In case anyone didn't watch the game, the Suns almost won without Amare and Diaw. They controlled almost the ENTIRE GAME. They just choked it away at the end -- just like the Spurs did in game four.
Printable View
In case anyone didn't watch the game, the Suns almost won without Amare and Diaw. They controlled almost the ENTIRE GAME. They just choked it away at the end -- just like the Spurs did in game four.
Its not even just the Suns that feel that way. They wonder why athletes do stupid shit off the court/field its because people feel that they are always above the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by samikeyp
Quote:
Originally Posted by samikeyp
Ok lets put it this way. If it had been LeBron instead of Amare would Stern had done the same thing? My gripe is that the ruling severly affect the Suns for what Horry did. I did not even want Horry suspended. A fine would have suffice. You don't potentially taint and influenced the outcome of a series when niether player did anything other then check on Nash.
The Suns didnt get screwed by anyone except their two dumb ass players. Other than that, they got a call that sealed game 4, they got one of the Spurs best rotation guys suspended 2 games, and they got the media on their side. If tweedle dee and tweedle dum had been smart, it would have been a landslide victory
So it's not reasonable to expect grown men to sit down and shut up when they know doing otherwise will screw their team over?Quote:
Originally Posted by gino>yourlife
D'Antoni should have played Rose and Banks in the game. I think Nash played too many minutes and down the end he just ran out of energy. Valient effort but not enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Considering he supended Ewing for much less I would say yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Amare_32
The punishments have been consistent since the rule was created.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amare_32
Yeah, he would've. Right now, LeBron vs. The Nets isn't generating jack shit for ratings versus the Suns. Stern would love a Phoenix and Cleveland Finals, but rules are rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amare_32
The ruling had nothing to do with what Horry did. I understand the frustration and I don't think anyone should've been suspended, except maybe Bell for escalating the situation, but the rule is the rule. Horry didn't force Diaw and Stoudemire to go running onto the court. You need to look at the players and assistant coaches for not holding them back. Ultimately, what Horry did was wrong, yes, but what Amare and Diaw did cannot be blamed on him. They know what they did was against the rules, and they broke them. They have to live with the consequences.
The rule has been there for around 12 years people. Get over it.
WHat's even more shocking is how much of the sports media thinks the Suns are above the rules, seemingly just because they are playing the Spurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by samikeyp
Well, because David Stern applied the rule exactly the way it's written, you now know 100 percent that anyone that did what Amare did is going to be suspended. Your gripe is that what Amare did hurts the Suns, but you don't have the balls to place the blame in the right place. The Suns got a gift with Horry's suspension. If Amare and Diaw had stayed on the bench, you'd have gotten a huge advantage. Too bad for them. Maybe they'll learn to follow the rules from now on, especially since they know the commissioner isn't going to cheat just to give them a victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amare_32
Yep. People are still suggesting that Stern fixed the lottery for Patrick Ewing, so if he's going to suspend the golden child of the biggest market in the NBA, prior to a huge showdown with Michael Jordan, he's going to suspend the first team all-nba center and feel good story of the 2007 season.Quote:
Originally Posted by mardigan
Sorry for the run-on sentence.
He should have done the same thing. You can't bend the rules for anyone.Quote:
Ok lets put it this way. If it had been LeBron instead of Amare would Stern had done the same thing? My gripe is that the ruling severly affect the Suns for what Horry did. I did not even want Horry suspended. A fine would have suffice. You don't potentially taint and influenced the outcome of a series when niether player did anything other then check on Nash.
Now I think the rule sucks and I think it should be changed but it is the rule...I just don't get why those players and their fans think the rule shouldn't apply.
I swear if I hear one more person cry for the Suns I am going to go crazy. I don't care about either team but as a basketball fan I am sick of all of this crying for the Suns. You need to blame Amare and Diaw for this as they didn't follow the rule that you can't leave the bench and as stupid as that rule may be you still have to follow it. There are many stupid rules at my job that I don't agree with at all but I have to follow them or get fired. The majority of the league do not seem to have a problem following this rule. People fall hard all the time in basketball and you don't see the benches clearing. Amare started all of this by crying to the media that the Spurs play dirty and rough and now the media has taken on the attitude of the Suns calling the Spurs dirty and rough. This is playoff basketball and all games have this type of atmosphere but because it is everyones favorite team they are crying over it. What is the NBA coming to?
Suns are jsut mad because things haven't gone their way this series-they are used to having things go their way. They are looking for a scapegoat, and Stern/Spurs/Horry provide that scapegoat to fill in the gap of their shortcomings. Even after Game 1, they were saying the refs screwed the Suns, if Nash was in they would have won; hell, even ANALYSISTS, who are supposed to be UNBIASED were saying the Spurs won because of the refs. It's always like that in sports. They did it to the Mavs last year too (even though we did get a lot of bad calls, we still had PLENTY of opportunites and we squandered them badly). What I want to know is if Phoenix is so good, then why have they not won the series yet? Fact is, the Spurs have executed fairly well this series and have had some amazing plays. Also, they have had some luck/breaks-Nash leaving the game? Stoudemire/Diaw? None of it is their fault, though. But as David Robinson and dozens of other experienced players will tell you, sometimes you get lucky breaks on the way to a series victory/title. We should take them because we got NONE last year.
I knew there were going to be problems in this series when there wasn't one Suns fan who was grateful that the officials just ignored the blood rule to let Nash score five points at the end of game 1.
Gimmee a break. A guy like Stern will always get credit for things he didn't do from the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
The NBA was revived by three people.....Magic, Bird, and one of the greatest if not the best sportsman ever in Jordan. Stern was just along for the ride. And the proof of that is that the NBA has been on a steady decline now since Jordan left the Bulls.
Yeah, they are making so much less money....Quote:
And the proof of that is that the NBA has been on a steady decline now since Jordan left the Bulls.
Jordan was the saving grace of basketball during that time because other than him the rest of the league sucked back then. The league as a whole is much better now in my opinion aside from all the recent whining of teams and the media.Quote:
And the proof of that is that the NBA has been on a steady decline now since Jordan left the Bulls.
Those of us old enough to remember watching the Magic and Bird NBA remember doing so on tape delay late at night, and you could only see the conference finals and the finals. There was no TNT, no TBS, no ESPN, no NBATV, no prime time games, no weekend games, not even really much mention of it in the sports reports outside of the towns that had local teams. There were no giant endorsement deals, no corporate sponsorships, no luxury boxes and many NBA players actually had off-season jobs to supplement their income. That's all David Stern, sparky.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObstructedView
Source:
"The end of the NBA on NBC
“ For one last time, you've been watching the NBA on NBC. ”
—Bob Costas, on the network's last broadcast in 2002.
When NBC Sports' contract with the NBA expired in 2002, the broadcast rights were passed to ABC, which began airing games the next season. NBC had made a four-year, $1.3 billion bid in the spring of 2002 to renew its NBA coverage, but the league instead made six-year deals worth $4.6 billion with ESPN, ABC, and TNT. In the last four years of the final contract, NBC lost $300 million dollars. NBC only offered $325 million a year compared to ESPN's $400 million.
Whereas NBC normally televised 33 regular games a year, ABC would generally air fewer than twenty regular season games a year. According to Commissioner David Stern, the reduced number of network telecasts was at the NBA's own request since the NBA believed that they would get a higher audience for a single game (in contrast to NBC's tripleheaders). From 2002 to 2006, the NBA's ratings on broadcast television (ABC) have dropped almost a full ratings point (from nearly a 3.0 average rating to just above a 2.0 rating). NBC averaged a 5.5 average rating during the 2002 NBA Playoffs. ABC averaged a 3.3 average rating for the 2005 NBA Playoffs.
In response to the impending loss of NBA coverage, NBC Entertainment president Jeff Zucker said:
“ We lost football two years ago, and we stayed a strong No. 1. We lost baseball, and we stayed a strong No. 1. Now we're about to lose basketball, and I believe we'll stay a strong No. 1. The fact is, it's had no impact on our prime time strength. . . NBC can now program all of Sunday nights without going around basketball. I think that's a huge advantage for us. We haven't been able for the last several years to put a program at 8 o'clock (such as "American Dreams") because we've had the NBA. ”
NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol had this to say:
“ The definition of winning has become distorted. If winning the rights to a property brings with it hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, what have you won? When faced with the prospect of heavy financial losses, we have consistently walked away and have done so again. ... We wish the NBA all the best. We have really enjoyed working with them for more than a decade to build the NBA brand.[3] ”
NBC Sports replaced the Sunday afternoon single games and doubleheaders of the NBA on NBC with games of The AFL on NBC in February 2003, which lasted until the conclusion of their contract in 2006."
Well, the ratings and losses to NBC wouldn't agree that the NBA is on an upward trend. In fact, it is in a decline like I said (more evidence of NBA declining ratings and popularity). If Stern gets credit for making the NBA great, then be consistent and tar and feather him when it goes into a decline, like it is in now.
The expansion of cable access across America was a much bigger reason for the NBA's success in reaching more households then Stern since they needed programming to fill up their tv lineups. I also didn't buy Air Jordan's back in the day because of David Stern. Nike was a far, far better marketer of the NBA than Stern ever was.
Perhaps you should read my quote again. Have someone help you with it if you can't figure it out.Quote:
Yeah, they are making so much less money....
exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Who is "they"? The NBA? The networks? The players? The owners? The networks aren't making more money with declining ratings that's for sure. Now that there is a cap, the players aren't making as much as they use to relatively. So we are left with the NBA and the owners "...making so much less money" according to you. Not saying it isn't true, but please post some corroboration to back up your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpartialObserver
Hmm. I don't know where you went to school, but last I checked, 4.6 billion dollars over six years is more than twice as much as 1.3 billion dollars over 4 years. When the NBA can't find anyone to bid on a TV contract let me know.