Check out this article....

[florige]

Alot of people on CBS thinks this guy has a hard-on for the Spurs, but in most cases he is right on... http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/10187551

So you people who are fortunate enough to be going to the game are going to have to be freakin insane tonight!!

[MadDog73]

"The Spurs just don't lose two games in a row in their building".

OK, guys, is this true?

When is the last time the Spurs lost two games in a row at home (during Playoffs)?

[florige]

I think he mentioned that it hasn't been since the Laker glory years.

[Budkin]

"The Spurs just don't lose two games in a row in their building".

OK, guys, is this true?

When is the last time the Spurs lost two games in a row at home (during Playoffs)?

Hmm, trying to think...

I think it was the humiliating sweep by the Lakers in 2001.

[peskypesky]

I can't seem to get that page to load. Anyone else having problems?

[bdictjames]

I can't seem to get that page to load. Anyone else having problems?
No it seems to work fine.

You on dial-up? :dizzy

[florige]

I can't seem to get that page to load. Anyone else having problems?


Try going to www.cbssportsline.com It's to the right of screen with a picture of Nash and Kidd.

[Extra Stout]

Hmm, trying to think...

I think it was the humiliating sweep by the Lakers in 2001.
LA took both games in '02 as well.

And while it wasn't 2 in a row, Dallas won twice in SA both in '03 and '06.

[Obstructed_View]

I love that someone responded to it with a copy of Buck Harvey's article from yesterday.

[zocool16]

that guy has his facts wrong. the last time the spurs lost two in a row at home in the playoffs was the next year when San Antonio lost 4-1 in the playoffs to the Lakers.

They split the first two in L.A., then they lost two at home, and got finished off in game 5. That was Tony Paker's rookie year.

I think this guy is biased.

[Thomas]

I think in 2001 the Spurs Didn't have a chance against the lakers because Juwon Howard injured Derek Anderson, a real hard foul and Spurs didn't have a sg then...remember

[judaspriestess]

Here is a quote from one of the threads started from this article.

"What I'd really like to see is some real discussion. How about the question of why hasn't Phoenix already won this series? Duncan excepted, the Suns are as good as or better than the Spurs at every position. Instead of complaining about the officials or crying that the league office (and please explain the logic behind this one) is colluding to put the Spurs in the finals, why not ask when Stoudemire is going to quit making bonehead fouls and get more serious about winning games than making spectacular dunks, or when Bell and Barbosa are going to step up in a big game instead of disappear?"

wow someone with some basketball sense.

[Vito Corleone]

This post put everything into perspective


There are no assurances David Stern won't wake up today and rethink everything.

He might bring back Joey Crawford, if just for tonight.


But right now he's sticking with what he's done for a few decades. Over the years he could have fudged to make even more dollars and fans, and he hasn't.


And the symbol of how much his rules and principles mean to him?


The Spurs.


Stern has allowed them to succeed when it might have been better for business not to.


If he were an Aggie or a Longhorn named Bubba Stern, then everyone would understand. But he's a New Yorker who likely feels out of place as soon as he steps into the San Antonio airport.


He even joked about that a few years ago. Then, asked about what his preferred playoff match was, he said Lakers vs. Lakers.


It's obvious the NBA maximizes profits when its biggest markets do well, which is why some wonder if Stern had anything to do with the Patrick Ewing lottery of 1985. The Folded Envelope Theory came up again just this month on a Web site, because Stern clearly wanted Ewing in New York, right?


This doesn't explain what happened just two years later. Then another Ewing-like figure was available, and Stern let him go to a failing franchise in South Texas.


The franchise that drafted second that year and just missed David Robinson: the Phoenix Suns.


Ten years later Stern had the same chance to fix a lottery. He could have renewed his traditional franchise, the Celtics, who actually had the best odds. Rick Pitino knows what followed.


Just a year after that the NBA faced a labor showdown. Salaries were zooming, and Stern could have gone another way on that issue, too.


Baseball, after all, allows its richest teams to out-bid the poorer ones. If Stern really wanted Lakers vs. Lakers, why not lean toward that model?


A lockout followed, and the ensuing deal gave the Spurs equal footing and the chance to keep Tim Duncan. Stern might have rethought everything that same spring; the Spurs immediately won the next title.


The labor agreement made a lot of money for everyone, and it was the smarter way to run the league. Furthermore, fixing a couple of lotteries would have risked the entire business if the truth had ever come out.


Stern knows what Roger Goodell knows. Image means everything in sports.


Still, things could have been done in the name of entertainment, yet the league clearly hasn't compromised on these basic issues. No one, then, should have been surprised when the same pattern was applied this week.


Stern had room to wiggle in deciding whether to punish Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw. Stern could have opted for the "spirit" of the rules, and he could have judged that neither player strayed far enough from the bench to warrant a suspension.


Few would have quarreled with that, just as few would have wondered why the Celtics won a lottery they were favored to win. If anything, most would have applauded Stern for a making a fair-minded decision; nearly everyone would rather have seen this series play out with all involved.


Stern instead held firm, and his radio sparring with ESPN's Dan Patrick on Wednesday revealed that. Then Patrick said a mitigating factor had to be the basketball worth of Stoudemire and Diaw, and Stern admonished him.

"Right," Stern said sarcastically. "I see. So I should make my decisions based upon whether it's a marquee player. I'm going to write that down."


That's Stern, dismissing anything that isn't consistent. And just as he did with lotteries and labor agreements before, he went against what would have helped business in the short term.


Nothing better defines that than what his decision means. Now there's a better possibility of another Spurs vs. Pistons Finals — and that's a long way from Lakers vs. Lakers.

[judaspriestess]

This post put everything into perspective

Thats Buck Harveys article, lol. I did not know it either. There is another thread on it.