I liked the part where he became the greatest QB of all-time while making flawed teams look like powerhouses. Most stat gods don't have to carry teams, but he did. His god damned SNL skits destroyed me, too.Originally Posted by BroncoWave
Retiree
I liked the part where he became the greatest QB of all-time while making flawed teams look like powerhouses. Most stat gods don't have to carry teams, but he did. His god damned SNL skits destroyed me, too.
Senior Member
WTE's tears are delicious.
*The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.
Retiree
No, sir. He's simply pointed out the truth - one conference is arguably three teams deep, and the other conference is just one team deep.
Senior Member
The same as it's been for 67 years in the NBA.
*The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.
Retiree
Analysts have laughed at how bad this league is right now. Too many teams - cut the teams down by five to six and the league will be solid.
Senior Member
Who?
And it was even more monopolistic in the 60s and 70s with 10 teams up to 17. History doesn't back up your theory.
*The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.
Notorious D.O.G.
do you think he turned it off in the second quarter?
Senior Member
Man, that was glorious.
*The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.
Retiree
Last year in the finals, when it was presumed GSW was going to win and start the dynasty, the entire TNT cast literally laughed at that notion because GSW was beating up on a historically bad league.
At the end of last year, everyone was saying that the losing team would get a chance at revenge this year. You have two super teams that no one is contending with. It's why, for instance, I thought Ainge was a fool for staying pat with his roster. And it's why GSW looked at their roster, realized that they beat the Cavs when they were hapless, and added Durant. It's a Super Team league and there's not enough stars for their to be any parody. It's not like the NFL - even if the league is always monopolistic, I can't fault the fans for being bored of seeing the same teams in the finals for three years in a row.
Notorious D.O.G.
puh-lease! how many times over the years have you watched red socks or bruins teams crush opponents who had half their payroll or less? you know you loved every moment. . . seeing boston fans suffer is glorious, i tell you! i'm glad MOseph was here to share it with me. . .
Retiree
To be fair to Boston, they also subsidize the perennial losing teams who can't draw any fan support because their front offices suck.puh-lease! how many times over the years have you watched red socks or bruins teams crush opponents who had half their payroll or less? you know you loved every moment. . . seeing boston fans suffer is glorious, i tell you! i'm glad MOseph was here to share it with me. . .
Senior Member
No, I need proof that this is a historically bad league, not a "I saw it on TNT."
It's ALWAYS been a super team league. If you have three of the best players in the league you win. That is the entire history of the league.
*The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.
Retiree
Hey, those guys are actually good analysts. And that doesn't exclude the rest of the league from being bad. It is possible for a worse league to help boost some dominance of teams. For instance, if Boston was in the West, are they even a three seed? If you swapped GSW and Cle, do either of those teams fall off? The entire year it felt like you had two teams who were literally head and shoulders above the league. Isn't there something to be said about a league short on star power doing something to try to have a better overall league?
Senior Member
How is it short on star power? There's more star power now than ever, the league is having record attendance because of it, the revenue is up, the ratings are at 10-year highs. Who is saying this is a horrible league? Where's your proof?
*The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.
Retiree
Revenue went up when the Celtics and the Lakers went ham. What does that have to do anything? More star power than ever? How can that be when two teams have the majority of elite players?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote