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?
Good points! I won't doubt that it was one of the greatest upsets ever based on the seeding (a first in NBA history if I'm not mistaken). However I think the Giants over the Patriots is the bigger upset, for a couple reasons: 1) The Warriors swept the Mavs in the regular season. 2) The Patriots were being talked up as possibily the greatest team of all time. The Mavericks weren't quite up there in the eyes of NBA analysts.
It's so much harder to win a seven game series than one game. (Although I think Stanford beating USC was the year's biggest upset.) Plus, the Giants were playing much better than the Patriots coming into the game. They proved that wasn't an illusion. Warriors by a mile.
Giants over the Pats, easily. The Warriors shocked everyone, but they also benefited from lucking into a great matchup. Dallas couldn't handle their speed and offense and Don Nelson, as the former Mavs coach, knew how to shut down Dirk. After all the excitement of the first round, the Warriors were taken care of by a much better built team in the next round and its still up for debate, whether that team can make it to the finals with that roster makeup. You could argue that the Giants upset wins over the Cowboys and Packers were on the level of the Warriors win. But this game was the finals. The Giants didn't stumble into a convenient matchup: the Pats were the much more talented team. But the Giants caught fire at the right time, extending a remarkable road winning streak, and players stepped up to beat the best team in the NFL (this season and one of the best of all-time). This would be similar to a team beating the '96 Bulls in the Finals.
I'd also like to add that the amount of pressure on the Patriots was higher than any sports team has ever experienced. That factor mixed with the Giants being a legitimately excellent team made this result forseeable if not predictable.
I'd argue that, towards the end of that 7 game series, the Mavs felt way more pressure than the Pats. They knew that they didn't match up well against GS (that had on fire to make the playoffs), but they had to deal with being on the verge of elimination as well as the expectations of being the best regular season team in the league. Their best player had the pressure of justifying an MVP award, despite a terrible postseason.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Feb 4 2008, 02:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd argue that, towards the end of that 7 game series, the Mavs felt way more pressure than the Pats. They knew that they didn't match up well against GS (that had on fire to make the playoffs), but they had to deal with being on the verge of elimination as well as the expectations of being the best regular season team in the league. Their best player had the pressure of justifying an MVP award, despite a terrible postseason.</div> They didn't feel more pressure. That's impossible. At the end of that series, they lost the belief that they could win. They were the underdogs. The Warriors (and their crowd!) took their heart away. I guess my main argument is that the Giants were physically superior to the Pats. They were stronger, younger and better conditioned. (The Giants already physically wore out the Cowboys and Packers. They had to be confident they could do the same to the older Pats.) The Mavs were mentally weak. They had time to turn things around (like the Jazz did) but they just couldn't stop their downward momentum.
