2011-12 NBA Season

[The_Admiral]

Well this has been my issue with the NBA marketing itself as a superstar league. Basketball is a team sport, not an individual sport

Except that the best player on a basketball team accounts for more gameplay per night than in any other team sport. If you don't want the NBA to market its superstars, then maybe they should have 25-man rosters, sixteen players on the floor at a given time, and separate offensive/defensive corps.

Or just don't market your sport that way.

But "Jordan! Ewing! It's the NBA on NBC!" represents people's fondest memories of the league and arguably its high-water mark. Where is this backlash against transcendent basketball players coming from? Is it because the saturation of college basketball coverage has exploded since the NBA's glory days, and too many people have internalized ESPN bloviating about OH BABY THESE HARD-WORKING KIDS WORK HARD AS A TEAM THIS IS WHAT BASKETBALL IS ALL ABOUT?

Also, I to this day scratch my head at

"the NBA should stop marketing players and re-emphasize teamwork and fundamentals!"

*Pistons and Spurs win four out of five championships by doing precisely this*

*DIES*

[Fox]

If the media did successful NBA teams any justice, the coverage of the Knicks and the Spurs would flip. The Knicks get so much attention, despite constant underachieving. I'm tired of hearing about how every season, THIS is going to be the season where the Knicks become a title contender. Yet the Spurs are the forgotten franchise on ESPN. They get almost no attention for having the top record in the west two years in a row. Along with that, Tony Parker is one of the top players in basketball. Better PG than Rondo, Westbrook, even Deron Williams IMO. Because they're not flashy, don't hang on the rim after every dunk, don't pound their chest and continuously bob their head up and down after every big shot, ESPN doesn't find them interesting enough to cover.

That's why I'm sticking to my pick of the Spurs winning it all. If that happens, I can't wait to see everybody at ESPN crap their pants and act like it's a surprise.

There are probably other teams too that don't get the same respect for their success that they deserve. Despite not having the same levels of success at San Antonio, the Hawks are another team that comes to mind, as well at this year's Pacers.

Anyone agree with me?

[HedleyLamarr]

What success have the Hawks had? They've never gotten past the second round since they moved to Atlanta. And Joe Johnson is a j-j-j-j-j-j-j-joke of a superstar.

[tBBP]

And as far as the Pacers...yes, they played their way into the top half of the East bracket following this abridged season, and they deserve all the credit in the world for that. Frank Vogel got them boys balling hard. BUT...they're also still young, and few outside of Indiana (shoot, maybe even outside Indianapolis) could name even one player on that team. And as their current postseason play is proving, they got a lot of growing to do. Now yes, they're up 3-1 to the Magic, but they also had to overcome losing a 19-point lead in the fourth to hang on by the skin of their teeth to win by two in overtime...to a team without its best player.

Sure, barring a complete meltdown, they'll win this series...but they are going to be up against it (to put it very mildly) in the next series. Now I don't expect the Pacers to go down quietly?those boys ain't no punks, not by any means?but their young mettle will be sorely tested. But then...this is how young teams learn and grow.

[The_Admiral]

Frank Vogel reminds me quite a bit of Lawrence Frank. Perhaps they should be surgically spliced into one uber-grindy coach, Lawrence Frank Vogel.

As for Pacers, I've got Danny Granger, Tyler Hansbrough, Paul George, that one tall white guy who fouls a lot, and, um, Reggie Miller?

[HolyStroke]

If the media did successful NBA teams any justice, the coverage of the Knicks and the Spurs would flip. The Knicks get so much attention, despite constant underachieving. I'm tired of hearing about how every season, THIS is going to be the season where the Knicks become a title contender. Yet the Spurs are the forgotten franchise on ESPN. They get almost no attention for having the top record in the west two years in a row. Along with that, Tony Parker is one of the top players in basketball. Better PG than Rondo, Westbrook, even Deron Williams IMO. Because they're not flashy, don't hang on the rim after every dunk, don't pound their chest and continuously bob their head up and down after every big shot, ESPN doesn't find them interesting enough to cover.

That's why I'm sticking to my pick of the Spurs winning it all. If that happens, I can't wait to see everybody at ESPN crap their pants and act like it's a surprise.

There are probably other teams too that don't get the same respect for their success that they deserve. Despite not having the same levels of success at San Antonio, the Hawks are another team that comes to mind, as well at this year's Pacers.

Anyone agree with me?

The Knicks get more coverage because New York is a way bigger market than San Antonio. ESPN is going to high ratings, not fair and equal air time

[pmoehrin]

Amare is playing.

Left hand heavily bandaged though and at least early on I haven't even seen him attempt to use anything other then his right hand.

[tBBP]

Frank Vogel reminds me quite a bit of Lawrence Frank. Perhaps they should be surgically spliced into one uber-grindy coach, Lawrence Frank Vogel.

As for Pacers, I've got Danny Granger, Tyler Hansbrough, Paul George, that one tall white guy who fouls a lot, and, um, Reggie Miller?

Now that you mention that, I can see that. For the longest time I'd been trying to think of who it was Frank Vogel reminded me of in terms of coaching style...that just cleared the cobwebs. I think the addition of David West really helped the scrappy attitude that team tends to have.

[Saint Zephyr III]

If the media did successful NBA teams any justice, the coverage of the Knicks and the Spurs would flip. The Knicks get so much attention, despite constant underachieving. I'm tired of hearing about how every season, THIS is going to be the season where the Knicks become a title contender. Yet the Spurs are the forgotten franchise on ESPN. They get almost no attention for having the top record in the west two years in a row. Along with that, Tony Parker is one of the top players in basketball. Better PG than Rondo, Westbrook, even Deron Williams IMO. Because they're not flashy, don't hang on the rim after every dunk, don't pound their chest and continuously bob their head up and down after every big shot, ESPN doesn't find them interesting enough to cover.

That's why I'm sticking to my pick of the Spurs winning it all. If that happens, I can't wait to see everybody at ESPN crap their pants and act like it's a surprise.

There are probably other teams too that don't get the same respect for their success that they deserve. Despite not having the same levels of success at San Antonio, the Hawks are another team that comes to mind, as well at this year's Pacers.

Anyone agree with me?

The Knicks get more coverage because New York is a way bigger market than San Antonio. ESPN is going to high ratings, not fair and equal air time

And that's why I have a particular glee at seeing the Knicks get swept AGAIN with just how much people can't seem to shut up about them. It'd be less infuriating if they were actually, you know, successful and not on a 14 playoff game losing streak. It's the same reason I find the Cowboys insufferable. See I don't like the Mavs since they're our rivals and I was happy to see them swept...HOWEVER, I don't mind the coverage because they were, at the end of the day, the champions last year and have been a continually successful franchise.

[BigEd76]

Not one comment on the Sixers going up 3-1 on the Bulls? geez

[Punch]

Not one comment on the Sixers going up 3-1 on the Bulls? geez

There aren't many comments in this thread compared to the other playoff threads where status updates are posted every 5 minutes.

If the Bulls do end up getting bounced by the Sixers, it would pretty much give LeBron no excuse to lose this year. The #1 seed and the defending champions who beat the Heat a year ago will be out. What happens next? The Thunder and Spurs lose in the second round?

[Still MIGHTY]

Not one comment on the Sixers going up 3-1 on the Bulls? geez

Eh, once Rose went out, that series has no meaning to the rest of the conference, kinda like Pacers/Magic. Without Rose, the Bulls aren't winning the conference. The Sixers aren't winning the conference. The Pacers/Magic aren't winning the conference. It's probably going to be Heat/Celtics in the East (assuming the Celtics can end up closing out Atlanta, who wouldn't win either, and the Celtics are going to be extremely hard pressed to beat the Heat. Miami is going to win the East. There's really nothing to comment on.

The only intrigue is in the West, and at this point, the only intrigue is in Los Angeles. I also use intrigue sparingly The Thunder and Spurs laid/are laying the smackdown on their opponents. If the Lakers lose Game 4, then we'll have something to talk about there. I expected them to lose one game in Denver (most did), so not too concerned there. Clippers/Grizzlies should figure to be tight the whole way, no matter what. Otherwise, nothing to talk about really.

The NBA's first round sucks.

[UnclearInitial]

This is the most excited I've ever been to be losing a series 3-1. Melo was awesome despite almost blowing it at the end, and Amare got a double-double on 1 hand.

Also SZ3, you may have jumped the shark a little there

[NJTank]

Finally, the Knicks will go down in five with this there is no doubt. However, today's win allows them to save some face. It is also helpful to build for next year.

[CS85]

Ah, there's Melo with his annual "What I'm capable of doing when I give a rat's ass, so pay me" game.

[pmoehrin]

Not one comment on the Sixers going up 3-1 on the Bulls? geez

Its kind of a no-win for the Sixers from a public perception level.

If they win, big deal, they beat a team without argubly their two best players in the lineup. If they don't win they're a joke.

I think the Sixers are a little better then the eight seed they got, but can't really say they proved that against this Bulls team given the state they are in.

[knnhrvy16]

This year's playoffs pretty much epitomize why I spend my summer watching the NHL and baseball, and not the NBA. Miami's pretty much already had thier Eastern Conference coronation, the same thing seems to be happening in the West with SA/OKC, and on a personal level, the Jazz are done (were from the get-go, really). I mean, there's nothing interesting to me. Nothing. It's a bore year when we're looking at entire playoff series' in both conferences and deeming them unimportant no matter the outcome.

The NBA desperately needs chaos, from a fan's viewpoint. I don't give a dang about ratings, I need some new blood. Not just one or two teams here and there, but full-scale like this year's NHL West. Then I might regain a little interest. I'd call OKC "new blood", but they've seemed to be crammed down the throat so often now that they don't really seem like new blood at all.

Oh and by the way, iPod typing sucks badly. I think I had to stop and edit this post a good 10 times.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I think the NBA should have kept the first round best-of-5. Better chance for your chaos. Of course, I realize the Bulls would be done. That's okay, as it's inevitable anyway.

[tBBP]

On that point, I agree. Naturally, the extra two games = more $, but still...as any good domino player worth his bones will tell you, "all money ain't good money".

Get the first round back down to best-of-five. It might just do some good.

[pmoehrin]

On that point, I agree. Naturally, the extra two games = more $, but still...as any good domino player worth his bones will tell you, "all money ain't good money".

Get the first round back down to best-of-five. It might just do some good.

I would even take it a step further and go best of three for the first round and best of five in the second, but I would be happy if they just switched back to the old format.

Its rare that you get a competitive first round series and there may be only one or two in any given playoffs. I think its ridiculous to have three, four or maybe even five teams waiting a week to play just so one series can finish up.

And its not like these first round matchups are stand alone games. Last year was an anomaly with the amount of first round matchups that produced close games and upsets. This year has been alot more business as usual.

But the decision to go to seven games I feel was pretty entirely made by the networks and owners looking to make a few more $. Players and coaches just want to get these games over with, not get rewarded by waiting a full week to play another game if you sweep your series.