San Antonio Spurs 2007-2008 Schedule

[Switchman]

Tim Duncan and the Spurs will get their latest set of rings

I love that sentence.

[clubalien]

That's a pretty vicious schedule. It's a far cry from when the champion Lakers would get month long home stretches near the end of the season to pad their record.

But the Spurs become a better team when the schedule is tough. If the schedule is easy, the Spurs get lazy and start going thru the motions. With this schedule, it'll be tough to get the top seed in the WC, but the Spurs should be playing their best ball come April.

If the spurs organzarion ( not fans) complan about the rodeo road trip they need to shut up. They had a dome designed for them in the alamo dome and decided they weren't makeing "enough" money so they stole the stadom for the rodeo. So they have to live with the rode road trip. Next time don't steal another groups building when you had your own.

The rodeo road trip is suggested by some as a good thing since it builds adversity into the season. We dont want a wussy team that folds (dallas mavs) we build chapmion teams here. Champion teams face adversity. Also Spurs have always been a better road team than a home team so it doesn't hurt us any.

Spus do suck on back to backs no mater where taken place though.

[spurschick]

If anyone is interested, here is the preseason schedule:

SAT Oct. 13 Greece
THU Oct. 18 Golden State
SAT Oct. 20 Detroit
FRI Oct. 26 Houston

[ShoogarBear]

If anyone is interested, here is the preseason schedule:
SAT Oct. 13 Greece

FRI Oct. 26 Houston

No. Way.

[timvp]

No. Way.

Tour de Holt

[FromWayDowntown]

They had a dome designed for them in the alamo dome and decided they weren't makeing "enough" money so they stole the stadom for the rodeo. So they have to live with the rode road trip. Next time don't steal another groups building when you had your own.

Those statements couldn't be more incorrect.

The Alamodome was NOT -- it was NEVER -- built for the Spurs. When the referendum was before the voters in the late 80's, it was sold as a necessary step for the City to have any opportunity for professional football. I vividly recall the discussions from around that time and an active debate among factions that the building should actually be a dual-purpose baseball/football dome, to expand the City's chances to lure a team from another major sport. But in that discussion, there was NEVER any belief that the Alamodome would be constructed to house the Spurs.

Even at that time, there was a belief that San Antonio also needed a new mid-sized arena, for the Spurs and for the other sorts of events that now take place at the AT&T Center. It's not as if the mid-sized arena thing was some invention of the Peter Holt ownership group.

It turned out that when the City opened the Alamodome and did not have an anchor tenant -- because no NFL team had been granted to San Antonio -- the Spurs, then owned by Red McCombs, agreed to occupy the Alamodome for some period of time. And from 1993-94 through 2001-02, the Spurs were a good community citizen by continuing to serve as a primary tenant in the Alamodome. But in doing so, the Spurs were hemorraging cash -- and, economically, that assertion makes perfect sense -- the longer they stayed in that building.

You'll also note that when the Spurs re-invigorated talk of a mid-sized arena around 1999, the initial overtures for such a building were made to the City of San Antonio and then Mayor Howard Peak. In the earliest stages of talk about a new Spurs building, the contemplation was that the new building might be constructed adjacent to the Alamodome or using TIF's on the far Northside. For various reasons, those plans were shot down; in my own opinion, the negotiations between the City and the Spurs fell apart because Howard Peak lacked any real understanding of the Spurs' insistence upon a new building and tried to load any referendum concerning the construction of such a building using public funds with tag-along public works programs that would have doomed the referendum in an election. I don't have a quarrel with public works programs, but they were clearly not popular with those who would vote on the arena referendum.

Regardless of the reason, the Spurs negotiations with the City failed and the deadline for working out a reasonable deal to build a new mid-sized arena in Metropolitan San Antonio loomed. Realizing that the metro area might suffer significantly by losing the Spurs, then County Judge Cyndi Krier stepped up to the plate and offered a new referendum idea using County land, rather than City land. Of course, in dealing with the County, it stood to reason that any deal involving a new arena would also be a deal that would benefit one of the County's main programs -- the San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo, which was held at the Freeman Coliseum, on County land. Without the Spurs, the Rodeo would still be taking place at the Freeman Coliseum; without the Rodeo, the Spurs would be playing in St. Louis, New Orleans, or some other locale.

In conclusion, then, the Spurs:

1. didn't have "a dome designed for them in the alamo dome"

2. the Spurs weren't doing well financially while serving as the Alamodome's primary occupant, and

3. the Spurs didn't "steal the stadium for the rodeo"

Notwithstanding the absolutely non-factual nonsense in your post, I also don't hear the Spurs organization (or even many Spurs' fans) truly complaining about the Rodeo Road Trip. It's a reality of life for the Spurs and Spurs fans these days, and it's actually not unique among NBA teams.

[CubanMustGo]

In conclusion, then, the Spurs:

1. didn't have "a dome designed for them in the alamo dome"

2. the Spurs weren't doing well financially while serving as the Alamodome's primary occupant, and

3. the Spurs didn't "steal the stadium for the rodeo"

Notwithstanding the absolutely non-factual nonsense in your post, I also don't hear the Spurs organization (or even many Spurs' fans) truly complaining about the Rodeo Road Trip. It's a reality of life for the Spurs and Spurs fans these days, and it's actually not unique among NBA teams.

And that, children, shows just how much FWD can pwn your average ST poster.

[bdictjames]

Great February schedule. Good time to kick things up for the playoffs.

[SequSpur]

lottery bound forum

[ShoogarBear]

And that, children, shows just how much FWD can pwn your average ST poster.

I think he selects a Post of the Week to vent pwnage on, just to keep in shape.

[boutons_]

"17 B2Bs?"

I remember a Piston fan saying they had 21 B2B a couple years ago.

Somebody should go through all 30 schedules for B2B per team.

NBA should put the schedule out as .xls or other standard file so it could be imported to a database program.

[FromWayDowntown]

"17 B2Bs?"

I remember a Piston fan saying they had 21 B2B a couple years ago.

Somebody should go through all 30 schedules for B2B per team.

NBA should put the schedule out as .xls or other standard file so it could be imported to a database program.

I recalled reading a couple of years ago that bad teams tend to be the ones who play the most back-to-backs. I didn't try to do all 30 schedules, but I went through 4 that I thought might be fairly representative of that phenomenon and discovered that there might be some truth to it.

In 2007-08, I count both Dallas and Phoenix as having 17 back-to-backs, just like the Spurs. By contrast, Charlotte has 21 and Memphis has 19. I suspect that if someone went through them all, we'd find that the numbers are actually pretty close and that by-and-large, the better teams (from a perception standpoint) will have fewer. I'd be surprised if the low went any lower than about 16 and if the high went much higher than about 22; after all, 21 back-to-backs means more than half of the team's schedule involves back-to-back games.

[jaespur21]

so with the rodeo road trip talk when i get a chance im interested to see who the Spurs are matched with

[himat]

I believe that the Pistons have had the most B2B's for the last couple of years, and this year they have 18.

Right now I don't want to do the research, so don't take my word for it. I am sure that the Pistons are a team with a lot of B2B's though.

[himat]

"17 B2Bs?"

I remember a Piston fan saying they had 21 B2B a couple years ago.

That number is easy for me to remember because their are 82 games in a season, which is 41 sets.

Half of 41 is 20.5, and I remember using an argument that more than half of the Pistons season is a part of a back to back set (21>20.5)

[aaronstampler]

This kinda sucks. The team is gonna have total Lakeritis anyway and coast for the first 50 games, and with the home-heavy first half, we're going to waste all our home games. Then by the time the team starts giving a , the sked becomes a nightmare.

o 5th seed.

Eh. I figured after winning it all as a 3rd seed last year anyway, the team would stop caring about the reg season altogether. Maybe they'll try to top the 95 Rockets accomplishment when they won it all as a 6th, at our expense no less.

[himat]

It was not 21 B2B's it was actually 22.

[Switchman]

8th seed to championship or the season is a failure.

[dknights411]

Try this trip and these back-to-backs...

DECEMBER
Tue 18 @ L.A. Clippers 10:30pm
Wed 19 @ Portland 10:00pm
Fri 21 @ Seattle 10:30pm
Sat 22 @ Phoenix 9:00pm
Fri 28 @ San Antonio 8:30pm
Sat 29 @ Houston 8:30pm
Mon 31 @ New Orleans 8:00pm

damn. That sucks.