15 PM
JB has a thread quota every week that he has to make.

Someone already posted it a while ago.

ko8e24
09-07-2009, 03:19 PM
Swap 1 and 2

lol, noobie

ko8e24
09-07-2009, 03:21 PM
1 Lakers 15 rings and godknows how many finals.

2 Celtics 16 Rings

3 Spurs 4 Rings and a lot of consistency

4 BUlls 6 rings, they sucked befor Mj and after but still 6 is an acomplsihment

5 Pistons 3 Rings and some more Finals

6 Sixers 3 Rings

Thn Warriors, Knicks 2 Rings each

Then Sonics, Blazers, Heat, Hawks, Bucks ,Wizards one ring for each

Then aba winers, Pacers and Nets

then those with finals like Suns, Mavs etc

17, but its aite, we should take care of that by 2012 :D

NYtilIdie
09-07-2009, 03:23 PM
C's should be #1 since they have more championships under their belt

JWO35
09-07-2009, 03:24 PM
How are the Bobcats not last?

They are ahead of two teams, but the Bobcats are yet to reach the Playoffs?

bigsams50
09-07-2009, 03:35 PM
List seems right, lakers are more consistent then the celtics. Im just glad were not last :)

kidfury
09-07-2009, 03:46 PM
detroit should be higher but otherwise ok ranking

blazerman
09-07-2009, 03:49 PM
Wasn't that before the Lakers got number 15?

So it should solidify our spot, no?


Chicago Bulls put it out twice, it wasnt a different thread it was this exact same thread but go ahead and solidify the #1 spot. The Lakers or Boston are #1 anyway you look at it and the Bulls and Spurs are 3 and 4.

NYYCowboys
09-07-2009, 03:59 PM
Knicks should be in the top 10 I don't care how embarrassing they have been this decade.

ThuglifeJ
09-07-2009, 04:08 PM
lol Raptors are such a bad franchise. Theyve had...Vince Carter, who braught them to the semis.

Where the hell would the Bulls be if they didn't get MJ? uhhh..0 chips.

I disagree with the Spurs. How well did they do without Duncan era?

Hellcrooner
09-07-2009, 04:09 PM
^couple conference finals and almost always on playoff?

PurpleJesus
09-07-2009, 04:15 PM
Knicks should be in the top 10 I don't care how embarrassing they have been this decade.

homer, knicks have been irrelevant for a long time (other than that year they made the finals as an 8 seed). No ring in 36 years and you think they should be top 10?

ko8e24
09-07-2009, 04:19 PM
C's should be #1 since they have more championships under their belt

They have more yrs of being in a coma (21) than championships (17)

jakesmail123
09-07-2009, 04:30 PM
1 Lakers 15 rings and godknows how many finals.

2 Celtics 16 Rings

3 Spurs 4 Rings and a lot of consistency

4 BUlls 6 rings, they sucked befor Mj and after but still 6 is an acomplsihment

5 Pistons 3 Rings and some more Finals

6 Sixers 3 Rings

Thn Warriors, Knicks 2 Rings each

Then Sonics, Blazers, Heat, Hawks, Bucks ,Wizards one ring for each

Then aba winers, Pacers and Nets

then those with finals like Suns, Mavs etc

Kings have a ring too, as the Royals back in the day when we had Oscar

Hellcrooner
09-07-2009, 04:37 PM
yes i metioned it earlier

Draco
09-07-2009, 04:38 PM
Anyone have Hollinger's explanation for the Knicks and Raptors?

IMO, the Bull's should have had an extra +100 intangible points for winning 6 rings in 8 years. Maybe factor into the formula 3/5th credit for the Spur's first ring for the season only running 3/5th it's normal length.

ko8e24
09-07-2009, 04:57 PM
Anyone have Hollinger's explanation for the Knicks and Raptors?

IMO, the Bull's should have had an extra +100 intangible points for winning 6 rings in 8 years. Maybe factor into the formula 3/5th credit for the Spur's first ring for the season only running 3/5th it's normal length.

:laugh:

op12
09-07-2009, 04:59 PM
They have more yrs of being in a coma (21) than championships (17)

still were contenders some years though. some conf. finals and semi finals appearances. the nets had our number. nothing to brag about, but not really in a coma. the 2000s we were decent except about 2 years before the big 3. you also have to note the 2 events that really set us back, reggie and len. a lot of young people on here dont take that into consideration and just like to say irrelevant for 21 years. not terrible in the 2000s(see link below). the mid 90s to about 2000-2001 were what i consider a coma. maybe a 10 year coma. given the circumstances though, it is hard to overcome.

http://www.nba.com/celtics/history/Recap_2000s.html

NiTEFuRY
09-07-2009, 05:00 PM
First, I am a pistons fan so some of this comes from that. But realistically if this is an all time list the pistons are no way behind the spurs, suns, bucks and thunder.

I would say clear 1-3 are Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls... Bobcats should be at the bottom.

magichatnumber9
09-07-2009, 05:16 PM
If the Celtics didn't go to sleep at the wheel during the 90's and most of 00's they would be number 1

KmB728
09-07-2009, 05:16 PM
1 Lakers 15 rings and godknows how many finals.

2 Celtics 16 Rings

3 Spurs 4 Rings and a lot of consistency

4 BUlls 6 rings, they sucked befor Mj and after but still 6 is an acomplsihment

5 Pistons 3 Rings and some more Finals

6 Sixers 3 Rings

Thn Warriors, Knicks 2 Rings each

Then Sonics, Blazers, Heat, Hawks, Bucks ,Wizards one ring for each

Then aba winers, Pacers and Nets

then those with finals like Suns, Mavs etc

17 Rings

Hellcrooner
09-07-2009, 05:32 PM
yeah 17


still LAKERS have won rings or been in the finals

in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s.

Benn out of playoofs just 3 times.

Can celts say the same?

Draco
09-07-2009, 05:32 PM
:laugh:

It's Hollinger's ranking system not mine. If he's going to use a formula then treat it as a formula... 3/5th. And it seems fair to put greater weight on back to back championships. But that's what I would do.

Hellcrooner
09-07-2009, 05:35 PM
i also want to add that the 5 rings 3 finals 80s run of lakers and the 6 out of 8 streak by bulls happenes in the SALARY CAP era and UNRESTRICTED FA Era wich is far more complicated than what celts did in 60s with no salay cap and where FA didnt exist.

showtym24
09-07-2009, 05:36 PM
Swap 1 and 2

umm... Hell No :cool:

NYYCowboys
09-07-2009, 05:48 PM
homer, knicks have been irrelevant for a long time (other than that year they made the finals as an 8 seed). No ring in 36 years and you think they should be top 10?

Playing in the capital of modern society makes them relevant alone. If they played in North freaking Dakota then I would hafta agree with you.

ChiSox219
09-07-2009, 05:50 PM
I love the Knicks fans reasoning:

They play in MSG
They play in NY

IDB Josh M
09-07-2009, 05:56 PM
Boston was so irrelevant before KG and Allen came that a Los Angeles Laker got MVP chants in the Boston Garden (TD Bankroft).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsXPZVPIjxE

Nobody in Boston green EVER got such a chant in the Forum or Staples.

Edit: Maybe Larry Bird received a cheer in the Forum out of respect.

bigsams50
09-07-2009, 06:15 PM
i know people hate it when this is brought up but, 9-2 all time celtics vs lakers

op12
09-07-2009, 06:31 PM
Boston was so irrelevant before KG and Allen came that a Los Angeles Laker got MVP chants in the Boston Garden (TD Bankroft).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsXPZVPIjxE

Nobody in Boston green EVER got such a chant in the Forum or Staples.

Edit: Maybe Larry Bird received a cheer in the Forum out of respect.

maybe just a show of respect, which lakers fans never return.

knickfan4life
09-07-2009, 06:44 PM
Swap 1 and 2

dude u must be CRAZY if u think there is a better franchise than the lakers... they won only 1 less ring than u which i think they will catch up this season... but the difference is, after Larry Bird left and before KG came ... the celtics WERE GARBAGE for like 15 years in a row, a couple of fluke team but thats ALL... tell me the last time the lakers sucked....

I cant even remember cause they went from showtime to shaq era where they were supposed to be winning rings but theyre coach sucked to kobe era and when hes gone theyre gonna have Bynum this team is managed to perfection... DOT THE I... CROSS THE T... END OF STORY

KmB728
09-07-2009, 07:22 PM
dude u must be CRAZY if u think there is a better franchise than the lakers... they won only 1 less ring than u which i think they will catch up this season... but the difference is, after Larry Bird left and before KG came ... the celtics WERE GARBAGE for like 15 years in a row, a couple of fluke team but thats ALL... tell me the last time the lakers sucked....I cant even remember cause they went from showtime to shaq era where they were supposed to be winning rings but theyre coach sucked to kobe era and when hes gone theyre gonna have Bynum this team is managed to perfection... DOT THE I... CROSS THE T... END OF STORY


In 2004 the Lakers were 34-48

In 2005 the Lakers were 45-37

In 2006 the Lakers were 42-40

bigsams50
09-07-2009, 07:30 PM
dude u must be CRAZY if u think there is a better franchise than the lakers... they won only 1 less ring than u which i think they will catch up this season... but the difference is, after Larry Bird left and before KG came ... the celtics WERE GARBAGE for like 15 years in a row, a couple of fluke team but thats ALL... tell me the last time the lakers sucked....

I cant even remember cause they went from showtime to shaq era where they were supposed to be winning rings but theyre coach sucked to kobe era and when hes gone theyre gonna have Bynum this team is managed to perfection... DOT THE I... CROSS THE T... END OF STORY

lakers have 15 celtics have 17, its a 2 ring difference

vigilantex69
09-07-2009, 07:33 PM
Swap 1 and 2

Coming from a true boston fan. They wish the capital of the United States was in Boston.

PurpleJesus
09-07-2009, 07:33 PM
Playing in the capital of modern society makes them relevant alone. If they played in North freaking Dakota then I would hafta agree with you.

Sorry, I was unaware that where a team plays makes them relevant. Your reasoning impresses me, the Knicks should be a top ten franchise because they play in New York...brilliant you are

ChiSox219
09-07-2009, 07:41 PM
Sorry, I was unaware that where a team plays makes them relevant. Your reasoning impresses me, the Knicks should be a top ten franchise because they play in New York...brilliant you are

:clap:

Maybe these Knick fans will learn not to F with North Dakota

_KB24_
09-07-2009, 07:49 PM
The Spurs are way 2 high IMO. NY is way too low along with Detriot.

Storch
09-07-2009, 07:54 PM
why is the okc thunder so high?

and why is the bulls under spurs? MJ legacy > Duncan legacy

oh and im surprised that espn didnt put cleveland lebroneers as #1. :laugh2:

balla4life22
09-07-2009, 08:03 PM
yeah 17


still LAKERS have won rings or been in the finals

in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s.

Benn out of playoofs just 3 times.

Can celts say the same?

ok who cares. Players play for championships, not "playoff appearances." Championships is what counts and the Celtics have the most so they should be #1.

Tmac,lt,berkman
09-07-2009, 08:10 PM
rockets should be six and pistons seven

bigsams50
09-07-2009, 08:14 PM
The Spurs are way 2 high IMO. NY is way too low along with Detriot.

hahhahaaha, nice sig

Giants-49ers-Ws
09-07-2009, 09:32 PM
warriors should be dead last am i'm a fan of them

LakePackYank
09-07-2009, 10:11 PM
i guess im the only one who thinks knicks should be lower lol. Seriously they have not won a ring in the last 36 years and they have been a under 500% for the last 8 years.

PurpleJesus
09-07-2009, 10:21 PM
i guess im the only one who thinks knicks should be lower lol. Seriously they have not won a ring in the last 36 years and they have been a under 500% for the last 8 years.

quite a bit of people think the knicks are where they should be...its mainly knicks fans who think they should be top ten because they play in the biggest market, the truth is, them playing in the biggest market prevents them from being lower than 16

DCB/LAL
09-07-2009, 10:38 PM
1 Lakers 15 rings and godknows how many finals.

2 Celtics 16 Rings
3 Spurs 4 Rings and a lot of consistency

4 BUlls 6 rings, they sucked befor Mj and after but still 6 is an acomplsihment

5 Pistons 3 Rings and some more Finals

6 Sixers 3 Rings

Thn Warriors, Knicks 2 Rings each

Then Sonics, Blazers, Heat, Hawks, Bucks ,Wizards one ring for each

Then aba winers, Pacers and Nets

then those with finals like Suns, Mavs etc

I thought they had 17?? :shrug:

Bleeds Blue
09-07-2009, 10:53 PM
pistons should be in the top 5 or and the bulls over the spurs. maybe a little bit more love for the knicks as well

PurpleJesus
09-07-2009, 10:57 PM
pistons should be in the top 5 or and the bulls over the spurs. maybe a little bit more love for the knicks as well

why?

_KB24_
09-07-2009, 11:17 PM
why?

The Knicks are home to the "Mecca of Basketball" and are the most valuable team in the NBA at 608 Million, amazing considering how much they suck. There sort of like the Maple Leafs of the NHL. Both historic and amazing franchises who have been a huge disspointment over the last decade.

JMKnick33
09-07-2009, 11:20 PM
I don't understand how the Jazz, Pacers, Bucks, Heat, Thunder/Sonics, and Magic are ahead of the Knicks..

My top 10 would be (in this order): Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Spurs, 76ers, Suns, Blazers, Knicks, Pistons, then Rockets.

CB29
09-07-2009, 11:44 PM
surprised that espn didn't give toronto 30th... they really hate us down there...

NYYCowboys
09-08-2009, 12:20 AM
Sorry, I was unaware that where a team plays makes them relevant. Your reasoning impresses me, the Knicks should be a top ten franchise because they play in New York...brilliant you are

Actually it's true moron. New York is the biggest best city in the world and being the basketball team in the biggest best city makes you relevant. People care about the Knicks because of where they play, and they play in the best arena in the sport. If the Knicks play in say Fargo, ND you think anyone would care about them? Hell no. But still they are one of the most popular and historic franchises, not to mention the wealthiest team in the NBA And yes thank you I am pretty brilliant 24 years old making more than most people's parents did in their entire lives.

LakePackYank
09-08-2009, 12:23 AM
The Knicks are home to the "Mecca of Basketball" and are the most valuable team in the NBA at 608 Million, amazing considering how much they suck. There sort of like the Maple Leafs of the NHL. Both historic and amazing franchises who have been a huge disspointment over the last decade.

Lol at the word "amazing" and " knicks" in the same catagory.

But like I said it does not and should matter where a team is located. I love NY, it's my favorite city and IMO the best. But guess what, this is the best TEAMS based on accomplishments like titles, best win records and %s, etc. You know...basketball?

But I will say one good thing about knick fans, they are probley the most loyal fans. I went to a knick game at MSG and even when the knicks were down by 20, they still cheered harder then Paris Hilton whenever she bangs somebody.

JMKnick33
09-08-2009, 12:30 AM
Lol at the word "amazing" and " knicks" in the same catagory.

But like I said it does not and should matter where a team is located. I love NY, it's my favorite city and IMO the best. But guess what, this is the best TEAMS based on accomplishments like titles, best win records and %s, etc. You know...basketball?

But I will say one good thing about knick fans, they are probley the most loyal fans. I went to a knick game at MSG and even when the knicks were down by 20, they still cheered harder then Paris Hilton whenever she bangs somebody.

Appreciate the loyalty shoutout to Knicks fans :)

But, are you telling me you agree with the list and would put the Knicks at 16 as well? If not, where would YOU rank them?

LakePackYank
09-08-2009, 12:48 AM
Appreciate the loyalty shoutout to Knicks fans :)

But, are you telling me you agree with the list and would put the Knicks at 16 as well? If not, where would YOU rank them?

I said before that I would put the knicks even lower but after looking at the list again, I pretty much agree where they stand right know.

Like I said the knicks have been god awful the last 8 years and have not won a title in the last 36 years. It even took a hall of fame lineup in the early 70s just to barley win 2 titles. Walt fraizer, Earl Monroe, etc. (I forgot the other three but they are hall of famers).

But I do not agree with the full list however, like the fact that the suns are so frinking high.

Raph12
09-08-2009, 01:03 AM
Meh rankings aren't horrible as usual, Phoenix needs to go down quite a bit imo

JMKnick33
09-08-2009, 01:40 AM
I said before that I would put the knicks even lower but after looking at the list again, I pretty much agree where they stand right know.

Like I said the knicks have been god awful the last 8 years and have not won a title in the last 36 years. It even took a hall of fame lineup in the early 70s just to barley win 2 titles. Walt fraizer, Earl Monroe, etc. (I forgot the other three but they are hall of famers).

But I do not agree with the full list however, like the fact that the suns are so frinking high.

But we DO have 2 titles. Magic have none, Heat have one. The only times that we've been bad were the past 8 years, and late 70s to early 80s. That's it. We were contenders in the 50s, 60s, early to mid 70s, and mid 80s to 2000. We got out of the first round of the playoffs I believe 12 straight years until 2000 when the Raptors took us out in the first round. We also have 8 conference titles, and 9 division titles. The Magic were awful their first couple of years (that's why they got a First overall pick, and another the next year) then were good til '96 then Shaq left and were left mediocre at best. Then T-mac came, but they never got out of the first round. So, how in the world can you agree that the Magic deserve to be better than the Knicks? Knicks are top 10 in my book, even if I weren't a Knicks fan.

lakerssssssss
09-08-2009, 01:54 AM
completely agree

Hellcrooner
09-08-2009, 01:54 AM
i think people is too young in this boards.

Anyone that is over 30 Knows who the knicks ARE not what they hae been recently.

Bleeds Blue
09-08-2009, 01:55 AM
why?

they have some rings and some pretty good teams in the early 70s and 90s

Kobe4Life
09-08-2009, 02:16 AM
Lakers #1 :clap: of course!

LakePackYank
09-08-2009, 03:05 AM
But we DO have 2 titles. Magic have none, Heat have one. The only times that we've been bad were the past 8 years, and late 70s to early 80s. That's it. We were contenders in the 50s, 60s, early to mid 70s, and mid 80s to 2000. We got out of the first round of the playoffs I believe 12 straight years until 2000 when the Raptors took us out in the first round. We also have 8 conference titles, and 9 division titles. The Magic were awful their first couple of years (that's why they got a First overall pick, and another the next year) then were good til '96 then Shaq left and were left mediocre at best. Then T-mac came, but they never got out of the first round. So, how in the world can you agree that the Magic deserve to be better than the Knicks? Knicks are top 10 in my book, even if I weren't a Knicks fan.

There are a lot more factors in then just titles like I said.

For example, win and loss records, from 1946 (the year the knicks came) to now, the knicks are under 500%. Already the knicks are a mediocre.

Also the knicks were bad in the 60s. They made the playoffs 3 times and never made it further then the 2nd round.

70s was their best years. 80s they were ok but just like the 60s, never made it past the 2nd round.

Knicks could have won a third title in 1995, but thanks to ur avatar for missing an easy 2 footer, (I think missed dunk but either way very easy shot) but did not happen.

What the knicks also lack is well...this is really opionion wise but IMO, knicks lack all time greats. Like the knicks had a few handy great players, but none of them are really top 30.

JMKnick33
09-08-2009, 04:42 PM
There are a lot more factors in then just titles like I said.

For example, win and loss records, from 1946 (the year the knicks came) to now, the knicks are under 500%. Already the knicks are a mediocre.

Also the knicks were bad in the 60s. They made the playoffs 3 times and never made it further then the 2nd round.

70s was their best years. 80s they were ok but just like the 60s, never made it past the 2nd round.

Knicks could have won a third title in 1995, but thanks to ur avatar for missing an easy 2 footer, (I think missed dunk but either way very easy shot) but did not happen.

What the knicks also lack is well...this is really opionion wise but IMO, knicks lack all time greats. Like the knicks had a few handy great players, but none of them are really top 30.

Ok, those are some factors. But, how about the Bulls? They failed to win 20 games in 3 out of the 4 years after MJ left, and won only 21 the 4th year. Also, Bulls were terrible in their first couple of years, were good for a couple, then from '76-'87 (3 years with jordan) were only able to reach .500 twice, but neither of those seasons were even with Jordan. That's two times in 11 years. I think overall, they'd be mediocre as well at .500 or even under. But since they owned the 90s.. that brings them all the way up to 4th? A bit high if using those standards. If the Bulls owned the East in the 90s, then the Knicks were second best. Second best to the Bulls during the 90s (which greatly helps the Bulls jump the rankings list) should be put into consideration when ranking the Knicks. If the Bulls are so high on the list simply because of the 90s, the Knicks should be up there as well, or should get extra points.

Also, the Knicks made three straight Finals in the early 50s.

Again, we are definitely better than the Heat, Magic, Thunder/Sonics, Bucks, and Pacers.

rjvacad
09-08-2009, 04:57 PM
Swap 1 and 2

:laugh:

rjvacad
09-08-2009, 05:00 PM
:mad::dance::dance:The Detroit Piston should be very much higher. At least in the top 6 teams. They were the only team to hold the bulls back. Kobe's Lakers couldn't hold a candle to any of the Bad Boy teams nor Detroit's last Championship team. And lets not forget the Pistions beat up on the lakers in the late 80-early 90s too. This ranking is flawed!

:laugh: The only way the "bad boys" beat the Lakers was both Magic and Byron were hurt.

Ripper Gein
09-08-2009, 05:36 PM
Swap 1 and 2

If you do that then it would be False.

Ripper Gein
09-08-2009, 05:43 PM
Playing in the capital of modern society makes them relevant alone. If they played in North freaking Dakota then I would hafta agree with you.

They're not from LOS ANGELES.:D

PurpleJesus
09-08-2009, 09:38 PM
Actually it's true moron. New York is the biggest best city in the world and being the basketball team in the biggest best city makes you relevant. People care about the Knicks because of where they play, and they play in the best arena in the sport. If the Knicks play in say Fargo, ND you think anyone would care about them? Hell no. But still they are one of the most popular and historic franchises, not to mention the wealthiest team in the NBA And yes thank you I am pretty brilliant 24 years old making more than most people's parents did in their entire lives.

Tell your beloved Roger Maris that Fargo, ND doesnt matter, Im sure he would apreciate you rippin on his hometown that.

Congratulations on making a lot of money, you are really cool.

Lakergirl24
09-08-2009, 10:45 PM
Sweet.

smith&wesson
09-08-2009, 11:08 PM
what the hell have the oklahoma city thunder done to earn 12th spot ?? they been in the league one year. and dont tell me because the super sonics have history because the sonics are not the thunder.

2ndly boston should be number one on that list for having the most rings.
LA should be number two with haveing the 2nd most

chicago should be at number three for doing 2 three peats.

spurs should be four.

LakePackYank
09-08-2009, 11:18 PM
what the hell have the oklahoma city thunder done to earn 12th spot ?? they been in the league one year. and dont tell me because the super sonics have history because the sonics are not the thunder.

2ndly boston should be number one on that list for having the most rings.
LA should be number two with haveing the 2nd most

chicago should be at number three for doing 2 three peats.

spurs should be four.

then you would be dead wrong.

GeorgeMcCloud21
09-12-2009, 12:22 AM
Orlando over Dallas?...plz

GeorgeMcCloud21
09-12-2009, 05:11 AM
Lakers
Celtics
Bulls
Spurs


No way is San Antonio above Chicago

rsweene
09-12-2009, 02:49 PM
haha bobcats have been around a handful of years and theyre head of the clippers. ha

Taimla
09-12-2009, 03:39 PM
Orlando over Dallas?...plz

what?? Thats correct!

Dallas have been in Finals once but Magic twice as Orlando have been less time around the league

JordansBulls
09-12-2009, 06:07 PM
Orlando over Dallas?...plz

I agree. Dallas has had like 8 years in a row of 50+ wins.

Taimla
09-12-2009, 06:28 PM
I agree. Dallas has had like 8 years in a row of 50+ wins.

and have succeed in play/offs only once.

todu82
09-13-2009, 09:06 AM
The Celtics should be #1 on that list and The Bulls should be ahead of the Spurs.

Tom81
09-13-2009, 09:09 AM
suns are so high

WSU Tony
09-13-2009, 11:55 AM
OKC has only been around for ONE year, how are they top 12? The Sonics franchise is no more, OKC can't use the colors, celebrate the titles, or even refer back to those old days. As far as the NBA and everyone else is concerned, they have only been in existance for 1 year now.

JordansBulls
09-17-2009, 10:44 PM
and have succeed in play/offs only once.

What do you consider success? NBA Finals???

Spurred1
09-17-2009, 10:55 PM
Why are the Suns so high? Why is OKC that high?

JordansBulls
09-17-2009, 10:59 PM
Why are the Suns so high? Why is OKC that high?

OKC is Seattle or the Sonics.

Spurred1
09-17-2009, 11:10 PM
JB, I know that. But then it should read Seattle Sonics, not OKC. That is the team that has the history-OKC Thunder are basically starting over as a brand new team. The right thing to do would have been to list SeattleSonics and put "discontinued" next to it.

JMKnick33
09-17-2009, 11:56 PM
JB, I know that. But then it should read Seattle Sonics, not OKC. That is the team that has the history-OKC Thunder are basically starting over as a brand new team. The right thing to do would have been to list SeattleSonics and put "discontinued" next to it.

agreed

Ty Fast
09-18-2009, 12:14 AM
the bulls should be and are #1

LAKERMANIA
09-18-2009, 12:39 AM
the bulls should be and are #1

for 8 years of dominance out of 60 years?

Epic89
09-18-2009, 12:54 AM
Uh yeah, ESPN can go **** themselves. The Pistons are number five after the four dynasty teams but this is ESPN we're talking about so I should've expected them to get no respect. All that matter is championships; period.

clutchski
09-18-2009, 02:28 AM
Uh yeah, ESPN can go **** themselves. The Pistons are number five after the four dynasty teams but this is ESPN we're talking about so I should've expected them to get no respect. All that matter is championships; period.

I agree with you, but at least your 13 man..the Raps are the 4th worst on that list. I can understand it, but we definitely have a funny view of the espn perspective of our team up here. Detroit has it better than us!

GAWDtv
09-18-2009, 08:52 AM
Swap 1 and 2

Agreed, it has to be about 1. Championships, 2. Winning Percentage, 3. Following (Fan Base/attendance/viewership)

Boston has to be #1...

bogdanrom
09-18-2009, 10:44 AM
These rankings SUCK!!!! The Wizards at 23? We have 1 Championship, 4 Conference Titles, and 7 Division Titles. That's more than OKC/Seattle and they are at 12. The top three is good but the difference between the Lakers and Boston is really close.

bagwell368
09-18-2009, 11:21 AM
Lakers #1 of course!

hahahhahaaa good one.

Since 1956-1957 the Celts have 17 banners to the Lakers 10. The other 5 were earned in the mists of time before even I was born, when you guys were based in Minnesota where they actually have lakes that aren't man made.

Also head to head in the Finals the Celts hold a 9-2 lead. Real clutch.

The only thing LA has is media whores, and nice weather, forget the best NBA franchise. Oh yeah, were is ESPN broadcasting from now? The "award" is as empty of truth or meaning as Tinseltown's products.

Double_R
09-18-2009, 12:04 PM
The only thing LA has is media whores, and nice weather, forget the best NBA franchise. Oh yeah, were is ESPN broadcasting from now? The "award" is as empty of truth or meaning as Tinseltown's products
Very True, but they also broadcast from bostons fan territory in Conn. and they did just come up with ESPN Boston so, plus they suck the Pats and Red sox D$@K, about 20 years ago there were about 20% of the Red sox fans there are today and that is mostly because ESPN promotes them so hard

I agree the Celts shold be 1, lakers 2

I feel like the pistons should be higher and the suns are way too high

JordansBulls
09-18-2009, 01:12 PM
These rankings SUCK!!!! The Wizards at 23? We have 1 Championship, 4 Conference Titles, and 7 Division Titles. That's more than OKC/Seattle and they are at 12. The top three is good but the difference between the Lakers and Boston is really close.

Why did they change the name to Wizards from Bullets anyway?

bogdanrom
09-18-2009, 01:37 PM
Why did they change the name to Wizards from Bullets anyway?

They changed it because they thought that the term " Bulllets" represented DC in a negative manner.

This excerpt is from Wikipedia:


In 1995, owner Abe Pollin announced he was changing the team's name because Bullets had acquired violent overtones that had made him increasingly uncomfortable over the years. The final straw was the assassination of his longtime friend, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. A contest was held to choose a new name and the choices were narrowed to the Dragons, Express, Stallions, Sea Dogs, or Wizards.

BTW the Wizards was easily the best out of all those choices. Sea Dogs?!?

Ebbs
09-18-2009, 02:03 PM
I guess currently being an embarassment and not having won a title in 36 yrs may have done that :hide:

haha:clap: i love the knicks but hes right

Hawkeye15
09-18-2009, 02:29 PM
tough one. On one hand, Boston has the most rings. But they did have far more down years than the Lakers. Year in and year out, the Lakers have a valid claim as the best franchise. I guess for me, # of rings wins, so I have to go with Boston. But the Lakers have a valid argument I would never ignore. Just my choice really

NiTEFuRY
10-26-2009, 04:16 PM
wow no pistons in top 10 surprises me...

JordansBulls
10-26-2009, 04:35 PM
They changed it because they thought that the term " Bulllets" represented DC in a negative manner.

This excerpt is from Wikipedia:



BTW the Wizards was easily the best out of all those choices. Sea Dogs?!?

It makes sense, it just makes it seem like they were an expansion team though with the new name sort of like the Thunder.

mikantsass
10-26-2009, 04:41 PM
1 Lakers 15 rings and godknows how many finals.

2 Celtics 16 Rings

3 Spurs 4 Rings and a lot of consistency

4 BUlls 6 rings, they sucked befor Mj and after but still 6 is an acomplsihment

5 Pistons 3 Rings and some more Finals

6 Sixers 3 Rings

Thn Warriors, Knicks 2 Rings each

Then Sonics, Blazers, Heat, Hawks, Bucks ,Wizards one ring for each

Then aba winers, Pacers and Nets

then those with finals like Suns, Mavs etc

Celtics have 17 and should be #1 over the Lakers

Lil Rhody
10-26-2009, 04:47 PM
1 Lakers 15 rings and godknows how many finals.

2 Celtics 16 Rings

3 Spurs 4 Rings and a lot of consistency

4 BUlls 6 rings, they sucked befor Mj and after but still 6 is an acomplsihment

5 Pistons 3 Rings and some more Finals

6 Sixers 3 Rings

Thn Warriors, Knicks 2 Rings each

Then Sonics, Blazers, Heat, Hawks, Bucks ,Wizards one ring for each

Then aba winers, Pacers and Nets

then those with finals like Suns, Mavs etc






Celtics have 17..... thats why they should be number 1

Lil Rhody
10-26-2009, 04:48 PM
Celtics have 17 and should be #1 over the Lakers




haaaaa just posted that

Lil Rhody
10-26-2009, 04:49 PM
hahahhahaaa good one.

Since 1956-1957 the Celts have 17 banners to the Lakers 10. The other 5 were earned in the mists of time before even I was born, when you guys were based in Minnesota where they actually have lakes that aren't man made.

Also head to head in the Finals the Celts hold a 9-2 lead. Real clutch.

The only thing LA has is media whores, and nice weather, forget the best NBA franchise. Oh yeah, were is ESPN broadcasting from now? The "award" is as empty of truth or meaning as Tinseltown's products.





Bagwell everything you say just makes so much sense :clap:

abe_froman
10-26-2009, 04:58 PM
hahahhahaaa good one.

Since 1956-1957 the Celts have 17 banners to the Lakers 10. The other 5 were earned in the mists of time before even I was born, when you guys were based in Minnesota where they actually have lakes that aren't man made.

Also head to head in the Finals the Celts hold a 9-2 lead. Real clutch.

The only thing LA has is media whores, and nice weather, forget the best NBA franchise. Oh yeah, were is ESPN broadcasting from now? The "award" is as empty of truth or meaning as Tinseltown's products.

lakers have been in more finals,have made the playoffs more(with no stretches as none playoff longer than two seasons),better win%

...want me to go on?

mikantsass
10-26-2009, 05:08 PM
lakers have been in more finals,have made the playoffs more(with no stretches as none playoff longer than two seasons),better win%

...want me to go on?


I do want you to go on.... What else you got?

abe_froman
10-26-2009, 05:21 PM
I do want you to go on.... What else you got?

ok in those playoffs they did better/went further than the c's,more div banners,as well their sucking hasnt been as bad as yours(they only had to deal with around 20 wins once...and that was back in the 50's,where as you had several and recently)

add all that up and its more points to the lakers

c's have been great but that stretch in the 90's hurt you guys(you have to admit that),where as the lakers have never had to deal with such things

MackSnackWrap
10-26-2009, 05:21 PM
I agree with the rankings raps shud definitely be low

Tribe
10-26-2009, 05:26 PM
Damn Cleveland is only no.19...what about all those sweet Shawn Kemp led years...this is rigged

TheKing23
10-26-2009, 05:26 PM
How are the Bobcats ahead of Grizzlies and Clippers? They've never had a winning season... At least the Grizz and Clips have made the playoffs.

j-mart
10-26-2009, 06:26 PM
Damn Cleveland is only no.19...what about all those sweet Shawn Kemp led years...this is rigged

Shawn Kemp's best seasons were in Seattle. He was too busy fathering countless children by the time he played his 2.5 years in Cleveland.

Toenail Clipper
10-26-2009, 06:30 PM
Good job Clippers for having the second highest number
LOL

JordansBulls
10-26-2009, 07:31 PM
Damn Cleveland is only no.19...what about all those sweet Shawn Kemp led years...this is rigged

Kemp had only like 1-2 good years in Cleveland.

STAT32
10-26-2009, 09:18 PM
Very cool to see the Suns getting some respect.

JordansBulls
10-27-2009, 12:26 AM
Very cool to see the Suns getting some respect.

Well they had elite teams in the 90's and also for about 4 years this decade. Also in the 70's.

heathonater
02-28-2010, 07:48 PM
nice to see portland in the top ten. i agree with la being number one because they have been more consistent these past 20 years as opposed to the celtics.

stop40
02-28-2010, 07:53 PM
Bulls should definitely be 3, and the Pistons are ranked way to low.

evadatam5150
02-28-2010, 07:56 PM
Swap 1 and 2

You wish... :D

JnasD
02-28-2010, 07:57 PM
How are The Thunder, Suns, Jazz, and Pacers ahead of us.

ldc62
03-01-2010, 02:57 AM
I know the Jazz coulda won some championships, but HOUSTON actually DID. This list sucks.

soonabooma
03-01-2010, 03:49 AM
Damn, we're too low for my liking. But that's Seattles fault for underachieving for so many years. I'm sure somebody will be upset with what I'm about to say, but the truth is.....that franchise did underachieve overall. They got their one title, but nothing special. We're gonna have to put in some work and move ourselves up in the rankings.:superman:

JordansBulls
03-01-2010, 09:07 AM
Where would these franchises rank with a title this season?

Cleveland
Denver
Dallas
Orlando


Basically how far up do they move?

MacFitz92
03-01-2010, 09:15 AM
I think Celtics and Lakers are even. Anyone who says one team is better than the other is just biased, or is just picking one to pick one.

Celtics: 16
Bill Russell
Larry Bird
Bob Cousy
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Robert Parish
Kevin McHale
Dennis Johnson
John Havilcek
Sam Jones


Lakers: 15
Magic Johnson
Jerry West
Kobe Bryant
Kareem Abdul-Jabarr
Wilt
Shaq
Elgin Baylor
James Worthy
Byron Scott

Both teams were excelent, it's just too hard to say one was better than the other.

MacFitz92
03-01-2010, 09:16 AM
Where would these franchises rank with a title this season?

Cleveland
Denver
Dallas
Orlando


Basically how far up do they move?

I know Dallas goes up a lot because they have had 50+ wins forever. They just don't have a 'ship.

avrpatsfan
03-01-2010, 09:47 AM
The Lakers vs. Celtics greatness debate is a tough one. Celtics fans say the Celtics are greater and Lakers fans say the Lakers are greater. A big stat is that head to head in the finals the Celtics are up in the series 9 to 1. That's some big dominance. The Celtics also won 8 straight championships and also won 9 out of 10 years in 1 decade. The Lakers have always been great but they have less championships. The Lakers have better players overall. The Lakers have been to much more championships but they lost a lot of them. Players play to win a championship. Not to lose one. I would say they are equal.

69centers
03-01-2010, 10:08 AM
Celtics should be above the Lakers by a narrow margin.

Bulls should be ahead of Spurs.

king4day
03-01-2010, 10:38 AM
Phoenix Suns. Greatest franchise to never win a ring.

CELTICS4LYFE
03-01-2010, 10:44 AM
Celtics should be above the Lakers by a narrow margin.

Bulls should be ahead of Spurs.

This! Couldn't be more on point of what I was thinking.

rockets-fan
03-01-2010, 10:45 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro


TOP 10
No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
No. 2: Boston Celtics
No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
No. 4: Chicago Bulls
No. 5: Phoenix Suns
No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers
No. 7: Utah Jazz
No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers
No. 9: Indiana Pacers
No. 10: Houston Rockets

No. 11: Milwaukee Bucks
No. 12: Oklahoma City Thunder
No. 13: Detroit Pistons
No. 14: Miami Heat
No. 15: Orlando Magic
No. 16: New York Knicks
No. 17: Dallas Mavericks
No. 18: Denver Nuggets
No. 19: Cleveland Cavaliers
No. 20: Golden State Warriors
No. 21: New Jersey Nets
No. 22: Atlanta Hawks
No. 23: Washington Wizards
No. 24: New Orleans Hornets
No. 25: Sacramento Kings
No. 26: Minnesota Timberwolves
No. 27: Toronto Raptors
No. 28: Charlotte Bobcats
No. 29: Los Angeles Clippers
No. 30: Memphis Grizzlies

:confused: how are the suns(a franchise with no rings) above the rockets???
i belive they have no rings, if they do sorry my mistake:o

CELTICS4LYFE
03-01-2010, 10:46 AM
I think Celtics and Lakers are even. Anyone who says one team is better than the other is just biased, or is just picking one to pick one.

Celtics: 16
Bill Russell
Larry Bird
Bob Cousy
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Robert Parish
Kevin McHale
Dennis Johnson
John Havilcek
Sam Jones


Lakers: 15
Magic Johnson
Jerry West
Kobe Bryant
Kareem Abdul-Jabarr
Wilt
Shaq
Elgin Baylor
James Worthy
Byron Scott

Both teams were excelent, it's just too hard to say one was better than the other.

See those numbers? That's why I would put them(Celtics) ahead.

Raidaz4Life
03-01-2010, 10:50 AM
Why are the Pacers so high?

Lakerfan In NY
03-01-2010, 11:45 AM
Ultimately, I don’t think anyone can be “wrong” for picking either the Lakers or the Celtics. Both are great NBA franchise, but since this is about best franchise I would agree with the Lakers. If this is about best championship franchise than hands down the Celtics would win b/c they won the most. But the NBA is a business & business wise, as a “franchise” the Lakers are kicking butt. Only matched by the NY Yankees & Manchester United. Maybe in the early years the Celtics were that team but since the NBA has become a global business the Lakers brand has far surpassed the Celtics in every way except one & even that margin is getting smaller & smaller. Globally there is no comparison. When your stars jersey is out selling every international players in their own hometown, that’s a strong indicator that your brand is very strong. Not to mention, having your most hated rivals, home crowd cheer for you at their place, should tip the scale. That’s worth 2 championships to hear a LA Lakers player getting more cheers & chants of MVP by the Boston home fans, while he is killing your home team…That’s priceless!!!

asandhu23
03-01-2010, 11:49 AM
1 Lakers 15 rings and godknows how many finals.

2 Celtics 16 Rings

3 Spurs 4 Rings and a lot of consistency

4 BUlls 6 rings, they sucked befor Mj and after but still 6 is an acomplsihment

5 Pistons 3 Rings and some more Finals

6 Sixers 3 Rings

Thn Warriors, Knicks 2 Rings each

Then Sonics, Blazers, Heat, Hawks, Bucks ,Wizards one ring for each

Then aba winers, Pacers and Nets

then those with finals like Suns, Mavs etc

Uh Warriors have 3 championships?

HoopsDrive
03-01-2010, 12:34 PM
Ultimately, I don’t think anyone can be “wrong” for picking either the Lakers or the Celtics. Both are great NBA franchise, but since this is about best franchise I would agree with the Lakers. If this is about best championship franchise than hands down the Celtics would win b/c they won the most. But the NBA is a business & business wise, as a “franchise” the Lakers are kicking butt. Only matched by the NY Yankees & Manchester United. Maybe in the early years the Celtics were that team but since the NBA has become a global business the Lakers brand has far surpassed the Celtics in every way except one & even that margin is getting smaller & smaller. Globally there is no comparison. When your stars jersey is out selling every international players in their own hometown, that’s a strong indicator that your brand is very strong. Not to mention, having your most hated rivals, home crowd cheer for you at their place, should tip the scale. That’s worth 2 championships to hear a LA Lakers player getting more cheers & chants of MVP by the Boston home fans, while he is killing your home team…That’s priceless!!!

In terms of value, the Lakers aren't even the most valuable NBA franchise. That would be the Knicks, according to Forbes, checking in at 613 million dollars.

In terms of global awareness, yes, the Lakers are leading as far as the NBA goes. But to say that only the Yankees and Man Utd can stack up to them? There are plenty of other sports franchises in the world that either reach or surpass the Lakers' global awareness. Just in football you will find many franchises who either match up or surpass the Lakers: Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Juventus, Liverpool, Lyon and Bayern Munich. In F1, there's Ferrari and McLaren. There's even a case for the Cowboys. I wouldn't say they are even in the top 10 of most recognized sports franchises as of right now.

In terms of how NBA franchises stack up to world leaders... well, they are pretty damn far behind. Here's the top 10:

No. 1 Manchester United Football $1.8 billion
No. 2 Dallas Cowboys American Football $1.6 billion
No. 3 Washington Redskins American Football $1.5 billion
No. 4 New England Patriots American Football $1.32 billion
No. 5 New York Yankees Baseball $1.3 billion
No. 6 Real Madrid Football $1.29 billion
No. 7 Arsenal Football $1.2 billion
No. 8 New York Giants American Football $1.18 billion
No. 9 New York Jets American Football $1.17 billion
No. 10 Houston Texans American Football $1.17 billion

As you can see, football and American football dominates the list, with only the Yankees being able to crack the top 10.

JordansBulls
03-01-2010, 12:45 PM
The Lakers vs. Celtics greatness debate is a tough one. Celtics fans say the Celtics are greater and Lakers fans say the Lakers are greater. A big stat is that head to head in the finals the Celtics are up in the series 9 to 1. That's some big dominance. The Celtics also won 8 straight championships and also won 9 out of 10 years in 1 decade. The Lakers have always been great but they have less championships. The Lakers have better players overall. The Lakers have been to much more championships but they lost a lot of them. Players play to win a championship. Not to lose one. I would say they are equal.

I think how Lakers fans are thinking is that the franchise has pretty much had championship teams ever decade, while the Celtics has not. There was like a 15 year gap where the Celtics were not title contenders.
Examples 1993-2008.

Lakers never went more than 5-6 years without being an elite title contender. Example 1992-1996.

Lakerfan In NY
03-01-2010, 01:22 PM
In terms of value, the Lakers aren't even the most valuable NBA franchise. That would be the Knicks, according to Forbes, checking in at 613 million dollars.

In terms of global awareness, yes, the Lakers are leading as far as the NBA goes. But to say that only the Yankees and Man Utd can stack up to them? There are plenty of other sports franchises in the world that either reach or surpass the Lakers' global awareness. Just in football you will find many franchises who either match up or surpass the Lakers: Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Juventus, Liverpool, Lyon and Bayern Munich. In F1, there's Ferrari and McLaren. There's even a case for the Cowboys. I wouldn't say they are even in the top 10 of most recognized sports franchises as of right now.

In terms of how NBA franchises stack up to world leaders... well, they are pretty damn far behind. Here's the top 10:

No. 1 Manchester United Football $1.8 billion
No. 2 Dallas Cowboys American Football $1.6 billion
No. 3 Washington Redskins American Football $1.5 billion
No. 4 New England Patriots American Football $1.32 billion
No. 5 New York Yankees Baseball $1.3 billion
No. 6 Real Madrid Football $1.29 billion
No. 7 Arsenal Football $1.2 billion
No. 8 New York Giants American Football $1.18 billion
No. 9 New York Jets American Football $1.17 billion
No. 10 Houston Texans American Football $1.17 billion

As you can see, football and American football dominates the list, with only the Yankees being able to crack the top 10.

Maybe in 07 that was true but in 09 the Lakers took over that spot from the Knicks:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4729043

I think you miss understood what i trying to say. I am saying in terms of sport team per sport that they play. You point out real madrid, huge franchise WAY bigger that LA but in terms of Soccer, doesn't hold a candle to Manchester united. In terms of average people, when you think of a certain sport ie basketball or football or soccer, certain teams stand out. While there are team that you could make a strong agruement, these team seen to jump ahead. To me & everyone ideas maybe different but In:

Soccer or futbol: Manchester United
Football: Dallas Cowboys
Baseball: NY Yankees
Basketball: LA Lakers
Hockey: Detroit Red Wings or Montreal But i dont watch Hockey that much.

HoopsDrive
03-01-2010, 01:37 PM
Maybe in 07 that was true but in 09 the Lakers took over that spot from the Knicks:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4729043

I think you miss understood what i trying to say. I am saying in terms of sport team per sport that they play. You point out real madrid, huge franchise WAY bigger that LA but in terms of Soccer, doesn't hold a candle to Manchester united. In terms of average people, when you think of a certain sport ie basketball or football or soccer, certain teams stand out. While there are team that you could make a strong agruement, these team seen to jump ahead. To me & everyone ideas maybe different but In:

Soccer or futbol: Manchester United
Football: Dallas Cowboys
Baseball: NY Yankees
Basketball: LA Lakers
Hockey: Detroit Red Wings or Montreal But i dont watch Hockey that much.

Fair enough and my bad on that Knicks being first thing, looks like I picked an outdated source. :cool:

I'll still argue, though, that Real Madrid isn't that far behind Man Utd in terms of global awareness. In money-making terms, Man Utd sweeps the field but they aren't that much ahead of Real in terms of awareness imo. Plus, they have the most Champions League trophies and that's a big plus :D

Evolution23
03-01-2010, 01:57 PM
Rings > no rings/ less rings

The list is flawed

G-Funk
03-01-2010, 04:39 PM
ok who cares. Players play for championships, not "playoff appearances." Championships is what counts and the Celtics have the most so they should be #1.

So why is Jordan considered number 1 when Bill Russell has 11 rings?

Because Jordan was a complete player. Lakers are a complete franchise, they own every record. Most Division wins, Most Conference wins, Most Conference Finals wins, They only missed the playoffs 3 times. They always contend. Most expensive franchise, Most popular franchise, Lakers have retired more All-time greats(top 50) jerseys than any other franchise


they own every record just like Jordan owned every award.

G-Funk
03-01-2010, 04:41 PM
Can someone explain to me why the Suns are up so high?

abe_froman
03-01-2010, 04:46 PM
Can someone explain to me why the Suns are up so high?

winning team(or at least a playoff team) basically every year of their existence,the i think 3rd highest win% of any franchise

JordansBulls
03-01-2010, 04:48 PM
4 titles and winning team basically every year of their existence

:confused:

abe_froman
03-01-2010, 04:53 PM
:confused:

sorry thinking spurs for a moment,but yes the suns have highest win%(one of them),playoffs usually

Dandaman3487
03-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Lakers dont own every record. Especially the most important one. CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!!

Celtics last time I check have the most championships of ALL TIME in the history of the entire National Basketball League with 17!!!

They own the record for Championship streak with EIGHT IN A ROW.(1959-1966) and then won in 1968 and 1969!!! 10 in 11 years!!

First team to start Five Black Starters in the NBA.

They own the record with 33 players who have been Celtics to be enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame, the most of any NBA team.

The Celtics have retired 21 numbers, the most of any professional sports franchise in North America.

NBA has given over 75 individual awards to Celtics players.

NBA MVP of the Year

Bob Cousy - 1957
Bill Russell - 1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965
Dave Cowens - 1973
Larry Bird - 1984, 1985, 1986

NBA Finals MVP

John Havlicek - 1974
Jo Jo White - 1976
Cedric Maxwell - 1981
Larry Bird - 1984, 1986
Paul Pierce - 2008

NBA Defensive Player of the Year

Kevin Garnett - 2008

NBA Rookie of the Year

Tom Heinsohn - 1957
Dave Cowens - 1971
Larry Bird - 1980

NBA Sixth Man of the Year

Kevin McHale - 1984, 1985
Bill Walton - 1986
NBA Coach of the Year

Red Auerbach - 1965
Tom Heinsohn - 1973
Bill Fitch - 1980

NBA Executive of the Year

Red Auerbach - 1980
Danny Ainge - 2008

All-NBA First Team

Ed Sadowski - 1948
Ed Macauley - 1951, 1952, 1953
Bob Cousy - 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961
Bill Sharman - 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959
Bill Russell - 1959, 1963, 1965
John Havlicek - 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974
Larry Bird - 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988
Kevin McHale - 1987
Kevin Garnett - 2008

All-NBA Second Team

Bill Sharman - 1953, 1955, 1960
Ed Macauley - 1954
Bill Russell - 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1968
Tom Heinsohn - 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964
Bob Cousy - 1962, 1963
John Havlicek - 1964, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1975, 1976
Sam Jones - 1965, 1966, 1967
Dave Cowens - 1973, 1975, 1976
Jo Jo White - 1975, 1977
Nate Archibald - 1981
Robert Parish - 1982
Larry Bird - 1990
Paul Pierce - 2009

All-NBA Third Team

Robert Parish - 1989
Paul Pierce - 2002, 2003, 2008

NBA All-Rookie First Team

John Havlicek - 1963
Jo Jo White - 1970
Dave Cowens - 1971
Larry Bird - 1980
Kevin McHale - 1981
Dee Brown - 1991
Antoine Walker - 1997
Ron Mercer - 1998
Paul Pierce - 1999

NBA All-Rookie Second Team

Brian Shaw - 1989
Rick Fox - 1992
Dino Radja - 1994
Eric Montross - 1995
J.R. Bremer - 2003
Al Jefferson - 2005
Ryan Gomes - 2006
Rajon Rondo - 2007

NBA All-Defensive First Team

Bill Russell - 1969
John Havlicek - 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976
Paul Silas - 1975, 1976
Dave Cowens - 1976
Kevin McHale - 1986, 1987, 1988
Dennis Johnson - 1987
Kevin Garnett - 2008, 2009

NBA All-Defensive Second Team

Tom Sanders - 1969
John Havlicek - 1969, 1970, 1971
Don Chaney - 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975
Dave Cowens - 1975, 1980
Larry Bird - 1982, 1983, 1984
Kevin McHale - 1983, 1989, 1990
Dennis Johnson - 1984, 1985, 1986
Rajon Rondo - 2009

Maybe they dont have all the division titles and championships in the 90's, but people forget that the greatest player to never play in the NBA (Len Bias) DIED OF CARDIAC ARREST two days after the Defending Champion Boston Celtics drafted him #2 overall in 1986. The former first team all American from Maryland was supposed to be the bridge for the Celtics from the 80's greatness with Larry Bird to the 90's and the ERA OF LEN BIAS. He was tragically taken from us and set us back for several years. Thats like Lebron James or Kobe Bryant dying from cancer two days after they were drafted. How history changes so quickly. LAKERS SUCK CELTICS RULE!!!!!!!!

Dandaman3487
03-01-2010, 05:16 PM
Also last time Lakers and Celtics played in the Finals who won? I forgot? Was it the Celtics? Didn't they execute one of the largest comeback in NBA Finals history in Game 4 overcoming a 24 point deficit? Didn't they throw down one of the BIGGEST BEATDOWNS in the history of NBA FINALS clinching games with a Celtics 131 to Lakers 92 EMBARASSMENT!!!! Lose by 39 points in the most important of the year, why even show up?

Dandaman3487
03-01-2010, 05:17 PM
Celtics Vs. Lakers in NBA FINALS 11 times.

Celtics won 9

Lakers won 2

ENOUGH SAID!!!

Ripper Gein
03-01-2010, 05:34 PM
Lakers dont own every record. Especially the most important one. CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!!

Celtics last time I check have the most championships of ALL TIME in the history of the entire National Basketball League with 17!!!

They own the record for Championship streak with EIGHT IN A ROW.(1959-1966) and then won in 1968 and 1969!!! 10 in 11 years!!

First team to start Five Black Starters in the NBA.

They own the record with 33 players who have been Celtics to be enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame, the most of any NBA team.

The Celtics have retired 21 numbers, the most of any professional sports franchise in North America.

NBA has given over 75 individual awards to Celtics players.

NBA MVP of the Year

Bob Cousy - 1957
Bill Russell - 1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965
Dave Cowens - 1973
Larry Bird - 1984, 1985, 1986

NBA Finals MVP

John Havlicek - 1974
Jo Jo White - 1976
Cedric Maxwell - 1981
Larry Bird - 1984, 1986
Paul Pierce - 2008

NBA Defensive Player of the Year

Kevin Garnett - 2008

NBA Rookie of the Year

Tom Heinsohn - 1957
Dave Cowens - 1971
Larry Bird - 1980

NBA Sixth Man of the Year

Kevin McHale - 1984, 1985
Bill Walton - 1986
NBA Coach of the Year

Red Auerbach - 1965
Tom Heinsohn - 1973
Bill Fitch - 1980

NBA Executive of the Year

Red Auerbach - 1980
Danny Ainge - 2008

All-NBA First Team

Ed Sadowski - 1948
Ed Macauley - 1951, 1952, 1953
Bob Cousy - 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961
Bill Sharman - 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959
Bill Russell - 1959, 1963, 1965
John Havlicek - 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974
Larry Bird - 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988
Kevin McHale - 1987
Kevin Garnett - 2008

All-NBA Second Team

Bill Sharman - 1953, 1955, 1960
Ed Macauley - 1954
Bill Russell - 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1968
Tom Heinsohn - 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964
Bob Cousy - 1962, 1963
John Havlicek - 1964, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1975, 1976
Sam Jones - 1965, 1966, 1967
Dave Cowens - 1973, 1975, 1976
Jo Jo White - 1975, 1977
Nate Archibald - 1981
Robert Parish - 1982
Larry Bird - 1990
Paul Pierce - 2009

All-NBA Third Team

Robert Parish - 1989
Paul Pierce - 2002, 2003, 2008

NBA All-Rookie First Team

John Havlicek - 1963
Jo Jo White - 1970
Dave Cowens - 1971
Larry Bird - 1980
Kevin McHale - 1981
Dee Brown - 1991
Antoine Walker - 1997
Ron Mercer - 1998
Paul Pierce - 1999

NBA All-Rookie Second Team

Brian Shaw - 1989
Rick Fox - 1992
Dino Radja - 1994
Eric Montross - 1995
J.R. Bremer - 2003
Al Jefferson - 2005
Ryan Gomes - 2006
Rajon Rondo - 2007

NBA All-Defensive First Team

Bill Russell - 1969
John Havlicek - 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976
Paul Silas - 1975, 1976
Dave Cowens - 1976
Kevin McHale - 1986, 1987, 1988
Dennis Johnson - 1987
Kevin Garnett - 2008, 2009

NBA All-Defensive Second Team

Tom Sanders - 1969
John Havlicek - 1969, 1970, 1971
Don Chaney - 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975
Dave Cowens - 1975, 1980
Larry Bird - 1982, 1983, 1984
Kevin McHale - 1983, 1989, 1990
Dennis Johnson - 1984, 1985, 1986
Rajon Rondo - 2009

Maybe they dont have all the division titles and championships in the 90's, but people forget that the greatest player to never play in the NBA (Len Bias) DIED OF CARDIAC ARREST two days after the Defending Champion Boston Celtics drafted him #2 overall in 1986. The former first team all American from Maryland was supposed to be the bridge for the Celtics from the 80's greatness with Larry Bird to the 90's and the ERA OF LEN BIAS. He was tragically taken from us and set us back for several years. Thats like Lebron James or Kobe Bryant dying from cancer two days after they were drafted. How history changes so quickly. LAKERS SUCK CELTICS RULE!!!!!!!!


Also last time Lakers and Celtics played in the Finals who won? I forgot? Was it the Celtics? Didn't they execute one of the largest comeback in NBA Finals history in Game 4 overcoming a 24 point deficit? Didn't they throw down one of the BIGGEST BEATDOWNS in the history of NBA FINALS clinching games with a Celtics 131 to Lakers 92 EMBARASSMENT!!!! Lose by 39 points in the most important of the year, why even show up?


Celtics Vs. Lakers in NBA FINALS 11 times.

Celtics won 9

Lakers won 2

ENOUGH SAID!!!

ALL this typing and still the same end results


LAKERS Greatest Franchise of ALL time DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

amoore87
03-01-2010, 05:38 PM
yea this made me a little happier for the sixers lol but im honored!!

Lakerfan In NY
03-01-2010, 05:39 PM
Lakers dont own every record. Especially the most important one. CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!!

Celtics last time I check have the most championships of ALL TIME in the history of the entire National Basketball League with 17!!!

They own the record for Championship streak with EIGHT IN A ROW.(1959-1966) and then won in 1968 and 1969!!! 10 in 11 years!!

First team to start Five Black Starters in the NBA.

They own the record with 33 players who have been Celtics to be enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame, the most of any NBA team.

The Celtics have retired 21 numbers, the most of any professional sports franchise in North America.

NBA has given over 75 individual awards to Celtics players.

NBA MVP of the Year

Bob Cousy - 1957 Bill Russell - 1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965
Dave Cowens - 1973
Larry Bird - 1984, 1985, 1986

NBA Finals MVP

John Havlicek - 1974
Jo Jo White - 1976
Cedric Maxwell - 1981
Larry Bird - 1984, 1986
Paul Pierce - 2008

NBA Defensive Player of the Year

Kevin Garnett - 2008

NBA Rookie of the Year

Tom Heinsohn - 1957
Dave Cowens - 1971
Larry Bird - 1980

NBA Sixth Man of the Year

Kevin McHale - 1984, 1985
Bill Walton - 1986 NBA Coach of the Year

Red Auerbach - 1965
Tom Heinsohn - 1973
Bill Fitch - 1980

NBA Executive of the Year

Red Auerbach - 1980
Danny Ainge - 2008

All-NBA First Team

Ed Sadowski - 1948 Ed Macauley - 1951, 1952, 1953
Bob Cousy - 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961
Bill Sharman - 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 Bill Russell - 1959, 1963, 1965
John Havlicek - 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974
Larry Bird - 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988
Kevin McHale - 1987
Kevin Garnett - 2008

All-NBA Second Team

Bill Sharman - 1953, 1955, 1960
Ed Macauley - 1954 Bill Russell - 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1968 Tom Heinsohn - 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964
Bob Cousy - 1962, 1963
John Havlicek - 1964, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1975, 1976
Sam Jones - 1965, 1966, 1967
Dave Cowens - 1973, 1975, 1976
Jo Jo White - 1975, 1977
Nate Archibald - 1981
Robert Parish - 1982
Larry Bird - 1990
Paul Pierce - 2009

All-NBA Third Team

Robert Parish - 1989
Paul Pierce - 2002, 2003, 2008

NBA All-Rookie First Team

John Havlicek - 1963
Jo Jo White - 1970
Dave Cowens - 1971
Larry Bird - 1980
Kevin McHale - 1981
Dee Brown - 1991
Antoine Walker - 1997
Ron Mercer - 1998
Paul Pierce - 1999

NBA All-Rookie Second Team

Brian Shaw - 1989
Rick Fox - 1992
Dino Radja - 1994
Eric Montross - 1995 REALLY!!!!!
J.R. Bremer - 2003
Al Jefferson - 2005
Ryan Gomes - 2006
Rajon Rondo - 2007

NBA All-Defensive First Team

Bill Russell - 1969
John Havlicek - 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976
Paul Silas - 1975, 1976
Dave Cowens - 1976
Kevin McHale - 1986, 1987, 1988
Dennis Johnson - 1987 Kevin Garnett - 2008, 2009

NBA All-Defensive Second Team

Tom Sanders - 1969
John Havlicek - 1969, 1970, 1971
Don Chaney - 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975
Dave Cowens - 1975, 1980
Larry Bird - 1982, 1983, 1984
Kevin McHale - 1983, 1989, 1990 Dennis Johnson - 1984, 1985, 1986
Rajon Rondo - 2009

Maybe they dont have all the division titles and championships in the 90's, but people forget that the greatest player to never play in the NBA (Len Bias) DIED OF CARDIAC ARREST two days after the Defending Champion Boston Celtics drafted him #2 overall in 1986. The former first team all American from Maryland was supposed to be the bridge for the Celtics from the 80's greatness with Larry Bird to the 90's and the ERA OF LEN BIAS. He was tragically taken from us and set us back for several years. Thats like Lebron James or Kobe Bryant dying from cancer two days after they were drafted. How history changes so quickly. LAKERS SUCK CELTICS RULE!!!!!!!!

What year are we in? At least stay in the past two decades...

SteveNash
03-01-2010, 05:42 PM
Los Angeles Lakers
Boston Celtics
Chicago Bulls
Philadelphia 76ers
San Antonio Spurs
Detroit Pistons
New York Knickerbockers
Golden State Warriors
Indiana Pacers
Atlanta Hawks
Houston Rockets
Washington Wizards
Milwaukee Bucks
New Jersey Nets
Portland Trail Blazers
Sacramento Kings
Phoenix Suns
Denver Nuggets
Utah Jazz
Miami Heat
Cleveland Cavaliers
Dallas Mavericks
Orlando Magic
New Orleans Hornets
Los Angeles Clippers
Minnesota Timberwolves
Toronto Raptors
Memphis Grizzlies
Charlotte Bobcats
Oklahoma City Thunder

Lakerfan In NY
03-01-2010, 05:45 PM
Celtics Vs. Lakers in NBA FINALS 11 times.

Celtics won 9

Lakers won 2

ENOUGH SAID!!!

& with all that said. the Lakers are only two from you & it takes you 20 yrs from win to win. LA something like 5yrs. Do the math.

soonabooma
03-01-2010, 05:46 PM
Clay Bennetts $350 million says OKC will be listed....not seattle. That's the way it goes. New name and colors doesn't change anything. This is not an expansion team, it's a relocated franchise. That's life. Anything having to do with the Sonics will only exist in peoples minds. They sold out, and now they have nothing to show for it except for OLD memories.:clap:

Dandaman3487
03-01-2010, 05:56 PM
What year are we in? At least stay in the past two decades...

Im sorry I thought this was a thread about the ALL TIME greatest team. Not the LAST 20 YEARS team. But if you want to go back even the last two years, did we kick your butts head to head in the Finals or was I just dreaming? HEAD TO HEAD YOU CAN'T TOUCH US!! 9-2 thats our finals record against you.

Dandaman3487
03-01-2010, 05:59 PM
& with all that said. the Lakers are only two from you & it takes you 20 yrs from win to win. LA something like 5yrs. Do the math.

I did the math and 17 is GREATER than 15.
Also 9 finals wins is GREATER than 2 finals wins heads to head.

Dandaman3487
03-01-2010, 08:13 PM
ALL this typing and still the same end results


LAKERS Greatest Franchise of ALL time DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

Celtics greatest of all time !!! Lakers suck!!! Its all about the rings baby!!

Dr.J>YOU
08-16-2011, 09:02 PM
Sixers franchise is much better than the Bulls.

GoPacers33
08-16-2011, 09:12 PM
Why r the suns so high. Bobcats should be last

Bulls_fan90
08-16-2011, 09:20 PM
Sixers franchise is much better than the Bulls.

:laugh2:

naps
08-16-2011, 09:23 PM
Sixers franchise is much better than the Bulls.

:facepalm:

Sactown
08-16-2011, 09:24 PM
We're not in last :cool:

JWO35
08-16-2011, 09:25 PM
The Detroit Pistons should be in the Top 5
Having the Suns & jazz ahead is laughable...

PacersForLife
08-16-2011, 09:37 PM
Why are people still talking about this list if it was made 2 years ago? Anyways, the pacers were actually a dominant team in the ABA and were almost always in the playoffs until the brawl so the Pacers at 9 makes sense.

knightstemplar
08-16-2011, 09:47 PM
1. Lakers - 16 Titles, 31 Finals (most championships in modern era)
2. Celtics - 17 Titles, 21 Finals (only 6 Titles in the last 42 years)
3. Bulls - 6 Titles, 6 Finals
4. Pistons - 3 Tiltes, 7 Finals
5. Spurs - 4 Titles, 4 Finals (not really that relevant until 1999)
6. 76ers - 3 Tiltes, 9 Finals (last championship was in 1983)

sixer04fan
08-16-2011, 09:53 PM
how come the knicks are so mid-tier.
Does not having MSG even put them in the top 10?

Is that sarcasm?

The Knicks are literally the most overrated franchise in all of sports for what they have accomplished compared to other teams, while consistently getting put in the same breath as top tier franchises like the Lakers, Celtics, etc. No offense to Knicks fans, but this has been my opinion forever. The Knicks are right about where they should be if you just consider franchise accomplishments, and don't factor in the bias that comes with playing at MSG and in NY.

Edit: Holy ****, did not realize this list was made in 2009 haha. Damn, why did Dr.J>You bring this back up? Either way, always a good debate, and doesn't change my opinion much about any of the teams on this list with only a 2 year difference.

Sox72
08-16-2011, 10:10 PM
The Detroit Pistons should be in the Top 5
Having the Suns & jazz ahead is laughable...

Agreed.

masTOR_shake1
08-16-2011, 10:23 PM
wow big surprises here. the nba is rigged and soo tainted with dirty politics that I hope it stays in lockout for 20 years to flush away the ******** of the past. only 7 teams have won a title in the last 25 years, think about that.

JordansBulls
08-31-2011, 12:20 PM
Sixers franchise is much better than the Bulls.

In a way this is true because the Sixers have had great teams in 3 decades. Bulls really only had a great team in 1 decade.

Not to mention the amount of stars the Sixers have had in it's history with Wilt, Dr J, Moses Malone, Sir Charles, Iverson

DaBUU
08-31-2011, 12:48 PM
swap 3 & 4, and im cool.

LAKERMANIA
08-31-2011, 01:02 PM
Yeah why are the Spurs a better franchise than the Bulls?

MTar786
08-31-2011, 01:02 PM
suns and raptors ranked too high while mavs are ranked too low

MTar786
08-31-2011, 01:08 PM
1. Lakers - 16 Titles, 31 Finals (most championships in modern era)
2. Celtics - 17 Titles, 21 Finals (only 6 Titles in the last 42 years)
3. Bulls - 6 Titles, 6 Finals
4. Pistons - 3 Tiltes, 7 Finals
5. Spurs - 4 Titles, 4 Finals (not really that relevant until 1999)
6. 76ers - 3 Tiltes, 9 Finals (last championship was in 1983)

u mustve been born in 1999 then.

the spurs were contenders since they had robinson. they were the highest seed a couple times in the 90's and they made the wcf only to lose to the eventual champs. The pistons are no way number 4 either.

MTar786
08-31-2011, 01:11 PM
Yeah why are the Spurs a better franchise than the Bulls?

the only argument i can think of is that the spurs were contenders through the 90's and were major contenders all through the 2000's. if the bulls had atleast one more decade of being contenders then theyd overtake the spurs. up until now.. the bulls were only relevent because of jordan.. and i think it takes a little more than that for a franchise to be greater then the spurs. also the bulls dont have many legends under their belt either.

id be happy either way though.. the spurs could be ranked higher or the bulls :)

rapjuicer06
08-31-2011, 01:32 PM
Damn, just thinking about an all-time starting line up of Orlando is crazy.

Penny Hardaway
Tracy McGrady
Nick Anderson/Grant Hill (Prime Hill)
Dwight Howard
Shaq O'Neal

I know its not the best, but that is a pretty insane line up

RZZZA
08-31-2011, 08:31 PM
Playing in the capital of modern society makes them relevant alone.


Actually it's true moron. New York is the biggest best city in the world and being the basketball team in the biggest best city makes you relevant.

:facepalm: jesus christ. This kind of attitude is what make people hate Knicks fans and New yorkers in general.

We're the best, we're the greatest, nobody is more important than us, no city is greater than ours, blah, blah blah. Oh and on top of it all he says he's a rich 24 year old who's richer and better than every one of our parents.

Sixerlover
08-31-2011, 08:35 PM
I say:
1. Celtics
2. Lakers
3. Bulls
4. Sixers
5. Pistons
6. Spurs
7. Suns

THE MTL
08-31-2011, 10:48 PM
I cant even argue about the Knicks being so mid-tier. We just got out of a ROUGH DECADE which definitely set the franchise back. Another title needs to come to NYC

Knicks21
08-31-2011, 11:08 PM
Knicks are too low, 2 titles 8 finals appearances, would of been more if it wasn't for that one man.

Slimsim
08-31-2011, 11:11 PM
Knicks are too low, 2 titles 8 finals appearances, would of been more if it wasn't for that one man.

Michael jordan ?

Evolution23
08-31-2011, 11:13 PM
Most Rings > Lesser Rings > No Rings

Gators123
08-31-2011, 11:47 PM
Its funny how low the Pistons are. They are EASILY a top 10 franchise and arguably a top 5 franchise.

Hellcrooner
09-01-2011, 12:10 AM
Its funny how low the Pistons are. They are EASILY a top 10 franchise and arguably a top 5 franchise.

top 10, for sure.

top 5 mmmmmmmm id have to really evaluate that.

3 rings but they have been MUCH more consistent than the bulls or Spurs wich rely on an specific era.

JordansBulls
09-01-2011, 12:39 AM
Knicks are too low, 2 titles 8 finals appearances, would of been more if it wasn't for that one man.

Yep and was title contenders late 60's, 70's, and 90's.

Stuckey#3
09-01-2011, 12:44 AM
LOL at Detroit and New York not being top ten. It just goes to show how biased ESPN and other media outlets are towards certain teams. Detroit has had a bad couple years, and New York has had a bad decade but it is flat out insulting not to include these franchises in the top ten. Detroit has 3 NBA titles (4 total) and that alone should be enough for top ten recognition... sorry suns and blazers fans; your team hasn't done **** until they win a ring...

If there were a team to pick on influence and consistency (before this decade) it should be New York. The Knicks are one of the most commonly recognized franchises worldwide and have done a lot more for basketball than most of the **** teams ESPN snuck into the top ten.

Stuckey#3
09-01-2011, 12:47 AM
I say:
1. Celtics
2. Lakers
3. Bulls
4. Sixers
5. Pistons
6. Spurs
7. Suns

I agree with your rankings. I vote sixerlover replaces hollinger at ESPN... seriously. Knicks at 7; then Suns at 8 IMO though.

Hellcrooner
09-01-2011, 12:52 AM
They only thing that i think should be clear is

1 Lakers
30 Clippers.

Knicks21
09-01-2011, 01:55 AM
LOL at Detroit and New York not being top ten. It just goes to show how biased ESPN and other media outlets are towards certain teams. Detroit has had a bad couple years, and New York has had a bad decade but it is flat out insulting not to include these franchises in the top ten. Detroit has 3 NBA titles (4 total) and that alone should be enough for top ten recognition... sorry suns and blazers fans; your team hasn't done **** until they win a ring...

If there were a team to pick on influence and consistency (before this decade) it should be New York. The Knicks are one of the most commonly recognized franchises worldwide and have done a lot more for basketball than most of the **** teams ESPN snuck into the top ten.

This. :clap:

JordansBulls
09-01-2011, 10:37 AM
They only thing that i think should be clear is

1 Lakers
30 Clippers.

How are those clear?

Hellcrooner
09-01-2011, 11:01 AM
How are those clear?

well, lakers rings+finals+years in playoffs is higher than celtics, and no one else comes any close to that success so number 1 should be undisputable.


and clippers, have been cursed and sucking fro more than 30 years , other teams have sucked but most of them still havent been around for more than 20 so....

NYKalltheway
09-01-2011, 11:23 AM
how is this ranked? W-L % ?

B'sCeltsPatsSox
09-01-2011, 12:10 PM
I'd have to say the Celtics are number one all time. Isn't the whole point of the game to win championships.

JordansBulls
09-01-2011, 12:36 PM
well, lakers rings+finals+years in playoffs is higher than celtics, and no one else comes any close to that success so number 1 should be undisputable.


and clippers, have been cursed and sucking fro more than 30 years , other teams have sucked but most of them still havent been around for more than 20 so....

And the Celtics have more titles as well and are like 11-3 against LA in the finals. Whether you pick LA isn't the problem here, the problem here is saying it is undisputable.

nycsports2
09-01-2011, 12:38 PM
i think the knicks should be alot higher due to where they play and how much money comes in and out of the org but hey im from ny what do i know lol

Hellcrooner
09-01-2011, 12:51 PM
and the celtics have more titles as well and are like 11-3 against la in the finals. Whether you pick la isn't the problem here, the problem here is saying it is undisputable.

compare both titans records 1987-2008 :D
Whats the record of them in teh SALARY CAP era.?
The toe to toe finals record in the SALARY CAP era?

u.n.d.i.s.p.u.t.a.b.l.e

Ebbs
09-01-2011, 01:26 PM
Surprised to see Suns so high. And I agree with Croon having champs below non champs makes no sense

pd7631
09-01-2011, 01:34 PM
1.) Lakers.....never had a down period like the Celtics
2.) Celtics
3.) Sixers
4.) Knicks
5.) Bulls
6.) Pistons
....the rest

Hellcrooner
09-01-2011, 01:41 PM
im starting to figure out a Mathematic formula to settle this.

Something that factors % of rings / playoffs made/ C finals/ second rounds/ Overall records/ strikes of consecutive poff seasons/ strikes of 50 wins seasons/ negative for strike of consecutive non playoff seasons / etc etc.

All of it related to the YEARS PLAYED in the league to level the field a bit. I mean bobcats on ly have a 7 year span in the league but you could argue they have done better than clippers but if you dont factor that one team has been aroudn for 35+ years numbers wouldnt show it.

69centers
09-01-2011, 03:13 PM
IMO:

1 Celtics
2 Lakers
3 Bulls
4 Spurs
5 Sixers

The Minny franchise folded due to money losses - their relocation should be a separate entity - 5 titles won in Minny should not be added to LA's total - they should not be rewarded for folding a franchise that could not remain in existence had it stayed in Minny. They can't just fold up in their town, go to LA, and then claim all of LA's titles as their own like nothing happened.

Bruno
09-01-2011, 04:30 PM
Seems pretty simple to me. The Celtics dominated the pre-ABA merger. The Lakers have dominated in the modern era. All in all the whole Celtics/Lakers thing is a wash as of 2011. Once LA passes Boston in total titles though, its no longer a debate as LA dominates in total finals appearances, overall w/l records, playoff appearances HOFers, ect, ect

Bulls should be 3rd, Spurs 4th, with Phili and Detroit fighting it out for #5.

nickdymez
09-01-2011, 04:55 PM
IMO:

1 Celtics
2 Lakers
3 Bulls
4 Spurs
5 Sixers

The Minny franchise folded due to money losses - their relocation should be a separate entity - 5 titles won in Minny should not be added to LA's total - they should not be rewarded for folding a franchise that could not remain in existence had it stayed in Minny. They can't just fold up in their town, go to LA, and then claim all of LA's titles as their own like nothing happened.

You know the lakers have been to the finals in almost every decade at least once? You know they missed the playoffs like 4 times ever? The celtics had like a 20 year drop off before they were relevant again... All the championships are pretty much pre merger....

knightstemplar
09-01-2011, 09:03 PM
You know the lakers have been to the finals in almost every decade at least once? You know they missed the playoffs like 4 times ever? The celtics had like a 20 year drop off before they were relevant again... All the championships are pretty much pre merger....

Titles since the Merger
Lakers - 10
Celtics - 4

Missed the playoffs
Lakers - 5 times
Celtics - 16 times

the Lakers have made it to the Finals every single decade, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s

RipCity32
09-01-2011, 09:41 PM
Espn hates the pistons it's official now.

Hellcrooner
09-01-2011, 09:55 PM
Some people seems to have trouble understading what the Words Fold/ Merge/ Relocate/rename Mean.

:p

69centers
09-01-2011, 10:39 PM
Titles since the Merger
Lakers - 10
Celtics - 4

Missed the playoffs
Lakers - 5 times
Celtics - 16 times

the Lakers have made it to the Finals every single decade, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s

Lakers didn't win any titles from 1955-1971. No titles in the 60's, and no titles in the 90's.

They also went head to head in the Finals 12 times:

Celtics 9 titles
Lakers 3 titles

LakersMaster24
09-01-2011, 10:54 PM
Charlotte should be last.

Memphis and Clippers are head of them in my book.

nickdymez
09-02-2011, 12:39 AM
Titles since the Merger
Lakers - 10
Celtics - 4

Missed the playoffs
Lakers - 5 times
Celtics - 16 times

the Lakers have made it to the Finals every single decade, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s

Rest my case

knightstemplar
09-02-2011, 01:09 AM
Lakers didn't win any titles from 1955-1971. No titles in the 60's, and no titles in the 90's.

They also went head to head in the Finals 12 times:

Celtics 9 titles
Lakers 3 titles

celtics have only won 6 titles the last 42 years
celtics didnt win any titles from 1987-2007, 21 season drought

Hellcrooner
09-02-2011, 01:06 PM
lakers and celtics have been in nba since day 1.

lakers have missed playoffs a total of 4 times, boston 16.
Enough said.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
09-02-2011, 01:20 PM
Celtics have 17 championships, the Lakers have 16. Isn't the whole point of the game to win championships.

TheDetroitBlue
09-02-2011, 01:45 PM
All these teams with Zero Championships that are ranked over the Pistons is actually laughable and CLASSIC CLASSIC ESPN

knightstemplar
09-02-2011, 06:27 PM
Celtics have 17 championships, the Lakers have 16. Isn't the whole point of the game to win championships.

Celtics won 13 of them before the NBA-ABA Merger, which was in 1976-77

B'sCeltsPatsSox
09-02-2011, 06:56 PM
Celtics won 13 of them before the NBA-ABA Merger, which was in 1976-77

And the Lakers won 5 when they were in Minnesota, should that also count against them?

knightstemplar
09-02-2011, 07:32 PM
And the Lakers won 5 when they were in Minnesota, should that also count against them?

but won 10 after the Merger

Celtics have only 6 championships the last 42 years


whats greater in your opinion
11 championships before 1970 or 11 championships after 1970?
is a championship in 2000s greater than a championship in the 1960s with only 8 teams in the league? i think yes

Tony_Starks
09-02-2011, 08:25 PM
All these teams with Zero Championships that are ranked over the Pistons is actually laughable and CLASSIC CLASSIC ESPN


Two of those championsips came against a Lakers with no backcourt and a Lakers with no Power Forward and a zone defense specifically to stop Shaq so Im not exactly shedding any tears for the Pistons. Those championships should have a * next to them.

heattiltheend94
09-02-2011, 08:46 PM
Suns wtf?

B'sCeltsPatsSox
09-02-2011, 09:06 PM
Two of those championsips came against a Lakers with no backcourt and a Lakers with no Power Forward and a zone defense specifically to stop Shaq so Im not exactly shedding any tears for the Pistons. Those championships should have a * next to them.

So we're punishing the Pistons because they were the better team? LMAO at these Lakers fans.

69centers
09-02-2011, 11:46 PM
celtics have only won 6 titles the last 42 years
celtics didnt win any titles from 1987-2007, 21 season drought


Celtics won 13 of them before the NBA-ABA Merger, which was in 1976-77

This poll was a best franchise overall, not the best franchises of the past 35 years or since the ABA merger. You can't discount the Celtics' titles because they are 40 years old and haven't had as much success in the past 20.


lakers and celtics have been in nba since day 1. lakers have missed playoffs a total of 4 times, boston 16.
Enough said.

Right, you have said enough and since the Celtics still have one more title, you have proven to us all that when the Celtics get to the playoffs, they have a better percentage of winning it all than the Lakers. :silly:

All those many more times in the playoffs should equal many more titles, but it doesn't. Lakers have a lower percentage of winning the title once they make the playoffs.

The Celtics were conference champs 21 times and they won the Finals 17 of those. 17/21 = 81%
The Lakers were conference champs 31 times and won the Finals 16 times. 16/31 = 52%

That's pretty clear who the better team is at taking care of business once they make it through their conference playoffs (Celtics). Once fans saw their team get to the Finals, the C's fans have only been bitter 4 times, but the Laker fans were bitter 15 times. And who is the better franchise for fans?


All time playoff appearances:

The Celtics made the playoffs 48 times, winning 17 titles. 17/48 = 35%
The Lakers made the playoffs 57 times, winning 16 titles. 16/57 = 28%

Again, it's clear who takes care of business better once they make the playoffs (Celtics), and who has won more titles in less appearances (C's). Who the heck cares how many times or years you make the playoffs if you can't get out of the early rounds??


Also, for the record -- their NBA Finals records:

Celtics - 74-48 for a .607 win percentage
Lakers - 85-83 for a .503 barely over 500 Finals average

Not so good Laker fans.


Suns wtf?

Scratching my head with this one too.

knightstemplar
09-03-2011, 12:20 AM
69centers

how many of those titles they won when there was only 8 teams in the league?

Gators123
09-03-2011, 12:22 AM
Two of those championsips came against a Lakers with no backcourt and a Lakers with no Power Forward and a zone defense specifically to stop Shaq so Im not exactly shedding any tears for the Pistons. Those championships should have a * next to them.

:laugh2: Seriously?

Only a Laker fan would say somthing like that...

mdm692
09-03-2011, 12:41 AM
any list about this should have ALL champions ranked ABOVE non champions, Period.

I dont mind if Kings won when they were the Royasl a tousned years ago winning should always be rated higer you can argue if spurs 4 are more than bulls 6 regrding better ratio of winning or whatver but teams withno champs cant go ovr champs.

wrong!!! Suns are perfect example 5th winningest percantage in nba history and have always been a winning/succesful team just have had the misfortune of running into the celtics back in the 60s(i think) jordan in the 90s and kobe this past decade

mdm692
09-03-2011, 12:43 AM
Suns wtf?

:facepalm: shows your lack of knowledge of nba history

Hellcrooner
09-03-2011, 06:59 AM
69centers

how many of those titles they won when there was only 8 teams in the league?

not to mention No salary cap and NO FA , players COULD NOT leave the team ever unless the team wanted.

69centers
09-03-2011, 08:54 PM
69centers

how many of those titles they won when there was only 8 teams in the league?


not to mention No salary cap and NO FA , players COULD NOT leave the team ever unless the team wanted.

:bla: Ummm, the Lakers were in that same league, too.

JordansBulls
09-12-2011, 12:27 PM
:laugh2: Seriously?

Only a Laker fan would say somthing like that...

No joke. It's either the refs gave a team a title or some 3rd or 4th guy option was injured. It's never, they beat us because they had the better record and was hungrier.