Are the media dumb?

[efrem1]

I still hear that the division record is the 2nd tiebreaker, but what gives with the media when they put this stuff out:

"The San Antonio Spurs will try to clinch the top seed and home-court advantage throughout the Western Conference playoffs when they visit the Minnesota Timberwolves.

The Spurs hold a 1 1/2 -game lead over Dallas for the best record in the West and can clinch the Southwest Division title and the No. 1 seed in the conference with a win in this contest or a Mavericks' loss to Utah on Sunday."

Any comments?

[Beaverfuzz]

I still hear that the division record is the 2nd tiebreaker, but what gives with the media when they put this stuff out:

"The San Antonio Spurs will try to clinch the top seed and home-court advantage throughout the Western Conference playoffs when they visit the Minnesota Timberwolves.

The Spurs hold a 1 1/2 -game lead over Dallas for the best record in the West and can clinch the Southwest Division title and the No. 1 seed in the conference with a win in this contest or a Mavericks' loss to Utah on Sunday."

Any comments?



No, the correct terminology is "Is the media dumb"? Looks like they showed you!

[Kori Ellis]

No, the correct terminology is "Is the media dumb"? Looks like they showed you!


Don't be so mean :lol

Back to the original post. I guess that the writer isn't taking into account the Mavs could win their last two while the Spurs go 1-2.

[efrem1]

No, the correct terminology is "Is the media dumb"? Looks like they showed you!

Wrong, laser breath. Media is the plural of medium. From dictionary.com


The etymologically plural form media is often used as a singular to refer to a particular means of communication, as in The Internet is the most exciting new media since television. Many people regard this usage as incorrect, preferring medium in such contexts. ·People also use media with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like “the press.”

[Beaverfuzz]

Doesn't matter, it's still "Is the media dumb"?

[JamStone]

Either is correct. Media is in fact the plural of medium. However, media has also been regarded as a collective singular noun. Either is technically correct.


As to the answer to either question: Yes, generally.

[cs100]

I still hear that the division record is the 2nd tiebreaker, but what gives with the media when they put this stuff out:

"The San Antonio Spurs will try to clinch the top seed and home-court advantage throughout the Western Conference playoffs when they visit the Minnesota Timberwolves.

The Spurs hold a 1 1/2 -game lead over Dallas for the best record in the West and can clinch the Southwest Division title and the No. 1 seed in the conference with a win in this contest or a Mavericks' loss to Utah on Sunday."

Any comments?
The division record is the first tiebreaker (if teams are in the same division)
The conference record is the second tiebreaker

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html#tb

dallas 59-21 (2 games left)
Spurs 60-19 (3 games left)

For the Spurs to get the first seed in the West:

If dallas wins their remaining two games, the Spurs need to win two games OR just beat Houston.
If dallas loses one of its last two games, the Spurs only need one win, regardless of which team it is.

[Brodels]

I still hear that the division record is the 2nd tiebreaker, but what gives with the media when they put this stuff out:

"The San Antonio Spurs will try to clinch the top seed and home-court advantage throughout the Western Conference playoffs when they visit the Minnesota Timberwolves.

The Spurs hold a 1 1/2 -game lead over Dallas for the best record in the West and can clinch the Southwest Division title and the No. 1 seed in the conference with a win in this contest or a Mavericks' loss to Utah on Sunday."

Any comments?

Could you please clarify what the hell you're talking about? What about this statement leads you to believe that the media is dumb?

[ponky]

yes they IZZZZ!!!

[efrem1]

Could you please clarify what the hell you're talking about? What about this statement leads you to believe that the media is dumb?

They can't figure out how the NBA tiebreakers work. The sports media seem not to know such a simple answer regarding this.

[Ariel]

Don't be so mean :lol

Back to the original post. I guess that the writer isn't taking into account the Mavs could win their last two while the Spurs go 1-2.What's wrong is that the writer presents the situation as if either event (Spurs win or Mavericks lose) is enough to guarantee the first seed, independently from the other. In reality, neither is by itself. He writes:

(The Spurs) can clinch the Southwest Division title and the No. 1 seed in the conference with a win in this contest or a Mavericks' loss to Utah on Sunday.
However, the Spurs may win, but if they lose the two remaining games and Dallas wins out, they'll be tied at 61 wins. Also, the Mavericks may lose, but if they win the remaining game, and the Spurs lose all three games left, they'll be tied at 60 wins a piece.

In both scenarios described above, the writers conditions are met. However, since both teams end up with the same record in each case, and their head to head is tied at 2 a piece, the division record comes in. Since the Spurs would have lost to Houston, they'd have a 12-4 divisional record, whereas the Mavericks would be at 13-3 and therefore they'd have the upper hand.

The only scenario where the Spurs guarantee the top seed today, is if they win and the Mavericks lose. The occurrence of both events simultaneously is necessary for one to assure what the writer claims.

[Kori Ellis]

What's wrong is that the writer presents the situation as if either event (Spurs win or Mavericks lose) is enough to guarantee the first seed, independently from the other. In reality, neither is by itself. He writes:

However, the Spurs may win, but if they lose the two remaining games and Dallas wins out, they'll be tied at 61 wins. Also, the Mavericks may lose, but if they win the remaining game, and the Spurs lose all three games left, they'll be tied at 60 wins a piece.

In both scenarios described above, the writers conditions are met. However, since both teams end up with the same record in each case, and their head to head is tied at 2 a piece, the division record comes in. Since the Spurs would have lost to Houston, they'd have a 12-4 divisional record, whereas the Mavericks would be at 13-3 and therefore they'd have the upper hand.

The only scenario where the Spurs guarantee the top seed today, is if they win and the Mavericks lose. The occurrence of both events simultaneously is necessary for one to assure what the writer claims.

I know all that. :lol I just didn't know why it made the original poster so upset.

[Ariel]

I know all that. :lol I just didn't know why it made the original poster so upset.Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote.

[Kori Ellis]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote.

It's not you. I wasn't clear in what I wrote. But I've written 3 articles in the last week regarding the tiebreakers/playoff scenarios, etc. so I understood it. I just didn't get why the original poster was seemingly outraged. A lot of writers had it wrong across the country because in several places the tiebreakers were printed incorrectly.

[efrem1]

It's not you. I wasn't clear in what I wrote. But I've written 3 articles in the last week regarding the tiebreakers/playoff scenarios, etc. so I understood it. I just didn't get why the original poster was seemingly outraged. A lot of writers had it wrong across the country because in several places the tiebreakers were printed incorrectly.

Kori:

Sportswriters of their caliber should know simple tiebreaking procedures. It is like a political analyst who says that Florida has more electorial votes than Texas or that Senator Boxer is from Louisiana. The AP story was not the first time they got the tiebreaking scenario wrong. It just ticks me off a bit.

P.S. Looks as if I might go see the Spurs at Arco if I can get a ticket. :spin

[Kori Ellis]

Kori:

Sportswriters of their caliber should know simple tiebreaking procedures. It is like a political analyst who says that Florida has more electorial votes than Texas or that Senator Boxer is from Louisiana. The AP story was not the first time they got the tiebreaking scenario wrong. It just ticks me off a bit.

P.S. Looks as if I might go see the Spurs at Arco if I can get a ticket. :spin

I guess my point is that the list of tiebreakers that was distributed to the media and everyone else for much of the season was incorrect. I believe it was even incorrect on nba.com or espn.com up until a couple weeks ago. That's why there was so many questions about it here in the forum.

Look at this thread ...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37956&highlight=tiebreakers


Yeah, it looks like you'll be able to see the Spurs. Unless somehow the Jazz can catch the Kings :drunk

[SAGambler]

Don't be so mean :lol

Back to the original post. I guess that the writer isn't taking into account the Mavs could win their last two while the Spurs go 1-2.


The Spurs hold a 1 1/2 -game lead over Dallas for the best record in the West and can clinch the Southwest Division title and the No. 1 seed in the conference with a win in this contest or a Mavericks' loss to Utah on Sunday."



Actually what he should have said was "with a win in this contest and a loss to Utah by the Mavs.

That would be the clincher. But even if we win today, if the Mavs also win, we still have to beat either Utah or Houston.

Bottom line is, the Spurs destiny is in their hands. So they might as well win today and tommorrow and put an end to any speculation.