SI. - Cavs making things so unpleasant to watch.

So the focus is now on how the Cavs look and execute on offense.
(this is a cut and paste off of CNNSI)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...eck/index.html

The Spurs deserve huge heaps of credit for locking things down in the Finals (Cleveland is averaging 80 points per game), and Ferry hasn't exactly provided Brown with a murderer's row from long range (Ferry thought so in 2005, but somebody kidnapped Donyell Marshall's jump shot). But there is little reason Cleveland should be struggling this badly and making things so unpleasant to watch. Again, even with one of the league's most charismatic and jaw-dropping talents in LeBron James, the Cavs are about as aesthetically unappealing as teams not featuring Jeff Van Gundy get.

Cavs Are Boring ! Cavs Are Boring !!

Cavs and Cavs alone are the reason the Finals sucks ass for non-Spurs fans.

The NBA better fix the junior conference for next year, or we're gonna endure the boring bullshit for the the Spurs next 3 championships.

Here's another snippet from Sportsline.com:
http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/10223462

"While these Finals could go down as the worst in modern history they still add to the legend of this San Antonio dynasty, which has proven they can play up-tempo or play the dismal NFC East-style of basketball Cleveland enjoys." :clap

I'm gonna disagree with this premise.

Cavs play good D. That is not "dismal" basketball, it may be "boring", but it shouldn't be.

How come when a pitcher throws a "no-hitter", it's big news, but when an NBA team holds an opponent to 70 points, it's boring?

EDIT: should have read the article first. It criticizes Cavs offense, not defense.

My bad. :oops

cavs are so ugly to watch I had to get hammered last game to keep watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nkdlunch

cavs are so ugly to watch I had to get hammered last game to keep watching.

---

Spurs weren't much better, and I know defense wasn't the entire problem.

Lots and lots of bad shots / open misses.

Still, you sorta expect Spurs to be a little off, offensively, on someone else's home court, in a game 3 when they're up 2-0.

Cav's should have taken their "home" energy and done something. That's usually the way it's worked in so many playoffs, Detroit, etc...right? Hell, Cav's actually looked better in the games in San Antonio.

Well, then again...mebbe not.

They haven't looked good yet.

LMAO @ Spurs fans calling any team "boring".

Whats the one constant with NBA's worst ratings?

Answer: The Spurs.

People are completely indifferent to the Spurs. They would rather watch something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

LMAO @ Spurs fans calling any team "boring".

Whats the one constant with NBA's worst ratings?

Answer: The Spurs.

People are completely indifferent to the Spurs. They would rather watch something else.

---

What's the one constant with the NBA Finals?

Answer: No Suns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

LMAO @ Spurs fans calling any team "boring".

Whats the one constant with NBA's worst ratings?

Answer: The Spurs.

People are completely indifferent to the Spurs. They would rather watch something else.

---

fine with me. Spurs will still be in history books. Suns on the other hand, noone will remember what position they finished or who was in their roster :smokin

Quote:

---

The NBA - it's not fantastic
The NBA (new official motto: "Rise up and go to bed") is stuck in a two-month stretch of misery eclipsing any hard times currently being experienced by John McCain.

This stagger goes far beyond the painful fact that its next championship team has a French point guard on the cusp of marrying a Hollywood hottie, a back-up power forward with more rings than the Olympic logo, the best big man of his era, the best perimeter defender of his era, a sixth man who resembles Italian actor Roberto Benigni and still has managed to anesthetize a sporting nation.

If you've never played or coached, it's probably difficult to appreciate the San Antonio Spurs.

But this is not an indictment of the Spurs, who are doing whatever is necessary to conquer a league in serious trouble.

While the Spurs were becoming the most taken-for-granted great team since Ben & Jerry, the NBA has experienced several setbacks. We'll begin with the disaster-grabbing Dallas Mavericks, whose best regular-season record did nothing to prevent them from being gunned down in the first round by former coach Don Nelson and his Golden State Warriors.

In one barrage of 3-pointers, the league's MVP and most entertaining owner were goners.

Just as quickly, the Warriors' fan-friendly, free-wheeling style was choked to death by the Utah Jazz.

While that was happening, a dandy series co-starring the Spurs and Phoenix Suns managed to capture everyone's imagination. But instead of pushing our interest to a Game 7, the league's well-intentioned, bench-leaving rule sabotaged what should have been the greatest showdown of the year.

Commissioner David Stern, who backtracked like a frightened toddler when players whined about his new synthetic basketball, refused to make a rules interpretation that would have greatly assisted his sport's popularity.


Things haven't improved much for the NBA since this brawl during the Suns-Spurs series. ( / Getty Images)

Instead, two Suns who didn't touch anyone during this brief fracas were suspended for one game against the team whose backup power forward created the mess.

Then again, if Stern was as progressive-minded as some believe, the Spurs-Suns would have occurred in the Finals after surrendering to a conference-free, round-by-round playoff reseeding program that doesn't exist.

When the Suns and their highly appealing offensive tactics were eliminated, the NBA's opportunity to seize the interest of casual fans and previous deserters vanished. A league and sporting culture that was prepared to embrace a wide-open style had to settle for a quartet of final four playoff teams that emphasized defense.

As a coach, I understand the importance of defense and use it as a guideline for my sideline rants. But a commitment to defense shouldn't require a simultaneous commitment to prehistoric offense.

While the Magic Lakers and Bird Celtics and their fast-breaking philosophies now seem like touchstones from another sport, offensive greatness hasn't completely disappeared.

For example, the NFL's Super Bowl-winning roster includes recent entries by the score-happy Indianapolis Colts, St. Louis Rams and Steve Young's 49ers.

Without the Suns, Stern's flow-choking playoff officiating helped create a 75-72 tractor pull disguised as Game 3 in Cleveland.

On top of the on-court issues, the draft lottery came and went with the selections that will yield rare prospects Greg Oden and Kevin Durant secured by two teams from the prosperous Western Conference.

One team savagely mugged by the prevailing lottery-selection process was the formerly mighty Boston Celtics, whose ascent would greatly assist any NBA revival. But Stern remains married to his weighted ping-pong system because he's unable to prevent the league's worst teams from losing on purpose.

Additional angst or embarrassment was fielded when Billy Donovan backed out of his deal with the Orlando Magic and returned to coach the Florida Gators. In his place steps Stan Van Gundy, whose new job inspired Miami Heat boss Pat Riley (the guy who stole Stan's South Florida gig) to bring up compensation issues.

At least Kobe Bryant woke up on the wrong side of a newspaper story and provoked discussion about the league.

---

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6918878

Basically every NBA fan has said "This Sucks" and changed the channel.

Stern has no one to blame but himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

LMAO @ Spurs fans calling any team "boring".

Whats the one constant with NBA's worst ratings?

Answer: The Spurs.

People are completely indifferent to the Spurs. They would rather watch something else.

---

This stuff is always said as if it offends our sensibilities. Can any Spurs fan here, honestly say they get all teary eyed becasue the rest of the country finds us boring and Nielsen's archaic 'only-7-households-in-America-have-our-ratings-box' say we get a share slightly better than the NHL and worse than Pre-Belmont coverage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Basically every NBA fan has said "This Sucks" and changed the channel.

Stern has no one to blame but himself.

---

good. why are you still logged in? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Iceman_Cometh

This stuff is always said as if it offends our sensibilities. Can any Spurs fan here, honestly say they get all teary eyed becasue the rest of the country finds us boring and Nielsen's archaic 'only-7-households-in-America-have-our-ratings-box' say we get a share slightly better than the NHL and worse than Pre-Belmont coverage?

---

Oh i see...so the ratings system is completely screwed up, right?

The Spurs truly are a draw, its just the system for measuring that is bad.

Funny that these numbers are always significantly higher when the Spurs aren't around. Why is that?

Thats the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. Even if they only factor one out of seven houses, that doesn't negate the fact that the Spurs draw much less viewership from this sample than when they're not in the finals.

at least our team is only boring, not a bunch of whiny loser bitches like the Suns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

good. why are you still logged in? :lol

---

I found it quite humorous that Spurs fans, themselves, have FINALLY admitted their games are boring.

NOW THEY'RE JUST BLAMING IT ON THE OTHER TEAM!!!!!

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

I found it quite humorous that Spurs fans, themselves, have FINALLY admitted their games are boring.

NOW THEY'RE JUST BLAMING IT ON THE OTHER TEAM!!!!!

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

---

if you don't think cavs are ugly to watch you need to open your eyes. this has been said of them since Nets series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

at least our team is only boring, not a bunch of whiny loser bitches like the Suns

---

And yet everyone is pissed off they don't get to watch them.

What does that say about the Spurs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

And yet everyone is pissed off they don't get to watch them.

What does that say about the Spurs?

---

Everyone in Arizona.

I think average NBA fans have forgotten about the pathetic suns, noone misses them. and they were really pathetic this time around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

if you don't think cavs are ugly to watch you need to open your eyes. this has been said of them since Nets series.

---

1) How many times have we watched Duncan hold the ball for 15-20 seconds before shooting a bank shot?

2) Tony Parker walks the ball up the court on nearly every possession.

3) The Spurs (almost in unision) look to Popovic nearly every time they get possession of the ball for their next set play (they might as well just huddle up).

4) The Spurs are the best in the league at imposing their will (style of play). But you want to pretend the tempo/style of these games has been determined by an extremely unexperienced Cavs team?

Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

Everyone in Arizona.

I think average NBA fans have forgotten about the pathetic suns, noone misses them. and they were really pathetic this time around

---

Did u just miss that foxsports.com article I just posted (scroll up).

Thats from TODAY, pal!

I am curious. Would fans of other teams actually watch a series if their team isn't in it? For instance, I only want to watch the Spurs. I could care less about the 29 other teams in the league. I suppose that's why they make such a big deal about market size. If it didn't matter what city was in the finals then they wouldn't worry about TV ratings. I'm a Spurs fan, not really a NBA fan. Sure I love basketball but I feel no connection to the other franchises. The same holds true for me with football. I have no rooting interest in any of the teams since there isn't one in SA. I have to have an emotional attachment for me to really pay attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nkdlunch

cavs are so ugly to watch I had to get hammered last game to keep watching.

---

Yah like 90% of us need that excuse. Spurs on? I'll get teh booze. :elephant

Tonight is SA Fan night at the Q. Here's to the CLE fans being Great hosts and fans! :clap :clap :clap :drunk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Oh i see...so the ratings system is completely screwed up, right?

The Spurs truly are a draw, its just the system for measuring that is bad.

Funny that these numbers are always significantly higher when the Spurs aren't around. Why is that?

Thats the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. Even if they only factor one out of seven houses, that doesn't negate the fact that the Spurs draw much less viewership from this sample than when they're not in the finals.

---

Here are some questions for you then:

Can you name even one person that you have ever even HEARD of that has a Nielsen's box in there house?

Also, since the NBA is for the most part an African-American sport, minus the white Eurotrash that has invaded, do you honestly believe that the demographic that the NBA largely markets to in this country would be represented by said rating system? With boxes in every ghetto household? There isn't one in my ghetto mansion.

Also, I'm guessing that the people that actually do have these boxes in their homes largely consist of those that can't wait to find out what happens on Grey's Anatomy next week. Or they are people who cheer for teams with players that leave their bench during altercations. Prolly not sports fans in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Did u just miss that foxsports.com article I just posted (scroll up).

Thats from TODAY, pal!

---

AVERAGE NBA FAN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Iceman_Cometh

Here are some questions for you then:

Can you name even one person that you have ever even HEARD of that has a Nielsen's box in there house?

Also, since the NBA is for the most part an African-American sport, minus the white Eurotrash that has invaded, do you honestly believe that the demographic that the NBA largely markets to in this country would be represented by said rating system? With boxes in every ghetto household? There isn't one in my ghetto mansion.

Also, I'm guessing that the people that actually do have these boxes in their homes largely consist of those that can't wait to find out what happens on Grey's Anatomy next week. Or they are people who cheer for teams with players that leave their bench during altercations. Prolly not sports fans in general.

---

Again, this doesn't negate the fact that WHEREVER these boxes are, more people watch the finals when the Spurs aren't in it. This is undeniable fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ielsen_ratings

Youre "rating system doesn't work for the NBA (as a whole)" argument doesn't explain why the Spurs get a lesser rating than when other teams are in it.

Its really sad youve come up with silly theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

AVERAGE NBA FAN

---

Eh..the AVERAGE NBA FAN isn't watching the NBA finals.

I think they care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Again, this doesn't negate the fact that WHEREVER these boxes are, more people watch the finals when the Spurs aren't in it. This is undeniable fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ielsen_ratings

Youre "rating system doesn't work for the NBA (as a whole)" argument doesn't explain why the Spurs get a lesser rating than when other teams are in it.

Its really sad youve come up with silly theory.

---

How is your John Paxson/Robert Horry buzz?

Look, back to my original post. I don't really care. It doesn't bother me that the Spurs are boring to you or the rest of the country. I was simply proffering up a viable hypothesis that the ratings system is given too much credence.

The Spurs have won it, the Suns have not. I am truly sorry that your Suns' are just one "Doug Christie's-wife-figure" away from being the Kings and your window is closing but if you cannot get the gist of my argument then i am :bang .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Oh i see...so the ratings system is completely screwed up, right?

The Spurs truly are a draw, its just the system for measuring that is bad.

Funny that these numbers are always significantly higher when the Spurs aren't around. Why is that?

Thats the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. Even if they only factor one out of seven houses, that doesn't negate the fact that the Spurs draw much less viewership from this sample than when they're not in the finals.

---

So who gives a shit about rating anyway? Since when do you have to have "ratings" to win the trophy?

Hell, the people in this country have been so dumbed down they woudln't understand half of what goes on on a basketball court anyway. Why watch something you are too stupid to understand?

Hell, just go watch a re-run of Law and Order for the 10th time. That way you already know the ending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Again, this doesn't negate the fact that WHEREVER these boxes are, more people watch the finals when the Spurs aren't in it. This is undeniable fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ielsen_ratings

Youre "rating system doesn't work for the NBA (as a whole)" argument doesn't explain why the Spurs get a lesser rating than when other teams are in it.

Its really sad youve come up with silly theory.

---

One thing does explain the lower ratings and that is that the Finals lack a second huge market with a direct interest in the games to inflate the ratings. There are all sorts of problems that exist when trying to suggest that ratings have anything to say about how fans across the country view any particular team. One thing it might say, though, is that the primary markets involved -- the markets in which the participating teams are located -- aren't as big as the markets involved in other Finals.

Assume with me that you get a fairly consistent percentage of the total available viewers in the markets where the teams are located in any given Finals. You also get a small percentage of fans outside of those markets who will watch the games no matter what. And finally, you get a fractional percentage of viewers who will make choices based entirely on the teams involved. If you get exactly the same percentages of foreign fans (those who live outside of the home markets) from year to year and you get the same percentage of home fans regardless of the teams involved, ratings will necessarily decline when smaller market teams play in the Finals. That's fairly simple math.

Look at the last few Finals and tell me which ones would be expected to have lower ratings, based just on the size of the markets that are playing each other:

1999: San Antonio (37) v. New York (1)
2000: Los Angeles (2) v. Indianapolis (25)
2001: Los Angeles (2) v. Philadelphia (4)
2002: Los Angeles (2) v. New York/New Jersey (1)
2003: San Antonio (37) v. New York/New Jersey (1)
2004: Los Angeles (2) v. Detroit (11)
2005: San Antonio (37) v. Detroit (11)
2006: Miami (12) v. Dallas (6)
2007: San Antonio (37) v. Cleveland (17)

How surprising is it, really, that the ratings are lowest for the matchup between markets 17 and 37? Is it really that surprising that there wouldn't be as many viewers as there were when Markets 2 and 4 matched up; or when markets 1 and 2 played; or when markets 6 and 12 played? That's hardly a remarkable turn of events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

One thing does explain the lower ratings and that is that the Finals lack a second huge market with a direct interest in the games to inflate the ratings. There are all sorts of problems that exist when trying to suggest that ratings have anything to say about how fans across the country view any particular team. One thing it might say, though, is that the primary markets involved -- the markets in which the participating teams are located -- aren't as big as the markets involved in other Finals.

Assume with me that you get a fairly consistent percentage of the total available viewers in the markets where the teams are located in any given Finals. You also get a small percentage of fans outside of those markets who will watch the games no matter what. And finally, you get a fractional percentage of viewers who will make choices based entirely on the teams involved. If you get exactly the same percentages of foreign fans (those who live outside of the home markets) from year to year and you get the same percentage of home fans regardless of the teams involved, ratings will necessarily decline when smaller market teams play in the Finals. That's fairly simple math.

Look at the last few Finals and tell me which ones would be expected to have lower ratings, based just on the size of the markets that are playing each other:

1999: San Antonio (37) v. New York (1)
2000: Los Angeles (2) v. Indianapolis (25)
2001: Los Angeles (2) v. Philadelphia (4)
2002: Los Angeles (2) v. New York/New Jersey (1)
2003: San Antonio (37) v. New York/New Jersey (1)
2004: Los Angeles (2) v. Detroit (11)
2005: San Antonio (37) v. Detroit (11)
2006: Miami (12) v. Dallas (6)
2007: San Antonio (37) v. Cleveland (17)

How surprising is it, really, that the ratings are lowest for the matchup between markets 17 and 37? Is it really that surprising that there wouldn't be as many viewers as there were when Markets 2 and 4 matched up; or when markets 1 and 2 played; or when markets 6 and 12 played? That's hardly a remarkable turn of events.

---

That was basically what I was trying to say but you put it into better words than I could. Larger markets inflate the ratings. Strangely though, I had heard last year's finals weren't rated that well either. I really do think people that are interested in the games are the ones that live in those cities participating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

One thing does explain the lower ratings and that is that the Finals lack a second huge market with a direct interest in the games to inflate the ratings. There are all sorts of problems that exist when trying to suggest that ratings have anything to say about how fans across the country view any particular team. One thing it might say, though, is that the primary markets involved -- the markets in which the participating teams are located -- aren't as big as the markets involved in other Finals.

Assume with me that you get a fairly consistent percentage of the total available viewers in the markets where the teams are located in any given Finals. You also get a small percentage of fans outside of those markets who will watch the games no matter what. And finally, you get a fractional percentage of viewers who will make choices based entirely on the teams involved. If you get exactly the same percentages of foreign fans (those who live outside of the home markets) from year to year and you get the same percentage of home fans regardless of the teams involved, ratings will necessarily decline when smaller market teams play in the Finals. That's fairly simple math.

Look at the last few Finals and tell me which ones would be expected to have lower ratings, based just on the size of the markets that are playing each other:

1999: San Antonio (37) v. New York (1)
2000: Los Angeles (2) v. Indianapolis (25)
2001: Los Angeles (2) v. Philadelphia (4)
2002: Los Angeles (2) v. New York/New Jersey (1)
2003: San Antonio (37) v. New York/New Jersey (1)
2004: Los Angeles (2) v. Detroit (11)
2005: San Antonio (37) v. Detroit (11)
2006: Miami (12) v. Dallas (6)
2007: San Antonio (37) v. Cleveland (17)

How surprising is it, really, that the ratings are lowest for the matchup between markets 17 and 37? Is it really that surprising that there wouldn't be as many viewers as there were when Markets 2 and 4 matched up; or when markets 1 and 2 played; or when markets 6 and 12 played? That's hardly a remarkable turn of events.

---

Flaws:

1) You overlook the fact that the New York/New Jersey market is twice the size of every other market...yet the Spurs/Nets series currently has the record for ratings futility (until this series is over).

2) 1998 Saw the highest viewership (Bulls/Jazz). Then there was a tremendous drop off for Spurs/Knicks (again, New York is a MUCH bigger market than Chicago...just ask George Steinbrenner).

3) Orlando was the NBA's biggest draw during the mid ninetees (with Shaq and Penny). No one ever claimed they were boring even though they were in a smaller market than San Antonio.

Nope...market sizes is just more lame excuses Spurs fans like to spew out.

All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.

This country finds the Spurs boring. You can claim that the entire country is made up of idiots, but that won't help the NBA's dwindling popularity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Did u just miss that foxsports.com article I just posted (scroll up).

Thats from TODAY, pal!

---

Sun's fan, it's common knowledge that your team was beaten by another that outscored you, trumped whatever defensive prowess you were claiming to have had, and the most significant part, outhustled you body, mind and spirit.
Now go round up your frankenstien-like team if you want to see them play and lose again, because last time I heard, it's parts are scattered all over the country, thankyou general manager for dissecting that abberation in the desert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

This country finds the Spurs boring. You can claim that the entire country is made up of idiots, but that won't help the NBA's dwindling popularity.

---

Alright, then so what?

Does it diminish the Spurs' championship (if they get it)? No.

Does it change the fact that the Spurs will be favored to reach the Finals again for the next few years? No.

Does it require the league to change its format to ensure that the Spurs won't reach the Finals again? No.

Should it change the way games are officiated to ensure that the Spurs don't reach the Finals again? No -- unless, of course, those who are convinced that there is some odd conspiracy at play to make the Spurs champions now somehow want the league to affirmatively manipulate games.

This is the thing that I don't understand about threads like this one. People don't watch the Spurs? People think the Spurs are boring? People would rather see other teams in the Finals?

SO WHAT?

da suns fag is one crybaby bitch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

LMAO @ Spurs fans calling any team "boring".

Whats the one constant with NBA's worst ratings?

Answer: The Spurs.

People are completely indifferent to the Spurs. They would rather watch something else.

---

Personally I'm all for the 4 titles rather then your horseshit TV ratings. But please continue to grip at straws here. Maybe you'll come up with something good eventually. Doubtful, but possible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

1) How many times have we watched Duncan hold the ball for 15-20 seconds before shooting a bank shot?

2) Tony Parker walks the ball up the court on nearly every possession.

3) The Spurs (almost in unision) look to Popovic nearly every time they get possession of the ball for their next set play (they might as well just huddle up).

4) The Spurs are the best in the league at imposing their will (style of play). But you want to pretend the tempo/style of these games has been determined by an extremely unexperienced Cavs team?

Try again.

---

That type of thinking is part of the reason the Spurs keep winning and the Suns keep whining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

And yet everyone is pissed off they don't get to watch them.

What does that say about the Spurs?

---

I know not one person who's pissed off about the Suns. What now?

Let me put it this way: WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT RATINGS? WE JUST WANNA SEE OUR TEAM WIN. THAT is ALL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Alright, then so what?

Does it diminish the Spurs' championship (if they get it)? No.

Does it change the fact that the Spurs will be favored to reach the Finals again for the next few years? No.

Does it require the league to change its format to ensure that the Spurs won't reach the Finals again? No.

Should it change the way games are officiated to ensure that the Spurs don't reach the Finals again? No -- unless, of course, those who are convinced that there is some odd conspiracy at play to make the Spurs champions now somehow want the league to affirmatively manipulate games.

This is the thing that I don't understand about threads like this one. People don't watch the Spurs? People think the Spurs are boring? People would rather see other teams in the Finals?

SO WHAT?

---

Dude this is the only thing this fuckwipe has left. He can't talk about the playoffs b/c they're done. He can't talk about titles b/c they've never had one. His only defense is TV ratings. And yes, that has to be the worst "smack" one can ever talk about. That or "derrrrrrr SA's riverwalk is the dirtiest place everrrrrrrrrr".

We feed this fucking troll and he gets off on it. Cut him off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 703 Spurz

Dude this is the only thing this fuckwipe has left. He can't talk about the playoffs b/c they're done. He can't talk about titles b/c they've never had one. His only defense is TV ratings. And yes, that has to be the worst "smack" one can ever talk about. That or "derrrrrrr SA's riverwalk is the dirtiest place everrrrrrrrrr".

We feed this fucking troll and he gets off on it. Cut him off

---

Look at the title of this thread buddy.

Spurs:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/10/ph...rientrophy.jpghttp://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/10/ph...rientrophy.jpghttp://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/10/ph...rientrophy.jpghttp://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/10/ph...rientrophy.jpg

Sun fan does have a championship t-shirt, tho:

http://thecradlerocks.com/images/wee-rock-waah.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clutch20

Here's another snippet from Sportsline.com:
http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/10223462

"While these Finals could go down as the worst in modern history they still add to the legend of this San Antonio dynasty, which has proven they can play up-tempo or play the dismal NFC East-style of basketball Cleveland enjoys." :clap

---

NFC East > all

go cowboys

-Mars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Basically every NBA fan has said "This Sucks" and changed the channel.

Stern has no one to blame but himself.

---

one problem

NO SPURS FAN GIVES A FUCK ABOUT RATINGS.

STFU, AND GTFO while you're at it.

also cocks

-Mars

Simmons has just added his opinion......look how far down the Spurs are on the list:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...x?name=simmons

God I love Simmons:

Now, I've already written about 1 through 6 (see the corresponding links). But No. 7 has to be one of the weirdest subplots in recent sports history. We've reached a point with the NBA when its offseason somehow became more interesting than its actual season. I have no idea what this means. I have no idea how to interpret this information. For whatever reason, people are more interested in figuring out how the Suns will win the 2008 title over how the Spurs are winning the 2007 title. They're more interested in wondering what the Celtics will do with the No. 5 pick versus the Duncan/Parker battle for Finals MVP. They're more interested in figuring out how Cleveland will find help for LeBron in 2008 than the help he's getting right now.


Where's that guy who said everyone's forgot about the Suns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

God I love Simmons:

Now, I've already written about 1 through 6 (see the corresponding links). But No. 7 has to be one of the weirdest subplots in recent sports history. We've reached a point with the NBA when its offseason somehow became more interesting than its actual season. I have no idea what this means. I have no idea how to interpret this information. For whatever reason, people are more interested in figuring out how the Suns will win the 2008 title over how the Spurs are winning the 2007 title. They're more interested in wondering what the Celtics will do with the No. 5 pick versus the Duncan/Parker battle for Finals MVP. They're more interested in figuring out how Cleveland will find help for LeBron in 2008 than the help he's getting right now.


Where's that guy who said everyone's forgot about the Suns?

---

why don't you go blow him then?

spurs fans DON'T GIVE A FUCK unless you're talking about our soon to be 4th championship.

ratings are stern's business, winning championships is ours

-Mars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

LMAO @ Spurs fans calling any team "boring".

Whats the one constant with NBA's worst ratings?

Answer: The Spurs.

People are completely indifferent to the Spurs. They would rather watch something else.

---

id rather see rings at the end of the tunnel then summer break...

boring? spurs have never been boring to me... boring is all these weak ass pussy crying bitches that are supposed to uphold the wests domination but instead insist on crying about every little thing that doesnt go their way.

fuck your boring ass suns! wheres your ring(s) at bitch?

we be blingin down south while yall just fishin in the desert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

1) How many times have we watched Duncan hold the ball for 15-20 seconds before shooting a bank shot?

2) Tony Parker walks the ball up the court on nearly every possession.

3) The Spurs (almost in unision) look to Popovic nearly every time they get possession of the ball for their next set play (they might as well just huddle up).

4) The Spurs are the best in the league at imposing their will (style of play). But you want to pretend the tempo/style of these games has been determined by an extremely unexperienced Cavs team?

Try again.

---

1) Pretty much never. He normally only holds it for 5 seconds or so before shooting the bank.

2) Uhh... Most teams do at least a majority of the time. It's called conserving energy so you don't peter out in the fourth (see Suns/Spurs game 5 when the Suns completely exhausted themselves). Although I do wish he'd only take 4 seconds instead of 6-7 (scares me with the 8 second timeline).

3) You're point? Takes a couple seconds at most, while TP is walking up the court. The Cavs would too, but they only seem to have one play anyway.

4) Have you watched the Cavs? They like THE SAME TEMPO. Actually, they like a slower tempo than the Spurs. The Spurs can play at any tempo, they choose the one that gives them the best chance to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

God I love Simmons:

Now, I've already written about 1 through 6 (see the corresponding links). But No. 7 has to be one of the weirdest subplots in recent sports history. We've reached a point with the NBA when its offseason somehow became more interesting than its actual season. I have no idea what this means. I have no idea how to interpret this information. For whatever reason, people are more interested in figuring out how the Suns will win the 2008 title over how the Spurs are winning the 2007 title. They're more interested in wondering what the Celtics will do with the No. 5 pick versus the Duncan/Parker battle for Finals MVP. They're more interested in figuring out how Cleveland will find help for LeBron in 2008 than the help he's getting right now.


Where's that guy who said everyone's forgot about the Suns?

---

The next paragraph:

Here's the easy explanation: Anyone who understands basketball realized by the 10-minute mark of Game 2 that Cleveland was completely outclassed in this series. (Not to toot my own horn, but I tried to warn you before Game 1. All right, I guess that was some tooting. But I did try to warn you.) By the time the Spurs extended their lead to the high 20s and Mike Breen started sobbing on-air that he had been stuck with so many lousy playoff games while Dick Freaking Stockton got to call the Mavs-Warriors series, the 2006-07 season, for all intent and purpose, had been rammed with a giant pitchfork like the one Jason Voorhees used in "Friday the 13th 3D." So it was natural for everyone to start thinking about the summer, free agency, the draft and everything else.