Okay, the Blazers got beat... I can live with that after this season of laughably bad injury luck. However, there's some things I hate about the league that I can't bottle up. First of all, I hate HATE that there never seems to be a true "upset" in a playoff series. The last REAL upset I can think of was the Mutumbo Nuggets over Seattle. That was what... 15 years ago? The Warriors over the Mavs a few years ago doesn't really apply... that Warriors team was built from the ground up by Don Nelson, who knew that era's Mavericks better than they knew themselves. And this year's Spurs over the Mavs? Tell me you didn't see that coming. Perhaps last year's Magic over the Cavs? That MIGHT... MIGHT qualify. Otherwise... when? To say that the NBA playoffs is predictable is an understatement. There's no REAL drama... yes, a team like the Lakers or the Cavs or even the Hawks will get down in a series through a blowout or two that makes the average NBA fan think someone has found their number... and then forget it. The favored team kicks in that extra gear and beats the underdog. How many times have we seen that? Too many for it to be statistically plausable. Now, I'm not saying that DER FUERER STERN is edicting all of these series to go the way they do (Tim Dougnahy notwithstanding), but as a historian of the NBA game, doesn't it add up after a while that something doesn't smell right?
That's not why I despise the NBA. I can't stand the variety of rules depending on who the player is. That said, I'll address your point - and generally agree with you, I think. There's a huge difference between the NBA and March Madness, and everything I love about March Madness, I can't stand about the NBA. But everything I don't like about March Madness - the fact that a mediocre team can get seriously lucky and all of a sudden make the Sweet 16 - I do appreciate about the NBA. The pragmatist in me believes that 95% of the time, the team that probably ought to win, does. What troubles me is the 5% of the time that the "wrong" team wins, it's often because of poor (or biased) officiating, or unfortunate injuries, rather than a team actually unexpectedly outperforming the other. What you call "true upsets" would be fun. But too many of them could get ridiculous.
Half of the teams in the NBA make the Playoffs. Unlike in the NFL or NCAA Basketball Tournament, a team must win four times out of seven games to make it to the next round. If the NBA made each playoff series out of five or three, you would be seeing a lot more upsets. The better team in a series will almost always be able to adjust better if they lose to an inferior team, and seven games only helps their cause.
Not really. Dallas won 5 more games than the Spurs. It's not like they were 21 games better like the Sonics were with the Nuggets in 94.
By that criteria, a "true upset" was straight-up impossible in the West from the very start. Question answered.
Your arbitrary reasoning aside, the Warriors beating a 67 win Dallas team was a huge upset. Plus, 8 seed New York beat 1 seed Miami ( in 1999 on their way to losing to the Spurs in the Finals. By your criteria, there could be no upset in the West this season, based on final regular season records.
The only thing I hate about the NBA is the lack of transparency regarding the accountability of refs.
I think the NBA is special because it lacks upsets. It feels the least arbitrary in deciding championships, and in turn makes a title more intrinsically meaningful. There's a large random/luck component to sports amd minimizing that is important imo. Whatever happens after a seven game series, even with ref problems I blame or give credit to the players.
As far as I can tell the best NBA team sure seems to win the title the most often of any sport I can think of, so in that respect it sure seems to be working a lot better than other sports, but maybe that's the beauty of things like the NCAA tournament or the NFL; one hot streak at the right time, a favorable sting of matchups, a little luck and you've got yourself an underdog champion (Giants over Pats being the most recent and glaring example I can think of). Maybe that volatility helps make these sports more popular because even the fans of the marginal teams feel like there's a chance.
Other sports certainly help smaller market clubs, but would that be good for the NBA? The NFL is the most watched sport in the States but I'm not sure that's because of it's post-season format. There are simply too many injuries in the NFL. The NCAA tourney would be so dragged out if it had series. They do it out of necessity, the NBA doesn't have to decide it's champion in that manner. The NBA built its league around stars, stars saved this league from tape delayed Finals. Even in the NFL I'm sure fans of classical powers are often disappointed in the playoffs. So one group (Portland let's say) is happy that their team got hot while another is not. Mixing up the format is not what saves leagues, having stars and an exciting sport is what leads to ratings. Lastly, anyone that watched the 07 Patriots could tell they were getting cold at the end. The Chargers almost beat them in the conference championship, with no LT and Rivers playing through a torn knee.
The NBA, more than any other major US sport (I don't consider hockey a major sport) has one race dominating it. Considering this, it makes sense to have teams with marketable stars, as well ( those playing in large demographic markets, do well.
