NBA Playoffs

Syd · June 15, 2007, 01:48:48 PM

Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on June 15, 2007, 01:33:27 PM
Well the Spurs win their 3rd title in 5 years - is it too early to call them a dynasty?

I think you can call them a dynasty, the one constant has been Tim Duncan. He is the anti-Kobe Bryant, doesent care about stats or persoanl glory, just wants to win.

SammyG · June 15, 2007, 01:50:27 PM

Probably the worst finals in living memory and the US viewing figures have been terrible. I'd imagine there'll be a major shake-up in the next couple of years (if not next year) to introduce a proper seeding system and try and get two decent teams in the Finals.

Syd · June 15, 2007, 01:57:09 PM

Quote from: SammyG on June 15, 2007, 01:50:27 PM
Probably the worst finals in living memory and the US viewing figures have been terrible. I'd imagine there'll be a major shake-up in the next couple of years (if not next year) to introduce a proper seeding system and try and get two decent teams in the Finals.

I think the problem is that the Western Conference is far superior to the East so im not sure how they can fix that. The Spurs were something like 1-5 to win the series with the bookies.

Gabriel_Hurl · June 15, 2007, 02:00:13 PM

I'm not comparing Duncan to Jordan - but he's every bit as important to the Spurs winning those titles as Jordan was to the Bulls.

Good to see Tony Parker win the MVP - and it's hard to believe he's a French citizen who was born in Belgium.

And the lucky fecker marries Eva Longoria next month

Gabriel_Hurl · June 15, 2007, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: SammyG on June 15, 2007, 01:50:27 PM
Probably the worst finals in living memory and the US viewing figures have been terrible. I'd imagine there'll be a major shake-up in the next couple of years (if not next year) to introduce a proper seeding system and try and get two decent teams in the Finals.

There has been rumblings in the last week about ranking the teams 1 to 16 irrespective of conference

magpie seanie · June 15, 2007, 02:01:56 PM

It seems to me that things like that are cyclical with US sports. When I first watched the NFL the NFC team would almost always win the Superbowl. Now its the other way around.

SammyG · June 15, 2007, 02:03:50 PM

Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on June 15, 2007, 02:00:59 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 15, 2007, 01:50:27 PM
Probably the worst finals in living memory and the US viewing figures have been terrible. I'd imagine there'll be a major shake-up in the next couple of years (if not next year) to introduce a proper seeding system and try and get two decent teams in the Finals.

There has been rumblings in the last week about ranking the teams 1 to 16 irrespective of conference

Yep, I think that's the most likely outcome. They've got to do something, this years Finals were breaking records for some of the lowest viewing figures in history.

Syd · June 15, 2007, 02:09:35 PM

One thing you can say is the finals were a good advertisemnt for the NFL draft. Duncan and James were both No 1 picks and came in to help struggling teams.

J70 · June 15, 2007, 02:13:20 PM

Quote from: Syd on June 15, 2007, 01:57:09 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 15, 2007, 01:50:27 PM
Probably the worst finals in living memory and the US viewing figures have been terrible. I'd imagine there'll be a major shake-up in the next couple of years (if not next year) to introduce a proper seeding system and try and get two decent teams in the Finals.

I think the problem is that the Western Conference is far superior to the East so im not sure how they can fix that. The Spurs were something like 1-5 to win the series with the bookies.

The East is so bad that the Knicks, with no chance of even approaching a 0.5 season, were in contention for a play-off spot until the last week or two of the regular season!

J70 · June 15, 2007, 02:14:30 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 15, 2007, 02:01:56 PM
It seems to me that things like that are cyclical with US sports. When I first watched the NFL the NFC team would almost always win the Superbowl. Now its the other way around.

I remember that. It went on for well over a decade until Elway and the Broncos finally did it.

Syd · June 15, 2007, 02:20:01 PM

Quote from: J70 on June 15, 2007, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: Syd on June 15, 2007, 01:57:09 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 15, 2007, 01:50:27 PM
Probably the worst finals in living memory and the US viewing figures have been terrible. I'd imagine there'll be a major shake-up in the next couple of years (if not next year) to introduce a proper seeding system and try and get two decent teams in the Finals.

I think the problem is that the Western Conference is far superior to the East so im not sure how they can fix that. The Spurs were something like 1-5 to win the series with the bookies.

In fairness the Number 7/8 seeds are always around the 0.500 mark, Lakers & Warriors were both 42-40. And in the West this year the Number 8 seeds (Warriors) beat Number 1 seeds (Mavericks).

full back · June 15, 2007, 02:21:57 PM

Quote from: Syd on June 15, 2007, 02:09:35 PM
One thing you can say is the finals were a good advertisemnt for the NFL draft. Duncan and James were both No 1 picks and came in to help struggling teams.

Em, I think maybe you are getting a bit confused the Sid

Syd · June 15, 2007, 02:27:11 PM

Its Friday afternoon, you will give me a bye ball !

Oraisteach · June 15, 2007, 03:55:17 PM

The funny thing is, as dominant as the Spurs were, the Cavs' defence played them tough, and if the Cavs' 3-point shooters, LeBron included, had even vaguely approached a modicum of respectability with wide-open shots (my daughter has a way better 3-point shooting percentage), then the series would be tied 2-2 going in to Game 5. But don't get me wrong, the Spurs are a much better team. Time to turn to the Indians and be disappointed again.