The "Asterisk" Season Argument...

[GrandeDavid]

Yeah, I'm sure David Stern & ABC said to themselves, "you know, we need to keep one of our highest-rated, most visually appealing, teams out of the Finals, and make sure one of our least-watched, less-marketable teams get in." I'm so sure.

The next thing you'll tell me is that GW blew up the twin towers or the Illuminati are behind the new world order. Why not just give the Spurs their due credit? They're better than your teams, and they're winning the hardware while your teams are sitting home crying.

Way to beat these p*ssy ass haters down. Damn troll es.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Unless the * means taking the rings away, who cares?

The * is deserved, but it doesn't diminish what they accomplished IMO.

[sheriee84]

Does the * make the ring tarnish? NO
Does it make the diamonds turn to glass? NO
Does it make the trophy lighter? NO
Does it make the BIG ass celebration here in SA any shorter? Definate NO
So really the * doesn't mean a thing to me!!!

[spurs1990]

Here is my argument against the 1999 asterisk. It contains elements of other arguments made in this thread.

1) To say that the Spurs deserve an asterisk for that le is to suggest that they had some sort of an advantage, as if they played 50 games while the other teams had to play 82 - and of course that wasn't the case. In fact, the Spurs actually made it tougher on themselves, starting 6-8 in a 50 game season. Maybe the other teams get the asterisk for not keeping the Spurs out of the picture after a bad start.

2) All of the top players and coaches participated in the season except for Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson. Neither Jackson nor Jordan sat out because of some sort of objection to a shortened season, and Jordan retired. (Of course, this was back when athlete retirements still meant something. Since it was Jordan retiring, we should have known better) Anyway, Shaq played and Kobe played. Malone played and Stockton played. Iverson played and won a scoring le. Vince Carter was the Rookie of the Year. Grant Hill had a great season then, one of his last. Penny Hardaway had one of his last good years. Shawn Kemp had his last good season. Alonzo Mourning went 20/10 and led the league in blocks. Gary Payton had a good individual season. Charles Barkley was second in rebounding to Chris Webber, who went 20/13 and had his first truly great season as a pro. Pre-injury Antonio McDyess was an elite force, averaging 20/10 for Denver. An aging Hakeem still put up 19/9 and finished 8th in blocks. Gay-basher Hardaway put up 17/7 for Miami. Kevin Garnett had his first 20/10 season. Old Man Ewing averaged 17/9 and 2 blocks. Jason Kidd averaged 17/11 and 6 boards.

For an asterisk season, that's an awful lot of names we know and production we're used to. I don't see any scabs, nobodies, or omissions on that list.

3) The playoffs weren't shorter, although I guess they were real short for the Lakers and Blazers. By the way, the Forum is closed, mother ers!

Excellent post and great argument....however...

The NBA has only had ONE 50 game regular season...so that one particular season sticks out versus the others. I think it was highly unusual the way that season played out..I'm not sure teams even had a training camp..certainly no preseason games.

If that season began in November '98, it would be plausible to think the Lakers would have gelled and been a beast in May, akin to the following 3 years.

I tend to focus on the '03 and '05 rings because no one can say anything about them.

[Strike]

Excellent post and great argument....however...

The NBA has only had ONE 50 game regular season...so that one particular season sticks out versus the others. I think it was highly unusual the way that season played out..I'm not sure teams even had a training camp..certainly no preseason games.

If that season began in November '98, it would be plausible to think the Lakers would have gelled and been a beast in May, akin to the following 3 years.

I tend to focus on the '03 and '05 rings because no one can say anything about them.

The Spurs can't be blamed for the Lakers chemistry issues any more than the shortened season. It's on THEM to get along and become a team instead of 12 players. If a team can't get along, that's their own damn problem.

[DudleyDawson]

Was the postseason shortened? No. So what's their argument?

[Fast Dunk]

I like the picture, but they won't even get pass the Jazz

[Man of Steel]

My response usually consists of 2 words.

The first word starts with an "F."

The second word is "You"

[UV Ray]

I like the picture, but they won't even get pass the Jazz

If the Spurs lose tonight, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth on this board like you've never seen. Squealing like spoiled piglets about all the bad calls and NBA conspiracies. There will be a few (claiming to represent the majority) who will say that it wasn't the officiating, but simply lack of team effort and therefore they are not like the sniveling Suns. But even those few will believe deep inside themselves that they were victims.

On the other hand, if the Spurs win, Spurs fan will continue to delude themselves that they actually deserve to be in the WCF by merit.