Yes they were....were they a #1 seed? That's the original point I was making in your reference to the Sonics.
Ahhh semantics though. SA has plenty of experience to not be a #1 seed and still win it all and it could be the same in reverse as well. A team that just won CAN get ousted in the first round I believe, but we will have to agree to disagree, as there is no right answer.
Also, again the Spurs losing was an aberration. First they were not the #1 seed as I was referencing with the Sonics and second, they were playing a way tougher opponent than they should have been due to Portland being handed a higher seed despite being #6 in record. Always exceptions to the rule and if someone want so use those as a foundation for a theory, they are welcome to it I guess.
For that matter how many teams have even won and then were a number 1 seed the next season? Probably not much to even go off of in history.
Opponents shouldn't matter if you have the experience though right? Its all good. Differing opinions is all.
Again, this all goes back to 'Seattle lost as a #1 seed'. My point was the Sonics weren't like The Spurs/Warriors who have been #1 seeds because they didn't have the experience of winning a title. And again, last year the Spurs weren't a#1 seed and had to play a team that they shouldn't have had to play in the first round....which the NBA summarily fixed. Not sure how that is so unreasonable.
I recognized that no matter what seed the Blazers achieve this year, the other team will be viewed as the heavy favorite. Victory is never sweeter than when your opponent is viewed as unbeatable. Chip and a chair.
I grasp it, I just disagree. I dont think that winning a ring the previous season and then getting a number 1 seed is much different than going to the finals the previous season and then getting a number 1 seed. I think both teams can lose in the first round and the team that won a championship the year before might even have a higher chance of going down due to overconfidence. Not that I didnt grasp, I just disagree.. big difference.
Actually, there are quite a few players who agree with you. The players who didn't win say there isn't much difference. The players who did win just smile and nod yes, there is a huge difference.
Well then if that's the case then majority is right right? And the majority of players in the league dont win each year, so I just won!!!! HAHA
Heat lost in the first round in 2007 1 year after winning the title--but their opponent (Bulls) had 5 more wins than they did. Mavericks haven't not lost in the first round since winning their title--but none of those teams were division winners. Spurs also lost in the first round in 2008 as a 3 seed 1 year after winning a title, but that was to a 50-win Dallas team. There are always differences from this year's scenario, but the point is that there are many examples of recent title winners losing in round 1. Of course it would be a longshot, of course it would be highly unlikely, of course if it happened it would be an exception to the rule; but that doesn't mean that the odds would be insurmountable, or that we should think that there's zero chance of pulling off the upset. Yes one should learn from history, but one should not be a prisoner to it.
Classic. Aligning with losers makes one a winner. What is this country coming to...lol. Love the debate.
Yes...title winners but not Title winners who were the #1 seed vs a #1 see that hadn't won a title which was my point and has been all along sing you pointed out the Sonics/Nuggets example. Enough CYA...lol.
