Reply With Quote
All look the same to me.
Does it bother you when people say there should be an asterisk next to the 99 championship?
Last time I checked the playoffs were still the same length. The fact that the regular season was shortened is irrelevant, the playoffs still did what they were supposed to do. They narrowed the field to the best team in the league.
But you know if the spurs get #5 this year, there will still be idiots that insist the spurs really only have 3.8 les or something stupid like that.
All look the same to me.
Nope. Whatever it was, their team didn't win.
What is interesting is that by process of elimination, you are a loser if you are handing out *s to NBA championship teams... Winners just don't do that.
Also - I think we have two different types of sports fans in this world. Those that believe that the best team actually goes out and proves it, and those that believe the best team is the one that looks best on paper (regardless of the outcome on the playing field/court)
while I agree with and support the sentiment, it did amuse me to notice that there is in that photo, in fact, a massive asterisk-shaped light above the 1999 banner......All look the same to me.
There's only an asterisk to Phil Jackson and I couldn't give two s what he thinks....
Phil Jackson. Guy is full of himself. Sure he has 11 championships, but any half decent NBA coach would've won those championships with the Bulls teams of the 90's.
Phil has never built a championship team from the ground up.
Seems to me that all the other teams had the same chance to win the 1999 le as the Spurs did, and they didn't get it done. So I just chalk it up to "haters gonna hate".
I'd be perfectly happy to see the Spurs pull in a 2012* as well. And so would 29 other teams.
This...
Had L.A. or anyone else won for that matter...you know damn well they wouldn't claim an asterisk over their le. It's always been hater-ade at it's best.
Nope.
2003 killed the asterisk. 2005 buried it.
That quit bothering me over a decade ago tbh
phil jackson wouldnt be saying that if the lakers wons that year
He wouldn't have been named coach if the Lakers had won that year. I think he took the job the day the Finals started or the day of the championship parade. He always thought it was cute to do and say like that. Just made him come off as classless, though he probably isn't.
2007 threw dirt on the grave.
2012 is going to piss on the dirt.
He wasn't coaching the Lakers in '99. Under PJ the Lakers went from a team the Spurs swept to one they couldn't beat for two straight years.
Phil plays mind games and says stuff to get into people's heads. It's worked against alot of coaches.
It doesn't bother me, no. Every team in the NBA is out there playing their asses off to win the le. And every fan wants the NBA le for their team, be it a strike shortened year or not. And they will gladly claim it. However, any team who wins the le will be under scrutiny from opposing jealous fans. It's just the way it goes. TBH, the champion of this years NBA has as tough a road as any team in recent memory, based on the condensed schedule alone. This season is no cake walk, and 66 games is still a long season.
If we're talking about asterisks, then I'd say that Duncan's injury in 2000 and Anderson's injury in 2001 were bigger reasons the Spurs couldn't beat the Lakers than Phil Jackson's arrival. Maybe I have the years wrong but I'm too tired to look it up.
Asterisks in this case are bull . Everybody played the same amount of games..everybody had the opportunity to practice together the same, some more than others. One reason people argue the asterisk is because with a shorter season, you don't see as many injuries. I'd argue that this year, there's MORE injuries than most full seasons, because of having to shove all those games together.
Honestly, the 1999 banner appears to be more wrinkled than the others.All look the same to me.
There's also a bluish hue surrounding it.
yepIf we're talking about asterisks, then I'd say that Duncan's injury in 2000 and Anderson's injury in 2001 were bigger reasons the Spurs couldn't beat the Lakers than Phil Jackson's arrival. Maybe I have the years wrong but I'm too tired to look it up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
