I am sure we can all agree on a million reasons why the NBA sucks; however, David Stern has provided yet another reason to hate the NBA...
Last night the Spurs sat 4 key players...3 starters and their 6th man. Popovich said he made the decision based on their schedule and felt it was in the best interest of his team...If you don't know the Spurs are as old as dirt and Pops was resting them for the long haul. He did the same thing last season towards the end. It was a road game so it is not like the home crowed got screwed out of seeing "their" guys play. David Stern came out and said "I apologize to all NBA fans," Stern said. "This was an unacceptable decision by the San Antonio Spurs and substantial sanctions will be forthcoming."
My question is why? The Spurs were up most of the game and were up 7 with a little more than 2 minutes to go before some late game heroics by the Heat. The Spurs didn't come out...roll over and concede the game. Is Stern sorry that the Spurs came out with their backups and nearly knocked off the beloved Heat and it shouldn't have happened?
EDITED: I do find it funny some of the things that are said in forums that would be considered just as offensive yet no one bats an eye...Oh well...I edited it.
Cheers!
Stopped reading at "not just because he is a jew"
Same.
Perfect example of why opening thread topics need to have a vote button.
There are some of us that actually like the NBA.
Also your Jew comment is not okay.
Dude...not cool.
You might want to take a look at the 11W commenting policy.
You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy
that jew comment was pretty ignorant because it has 0 to do with the topic. However, I agree that it's dumb for the Spurs to be punished. Popovich has done this on numerous occasions and with an older team he is simply preparing to play the Grizzlies (Western Conference Leader) on Saturday!!
I'd plus 1 you just for the name of the thread. The NBA does suck.
Run_Fido's favorite word is strawman.
I watch nba and love the cavs. I do agree it can get old and some would say it sucks but imo its not that bad when u have a team to follow and they are decent. It just sucks for ne becaue kyrie irving is made of glass.
O'Deez330
stark county football
Yeah, this is a bunch of crap. David Stern can tell you when you can and can't rest your players? I don't believe it was bias towards the Heat - it's David Stern worried about people not tuning in if they find out that the Spurs' key guys aren't playing. I didn't really care, no need to apologize to me.
Class of 2010.
I agree, since I am not a Cavs fan, I still want Lebron to win. But last night I was cheering for the Spurs just to make Stern look like an idiot for saying he would sanction them before the game. Spurs nearly pulled it out, but by playing close they still make Stern look dumb.
Funny how many teams do this near the end of the season to prevent injury when they have already locked up their seed in the playoffs and that teams that are horrible and "tank" on purpose to get a better chance and winning the lottery, yet Stern has an issue with this?
I have no problem with it. If Stern says its for competitive nature: then he doesn't understand basketball and that any team can win any night, and if Stern says its because people pay money to see certain players: Pop said he was going to do this a long time ago and who in Miami wants to see the boring Spurs play when they have Wade and Lebron.
Plus, maybe Stern should have thought about the schedule better. 4 games in 5 days on a 6 game road trip? 11 road games in a month? That is crazy!
I approve any post where the statement, "the NBA sucks", is made. NBA stands for Not Bothering (to watch) Anymore where I'm concerned.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
I like the NBA. Its a far superior brand of basketball. The notion that people don't play defense is laughable too. Its not that guys don't play D, but like the NFL the rules are leaning towards the offense so its a little harder to play it. Of course, Chicago, Miami, San Antonio and such still play a high level of defensive basketball and generally speaking your playoff teams are more often than not good defensive teams too.
College basketball bores the absolute tar out of me. I'm sorry but I couldn't care less about guys who work really hard but suck at their sport, comparatively.
I'd watch Lebron do his taxes before I'd ever watch another minute of Whatever Plumlee is Still playing.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Please clarify, because otherwise the above point might be construed as a circular argument. For example, someone might ask, "Why do you think that brand X (e.g. the NBA) is better than brand Y (e.g., college basketball)? And you respond, "Because it's a far superior brand . . ."
No question, NBA players are superior talents, but it's open to opinion, personal taste, etc., which overall product is better. Because you probably don't mean that superior talent necessarily = superior overall product. For example, the players in the NBA All-Star game are superior to the players in the Final Four, but I strongly suspect that you'd rather watch the F4?
Establishing that point, I'd argue that college basketball is a superior brand of basketball.
College Basketball provides exciting, dramatic games. The level of drama in a game doesn't always coincide with the quality of basketball played. Duke\Butler was one of the more exciting basketball games in recent memory it was hideously played. People tend to get caught up in excitement and sometimes look past quality. I get that people like college sports more than pro sports and there are a lot of good reasons for that. Tradition, pageantry, etc. What is never mentioned is quality. No one watches College Basketball over NBA basketball because the quality of play is better. No one watches College Football over Pro Football because the games are of a higher quality.
For me, its the athleticism exhibited by anyone on the court at any given time. LeBron running the point of posting up from one play to the next, Dirk playing a small man's game at 7 feet tall, Carmello beating double teams en route to a 40 point night. Those sort of things.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
By your logic, though, if you are old enough to remember NFL games from the 1990s, that should have been the apex of your football watching enjoyment.
The 1990s Dallas Cowboys, for example, would obliterate any of the watered-down teams currently in the NFL. The "athleticism exhibited" by current NFL teams - which benefit from modest improvements to training techniques, etc. - is perhaps marginally superior to the 1990s; however, the dynasties of that era were able to stockpile absolute freaks of nature that would dominate the game in any era (off the top of my head . . . Charles Haley, Michael Irvin, Nate Newton, Mark Stepnoski, Erik Williams, Ken Norton, Jr., Russell Maryland . . .).
The NFC Championship games of that era represented the highest display of pure "quality," as you suggest, as we've ever seen. The Super Bowls - which usually resulted in the NFC team winning by 20 or 30 points - were a step down from that, but still superior in "quality" compared to today's NFL because at least they included one team of highly superior quality.
I disagree. The NFL has made the dynasty a thing of the past but the league itself is no less watered down today than it was when Dallas still mattered. You are taking the premiere team of the era and making a broader statement about the NFL at that time compared to this one. The players continue to be more athletic and schemes continue to evolve. The 9ers, Cowboys, and Packers (to a lesser extent) were the toast of the league then the way the Pats, Packers, and Giants are now-they are simply better run organizations than their adversaries. There isn't really a Cowboys like dynasty in today's game because the NFL doesn't want that anymore. But today's players are far superior athletes to even their predecessors from 15-20 years ago. Back then there were bad teams just like there are today. The league is better top to bottom than it was back then. Linemen are just as big but more athletic, receivers are bigger and faster, tight ends have been totally revolutionized, and the quarterback is the most complete athlete on the field in a lot of cases. The league prevents teams like the Cowboys from happening again but if Free Agency wasn't such a dynasty killer, you'd see more like them these days, not less.
On a slightly unrelated note, take Michael Irvin off that list. There is no more undeserving NFL "Great" than him. I couldn't care less how much of a jackass he is, he is the most over rated player in the hall of fame.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
No, I'm saying that the better 1990s Dallas Cowboys teams would beat the living s--- out of the 2000s New England Patriots or the NYG Super Bowl champs of the last few years. They'd call off the dogs after they got up by 30 or 40 points. It would be an absolutely brutal curb stomping.
The Cowboys were stocked with Hall of Famers. They had no weaknesses at any positional units - OL, QB, RB, WR, TE, DL, LB, DB, ST.
Whereas the Patriots, for example, found innovative ways to build the least mediocre team in a league approximating near total parity. Usually, these Patriots would have a few very good units - always including Brady at QB - but several major weaknesses that were not fully exploited because their opponents had their own major weaknesses.
The margins between the most of the better and most of the worse NFL teams are now neglible, with a few outliers. And team "quality" is very fragile, dependent on a few franchise players. The Colts went 10-6 with Peyton Manning in 2010. The next year, without that one player, they were the worst team in the NFL. This year, with a new QB performing a high level, they're on the rise again.
Personally, I find the current NFL to be almost Mickeymouse unwatchable. The NFL playoffs have become a tournament that can be won by any of the - what? - 12 (or is it now 16?) teams that make the playoffs? Last year, the NYGs were 7-7 in week 14 and the NY media and fans were blasting them as a pathetic team and so forth.
I really laugh when two equally-matched (read: mediocre) teams play in a coin toss type game that could go either way. Team-A wins when a Team-B fumble bounces their way. After the game, the "analysts" spend 20 minutes explaining why Team-A is superior to Team-B.
I see today's NFL as contrived, but - hell - they're laughing all the way to the bank.
I'm willing to admit I'm missing your point about Dallas. That was one of the greatest teams ever constructed because Dallas could construct a team that way, but its no less unfair to take the NBA and say "well they'd stand no chance against the 72-10 Bulls". No offense but you aren't exactly reinventing the wheel there. Those Dallas teams were 70's Steelers, 80's 9ers good. I get that. But that doesn't speak to better talent or football being at its apex during that time.
I'm more of the mind that the more advanced a game gets the better it is. A lot of people fall into the "Older is better" trap while I am falling into the "Newer is better" trap. I guess its a matter of preference. I don't care for some of the rule changes the NFL has made but I do prefer the talent and athleticism of today's players. Not to say Emmit or Barry weren't talented-those are guys who can cross generations. I just see really like the evoluation of todays big men, the speed at which defensive linemen and linebackers play is just mind boggling to me.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
For BREWSTER:
It was all about buying Rings. Jerry was doing it at Dallas just as DeBartolo was at SF during that time. Look at the players Dallas bought from SF (Haley and Sanders) so they could win. Hence the salary cap. No more super teams that can simply buy championships. Now, if only MLB would follow suit and stop making teams like the Reds farm teams for the Yankees of the world.
Thanks for giving my point fair consideration.
I definitely would not say that older is better. The NFL players are better overall now, but as you mention, in the 90s, there were fewer teams, no salary caps, rules not as geared around protecting star QBs. The 90s teams were better than the 80s teams were better than the 70s teams. The 2000s and 2010s would have been better yet, except for the expansion and the newer rules/dynamics that were designed to keep fans of all teams excited about their teams. Back in the day, the TB Bucs were horrendous for like 15 years in a row.
That wasn't good for business. Because I'm a casual NFL fan with no serious allegiance to any team, though, it's less interesting for me now. I remember those epic heavweight battles between the Cowboys and Niners - I knew even as I watching those games that I was witnessing history. I almost never feel like that now watching the NFL playoffs. It's a tournament of relatively even teams, any one of which can win it all if they get hot. Whereas the big dogs back in the day would almost always win their first round games, now there's little homefield (or expected) advantage for the team with the best regular season record.
I don't expect people to agree with me necessarily because maybe they're fans of KC, Seattle, or Minnesota and they don't want to be sentenced to prolonged periods of not making the playoffs. But I figured that you should partly see things my way because of how much you prioritize pure greatness of ability.
I loved the 90's. I played YMCA football for the Cowboys a 'few years ago' and as a kid, you tend to follow the team you play for. Been following them ever since. I loved Robert Newhouse and his pass to Golden Richards in the Super Bowl against the Orange Crush.
I also forgot to add this: I HATE THE SALARY CAP!
College basketball, talentwise, is watered down. I enjoy the competition as much as the next guy but the 1 and done rule has really weakened the sport. If the major programs weren't even getting those kids because they CAN go directly to the NBA, then they would probably have better teams all around and there would be better basketball played in said games. Rules and other things have changed the game but the biggest change has been the horrible team play and scoring. It's barely over a decade that teams used to be able to score in the 100's constantly. Now, not even last years UK team could do that.
Nothing more exciting than the tourney but the team play has gotten horrible.
I agree. They need to follow the NFL and require 3 years removed from high school. I forget what the ranking is called that penalizes you on players that leave early, but that makes it hard when you have 1 and Dones every year.
It's not that they don't play defense (plenty players don't but plenty don't play decent D in college either) it's that the NBA rules are stacked against a defense being successful. I love the NBA but it's more so as a guilty pleasure type of thing. It gets me riled up and frustrated to no end watching an important playoff game because of some of the rules and inconsistencies. The officiating has to be the worst in sports...but that's not an indictment on the officials because I think it's probably the most difficult reffing gig there is. I think all of that's part of what keeps me coming back though. The NBA truly is just like watching WWF or something. It's got freakish athletic talents, constant drama/ridiculous storylines, heels and faces, shaky reffing (and tons of interaction between the players and refs) and an active in the scenes commish like Vince McMahon who doesn't mind playing a heel when he needs to.
I like a nice dunk as well as the next guy, but I have really enjoyed watching women's college basketball. You don't get all the posturing and out of control play. They pass, they cut, they set picks and use them, and some of those girls can really shoot the ball. I think it is currently the purest version of the sport.
Sure, you don't get to witness the freakish feats of athleticism, but if you really love Hoosiers Jimmy Chitwood style basketball, you can do a lot worse than watching the women play.
Just because they're more deliberate and straight forward with cuts and screens, running to the right spots running the offense and things of that nature doesn't make it more pure. What does make it truly pure? The only thing pure about the sport is finding ways within the context of the rules to put the basketball in the basket. I've watched one women's game this year and it was turnovers galore and at times turned into bumble bee basketball with everyone just crowded under the basket and then the ball emerges out of the crowd for an airball from 2 feet away from the basket. Then a cluster of people batting the ball around until either another airball was shot or the ball was dropped out of bounds. 80% of the game was totally out of control. Sure when they got into their sets they would run and run and run the set through but if it ever broke down it just turned into chaos.
Sounds like you saw a really crappy game. I guess purity is in the eye of the beholder.
Frankly the season is just entirely too long and the games have little to no meaning. Teams capable of winning it all rarely even care about seeding, as simply making the playoffs is fine. On top of that, half the teams make the playoffs so it's not like it is that difficult anyway.
I would love to see them play something like twice a week for 20 weeks and then a single elimination tournament, but there is no way in h*** they will ever give up that many games.
What would you do with MLB? They play twice as many games.
That season needs shortened for sure. When you wear winter coats for the opening games and the playoffs, or when snow postpones a game (Indians a year or so ago) it should be a big hint that your season is too long.
I would allow them to play from May 1 to October 31. They can play as many games as they want during that time. There is nothing like living in a baseball city during the summer and being able to pick up tickets on the cheap. Something easy and fun to do almost any night.
The major difference between these two leagues for me is the number of playoff teams. The NBA just lets in entirely too many garbage teams.
Actually what I would do, which would increase attendance at every stadium, is set beer prices at a maximum of 4 dollars a beer.
I agree. The NBA has 30 teams and 16 of them qualify for the postseason.
I didn't know Mel Gibson posted here?!
I loved Apocalpyto, but I still think you're a bigot.
Anyway, I love the NBA and college basketball, BUT the quality of college basketball has largely dwindled over the last decade , either because of one and dones or AAU (which is a whole diff subject) but there is still great basketball being played at the collegiate levels. If you're a real BASKETBALL fan you enjoy Calipari's dribble drive offense, and Popovich's defensive sets. The best basketball players in th world are playing in the NBA. Point blank period. You just have to know what teams to watch.
The only thing I would do to change the NBA is cutting out about 15 20 games and getting rid of about 5 teams.
I dislike the NBA so much I upvoted everyone who commented before this!
The only NBA games I watch involve the Cleveland Cavaliers.
"I like to kick Michigan's ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of gum."
That is silly that Stern is limiting what Pop can do. As a life-long Spurs fan, that is ridiculous. When a team can almost beat the beloved posterchild of the NBA with their subs in for most of the game, people are not disappointed with the game. SAS are a family franchise more so than almost any other team out there, and Pop watches out for his players. What's wrong with him resting his players some games? I remember last year that Duncan missed a game with the reason simply being "old." It's not up to Stern to decided how a coach manages his aging players; that is something that the coach and staff should decide.
NBA v. NCAA basketball: It is up to your preference. I like watching college since it is as much talent as it is execution and game planning. The NBA is fun to watch all the best play. Granted, I can do with less dunks and more midranged game, but that's me.
funny comment per twitter. -paraphrased-
...does this mean we can expect to see Joey Crawford work the San Antionio Memphis game?...
~Because we couldn't go for three~