PDA

View Full Version : Could this season go down as a top 3 season ever?



JordansBulls
03-23-2011, 02:11 PM
Could this season go down as a top 3 season ever considering that the 4 teams that have the most titles in NBA History are also the 4 top teams record wise in both conferences?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Lakers

No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
No. 2: Boston Celtics
No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
No. 4: Chicago Bulls

John Walls Era
03-23-2011, 02:12 PM
Depends if the fans get some good playoff series.

Bruno
03-23-2011, 02:27 PM
WOW! Interesting, top four team in ships are also top four in the NBA, nice find. Thanks for posting JB.

It certainly has the potential to be.

Slimsim
03-23-2011, 02:36 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if none of those teams won the title this year. Lets get some new champions

TO Rapz
03-23-2011, 02:39 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if none of those teams won the title this year. Lets get some new champions

Like the Raptors. :D

JordansBulls
03-23-2011, 02:49 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if none of those teams won the title this year. Lets get some new champions

Wouldn't mind if a team that never won it, won it all this year like Dallas or Orlando.

mttwlsn16
03-23-2011, 02:53 PM
as long as its not lakers/celtics again...and i dont want the heat. so any team outside of those 3 id be happy. either way, id still watch. i love nba playoffs

mttwlsn16
03-23-2011, 02:54 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if none of those teams won the title this year. Lets get some new champions

clippers :hide:

Sly Guy
03-23-2011, 02:56 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if none of those teams won the title this year. Lets get some new champions

that's what I was thinking. Historically good teams doing well don't necessarily make for a great season.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
03-23-2011, 03:08 PM
Nice find. There's only one of those four teams there I want to win.

Ray_R
03-23-2011, 03:10 PM
Nice find. There's only one of those four teams there I want to win.

Bulls right.

FuriousJatt
03-23-2011, 03:10 PM
lets just stick with the lakers .

its the most interesting season since ive been a fan

210Don
03-23-2011, 03:26 PM
wow my spurs at 3 what a pleasant surprise and its great to know our organization is becoming prestigious.

mudvayne387
03-23-2011, 03:29 PM
that's what I was thinking. Historically good teams doing well don't necessarily make for a great season.

That couldn't be further from the truth. The repeat winners are generally big market teams. When the small market teams flourish, there's not enough fan base to boost ratings, attendance, and in turn, revenue. Make no bones about it, in order for the NBA to be profitable, it needs the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, and Knicks to be relevant.

jezzyman05
03-23-2011, 03:39 PM
wow my spurs at 3 what a pleasant surprise and its great to know our organization is becoming prestigious.

Spurs should be 4 on that list with 4 titles (hopefully we can make it 5)

Sly Guy
03-23-2011, 03:53 PM
That couldn't be further from the truth. The repeat winners are generally big market teams. When the small market teams flourish, there's not enough fan base to boost ratings, attendance, and in turn, revenue. Make no bones about it, in order for the NBA to be profitable, it needs the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, and Knicks to be relevant.

have to give the small market teams a chance to flourish to make that kind of claim....I think the apathy towards years like this is simply because it is 'same old, same old'. When I think about exciting years, I think about seasons with teams like the sacramento kings with their divac-bibby-christie-stojakovic-webber lineups. Not Chi-Bos-LA over and over and over again.

MOST
03-23-2011, 03:53 PM
Should be great playoffs CANT WAIT

brodawgs
03-23-2011, 03:58 PM
That couldn't be further from the truth. The repeat winners are generally big market teams. When the small market teams flourish, there's not enough fan base to boost ratings, attendance, and in turn, revenue. Make no bones about it, in order for the NBA to be profitable, it needs the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, and Knicks to be relevant.

Not true. Obviously big market teams doing well brings in the most revenue and best ratings, but it's only a slight drop off when its not big market teams. The NBA still profits and networks get big ratings for whoever is doing well. The only times when there is a BIG drop off in ratings is when there is a network change or superstars retire (Jordan, Bird, Magic).

mudvayne387
03-23-2011, 04:05 PM
have to give the small market teams a chance to flourish to make that kind of claim....I think the apathy towards years like this is simply because it is 'same old, same old'. When I think about exciting years, I think about seasons with teams like the sacramento kings with their divac-bibby-christie-stojakovic-webber lineups. Not Chi-Bos-LA over and over and over again.

I understand where you are coming from, but look at the Kings now. They are about to re-locate. Do you think the Bulls or Celtics would ever re-locate after having a few consecutive losing seasons ?

Go look at the world series ratings for the past 5 years. When the Yankees and Red Sox get replaced by the Rays and Rockies ratings plummit. Sure it makes for a cute story, but cute doesn't get you in bed with supermodels, money and power does.

mudvayne387
03-23-2011, 04:06 PM
Not true. Obviously big market teams doing well brings in the most revenue and best ratings, but it's only a slight drop off when its not big market teams. The NBA still profits and networks get big ratings for whoever is doing well. The only times when there is a BIG drop off in ratings is when there is a network change or superstars retire (Jordan, Bird, Magic).

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim ?

ackar
03-23-2011, 04:14 PM
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim ?

If you have watched long enough you know this to be a dead on true statement. Go look up the neilsen ratings once MJ retired.

jkcronyn
03-23-2011, 04:16 PM
i think it'd be better if four teams who'd never won anything took up the first four seeds, thats my ideal season

godolphins
03-23-2011, 04:20 PM
No

Bruno
03-23-2011, 04:24 PM
No

Any specific reason as to why not?

mudvayne387
03-23-2011, 04:25 PM
If you have watched long enough you know this to be a dead on true statement. Go look up the neilsen ratings once MJ retired.

No, your claim that there isn't a large discrepancy in ratings when big market teams have success compared to when small market teams have success.

jkcronyn
03-23-2011, 04:29 PM
also as a fan of a team not in the playoffs, im still going to be glued because of the marquee of some of these teams and the players on those teams

THE GIPPER
03-23-2011, 04:37 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if none of those teams won the title this year. Lets get some new champions

Exactly it would be great to see a different team win it for once

mikealike305
03-23-2011, 04:42 PM
if its LA vs Boston again then no....wouldnt mind seeing the bulls vs spurs or miami vs okc or something like that

Hellcrooner
03-23-2011, 04:42 PM
holds no chance against some of the mid / late 80s where there where TONS of teams that were stacked as hell Celtics, Pistons, Sixers, Bucks, Hawks / Lakers, Suns, Nuggets, Mavs, Rockets, jazz)

Just look at any random 1980-1988 Standings and check the Numebr of wins of first seeds and 8th seeds and the number of wins of first seed and worst record.

Teams were so stacked and ocmpetition so strong that getting 50 wins was a Great achievement

JordansBulls
03-23-2011, 04:52 PM
holds no chance against some of the mid / late 80s where there where TONS of teams that were stacked as hell Celtics, Pistons, Sixers, Bucks, Hawks / Lakers, Suns, Nuggets, Mavs, Rockets, jazz)

Just look at any random 1980-1988 Standings and check the Numebr of wins of first seeds and 8th seeds and the number of wins of first seed and worst record.

Teams were so stacked and ocmpetition so strong that getting 50 wins was a Great achievement

Yeah in the East this was true, but not the west until 1990.

Hellcrooner
03-23-2011, 04:59 PM
Yeah in the East this was true, but not the west until 1990.

Lol, yep so terribel to have drxler, natt, Vandewhege etc on blazers.

Or teh twin towers in Houston.

Or Tarpley, Blackman, harper, Aguirre, Sam Perkins, Detlef schrempf.....

The thing is Lakers where better.

JordansBulls
03-23-2011, 05:04 PM
Lol, yep so terribel to have drxler, natt, Vandewhege etc on blazers.

Or teh twin towers in Houston.

Or Tarpley, Blackman, harper, Aguirre, Sam Perkins, Detlef schrempf.....

The thing is Lakers where better.

They werent better, they were wayyyyyyyyyyy better and still got upset twice.

Lakers opponents from 81-87

81
Houston Rockets: 40-42

82
Phoenix Suns: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 48-34

83
Portland Trail Blazers: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 53-29

84
Kings: 38-44
Mavericks: 43-39
Suns: 41-41

85
Suns: 36-46
Blazers: 42-40
Nuggets: 52-30

86
Spurs: 35-47
Mavericks: 44-38
Rockets: 51-31

87
Nuggets: 37-45
Warriors: 42-40
Sonics: 39-43

1. The overall record of their opponents was 733-661 (.526). This averages out to 43-39 over an 82 game schedule.
2. Over a 7 year span, they only faced 3 WC teams that won 50 games. None ever won 55 games. It isn't like they dominated these the 50 win teams either (2-1 series, 9-7 overall).

Tony_Starks
03-23-2011, 06:03 PM
It will be top 3 in my book. The drama with Miami. Chicago being contenders again. Spurs who everybody thought was over the hill on a comeback. Knicks back in the playoffs. Dallas the deepest they've ever been and actually playing defense. Its going to be one helluva postseason I'll tell you that!

People say they want to see a new team win a chip but guess what its not through osmosis you have to earn it. Back in the days whoever was the perrineal eastern/western conf champs you had to build your team to beat them. Nowadays people just slap talent together and think thats enough, not going to happen......

Now with OKC getting Perk things are about to get reeeeeeal interesting.

Dade County
03-23-2011, 06:54 PM
It's going to be fun for me as a HEAT fan, to watch the playoffs this season.

Because I have not been brain washed by the Nba monopoly,this season; I'm no fool. You'll see what i mean when all is said a done, and fans are screaming for the new cba to do something about this.

I think every game in the 2nd round and up, is going to be crazy!

king4day
03-23-2011, 07:30 PM
Could this season go down as a top 3 season ever considering that the 4 teams that have the most titles in NBA History are also the 4 top teams record wise in both conferences?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Lakers

No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
No. 2: Boston Celtics
No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
No. 4: Chicago Bulls

If anything, it's the opposite. As an NBA fan, I want to see new contenders and a new champ.

Hellcrooner
03-23-2011, 07:49 PM
They werent better, they were wayyyyyyyyyyy better and still got upset twice.

Lakers opponents from 81-87

81
Houston Rockets: 40-42

82
Phoenix Suns: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 48-34

83
Portland Trail Blazers: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 53-29

84
Kings: 38-44
Mavericks: 43-39
Suns: 41-41

85
Suns: 36-46
Blazers: 42-40
Nuggets: 52-30

86
Spurs: 35-47
Mavericks: 44-38
Rockets: 51-31

87
Nuggets: 37-45
Warriors: 42-40
Sonics: 39-43

1. The overall record of their opponents was 733-661 (.526). This averages out to 43-39 over an 82 game schedule.
2. Over a 7 year span, they only faced 3 WC teams that won 50 games. None ever won 55 games. It isn't like they dominated these the 50 win teams either (2-1 series, 9-7 overall).

You know why?

because there were NO **** expansion teams.
EVERY team had a TRUE star many fo them TWO true stars , some of them ever three.
Competition = harder = much more difficult to get to 50 wins.

heathonater
03-23-2011, 08:32 PM
depends on how the playoffs go this year. if we have a few seven game series with a couple of upsets in the first round, then this season could be among the better ones. hopefully we get a couple new teams in the finals this year to change things up.

tdunk21
03-23-2011, 08:34 PM
good find....JB with the goods as always

JordansBulls
03-26-2011, 02:46 PM
You know why?

because there were NO **** expansion teams.
EVERY team had a TRUE star many fo them TWO true stars , some of them ever three.
Competition = harder = much more difficult to get to 50 wins.

That is a horrible reason to say why the average record of the West was 43-39. Why was the East's much higher than?

Hellcrooner
03-26-2011, 03:03 PM
That is a horrible reason to say why the average record of the West was 43-39. Why was the East's much higher than?

Thats easy, the west was Stronger and MORE balanced , there was less difference of alent between the playof teams and the lottery team sin the west than there was in the east.

Sicne teams play MORE times with the teams of their own COnference thats the result.

BRICKCITYPIMP12
03-27-2011, 01:38 AM
i know one thing...from love haveing a 30+-30+ game..to melo getting traded to the knicks...to the nets jacking jazz for the best PG in the nba..it has been an amazin season and IT AINT OVER YET!!!!! :)

JordansBulls
03-27-2011, 09:58 AM
Thats easy, the west was Stronger and MORE balanced , there was less difference of alent between the playof teams and the lottery team sin the west than there was in the east.

Sicne teams play MORE times with the teams of their own COnference thats the result.

So a conference where teams that are below .500 that make the Conference Finals and NBA Finals is stronger? Get a clue due.