Official Around the NBA May 2019 Playoff Edition Thread!

Parity has never sold. The most competitive era in the NBA was the 1970s and the league was at its least popular. The '80 and '90s are often considered the "golden age" and both decades featured all-time dynasties. The 2000s was the Lakers and Spurs, by and large. People like seeing a dominant power or two.

 

I think that's more than false...

I watched the ECF. I wouldn't have watched if LeBron was there. Ratings were up this year because people thought the Warriors were vulnerable and because the EC Playoffs were finally competitive with some fresh faces.

People want to see things like Kawhi and great role players vs. Giannis and great role players, not Kawhi and Giannis on the same team sweeping through an ECF.

 

Kawhi was amazing tonight even if he was 9-22 and 1-8 from deep.

What I found most interesting is that Toronto came up big with a a back court that makes our's look tall.
Vanvleet at 5'11" and Kyle Lowery at 6'0".

 

Our off-season is going to be so disappointing.

 

It's not false. Never was the NBA more relevant than during The Lakers vs Celtics years. Rivalries create ratings. Having LeBron and the Cavs taking on Curry and the Warriors was close but not quite there.

 

That's because of their giant fanbases and because they had perennial stars, not because they were superteams. If you took away one or two of their star co-horts and put them on opposing teams, the playoffs would've gotten just as good of ratings if not better because the Lakers and Celtics would still be good and they'd still have their superstars.

 

I'm not saying YOU, personally, prefer a dynasty. But the league seems to do pretty well when there's a dominant one or two teams. Ratings have been up in past "Warriors inevitable" seasons too.

 

A couple of interesting DNPs Coaches decision tonight.......Mirotic and Snell. Two players that many on this board (including myself) have coveted in the past.

 

yes the Raptors gambled and won. a coach with no championship and I think no NBA head coaching experience (?). portland will not be a better team by the first game. no way. the best they could do is have Myers start for nurk and the rest is not changed. no way they don't resign chief. stotts loves chief and they will have to give him a raise. what deal do you all think chief will get?

 

Well obviously you don't think those were superteams? Those were absolutely loaded superteams. But what do i know. I only was in my mid 20's watching then.
We are talking Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin Mchale, Bill Walton, Danny Ainge, Dennis Johnson
How about the Lakers?
Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson. James Worthy, Byron Scott, RAMBIS, Mike McGee and Bob Mcadoo. Micheal Cooper Mychal Thompson, AC Green

Seriously? Those teams were loaded. SUPER TEAMS!

 

SpursTalk is absolutely delicious right now.

 

Still likes him despite dramatically cutting his minutes on the last series? IMO NO raise. Whatever deal he gets will be late in the process.

 

Worlds changed a lot since the 1970’s though. Everyone’s gotta screen or ten to look at. I think today’s NBA would be much more popular with parity then the 1970’s versions.

 

Well in the 70's and even the 80's a player could set a hard screen and give a hard foul. Way different game.

 

I didnt say that. I said they got ratings for reasons other than them being superteams.

 

I'm wondering if anyone else was enjoying watching the style of play of Milwaukee/Toronto much better than Portland.

I'm SO sick of Stotts offense. They were playing with so much more intensity than I've seen Portland play with

 

I enjoyed watching the series, but other than Kawhi I was not impressed with the offenses of either team. Yes VanVleet hit some huge wide open 3's but for the most part....what was impressive? Their D was good, but IMO the offenses were not. The Greek Freaks air balls in the lane reminded me of Aminu. And he is a MVP finalist....

 

They got rating because they were good and they won.
They had a huge rivalry because they were good and they won.
People watched because of the huge rivalry.
They were good and they won because they were super teams.

What you said is "This is False"

I said it is not false. You are changing your narrative because you have been shown you are wrong here.

Those teams were DYNASTIES. Otherwise known as SUPERTEAMS.

Now stop. Just stop. Last post on this subject for me.

 

Also got Ratings because it was Dominated by LA, Chicago and the NE (Boston), huge population centers. Just like its been proven Stars don't need those markets anymore, I believe the NBA can be popular without those markets too. In fact Bostons been pretty good, but LAL fans all migrated up north to GS and Chicago has been bad. In the 80’s and 90’s yes there were super teams, but ratings were almost always pushed by those markets. With technology the way it is today, I believe there ratings would be BETTER if more markets felt they had good basketball teams.

 

Look. Because you responded i will make one more response to you.
Dallas had a huge Market. They didn't get ratings.
Golden State had a good market but did not get ratings.
The Clippers had a huge market but did not get ratings.
The Knicks had a huge market as well as Washington but did not get ratings.

Why didn't they get ratings? Because they sucked!
The Lakers and Boston had a lock on the best players and the best players wanted to play there because they were Dynasties.

Now this absolutely is my last response on this subject.