Wow, the NBA sucks.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 9:47 pm

My brother and I were talking about how little interest we have in basketball lately. I don't know what it is but basketball just doesn't do it for me anymore. The only player I can think of that I would pay to see play is KG. Outside of that I couldn't care less about any players in the NBA. To add fuel to my disinterest, take a look at the current standing with a handful of games left to be played.

http://www.nba.com/standings/by_conference.html

If the season ended today, 5 of the 8 teams in the East would make the playoffs with a .500 or sub-.500 record while 2 teams would fail to make the playoffs in the West with winning records.

At this time I would rather watch an exhibition game of any other sport than watch the NBA.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:16 pm

I agree. I have not watched a single game this whole season. All I have seen is 5-10 minutes of a few games, and hilights on Sportscenter.

I used to always watch at least SOME NBA games, but I have completely lost interest. I even sold Inside Drive.

Blublub · Post by **Blublub** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:44 pm

Okay, but they have the best tattoos. I can't even comment since my opinion is clouded by the misery of having the Wizards as a home team. I dare anyone to stay awake through your average Wizards game.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:06 am

sf_z wrote:The playoffs start in a couple of weeks. Put your prejudices away and watch a game or two. We can talk afterwards.

No thanks. Why is it predjudice to not like the NBA?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:07 am

No, Z, I'll just stick with this:

The NBA sucks because basketball fundamentals are shunned in favor of one-on-one, flashy play.

The NBA sucks because Carmelo Anthony refused to come off the bench in a game and because Allen Iverson refused to suit up for a game. Meanwhile, Anthony is a rookie star that Denver "can build around" and Iverson is a superstar "warrior." Whatever.

The NBA sucks because it doesn't entertain me one bit.

Basketball season ends for me at midnight Monday. I doubt I'll watch one minute of the NBA Playoffs. Total waste of my time.

Take care,
PK

J_Cauthen · Post by **J_Cauthen** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:26 am

pk500 wrote:No, Z, I'll just stick with this:

The NBA sucks because basketball fundamentals are shunned in favor of one-on-one, flashy play.

The NBA sucks because Carmelo Anthony refused to come off the bench in a game and because Allen Iverson refused to suit up for a game. Meanwhile, Anthony is a rookie star that Denver "can build around" and Iverson is a superstar "warrior." Whatever.

The NBA sucks because it doesn't entertain me one bit.

Basketball season ends for me at midnight Monday. I doubt I'll watch one minute of the NBA Playoffs. Total waste of my time.

Take care,
PK

Pk, you've just summed up my feelings about the NBA to a "T". I'm not entertained by the NBA in the least. The most I ever see of it is on Sports Center, and that's sometimes more than enough.

Here we are getting another NBA franchise in the Charlotte area next year, and I'm not jazzed by it at all. Part of my problem is I've become over-saturated with basketball in the last few years. At least college ball still has some energy and team play left in it, thus it gets what remains of my basketball passion.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:30 am

When I was a kid they were only allowed 2 steps [/old fuddy duddy]

You've summed it up pretty well PK. It's not entertaining. Has nothing to do with thugs it has to do with the sport itself.

btmgov · Post by **btmgov** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:40 am

It sucked for the majority of the ninties and it sucks now..............enough said.

later

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:14 am

Z:

Big difference between Kimi, Dale Jr. and Carmelo and Iverson. Carmelo and Iverson quit on the team and refused to obey the coach, respectively.

Big difference between that and showing anger over a mechanical failure or playing with the rules coyly to gain an advantage.

I don't tolerate quitters. Carmelo quit on the Nuggets, and Iverson quit on the Sixers by refusing to come off the bench as a sixth man and not playing.

That's the NBA, in a nutshell, to me.

It's a sheer joy to watch a college game where you actually see the ball stay off the floor for more than three seconds and where the entire floor doesn't clear out to watch a big man back in one-on-one for an easy shot about every third trip down the floor. It's also a sheer joy to watch a team use a zone defense to win a national title, which Syracuse did last year.

That's the NBA, in a nutshell, to me.

Oh, and finally, only <b>eight players</b> -- EIGHT PLAYERS! -- in the entire NBA are shooting 50 percent or better from the floor this season as of tonight. Meanwhile, 16 players are shooting 40 percent or better from three-point range. Twice as many players are shooting 40 percent from 24 feet than players are shooting 50 percent from 2.4 feet?

Why? Because the art of the midrange jumper is extinct in the NBA. Offense consists of the trey or pounding the ball into the big man so he can back his defender down. Every other shot more than likely results in a "CLANG."

That's the NBA, in a nutshell, to me.

Take care,
PK

SoMisss2000 · Post by **SoMisss2000** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:25 am

And to think, there's about to be an expansion franchise starting next year. The watering down of the league continues.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:35 am

sf_z wrote: Let me summarize your arguments so far:

The NBA sucks because one division has better teams than the other
The NBA sucks because I don't like the players
The NBA sucks because I don't watch it
The NBA sucks because my local team sucks

sf_z,
You're being awfully liberal with your definitions of the argument. Let's explore further, shall we?

"The NBA sucks because one division has better teams than the other."

The NBA doesn't suck because 1 division has better teams, it sucks because 5 teams will make the playoffs that don't deserve to be in the playoffs while 2 teams with winning records sit and watch. I'm sorry but no team deserves to make the playoffs without a winning record in any sport and you won't find that in any other sport.

"The NBA sucks because I don't like the players."

This seems to be brought up a lot in defense of the NBA's players. When I say I don't like the NBA players of today it has nothing to do with them allegedly being 'thugs'. It has to do with the fact that they all seem to glorify themselves and not their teams. It has to do with the fact that they have absolutely no charisma. They don't make you want to watch the game like players like MJ, Isiah, Bird, Dr. J, Magic, and Kareem did. Like I said KG is the only player I'd pay to see play now.

"The NBA sucks because I don't watch it."

This is your worst offense with your interpretations of the arguments. Nobody said the NBA sucks because they don't watch it. They said they don't watch it because it sucks. And it does.

"The NBA sucks because my local team sucks."

I'm from Chicago so I know about teams sucking. The Bears have sucked, the Cubs have sucked, the Sox have sucked, and now the Bulls suck. Whenever any local team isn't doing well I will take a rooting interest in one of the playoff teams in every sport. Every sport except basketball that is. I did take interest in the Kings for a couple of seasons recently but it was clear to me that the NBA didn't want the Kings in the finals. They preferred the Lakers. As the hockey playoffs approach I obviously don't have to worry about watching the Hawks, but I am also a Devils fan. Though I was also a Devils fan long before the Hawks ever missed the playoffs if they weren't in the playoffs either I'd be able to find a team I can root for and be interested in. When the Bears don't make the playoffs I find myself rooting for the Titans because I'm a fan of Jeff Fisher, Steve McNair, and Eddie George. Or I'll root for the Colts because I'm a fan of Peyton Manning. In hockey I've rooted for the Kings in the past because I like Zigmund Pallfy. Or the Sabres because I like Miroslav Satan. The fact is the NBA no longer excites me enough to take an interest in any team and I love sports, especially playoff sports. That's a pretty harsh reality IMO as to the state of the NBA.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:16 am

Z:

I like your defense of basketball but I'm in the camp that has been so turned off by it that I can't stand to watch anything else than March Madness.

The only reason I was a fan in the 90's was the Piston/Bulls Matchup early in the decade and watching Jordan and the Bulls completely dominate the sport.

I think the NBA has completely market themselves away from mainsteam America. In it's place NASCAR and Hockey are filling the void.

First off is that there are no more rivalries and there really can't be in the age of trading everything away. Other than the Lakers and a few other teams, the superstars are getting traded. That's a sure sign that the sport is in trouble. When the teams start to treat the players that might put people in the seats like a commodity it's over for that sport. Plus I bet you if you take any teams other than the lackers and come back to this thread sometime next year at the same period 80% of the teams would be unreconizable.

Second is and PK and others have touched upon this, basketball isn't really basketball anymore. I compare it to Men's tennis. Sure you still hit the ball with a racket but after the high-powered serves there's not much tennis being played. Same with B-Ball. There's still a ball and a hoop but it's all about Sportscenter highlights anymore.

And I think a lot of BBall's downfall has to do with Stern. First off they have a pretty lax policy regarding their players. The NBA should implement strict policies for disobeying it's coach. I don't think that wins any fans anywhere, where players stop playing for their team. Think back to Carlisemo and Sprewell, all of basketball has forgetten about that. Then you have AI and Carmelo. What would happen if a player pull that BS in the final four. He probably wouldn't be playing the rest of that game and in the championship. Next Sterns has got to do something about turnover in basketball. This is getting out of hand, when there's these 15 player swaps with three teams that's out of hand. And if there's ever a case for restriction it should be in basketball, I can think of 5 or 6 teams that should be restricted.

Basketball isn't for me and I won't watch it. I'm looking forward to the NHL playoffs because I think it's much more exciting. I hope the fans of basketball can get enjoyment out of watching the playoffs but I won't.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:42 am

OK, I was one of the NBA critics at SR but it mostly concerned the politics, the officiating (superstar rules, really suspect calls, etc.).

I've watched more games this year than in previous years because I love the sport, if not necessarily the way the NBA configures or presents the sport.

First, if you like the sport at all, there is no way you can say the college game is better. The best players and the best coaches are in the NBA, period, end of story.

Now, you can say the college game is more entertaining, has more atmosphere, etc. But basketball played at the highest level, even with all the bullshit I absolutely hate, happens in the NBA.

If you have the opinion that the purest form of basketball is that which is depicted in Hoosiers, then you're living in the past. I don't really watch the street ball shows on ESPN but I look at how street ball has influenced the NBA, starting with players like Earl Monroe all the way up to the present with players like AI and I think this influence has been a positive thing. Players like Baylor, Monroe, Dr. J and others changed the game the way bebop changed music. Now sure there are egotistical, spoiled athletes, who are essentially lacking in character and flawed as human being in some way. So were some of the greatest jazz artists. But I don't care because I'm interested in their work, not their personal lives.

Yeah AI and Carmelo are bad characters. But what they did is nothing like what Bertuzzi did this year. And the guy, the way he talked about it, really didn't take responsibility for what he did. I'm not a big hockey fan but I'll watch and follow the NHL playoffs, even when Bertuzzi is involved.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:52 am

BTW, I enjoyed both NCAA games tonight. But the officiating in the Duke-Uconn game was really tight, a lot of soft calls.

Still, that's better than the NBA where Shaq runs through guys and not only not get called but gets the fouls called on the guys he beat up. And the calls were fairly even-handed, with key players on both teams in foul trouble at key points.

The NCAA Tournament probably gets better ratings than the NBA playoffs, especially if marquee teams like the Lakers get eliminated.

But the NBA game, for all its faults, feature a much higher level of play and skill. You may not get as much double-screens for the "fundy" jump shooter (Knight running plays for Alford), but the NBA players are better shooters, can play the fundamental game if they had to (hard to do with the level of defense and the 24-second shot clock). Don't forget we've seen a huge infusion of foreign talent -- a lot of players who can shoot and pass with the best of them.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 5:29 am

sf_z wrote:Scoop: I try to watch every Formula 1 race. I wonder why sometimes because there's so much about the sport that sucks. But because I get up early on Sundays to watch and follow the between race news on the web, I'm a more credible critic of F1 than I am of something I barely pay attention to. There was an Aussie Rules Football thread a couple of days ago. I've seen a little and don't particularly like it, but I resisted the urge to jump in and talk about how much it sucked. A variation on this thread popped up on SR about three times a year. A bunch of guys who admitted they don't follow the league anymore ragging it for a variety of sins. If you don't like it, don't watch it. But if you don't watch it, how do you know it sucks?

Wow, my critique of basketball isn't credible? How f***in arrogant you are. I've watched basketball my whole life, thank you very much, so I don't need to watch every single game this season to have a credible critique of the sport. And congratulations on 'resisting the urge' to comment on the Aussie Rules Football thread, I was really pulling for you. I am so proud of you at this moment that I am finding it harder and harder to contain myself as I type this. How do I know it sucks? I have watched it and that's what lead to my realization that it sucks.

Can you honestly say the NBA isn't in trouble when there are 5 horrible teams on their way to the postseason? Can you honestly say the NBA isn't in trouble when they are giving the Charlotte area another shot at franchise knowing full well and good that North Carolina will always love college basketball first and foremost?

I respect your opinion that you like the NBA and I'm glad that you find enjoyment out of it but don't you ever question the f***in credibility of my or others opinions in this thread because we stopped watching the NBA. After all I could just as easily claim that your thoughts on the NBA aren't credible either since you are obviously a fan of the NBA so your opinion must be biased. But I wouldn't do that since anybody who is familiar with basketball and has a fundamental knowledge of the sport and its history has a credible opinion.

pigpen81 · Post by **pigpen81** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:43 am

let me add a different look here:

I think I don't watch the NBA anymore because I have "outgrown" it.

I am 32 and find my interest in sports I used to love waning with the exception of baseball and soccer.

As a kid I loved the game, watched it religously...but no more.

I think the athletes are better than the past....FG perc. or not...the athletes are bigger, stronger and faster...yes the fundamentals are lacking....but the biggest factor is...I don't relate to the game in fashion, music, mystique, hype, etc. it just isn't me....the game has been marketed to the MTV demographic and corporate america....2 things I definitely am not.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:08 am

We should make this topic a sticky. I just find it amusing that people take time out to bash a particular sport. Based on the ratings for hockey and the MLS I'm assuming people think those sports suck (or they don't care about them which is even worse), but I don't see the same amount of negative posts.

I wish the NBA had more scoring, but I find it amusing that the same people who trash the NBA for lack of scoring give the NHL a free pass. I looked up some stats from the 90-91 season (the only reason I picked that season is because the Pens won the cup and I know hockey didn't suck back then). Teams averaged 276 goals a year then and last year they averaged 211 23.5% less! Where did the hockey fundamentals go? These guys can't shoot straight either. I'm sure some hockey apologists will rationalize some reasons why scoring is lower, but it boils down to the same reason NBA scoring is lower...mainly the diluted talent base. In 1990-91 the Penguins had 4 players score 86 points or more and that didn't even count the oft-injured Lemiuex who only appeared in around 25 games or the rookie Jagr. Last year the whole league produced 9 players with 86 or more points. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:21 am

sf_z wrote: I still can't see your point about the NBA sucking because there are four sub-.500 clubs bound for the playoffs in the East. There are ten teams over .500 in the West. Overall, there are 14 teams over .500 and 15 teams under just as you'd expect. Geography may suck, but math doesn't.

Yeah, I don't see that argument at all either. It's just a balance of power issue now. I'm looking back at some history of teams making the NBA playoffs and I really don't see much of a difference of the records of the 16 teams making it today as compared to the teams that made it "back when the NBA didn't suck." Some BAD teams made it back then as well (the 87-88 Spurs and all 31 of their wins, for instance).

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:54 pm

"Can you honestly say the NBA isn't in trouble when there are 5 horrible teams on their way to the postseason? Can you honestly say the NBA isn't in trouble when they are giving the Charlotte area another shot at franchise knowing full well and good that North Carolina will always love college basketball first and foremost?"

Why is this an argument against the sport? The league has often been marginal. Back in the '70s, there was a lot more scoring and fast-break teams. But the ratings were poor and the league limped along until it was saved by Bird and Magic. And it's not like there weren't great players back then. Kareem and Dr. J. were in their prime and there were several HoF players wrapping up their careers (but still playing at high levels).

There are several baseball teams claiming poverty, which may or may not be true. But these teams are unable to contend for playoffs. Of course the NHL as a league is facing great difficulty, with no major TV contract and the prospect of a lockout. Even the NFL, where TV money and the salary cap make it almost impossible to not field a competitive team, face undertainty in future TV contracts. Look around and you see pro sports as a whole struggling as the economy is trying to recover. Most sports have priced themselves out of the range of working class and many middle-class families.

Still we are able to enjoy watching these other sports. For me, it's impossible to ignore the skills and the athleticism of NBA players, including the players who came directly from high school (and haven't yet become stars), their improvement, their feats.

Now the one thing that I would criticize is that in the NBA playoffs, which I'm looking forward to watching, there are few upsets or lower-seeds which go far. Certainly nothing like the NHL. I think that has to do with the nature of the sport. In basketball, you have to continually score and continually assert dominance, whereas in hockey and other sports, one or two scores may be crucial and determine the outcome.

I also think NBA officiating tend to favor the stronger teams. In the most benign view, officials depend on the reputations of superstars over journeymen, vets over rookies or other younger players. In less benign views, there is an outright bias for certain teams over others.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:16 pm

sf_z wrote: Decline in FG percentage is caused more by changes in defenses than anything else. Do you think the guys who can hit threes at 40% couldn't hit uncontested twelve footers all day long? These college players you love so much don't lose their mid-range jumper as soon as they "graduate".

It's a rare thing indeed to get a mid range look in the NBA without somebody in your face. Watch a 70s or early 80s game on ESPN Classic sometime. The defense isn't as intense and there's more space. Today's players are ridiculously big. Not just the centers but the 7 foot small forwards and 6'9" guards. The court is the same size as when there were 6'4" forwards. This is similar to what's happened in hockey. Granted, NBA teams don't run a lot of plays to set up a mid-range shot but if somebody did and it worked, everyone would follow.

Very good analysis and I agree totally. It really doesn't matter though. You're not going to change any minds. I have some of the usual responses memorized by now. I can even tell you who is going to post in a "I hate the NBA thread."

I hate what Iverson did and I hope he gets traded. I thought Melo apologized and he is barely out of high school so I will give him another chance.

I could probably write a friggin' novel on the hoods, quitters, malcontents, primadonnas, etc. in the NFL, but why bother? Everyone loves it.