Ripper Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 Isn't balloting spread across different sports reporters? So you'd have to get some homer votes. But casting a insanely biased vote should stop you from ever being able to vote again. Like that PJ Brown vote that year.
Failed Bridge Posted May 17, 2007 Report Posted May 17, 2007 anybody read the new Bill Simmons article on ESPN? Makes some great points about different NBA rules and puts Bruce Bowen's dirty style in the spotlight.
Cheech Tremendous Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Jeff Van Gundy was fired by the Houston Rockets today. Rick Adelman is the expected replacement. Not sure I understand this move. I know they lost in the first round again, but it was to a better team in 7 games. They still won 52 this year, which is the best they've done in as long as I can remember. I know a lot of the fanbase doesn't like his micromanaging style, but he still got a lot of mileage out of that roster.
Boon Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 anybody read the new Bill Simmons article on ESPN? Makes some great points about different NBA rules and puts Bruce Bowen's dirty style in the spotlight. I like Bill, but this is my problem with him: And if you don't start showing some humility and urgency about what happened the past two years, and you don't start recognizing that your fans are legitimately concerned that none of you have any idea what you're doing, here's what will happen: you're going to get written off by the majority of your entire fan base (basically, everyone with an IQ over 80) until all three of you are gone. He's delusional if he thinks there is anybody left who hasn't already written off the Celtics brass. As soon as Ainge came out and said draft picks #3-6 were all impact, NBA-ready players and the line between them and #1-2 was small, I knew it was over.
Ripper Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Jeff Van Gundy was fired by the Houston Rockets today. Rick Adelman is the expected replacement. Not sure I understand this move. I know they lost in the first round again, but it was to a better team in 7 games. They still won 52 this year, which is the best they've done in as long as I can remember. I know a lot of the fanbase don't like his micromanaging style, but he still got a lot of mileage out of that roster. They have gone as far as they possibly can with him as coach. I don't see what else his style can do for that team. They were out slowed down and out grinded in a series that they seriously should have won.
The Niggardly King Posted May 20, 2007 Report Posted May 20, 2007 So yeah, SLAM ANTONIO/DETROIT being the new Lakers/Celtics that nobody really wants to see is tremendous.
bobobrazil1984 Posted May 21, 2007 Report Posted May 21, 2007 the nba's Finals ratings problems are league-wide as a whole, not centered on San Antonio. The Mavs and the Heat managed to raise the average Finals rating........... a whopping 0.3 points, from 8.2 (Pistons/Spurs) to 8.5 (Mavs/Heat) - 2nd and 3rd lowest rated Finals. And that's with an "exciting" superstar D-Wade. Somehow I dont see the Cavs being the antidote.
Kurt Angle Mark Posted May 21, 2007 Report Posted May 21, 2007 the nba's Finals ratings problems are league-wide as a whole, not centered on San Antonio. The Mavs and the Heat managed to raise the average Finals rating........... a whopping 0.3 points, from 8.2 (Pistons/Spurs) to 8.5 (Mavs/Heat) - 2nd and 3rd lowest rated Finals. And that's with an "exciting" superstar D-Wade. Somehow I dont see the Cavs being the antidote. The Biggest Problem IMO is that almost the games in the first three rounds are on cable. It completely limits the amount of viewers who follow the play-offs from beginning to the end. There is no natural build up the the Finals. You can't expect to go from having 3-7 million people watching on cable to having 15 or so million watching the Finals
Just John Posted May 21, 2007 Report Posted May 21, 2007 Jeff Van Gundy was fired by the Houston Rockets today. Rick Adelman is the expected replacement. Not sure I understand this move. I know they lost in the first round again, but it was to a better team in 7 games. They still won 52 this year, which is the best they've done in as long as I can remember. I know a lot of the fanbase doesn't like his micromanaging style, but he still got a lot of mileage out of that roster. I think it's worth a shot. Adelman's a more up-tempo coach and the Rockets looked their best under JVG when they were scoring 100-110 a game, not grinding it out to an 85-90 point game. When they moved fast, they got better looks at the basket from inside and at the 3-pt line. The half court execution was always inconsistent because there was only one playmaker. If anyone slowed down T-Mac, the Rockets fell apart. I think Jeff did some good things for the Rockets, but it isn't going to get any better. He's too stubborn with his system that isn't a 100% fit for the personnel. The Utah series badly exposed this, and it's time to move on.
Brett Favre Posted May 21, 2007 Report Posted May 21, 2007 the nba's Finals ratings problems are league-wide as a whole, not centered on San Antonio. The Mavs and the Heat managed to raise the average Finals rating........... a whopping 0.3 points, from 8.2 (Pistons/Spurs) to 8.5 (Mavs/Heat) - 2nd and 3rd lowest rated Finals. And that's with an "exciting" superstar D-Wade. Somehow I dont see the Cavs being the antidote. The Biggest Problem IMO is that almost the games in the first three rounds are on cable. It completely limits the amount of viewers who follow the play-offs from beginning to the end. There is no natural build up the the Finals. You can't expect to go from having 3-7 million people watching on cable to having 15 or so million watching the Finals Good point. Damn I miss NBA on NBC.
alfdogg Posted May 22, 2007 Author Report Posted May 22, 2007 According to media outlets in Houston, Adelman will be announced as new coach of the Rockets on Wednesday.
KingPK Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 Draft lottery tonight. The Celtics should get #3 or 4 just for giving Rivers that extension.
Danville_Wrestling Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 I wouldn't be surprised to see the NBA rig this draft lottery and have Boston get the #1 pick and Memphis ending up with #3 or #4. I really don't believe in the whole conspiracy thing but everyone knows that the NBA desperately wants to resurrect the Boston/New York/Philadelphia franchises.
Cheech Tremendous Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 The idea that the NBA would rig the lottery is absolutely preposterous.
Guest Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 The NBA does not need the Celtics and 76ers to be good, and the other leagues do not need specific cities to have good teams. This is the biggest myth/misconception in sports. If the quality of the product is good, they're going to make money regardless of where the good teams are located.
Guest George's Box Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 The NBA does not need the Celtics and 76ers to be good, and the other leagues do not need specific cities to have good teams. This is the biggest myth/misconception in sports. If the quality of the product is good, they're going to make money regardless of where the good teams are located. Come on. It is important that the big markets do well. That's where the money is. That's no myth. Why would it be?
Cheech Tremendous Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 The reason that some people say it's a myth is because the NFL is the most successful sports organization in the United States and it is completely product driven. It doesn't matter where the teams come from because it's the name that sells. I don't see why the NBA and MLB can't create the same situation in their respective leagues.
Guest Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 It's not nearly as important as everyone makes it out to be. New York hasn't won a title since '71. Boston's been up and down since the late 80's, ditto Philadelphia. Sure it's nice to have one big market doing well, but it's not that big of a deal. There's so many big markets that one of them is going to be doing well, regardless. I don't think that the NBA needs to rig lotteries so that all of them can be running great at the same time, it just isn't going to happen. People didn't watch Lakers-Celtics because it was Lakers-Celtics. They watched it because both of those teams were great, and (obv.) Magic v. Bird.
Guest George's Box Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 Don't you think it would be more advantageous to have Michael Jordan on the Chicago Bulls rather than, say, the Sacramento Kings?
Black Lushus Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 flat out rigging the NBA? no doing little things to HOPEFULLY influence outcomes? absolutely.
Guest Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 Of course. But people are going to watch greatness no matter where their homecourt may be. In regards to MJ.
Cheech Tremendous Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 The Lakers run from 2000-2002 produced the worst ratings in twenty years, although they have gotten even worse since then. The Mets-Yankees in 2000 was a disaster as well. Pitt-Seattle, I believe is the most watched Super Bowl ever. There are a lot of factors that go into the success of a league. It doesn't hurt to have the big boys be good, but I hardly think the fate of the league depends on it.
Guest Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 The Conference Finals had the best ratings during that Laker era, simply because people knew they were going to get a good series. People will watch a good product. Game 2 of Mets-Dodgers got a 1.7 rating, just to point out that markets mean nothing.
Guest Vitamin X Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 Don't you think it would be more advantageous to have Michael Jordan on the Chicago Bulls rather than, say, the Sacramento Kings? Well, do you think it would be more beneficial for Lebron James to stay with the Cavs or go to the Knicks or Lakers as the rumor keeps flying around that he eventually will in a few year? The NBA, unlike other professional sports leagues out there, puts a lot of franchises into mid-sized cities, much moreso than the NFL which is centered around very large markets (with the exception of Green Bay, of course). Just examine how there's teams in Orlando, Charlotte, Sacramento, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Portland (although PDX deserves at least an MLB franchise as well) So, I think that would make it seem like the NBA could use the additional revenue from having the big cities do well. Or, it could appeal to more people because they have teams in more accessible spots. All of those cities I just named up above, with the exception of Charlotte, has no other pro sports teams in the big 4. The NBA has been traditionally successful because of their small to mid sized market appeal, so I suppose that would make a case for not really needing a big city's team to be successful.
Black Lushus Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 I wouldn't blame the Lakers for the ratings...for god's sake they were playing the freaking Nets and Pacers!
Ripper Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 Dear god don't let Atlanta get the third pick. Then Billy Knight would have to think.
Edwin MacPhisto Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 Haha. Sorry, Ripper. Seattle and Portland win big!
Ripper Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 Sigh. God dammit. Oh and Portland....Oden, Aldridge is one HELL of a front line.
The Electrifyer Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 I love how Jon Barry's idea for Portland to trade the number 1 pick just got shot down to violently.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now