Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, that wasn't stated. So I'll "murk" your credibility right there.
Nobody is arguing that football isn't the biggest sport in America. But why does that matter when basketball is by many measures, at worst, the third most popular sport in the world? The argument that 'Murica does loves so it's the best isn't persuasive. I could easily say something is the best because it's done in New York. And yet New Yorkers are always accused of being New York-centric. SMH.
Nobody's saying football is objectively the best. We are saying that its the most popular in America, for numerous reasons.
The last classic NBA FINALS was three years ago, in 2013. 2010 was a classic, otherwise, all the other Finals this decade have either been snooze fests blowouts (2012, 2014) or didn't live up to the hype (2011, 2015). Some were watchable, but only '10 and '13 were truly exciting the whole series through...
For comparison, only Super Bowl 49 was a classic this decade. But, the only blowout was 48. Super Bowl 50 didn't quite live up to its billing. The other most recent games (47, 46, 45) were all highly entertaining, highly competitive. So where are these Super Bowl you talk about are more often than not bad games? In recent years, the Super Bowl is almost guaranteed to be a good game. Can't say the pattern says the same for the NBA Finals...
In fact, in the 2000s, the NBA Finals didn't have a single all-time great series! Five blowouts finished in 5 games or less (2001, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009). The biggest championship snooze fest of all time was the '05 Finals. The '08 Finals was underwhelming and truly dominated by the Celtics. The '06 Finals was exciting because of a young Wade, but the it wasn't a very competitive series, same with the '04 Finals. 2000 was a very good Finals...
In the 2000s, the Super Bowl had only two blowout games (35 and 37). There was three all-time classics in the '00s (38, 42, 43). Super Bowls 36 and 44 were extremely entertaining. Super Bowls 39, 40, and 41 were boring games. But on the whole, once again, the NFL Championship Game was much more entertaining than the NBA Finals in the 2000s. You'd be hard pressed to find even a plurality of people who'd disagree with this...
So, again, what is this less entertaining NFL you speak of? There are far more memorable Super Bowl than NBA Finals...
Why is 2010 a classic but 2005 was a snoozefest? Is it because of the names on the jerseys? In that game 7 in 2010 nobody could hit the broad side of a barn.
[quote=UTHORNS96;44359852]Why is 2010 a classic but 2005 was a snoozefest? Is it because of the names on the jerseys? In that game 7 in 2010 nobody could hit the broad side
The Pistons were uneventful, and there wasn't a true star player on the team. In the NBA, we know it's a star-obsessed league. The Spurs had the Big Three, and the biggest star on the court. But each of the first four games were decided by 15+ points, kinda reminding of this year's Finals. They played to a 2-2 split, but it was boring as hell. The last three games were entertaining, at least, but even then, the pace of the games was so slow, bad shooting, and that Game 7 was unbelievably slow!
In 2010, you had Kobe in his third straight Finals looking for a 5th ring. Gasol and Odom were at their career peaks. The Celtics had the Big 3 who were playing dominant playoff ball, and they'd just lost their center. They had a prime Rondo, and this was a rematch of the Finals two years earlier. After an injury-filled regular season, they dominated the East playoffs. Only Game 6 had a decision of over 15+ points. These was a close, highly competitive series. Sure, Game 7 was kinda bad, but it was close, had great defense, and exciting nonetheless. I remember that series for the close competition as much as the larger star power and bigger team names...
Why is 2010 a classic but 2005 was a snoozefest? Is it because of the names on the jerseys? In that game 7 in 2010 nobody could hit the broad side
The Pistons were uneventful, and there wasn't a true star player on the team. In the NBA, we know it's a star-obsessed league. The Spurs had the Big Three, and the biggest star on the court. But each of the first four games were decided by 15+ points, kinda reminding of this year's Finals. They played to a 2-2 split, but it was boring as hell. The last three games were entertaining, at least, but even then, the pace of the games was so slow, bad shooting, and that Game 7 was unbelievably slow!
In 2010, you had Kobe in his third straight Finals looking for a 5th ring. Gasol and Odom were at their career peaks. The Celtics had the Big 3 who were playing dominant playoff ball, and they'd just lost their center. They had a prime Rondo, and this was a rematch of the Finals two years earlier. After an injury-filled regular season, they dominated the East playoffs. Only Game 6 had a decision of over 15+ points. These was a close, highly competitive series. Sure, Game 7 was kinda bad, but it was close, had great defense, and exciting nonetheless. I remember that series for the close competition as much as the larger star power and bigger team names...
That uneventful pistons squad destroyed the star studded lakets the previous year. These were also the last two champions of the league. Imo that made for an epic series.
That's because there are teams that have no business in the playoffs to begin with, thus allowing the top teams to cruise into the semi-finals, plus the Eastern Conference is weak.
Eight teams in a best of 7 series, why make viewers suffer through that monstrosity? so they make more money through creepy State Farm ads.
It's all about dragging it out for more $. Yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs, but the reality is that every season only 3-4 teams have any shot at winning a title. If the Warriors stay together, maybe only one team has a shot- them.
I guess the difference is that we have 4 more games to hold out hope for.
There is a 2 week gap between the conference championships and the Super Bowl. So we endure two weeks of press conferences, pre-game hype, and prognostications for one game that is not even that good more often than not.
That was true in the 80's and early to mid 90's.
In the last 15 years, the majority of the super bowls, probably 11 or 12 out of 15, have been great games. With a few being arguably the best we have ever seen.
For me it still all comes down to the fact that the NFL schedule is so short. Every game gets hyped up more. Fans are left wanting more football. No other sport is like that.
I start to flip out if I miss my team play the first 5 minutes of a football game. In basketball you could miss your team play five straight games and it's no big deal.
Which doesn't make sense to me. What is there not to like?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
