Why do you watch the NBA?

[Natebishop3]

I'm just curious, I was watching some of the highlights of the game last night and it was so obvious how bad the reffing was.

Has your love for the NBA lessened over the years?

What would make you finally stop caring?

Do you think the Blazers could ever actually win another championship?

 

[jlprk]

My grandfather says that TV used to have a lot more college basketball games than NBA. Basketball fans knew several local college rosters, and what their personalities were, just as well as they did their one local pro team.

Fans had options--alternative loyalties enabling them to vent frustration against one team. Alas, computers have made it a better, simpler world. I wish that old bastard would hurry up and kick the bucket and give me his money.

 

[BBert]

Habit.

 

[julius]

Only watch the Blazers, and because of the CSN thing, I don't really watch them much at all.

I haven't been an NBA fan in well over a decade.

 

[RR7]

love hasn't lessened. Has probably gotten stronger, really.
Can't really think of what would make me stop caring. I suppose if I moved somewhere without a team, and started to get older with more time commitments.
I do think the Blazers can win a title.

 

[BBert]

Nowadays, I only watch the Blazers. I rarely do that since I don't have Comsuck.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Well I think location is a big part of the NBA if you are a believer in the NBA conspiracy theories. Look at this map http://www.sportmapworld.com/map/Basketball/north-america/nba/ then look at all the teams that have played and won the NBA Championship. I also think that Texas is a perfect location for a small market city to win championship.

2000 Los Angeles Lakers 4–2 Indiana Pacers
2001 Los Angeles Lakers 4–1 Philadelphia 76ers
2002 Los Angeles Lakers 4–0 New Jersey Nets
2003 San Antonio Spurs 4–2 New Jersey Nets
2004 Los Angeles Lakers 1–4 Detroit Pistons
2005 San Antonio Spurs 4–3 Detroit Pistons
2006 Dallas Mavericks 2–4 Miami Heat
2007 San Antonio Spurs 4–0 Cleveland Cavaliers
2008 Los Angeles Lakers 2–4 Boston Celtics
2009 Los Angeles Lakers 4–1 Orlando Magic
2010 Los Angeles Lakers 4–3 Boston Celtics
2011 Dallas Mavericks 4–2 Miami Heat
2012 Oklahoma City Thunder 1–4 Miami Heat

 

[Natebishop3]

Well I think location is a big part of the NBA if you are a believer in the NBA conspiracy theories. Look at this map http://www.sportmapworld.com/map/Basketball/north-america/nba/ then look at all the teams that have played and won the NBA Championship. I also think that Texas is a perfect location for a small market city to win championship.

2000 Los Angeles Lakers 4–2 Indiana Pacers
2001 Los Angeles Lakers 4–1 Philadelphia 76ers
2002 Los Angeles Lakers 4–0 New Jersey Nets
2003 San Antonio Spurs 4–2 New Jersey Nets
2004 Los Angeles Lakers 1–4 Detroit Pistons
2005 San Antonio Spurs 4–3 Detroit Pistons
2006 Dallas Mavericks 2–4 Miami Heat
2007 San Antonio Spurs 4–0 Cleveland Cavaliers
2008 Los Angeles Lakers 2–4 Boston Celtics
2009 Los Angeles Lakers 4–1 Orlando Magic
2010 Los Angeles Lakers 4–3 Boston Celtics
2011 Dallas Mavericks 4–2 Miami Heat
2012 Oklahoma City Thunder 1–4 Miami Heat

How many of those teams have won without a superstar?

The Pistons.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm just a sucker. Probably think wwf is real too!

 

[Denny Crane]

How many of those teams have won without a superstar?

The Pistons.

The Pistons had multiple superstars.

 

[RR7]

Probably think wwf is real too!

What am I supposed to believe, that they're NOT trying to save pandas and elephants

 

[julius]

The Pistons had multiple superstars.

Not in 04 they didn't.

 

[magnifier661]

What am I supposed to believe, that they're NOT trying to save pandas and elephants

Hahhahaha

 

[Denny Crane]

Not in 04 they didn't.

Sure they did.

They were so good that a guy named Sheed was their #3 guy when he was the #1 guy elsewhere.

The other Wallace was one of the two best defensive players in NBA history.

 

[Haakzilla]

Not in 04 they didn't.

...define "superstar"

 

[Rhal]

-I still love the game of basketball and i'm a big Fantasy BBall player so thats why I continue to watch teams other then the Blazers. I feel like the NBA is more like WWE then Football and it can be fun to watch as long as you don't care about how retarded the reffing can be. The Storylines that come out in the playoffs are fun and its really enjoyable to see a young player take that final step and become a star.

 

[julius]

Sure they did.

They were so good that a guy named Sheed was their #3 guy when he was the #1 guy elsewhere.

The other Wallace was one of the two best defensive players in NBA history.

Rasheed was not a superstar.

Rasheed, even in his best years, was not on par with Kobe, or LeBron, or Wade, Or Shaq, or KG, or Duncan.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I like sports. I played for West Linn one year in HS and I'm just a sports nut.

That said, the NBA refs do, by full admission, give calls to certain players and teams. It does detract from my enjoyment of the game but I still like sports. I view the NBA somewhat like fake wrestling. Not entirely but somewhat as the game outcomes at times are pretty much predetermined by the refs/league unless one of the teams has an incredibly off or hot shooting night. Last night was a good example. The refs made intentional decisions to ensure a Laker victory for the most part and that part is frustrating.

As to Portland winning another title- absolutely. We have a distinct disadvantage as we are a small market and the NBA doesn't like small market teams winning titles, but San Antonio did it. Se we can too.

 

[Rhal]

Sure they did.

They were so good that a guy named Sheed was their #3 guy when he was the #1 guy elsewhere.

The other Wallace was one of the two best defensive players in NBA history.

Sheed was never a #1 guy, he didn't want it. Great 2 or 3 but couldn't take the pressure of being a #1. No one on that team was a superstar, they had stars but not superstars.

 

[speeds]

The NBA, especially over the last decade, seems less legitimate. MLB comes close.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sheed was never a #1 guy, he didn't want it. Great 2 or 3 but couldn't take the pressure of being a #1. No one on that team was a superstar, they had stars but not superstars.

Well, Billups was their #1, and he won MVP in the Finals. He was that good.

I think they were a better team than the KG/Pierce/Allen team that won it.

Their superstars sacrificed stats for winning (made all those finals and ECFs). Doesn't make them lesser players.

 

[RoyToy]

Well, Billups was their #1, and he won MVP in the Finals. He was that good.

I think they were a better team than the KG/Pierce/Allen team that won it.

Their superstars sacrificed stats for winning (made all those finals and ECFs). Doesn't make them lesser players.

Hell no. Hell no. Hell no.

and Ben Wallace's defense is overrated. He was not a great man defender. I'd take Kevin Garnett on defense over him.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm not going to attempt to argue with Denny, because I spent a good hour trying to argue his definition of a "pass first point guard", so trying to argue his definition of a "superstar" will prove equally fruitless.

 

[RR7]

I'm not going to attempt to argue with Denny, because I spent a good hour trying to argue his definition of a "pass first point guard", so trying to argue his definition of a "superstar" will prove equally fruitless.

lol, I'd say Stockton non-superstar, score first PG. Might as well call him an undersized 2, really.

 

[Rhal]

Well, Billups was their #1, and he won MVP in the Finals. He was that good.

I think they were a better team than the KG/Pierce/Allen team that won it.

Their superstars sacrificed stats for winning (made all those finals and ECFs). Doesn't make them lesser players.

Just because he won a finals MVP doesn't make him a superstar. Tony parker has one and he isn't a superstar. The team that wins the finals is the team that gets the finals MVP too, just works that way no matter how good the other teams players were.
To compare them to the 07 Celtics or any of the big 3 teams and say they were better is something I just can't see. 07 the celtics won 66 games and 08 they started out 27-2 (best starting record ever) and would likely have won it all again if KG hadn't been injured and then shelved. The worst of the big 3 (Ray allen imo) is better then whatever play you want to say was the best player on the 04 pistons. Wallace is a great defender but KG is a better defender and probably the best or second best PF defender of all time.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I more "like" the NBA than "love" it now-a-days, but it's probably been that way since they traded Clyde. As for the refs and the WWF-ication of the the game, yeah it's definitely taken some of my interest out of the game, but I still watch because every now and then I see something really amazing.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

well, last nighs game removes the question of if the NBA is rigged or not. That has become ovbious. I still love BBall, but am disgusted with the nba

 

[Natebishop3]

The only reason why I still watch is Lillard.

 

[EGame]

I don't watch much other games other than the Blazers. I use to be a big fan of the NBA, but with superteams forming and the WWE refs, my interest has gone down to just the Blazers. I think the Blazers can win a championship, they have the right pieces currently, but it is now up to Neil Olshey and crew to find the missing pieces. A core of Lillard, Batum, and Aldridge is nice. Find a defensive minded center who rebounds (if he isn't a stiff on offense even better) and a 6th man or just more decent bench role players. Of course if Aldridge demands to be traded, then I may give up hope of the Blazers ever winning because then eventually it will be Lillard and any other studs we get.

 

[magnifier661]

FYI, since stern took over as commissioner; only higher market teams win the title. Good news though... That little fucking cock sucking midget is retiring. Hopefully the new commish makes drastic changes that will equal the playing field.