- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,749
- Likes
- 75
- Points
- 48
Didn't know exactly where to put this thread but it seems ok here. I've heard some people debating this and thought I'd start a topic here.
My personal opinion is that the Warriors over the Mavs is the bigger upset. Of course, I'm a Warriors fan, but here is my reasoning:
- The W's beat the Mavs in a 7 game series. One could argue this wouldn't even make it an "upset" since the better team wins a 7 game series. 7 game series are designed to prevent upsets whereas single elimination games are more prone to upsets for obvious reasons. Stern even said something along the lines of "the Warriors aren't supposed to win" (he was clearly pissed that one of the big money/ratings producing teams was owned in the first round).
- The Warriors were a bubble playoff team and had homecourt disadvantage. The Giants were at least the NFC champions and had proven that they were legit and could play. The Warriors got into the playoffs on the last day of the season. Even though the G's were heavy underdogs a lot of people were still picking them to win,I'd say it was about 80-20 or 70-30 ratio of people picking Pats to Giants. How many people do you remember picking the Warriors to beat the Mavs before that series started? Hell how many people picked the Warriors to win after they won the first game?
- The argument will be made that the Pats had the best record of all time, which is completely valid, but the Mavs had the 6th best regular season record in the history of the NBA. Relatively, the Pats were the better team based on record compared to the competition, but the Mavs were also a historically great team.
What do you think?
My personal opinion is that the Warriors over the Mavs is the bigger upset. Of course, I'm a Warriors fan, but here is my reasoning:
- The W's beat the Mavs in a 7 game series. One could argue this wouldn't even make it an "upset" since the better team wins a 7 game series. 7 game series are designed to prevent upsets whereas single elimination games are more prone to upsets for obvious reasons. Stern even said something along the lines of "the Warriors aren't supposed to win" (he was clearly pissed that one of the big money/ratings producing teams was owned in the first round).
- The Warriors were a bubble playoff team and had homecourt disadvantage. The Giants were at least the NFC champions and had proven that they were legit and could play. The Warriors got into the playoffs on the last day of the season. Even though the G's were heavy underdogs a lot of people were still picking them to win,I'd say it was about 80-20 or 70-30 ratio of people picking Pats to Giants. How many people do you remember picking the Warriors to beat the Mavs before that series started? Hell how many people picked the Warriors to win after they won the first game?
- The argument will be made that the Pats had the best record of all time, which is completely valid, but the Mavs had the 6th best regular season record in the history of the NBA. Relatively, the Pats were the better team based on record compared to the competition, but the Mavs were also a historically great team.
What do you think?
