<span style="font-family:Comic Sans Ms">Which Collapse was worse?Lakers: Up 3-1 on PhoneixMavericks: up 2-0 on Miami</span>
I think it was the Mavericks. They couldn't win one game on the road, and then they lose one at home and are eliminated, plus it was the Finals where a championship is on the line.
Mavericks. What is worse is that they had a 13 point lead in game 3 with 6 minutes left and they blew it. They could have been up 3-0 but they stopped doing what had got them that far. Instead of continuing to attack they shot jumpshots.
Definetly the Mavs. Blowing a comeback in the Finals and not being able to win one away game is much worse than a team making a big comeback in the Conference Quarter Finals anyday IMO
Mavs... It was more important. It's not like the Lakers would have got past the Clippers in the 2nd round anyways.
Mavs up 2-0 in the series, you expect the Mavs to win the series right? Well than its obvious which series is the biggest collapse. It was the NBA Finals. It counted more than anything, and they were up big early on in the series. They couldve just closed the deal early. Everything fell apart after a couple close losses.
Who the F*ck loses 4 games in a row...in the finals...after winning the first 2!I don't care how many calls Wade got that just doens't happen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (arya202 @ Jun 21 2006, 10:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Who the F*ck loses 4 games in a row...in the finals...after winning the first 2! I don't care how many calls Wade got that just doens't happen.</div>The Mavs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingjamez @ Jun 22 2006, 02:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Mavs up 2-0 in the series, you expect the Mavs to win the series right? Well than its obvious which series is the biggest collapse. It was the NBA Finals. It counted more than anything, and they were up big early on in the series. They couldve just closed the deal early. Everything fell apart after a couple close losses.</div>Well the Lakers WERE 1 game away from beating the Suns but they lost 3 in a row. The Mavs were 2 games away from winning.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (arya202 @ Jun 21 2006, 10:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Who the F*ck loses 4 games in a row...in the finals...after winning the first 2!</div>It's the 2-3-2 format...it's terrible. That format gives the advantage to the team with the worser (grammar check) record.
The Lakers. They had that series won pretty much. For Dallas the turning point of the series was the closing minutes of Game 3. Truly a remarkable effort by Dwyane Wade.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zards @ Jun 21 2006, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's the 2-3-2 format...it's terrible. That format gives the advantage to the team with the worser (grammar check) record. </div>I'm tired of hearing this... it DOES NOT give the advantage to the lower seeded team.If you are good enough to have the better record during the NBA season, then you damn sure are going to be a pretty good road team, especially if you've made it to the Finals.Now, look at Dallas... they closed ALL the series they won this year ON THE ROAD.Then, take into account that prior to this season, the team hosting the middle three games of the Finals (in the 2-3-2 format) have swept those three games ONLY ONCE ('04 Detroit vs. LA)... this year was the SECOND time since 1985 that it happened (they switched to the 2-3-2 format in '85).So, everybody who thinks the 2-3-2 format gives the "better" team a disadvantage, it is all bullsh**. Hell, if you can't win a game on the road in the Finals... you are not the "better" team. Either way, the team with the worse record HAS to win one game on the road in order to win the series...The format is fine, and it's not the reason Dallas lost... Now, to answer the original question, Dallas' collapse was worse. They are going to have a LONG summer, especially thinking about the fact that they would have a championship right now if they didn't blow that 13-point lead in the final six minutes in Game 3...
Mavs collapse, obviously. There was much more at stake. Lakers wouldn't have made it to the Finals anyway, even if they had beaten the Suns in the 1st round.
Mavericks jsut because in the third game they had a thirteen point game and blew that in the final minutes. I mean what a turnaround for the Heat. Mavs must feel REALLY down on themselves for a while.
The Mavs' collaspe. Being up by 13 points in Game 3 and then losing that game and Game 4, 5, and 6 is terrible basketball by the Mavs. :thumbdn1: There was a lot at stake, the NBA Championship. I mean, you can't get to the Finals, be up 2-0 and think you've won the title already and start being lazy. You won't win, just like the Mavs didn't win. By the way, great basketball played by the Heat. They were down 0-2 and they came back and won 4 straight to get their championship. They all stepped up BIG, especially DWade. :worthy: The Heat never gave up and they proved all their doubters wrong and brought their trophy home. :yahoo:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jun 21 2006, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Now, look at Dallas... they closed ALL the series they won this year ON THE ROAD.[...]The format is fine, and it's not the reason Dallas lost...</div>Yes, but the Heat were the best home team in the playoffs. They lost one game there in the entire playoffs, right?I agree with the second part, though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jun 22 2006, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, but the Heat were the best home team in the playoffs. They lost one game there in the entire playoffs, right?I agree with the second part, though.</div>Yes, the Heat lost only one game on their home floor in the playoffs (Game 1 against NJ). Either way, they were beatable at home, and Dallas almost did it twice (they should have won Game 3)... I'm tired of reading that the 2-3-2 format is an advantage for the lower seeded team. If historically the team that hosted the three middle games actually swept them most of the time, then I would be inclined to agree... but they rarely do.Anyway I look at it, the format is fair.
