NBA Bragging Rights by Franchise & by City

[Solid D]

I remember when the league decided to improve with that ugly "3-to-make-2" rule.

That certainly bumped up the scoring and helped players like Wilt, who were poor FT shooters, but otherwise... it was just lame.

[ShoogarBear]

Conference Championship Banners
San Antonio Spurs - 3
Dallas Mavericks - 1



Three Point Championship Trophies
Dallas Mavericks - 1
San Antonio Spurs -0


Appearances by Owner on Letterman
Dallas Mavericks - 1
San Antonio Spurs - 0

[shelshor]

I remember when the league decided to improve with that ugly "3-to-make-2" rule.

That certainly bumped up the scoring and helped players like Wilt, who were poor FT shooters, but otherwise... it was just lame.

What was the backcourt foul rule? If you fouled in the backcourt it was the same free throws as a shooting foul?

[Solid D]

What was the backcourt foul rule? If you fouled in the backcourt it was the same free throws as a shooting foul?

That backcourt foul rule was in place for a long time but I never really liked it. Two FTs were awarded on backcourt fouls for almost 3 decades (until the early 1980s). The NBA finally got rid of it but I never really understood the reasoning behind it, other than to speed up play. Teams actually got 3 shots to make 2 on a backcourt foul when the fouling team was over the limit for the quarter.

[BigBinBigD]

[QUOTE=Lakeshow1]

I never get why people want to brag about les 5, 10, 30 years ago. QUOTE]

Until your team wins one and you experience it, You will never get it!

Five Super Bowl championships? I think I get it. I just don't dwell on the past.

[shelshor]

That backcourt foul rule was in place for a long time but I never really liked it. Two FTs were awarded on backcourt fouls for almost 3 decades (until the early 1980s). The NBA finally got rid of it but I never really understood the reasoning behind it, other than to speed up play. Teams actually got 3 shots to make 2 on a backcourt foul when the fouling team was over the limit for the quarter.

Thanks--I too was glad to see both the 3 to make 2 free throws and the back court fouls go
Don't waste time looking it up, but do you know off the top of your head when they started advancing the ball to mid-court after a time out at the end of a half?
And wasn't there a period when the team inbounding the ball had an option of whether to inbound from midcourt or from under the basket they were defending?

[Solid D]

Thanks--I too was glad to see both the 3 to make 2 free throws and the back court fouls go
Don't waste time looking it up, but do you know off the top of your head when they started advancing the ball to mid-court after a time out at the end of a half?
And wasn't there a period when the team inbounding the ball had an option of whether to inbound from midcourt or from under the basket they were defending?

No I don't know when they went to side-out-of-bounds midcourt. Check here.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

[shelshor]

No I don't know when they went to side-out-of-bounds midcourt. Check here.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

Oh good--Thanks for the link
It was in the 1976-77 season

From the same page is another one that we should probably be glad isn't still around:
1950-51
• After a free throw is made in the last three minutes, there is a jump ball (between the player who committed the foul and the player fouled) instead of possession for the team that committed the foul.
To eliminate deliberate fouling and roughness

[ShoogarBear]

1950-51
• After a free throw is made in the last three minutes, there is a jump ball (between the player who committed the foul and the player fouled) instead of possession for the team that committed the foul.
To eliminate deliberate fouling and roughness

That would have eliminated the Hack-a-Shaq.

[twilo73]

Another claim to fame... we have never lost a Finals series.

[BradLohaus]

Rochester (1)/Cincinnati/Kansas City (Kings)/KC-Omaha (Kings)/Sacramento (Kings) Royals - 1

Looks like its about time for the Maloofs and the Kings to move to Vegas.

[LakeShow]

Another claim to fame... we have never lost a Finals series.

Here's another one,

NBA Championship by franchise*

1. (and only) San Antonio Spurs


* - Strike shortened season. Regular season began in Feb, ended in April. 50 games out of 82 regular season played.

[BradLohaus]

I've never understood the * talk. Everyone knows that at least the first 32 games of the regular season are almost meaningless. They should probably just play 50 games in the regular season, but they want to sell more tickets.

[LakeShow]

I've never understood the * talk. Everyone knows that at least the first 32 games of the regular season are almost meaningless. They should probably just play 50 games in the regular season, but they want to sell more tickets.

I can agree with that, but the bottom line was that it was an IRREGULAR season.

[FromWayDowntown]

I can agree with that, but the bottom line was that it was an IRREGULAR season.

But it's not like it was irregular season for just the Spurs. It was irregular for all teams. I could understand, perhaps, the asterisk talk if the Spurs had never contended for another le, but that didn't happen either.

The asterisk stuff didn't exist until Phil Jackson decided that it was better to disparage the franchise that took the le than to congratulate it. Since then, a bunch of Jackson sycophants and Spurs haters continue to spew that crap -- I suspect mostly to get a rise out of Spurs fans. I think it's garbage, but I don't care enough about what other people think to do much other than a response like this one.

I think championships are championships -- each means that the team winning the championship was better, when it mattered, than every other team in the league. The 1999 Spurs dominated the Western Conference in those playoffs. It's not as if, at the end, there was some question about the validity of the Spurs' run.

If you want to put an asterisk on it, so be it. I think it makes you look like pretty much petty, juvenile, and disrespectful; but if that floats your boat, there's not much I can do to change your mind about that.

[Extra Stout]

Hey meathead, Los Angeles doesn't have that many championships. Minneapolis won a few of those for ya.

Yes, indeed the Lakers have 9 in LA. 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987-88, 2000-02.

[Extra Stout]

I can agree with that, but the bottom line was that it was an IRREGULAR season.

So?

[Solid D]

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html

Here is the official NBA records listing.

[LakeShow]

But it's not like it was irregular season for just the Spurs. It was irregular for all teams. I could understand, perhaps, the asterisk talk if the Spurs had never contended for another le, but that didn't happen either.

The asterisk stuff didn't exist until Phil Jackson decided that it was better to disparage the franchise that took the le than to congratulate it. Since then, a bunch of Jackson sycophants and Spurs haters continue to spew that crap -- I suspect mostly to get a rise out of Spurs fans. I think it's garbage, but I don't care enough about what other people think to do much other than a response like this one.

I think championships are championships -- each means that the team winning the championship was better, when it mattered, than every other team in the league. The 1999 Spurs dominated the Western Conference in those playoffs. It's not as if, at the end, there was some question about the validity of the Spurs' run.

If you want to put an asterisk on it, so be it. I think it makes you look like pretty much petty, juvenile, and disrespectful; but if that floats your boat, there's not much I can do to change your mind about that.

It is what it is! It was the same advantage and disadvantage for all teams as you say. It was a season thrown together to save face and dollars for the league. The spurs just played better during that short season than anyone else.

I'm just funning with you guys but the truth is if the Lakers would have won, I would be boasting 10 NBA les in LA as well. Dont get your panties in a bunch!