Wow, the NBA sucks.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:20 am

ScoopBrady wrote: As far as this being the first season of any sub-.500 teams making the playoffs, it's a huge problem. The Playoffs, in any sport, is supposed to showcase the best that the league has to offer and provide intriguing matchups to help promote the sport. Now if it was 1 franchise that was under .500 it wouldn't necessarily be a problem, it would be a fluke. We're talking at least 4 and possibly 5 teams that will be at or under .500. That is a huge problem.

Scoop, I guess we just disagree on the definition of a huge problem. I'm not sure what you want the league to do besides yearly realignment or crossing the conferences to pick playoff teams. I wasn't too fond of the NFC winning all those Super Bowls in a row, but those things tend to work themselves out and I'm glad the NFL didn't decide to breakup the NFC East or throw SF in the AFC. When you look at the history of the NBA I'd view this season as an outlier rather than a "huge problem"...at least until I had more evidence.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:34 am

sf_z wrote:Small market teams have a chance of success. The defending champs come from San Antonio. Sacramento and Indiana have good chances of making the finals this year. Even though the NBA salary cap leads to some ridiculous looking trades, it provides some incentives for stars to stay with the same club. Continuity is good for fans and the NBA does better with this than the other major stick and ball sports. Finally, there's a historically good relationship between labor and management. There haven't been work stoppages or lock outs ini the past. The biggest issue is whether the Blazers can smoke weed on team charters.

I'm going to slightly disagree with you here. The NBA has the appearance that small market teams can compete, but in practice it is as bad or worse than any league. Sure, you have SA and Houston sneaking in with a few championships, but historically the league has been dominated by large market teams. I analyzed it once and the vast majority of NBA Finals have had at least one team from a top 5 market and championships outside of the large markets in LA, Boston, Detroit, and Chicago have been few and far between.

Wasn't there a work stoppage in 1998-99? I forget if it was a strike or a lockout.

There has been a lot of talk about thugs and that is an unfortunate. Here is a lising of the "Good Guys" from the Sporting News based on their work in the community and charity:

Mutombo, Ratliff, Pierce, Chandler, Ricky Davis, Bradley, Curry, Jamison, Mobley, Madsen, Battier, Grant, Garnett, PJ Brown, MacCulloch, Bowen, Allen, Barry, Jerome Williams, Stackhouse, Karl Malone, Abdur-Rahim, Armstrong, Brand, Divac, Duncan, Foyle, Funderburke, Houston, Howard, Kidd, Marion, Marshall, McCarty, McGrady, Mercer, Jermaine O'Neal, Payton, Rose, Snow, Williamson, Vince Carter, Kerr, Desmond Mason

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:21 am

Z:

Valid points. All very valid.

But you'll never convince me that today's NBA is an entertaining product. I planned on basketball season ending tonight, and nothing the NBA has shown me this year will change that.

Take care,
PK

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:33 am

sf_z wrote:Geez, a lot to catch up on. Thanks to Leebo for taking up the fight. I think the threads about thugs, officiating and franchise moves are pretty played out.

Why do you seem to feel it's some sort of crusade to convert those of us who dislike the NBA? Why can't some of us just not like it? If you said you hated baseball because of the expanded playoffs, or the lack of a salary cap, or steroids, I wouldn't try to convert you.

You knew from the title of the thread what this would be about. If you're so tired of hearing the "played out" reasons for people's dislike of the NBA, then don't read the thread.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:51 am

Come on, Matt, we're just having a good debate around the virtual water cooler.

I do watch the Bulls off and on during the season, usually catching 20-30 minutes of a couple dozen games during the year. I know if they could actually score more than 90 points I'd watch a lot more. And I did start watching more when Heinrich started playing better -- he and Tyson Chandler are the only two people I feel are worth watching on that team.

But last year I actually watched a good amount of the playoffs, and was impressed by what I saw, especially with the Western Conference teams. I will probably watch that part of the playoffs again. Some of the early draftees who struggled the last few years have started to hit their stride, and the foreign players have brought back a lot of fundamentals to the game.

So, not to convert anyone, but this is one bellyaching white guy who thinks the NBA's not dead yet. I think it's starting to come out of its post-Jordan transition.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:39 pm

Brando, I'm for all good debate, but SF_Z called me out from the beginning, basically saying my opinion wasn't valid. Well, it is, and I'm just as tired of NBA fans using "what about the thugs in football" or "what about the lack of scoring in the NHL" as he is of hearing the same complaints from those of us who don't like it.

Debate is all well and good. It's just starting the sound like the NBA fans are trying to prove to people like me that our opinions are wrong. I never said anyone was wrong for liking the NBA, it's just not for me, and my opinion is that is sucks. SF_Z's is trying to argue my opinion as if I can't possibly have the right to dislike the NBA because I haven't watched it enough this year.

Anyways, I'm done ranting. Nothing anyone says can change my mind. The NBA sucks to me. I don't care how many jerseys they sell overseas or what the shooting percentages are compared to college.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:55 pm

Points well taken, Matt. I know where you're coming from. I will never, ever, understand the appeal of watching hockey or golf, and passionate arguments from John Locke, Rosseau, and Thomas Paine themselves wouldn't change my mind. Hockey to me is NASCAR on ice, and as for televised golf, I'm pretty sure one of the tablets that Moses dropped said, "Thou shalt not watch men in bad slacks chase around a little white ball from thine couch."

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:08 pm

matthewk wrote:Well, it is, and I'm just as tired of NBA fans using "what about the thugs in football" or "what about the lack of scoring in the NHL" as he is of hearing the same complaints from those of us who don't like it.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but it just fascinates me how a drop in scoring in one sport is acceptable and in another it is not. It shouldn't matter if it is the equipment or not the bottom line is scoring is pitiful. If the owners and players aren't smart enough to regulate the goalie equipment then why shouldn't I fail to enjoy that sport as well? I'm not totally convinced the lack of scoring in hockey isn't due to the lack of skill level, but that is just my opinion. I just find it amusing that it is OK in basketball to say the skills and teamwork have diminished when we compare the current teams to the Lakers and Celtics of the "glory days", but we fail to acknowledge that the Oilers in the 1980s and the Pens in the early 1990s had more talent on their third lines than most teams today have on their first or second.

I wonder how many people will give up on baseball now that Milton Bradley quit on his team or how many people quit watching the NFL after Eric Crouch "retired." It happens all the time in every sport and I'm just not convinced that thuggery happens more frequently in the NBA than the NFL or MLB (I'll give hockey that one). To steal a line from Matt, "that's my opinion and nobody is going to change it."

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:24 pm

Leebo:

Again, why do you need to use hockey to prop up the NBA? If the NBA is so exciting, shouldn't the merits of its product be enough to sell the unconverted? Why dump on hockey to justify the NBA?

Scoop's original post said nothing about hockey or the NHL. Yet you continue to use the decline in scoring in hockey as justification that the NBA really isn't that bad.

I don't get that.

Take care,
PK

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:29 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:That's all I meant by starting this post, I didn't mean to offend NBA fans. I wanted to know if I was alone or not in my lack of NBA interest. Apparently I am not.

Not only are you not alone but you are speaking to the choir. Saying you don't like the NBA on DS or the old SR is like the equivalent of saying you don't like Nazi's. Not exactly an uncommon or controversial sentiment.

The problem for me was always that for the most part NBA fans never went out of their way to bash other sports, yet the reverse takes place constantly.

When you suggest the NBA has the same problem as other sports like a drop in scoring like hockey or thugs like the NFL, or declining ratings like hockey you are branded an apologist.

Let someone post a few strong critique's of soccer or hockey and see how long they go unchallenged. I'll bet within with 10 minutes you'll have 50 posts claiming the supreme integrity of either sport. Of course this all opinion. You could find strong critics of each and every sport who will tell you at any given time that the respective sport is the worst it's ever been and contributing to a decline in morals. Hockey being the latest with that last incident.

Just seems a bit of a double standard to me and always has. Particularily when people infuse what I believe to be social critique in with their actual critique of the sport of basketball.

Couldn't resist this topic. I'll sink back into lurker mode.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:08 pm

>>>Just seems a bit of a double standard to me and always has. Particularily when people infuse what I believe to be social critique in with their actual critique of the sport of basketball.<<<

Great. You infer that all of us who dislike the NBA are racists and then slip back into lurker mode.

Wow, that took balls the size of BB's. What courage.

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:14 pm

pk500 wrote:Leebo:

Again, why do you need to use hockey to prop up the NBA? If the NBA is so exciting, shouldn't the merits of its product be enough to sell the unconverted? Why dump on hockey to justify the NBA?

You are absolutely right. I only used it as an example because I know people that most of the people here that hate the NBA for some unknown reason like the NHL. I should indeed hold the NBA to a higher standard though. I was going to put "The NBA sucks, but not as much as the NHL" in my sig but I will refrain. I'm counting down the days to the lockout...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:22 pm

Hockey has more than its share of problems, and I don't watch nearly as much in the regular season as I used to. But I still find it an entertaining product, unlike the NBA.

Now, if college hockey was as prevalent on TV and as entertaining as college hoop, I'd probably feel the same way about the NHL as I do the NBA.

When you get to the point in life that I'm at, where time is very scarce due to work, wife and kids, sports better entertain. If the sport doesn't, I drop it quickly. I couldn't give a crap what perceived level the sport is at. If it doesn't entertain, I don't watch it.

For that reason, I find myself watching less F1 and more NASCAR this year. F1 continues to slide into a red sea of boredom due to Ferrari and Schumacher, while NASCAR is more entertaining this year due to the new aero and tire rules. Rookie Kasey Kahne also has captured my fancy.

Some may counter by saying you're seeing the most dominant team and possibly driver in F1 history at work. So what? It's boring this year, and I don't have the time to waste to be bored.

That's exactly how I feel about the NBA despite the fact that its players are among the more skilled athletes of the world.

Take care,
PK

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:22 pm

sf_z wrote:But you guys pressed one of my hot buttons.

Are you saying we know what makes you hot?

I don't want to start a war. I saw the topic and I can relate. I added my 2 cents and I thought that was it.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:25 pm

pk500 wrote:>>>Just seems a bit of a double standard to me and always has. Particularily when people infuse what I believe to be social critique in with their actual critique of the sport of basketball.<<<

Great. You infer that all of us who dislike the NBA are racists and then slip back into lurker mode.

Wow, that took balls the size of BB's. What courage.

Take care,
PK

Lol. You pick the wrong part to suggest I went into lurker mode for. I only said that bit because I only post on a few subjects on these boards so I'm not really an active member. The other bit I have the grapefruits for as you suggest to accept criticism. I stand by what I said. You or any one else can beat me up for that. Its simply an opinion much like the NBA sucks starter opinion that started this thread. I've read enough posts that mix attacks on "bling-bling" culture if you will somehow bizzarely contorted into actual critcisms of the sport. I contrast that with some of the statements I've read about hockey. Not everyone does it. Some do however. For me it's code. I didn't trot out the word "racist" however. You did. Their is a distinction. There is a scale. And nothing is solidly black and white on that scale.

GROGtheNailer · Post by **GROGtheNailer** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:27 pm

I've been reading through this thread that has grown quite rapidly and want to get into this discussion but sadly cannot do so because I know sh1t about basketball, i've tried to watch it in the past but have only made it through one game....oddly enough...after that game...my wallet and stash was missing. Coincidence?

I can comment on the hockey part of this, from Leebo:

but we fail to acknowledge that the Oilers in the 1980s and the Pens in the early 1990s had more talent on their third lines than most teams today have on their first or second.

For one, those teams were different from the norm, especially the Oilers. Two, the NHL has gotten bigger and faster plus add more defensive minded. Nevermind any of that....take the oilers of the mid 80's.

After Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffee, Anderson and Fuhr who were on the first and second lines, believe me when I say the Oilers 3rd lines would not be first lines now-a-day. Man, the Oilers were once in a life-time team so you really cant bring them up to point at offense of the NHL now, thats ludicrous.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:36 pm

GROGtheNailer wrote:I've been reading through this thread that has grown quite rapidly and want to get into this discussion but sadly cannot do so because I know sh1t about basketball, i've tried to watch it in the past but have only made it through one game....oddly enough...after that game...my wallet and stash was missing. Coincidence?

I can comment on the hockey part of this, from Leebo:

but we fail to acknowledge that the Oilers in the 1980s and the Pens in the early 1990s had more talent on their third lines than most teams today have on their first or second.
For one, those teams were different from the norm, especially the Oilers. Two, the NHL has gotten bigger and faster plus add more defensive minded. Nevermind any of that....take the oilers of the mid 80's.

After Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffee, Anderson and Fuhr who were on the first and second lines, believe me when I say the Oilers 3rd lines would not be first lines now-a-day. Man, the Oilers were once in a life-time team so you really cant bring them up to point at offense of the NHL now, thats ludicrous.

Grog, you are right and I agree. The Pens did have a great third line in Jagr's rookie year, but I'm not sure about the Oilers.

I agree the Oilers were a once-in-a-lifetime team, but the Lakers and Celtics of the 1980s are very unique as well.

BTW, I don't hate hockey. I just have soured on it much like some of you have turned on the NBA.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:43 pm

reeche wrote:I've read enough posts that mix attacks on "bling-bling" culture if you will somehow bizzarely contorted into actual critcisms of the sport. I contrast that with some of the statements I've read about hockey. Not everyone does it. Some do however. For me it's code. I didn't trot out the word "racist" however. You did. Their is a distinction. There is a scale. And nothing is solidly black and white on that scale.

I could give three sh*ts about the "bling-bling" culture -- whatever the hell that is. I don't like the NBA because of what I perceive to be an overabundance of one-on-one play and not enough team play.

There are thugs in every sport. Everyone knows that. But not once have I read this year an NHL or college hoop player refusing to come off the bench during a game or refusing to suit up because he wasn't starting.

So, if being a "me-first" person is part of the so-called "bling-bling" culture, then yeah, you bet your ass I have a problem with it.

Nice parsing of words on the "race" issue. Everyone knew what the hell you were talking about when you brought up the "social critique" issue. Regular readers of this board may have been born at night, but they weren't born last night. Nice try.

If "social critique" isn't an oblique synonym for "racism" in the context of this thread, then please explain to me how your "code" defines it.

Take care,
PK

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:46 pm

NBA teams could start shooting 25% from the floor regulary and I'd still watch it over the NHL, MLS and Arena Football I might add.

It's just a matter of taste.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:48 pm

javi wrote:NBA teams could start shooting 25% from the floor regulary and I'd still watch it over the NHL, MLS and Arena Football I might add.

It's just a matter of taste.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with that at all!

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:50 pm

pk500 wrote: Everyone knows that. But not once have I read this year an NHL or college hoop player refusing to come off the bench during a game or refusing to suit up because he wasn't starting.

Didn't a whole team quit last year (St. Bonaventure)?

GROGtheNailer · Post by **GROGtheNailer** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:59 pm

You know what guys? I think all our sports need more players that were beyond the norm, the bigger than life players..Gretzky, Jordan etc.

Maybe that is what is missing?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:03 pm

Leebo33 wrote:
pk500 wrote: Everyone knows that. But not once have I read this year an NHL or college hoop player refusing to come off the bench during a game or refusing to suit up because he wasn't starting.
Didn't a whole team quit last year (St. Bonaventure)?

Yes. And that was despicable, no question.

But again, there just seems to be a much greater sense of team in hockey than in the NBA. Now, that sense of team also is distorted to justify sh*t like Bertuzzi pulled, which is 100 percent wrong.

Still, there seems to be more team guys in the NHL than the NBA to me. Now, considering I'm white and prefer hockey over the NBA, I'm sure that's racist to some. False, but so be it.

Bling-bling.

Out,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:06 pm

GROGtheNailer wrote:You know what guys? I think all our sports need more players that were beyond the norm, the bigger than life players..Gretzky, Jordan etc.

Maybe that is what is missing?

Grog:

You're right. But you know what the common denominator was between Jordan and Gretzky? Both were team guys, pushing and working harder than any lesser-talented player in an effort to improve themselves and the team.

Both also were insanely competitive, never giving up, never quitting, doing whatever it took to win.

Pro sports could use more guys like MJ, Gretz and Jerry Rice.

Reeche: Note that two of the athletes I'm praising are not Caucasians. Gasp!

Take care,
PK