I Love This Game!

[YanksHater213]

It's not that there's less talent these days. It's that there are so many teams that there's more bad teams and the better players are much more spread out. More teams means more parity and less long standing rivalries. It's really that simple.

[Emmz]

Spud, I respectfully have to disagree.

 

AI NOT a lockdown defender? And put him up against Oscar Robertson? They played in different eras. Players have advanced since Oscar Robertson. Also, Iverson was always the only guy on his team. He was the guy who scored all of the points. That's how he was best utilized. If a guy's a great scorer, you let him to the load of the scoring, which is exactly what he did.

 

See what happened when he was in Denver? It didn't work out very well.

[Emmz]

It's not that there's less talent these days. It's that there are so many teams that there's more bad teams and the better players are much more spread out. More teams means more parity and less long standing rivalries. It's really that simple.

 

Can't believe I'm saying this, but yeah, I agree with you.

[YanksHater213]

Iverson is by no means a great defender. He always gambled too much for steals and got burned because of it. He's so physically small that he was never able to be an elite man defender.

[Keeper]

He was just too "Me" for my tastes. The ball went through him on every play. And more times than not' date=' went no further. His stats are what they are, in large part, because he controlled the ball.[/quote']

 

Averaged over 7 assists per game 5 seasons, 6.2 assists per game in his career.

 

I wouldn't call him a lockdown defender because of his size, but he was very good at getting into the passing lanes. Probably gambled too much by playing the passing lanes, but more often than not it paid off for him.

[Spudboy]

This. They should take out two teams from each conference. You would eliminate the pathetic playoff teams and make the postseason shorter' date=' killing two birds with one stone.[/quote']

 

But like the shortened season idea, it would lead to less money being made. It's a nice idea, but it won't happen. The NBA is looking to expand it's fan base and revenues, not contract.

 

But I too, like the idea of fewer teams in the playoffs.

[Emmz]

Iverson is by no means a great defender. He always gambled too much for steals and got burned because of it. He's so physically small that he was never able to be an elite man defender.

 

He troubled whoever he was guarding because of his quickness and persistence to get the ball. He wasn't Bruce Bowen defender, but he was persistent.

[Spudboy]

Spud, I respectfully have to disagree.

 

AI NOT a lockdown defender? And put him up against Oscar Robertson? They played in different eras. Players have advanced since Oscar Robertson. Also, Iverson was always the only guy on his team. He was the guy who scored all of the points. That's how he was best utilized. If a guy's a great scorer, you let him to the load of the scoring, which is exactly what he did.

 

See what happened when he was in Denver? It didn't work out very well.

 

Your respect is noted and appreciated. However, I used Robertson as an example ( I even put it in parenthesis). Why? Roberston was a prolific offensive talent that transcended eras of play. I respectfully submit that if you did not sit courtside and witness the level of talent in the bygone eras, you don't have the ability to judge relative talent.

 

By the way, Robertson would have stuck his big ass into Iverson, knocking him on the floor, squared up and burried a baseline jumper.

[Emmz]

Iverson has quickness beyond anything that Robertson had ever seen, though. Iverson has quickness beyond what anyone's really ever seen, the man can beat you just with that alone.

[YanksHater213]

He troubled whoever he was guarding because of his quickness and persistence to get the ball. He wasn't Bruce Bowen defender' date=' but he was persistent.[/quote']

 

Exactly right, but thats only part of defense. His quickness and peskiness gave guys fits, but often times it took him out of position. Would I call him elite or great? No. The best way to categorize his defense is unique and above average.

[Emmz]

Exactly right' date=' but thats only part of defense. His quickness and peskiness gave guys fits, but often times it took him out of position. Would I call him elite or great? No. The best way to categorize his defense is unique and above average.[/quote']

 

Agreed.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

This. They should take out two teams from each conference. You would eliminate the pathetic playoff teams and make the postseason shorter' date=' killing two birds with one stone.[/quote']

Then that forces the league to include a bye series. In basketball, this doesn't work because players are used to playing every other day. A playoff series takes at least a week, and there's usually a two day break between each series. A seven games series could force a waiting team out of action for two and a half weeks. That isn't fair at all, because while they are ice cold and rhythmless, the opposing team is fresh off a series win and is in rhythm. It would make a top two seed a really dubious award. 8 playoff teams is a necessary evil.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

It's not that there's less talent these days. It's that there are so many teams that there's more bad teams and the better players are much more spread out. More teams means more parity and less long standing rivalries. It's really that simple.

This. IMO, at least 6 teams should be eliminated from the NBA.

 

Personally I'd get rid of Charlotte, Indiana, New Jersey, Minnesota (thorry Emmz), Toronto, and New Orleans. 3 of those teams cannot draw to save their life (I don't think MIN, IND or TOR do to well either), and as far as I know none have any outstanding plans for a new arena. All of these franchises are consistently bad-terrible, too. None have any kind of important history either, maybe a possible exception for Indy with the Reggie Miller era. However, some good-great players from these teams could be dropped into the pool for other teams. Chris Paul, David West, Emeka Okafor, Boris Diaw, Chris Bosh, Al Jefferson, Devin Harris, Gerald Wallace, Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, Brook Lopez, Kevin Love, Andrea Bargnani... that could go a ways toward restoring the fearsomeness of some franchises we saw back in the old days. Oh, and try to move someone back to Seattle.

 

Then, with the 24 teams left, bring back the pre-2004 divisional alignments, with the necessary adjustments:

 

Atlantic: Celtics, Knicks, 76ers, Magic, Heat, Wizards

 

Central: Cavaliers, Pistons, Bulls, Bucks, Hawks, Grizzlies

 

Midwest: Spurs, Rockets, Mavericks, Thunder, Nuggets, Jazz

 

Pacific: Suns, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, Warriors, Blazers

 

 

I have no clue why I just wrote all that, but hell I'll open it up for some Q&A.

[Emmz]

Indiana? No way man, they love their basketball in that state. Despite the state of the team right now, they've had some really good Pacer teams. The Pacers were an important team in the 90's, when basketball was at it's best. I'd probably get rid of the Grizzlies too, I don't think they're a big draw... I dunno, I'd have to do a total review, but definitely the Timberwolves (Yeah, they have really s***** attendance since the end of their playoff teams, and even worse since Garnett left) and Raptors.

 

The league needs to be smaller, so the talent doesn't spread itself so thin, and there can be a lot of teams that can play with the best teams. Like I said before, the Bulls always got a fight from several teams. It was never an easy ride for them, despite the fact that they won 72 games in the 95-96 season. They always got a good fight from the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, or whoever they played in the finals.

 

Now, it's just 4 or 5 teams that are always vastly superior than the rest.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

I was trying to decide between the Grizzlies and Pacers. I picked Memphis to stay because they seem to have now turned a corner and are playing really well. While the Pacers are the Pacers.

 

You know, I picked 6 to get the shaft, but the league could probably eliminate 10 teams. Maybe send the Grizzlies, Wizards, Bucks, and Warriors packing too.

[Keeper]

I would be all for getting rid of a lot of teams.

[suns]

You have no idea how big pacers basketball is in indiana,

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

You have no idea how big pacers basketball is in indiana' date='[/quote']

Then why don't more people go to the games?

[Dipre]

Opinion, meet logic.

[Spudboy]

Actually, Suns has a valid point. Basketball in Indiana is HUGE. High school and college ball are roughly the equivalent to football in Texas. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. High school players are seen as Gods.

 

J_E has raised a good question. Why are the Pacers not drawing? My guess is that the Pacers are not winning enough. They simply do not have, as Red Aurbach would say, "The Horses" to win. Hence, 14,000 a game, 76% capacity, and 26th in NBA attendance.

 

Couple that with a very bad economy (Indiana has been hit really hard), and there is just not enough discretionary income to be spent. Might as well go see the Colts. At least they are winning.

 

The idea of disbanding the Pacers is not a good one. The Pacers have been immensely popular since the inception of the ABA. It just makes no sense.

[Emmz]

I was trying to decide between the Grizzlies and Pacers. I picked Memphis to stay because they seem to have now turned a corner and are playing really well. While the Pacers are the Pacers.

 

You know, I picked 6 to get the shaft, but the league could probably eliminate 10 teams. Maybe send the Grizzlies, Wizards, Bucks, and Warriors packing too.

 

I don't think you send the Pacers packing, they've had a rough past few years, but like I said, they were a force in the 90's and early 2000's. Even the Celtics have had bad streaks, and don't forget, the Spurs were never a force until they got Duncan really. I think basketball is much more important in Indiana than most realize. It certainly has great potential, whereas the Grizzlies have been sucky-average for most of their time. Golden State is a lost cause, and I think the Clippers could definitely be ousted as well.

 

I think one of the teams could be folded in favor of a new Supersonics team, as well.

[Emmz]

Actually, Suns has a valid point. Basketball in Indiana is HUGE. High school and college ball are roughly the equivalent to football in Texas. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. High school players are seen as Gods.

 

J_E has raised a good question. Why are the Pacers not drawing? My guess is that the Pacers are not winning enough. They simply do not have, as Red Aurbach would say, "The Horses" to win. Hence, 14,000 a game, 76% capacity, and 26th in NBA attendance.

 

Couple that with a very bad economy (Indiana has been hit really hard), and there is just not enough discretionary income to be spent. Might as well go see the Colts. At least they are winning.

 

The idea of disbanding the Pacers is not a good one. The Pacers have been immensely popular since the inception of the ABA. It just makes no sense.

 

Bingo, this is what I said on the last page, and which I followed up on. The Pacers used to be a huge attraction, and they were up until recently. They have a big following, because it is definitely a basketball state.

 

Folding them is a bad idea, definitely. I think there are other teams that should be folded in favor of the Pacers.

 

They were a major player of the 90's, and fierce rivals of the Pistons and Bulls, two other major players of the era.

[Dipre]

Suns' point is that Pacers basketball is big in Indiana. If they're not drawing people, then it's not that big. Whether if it was big not so long ago is inconsequential to the main point, as are the actual reasons for said lack of attendance.

[Emmz]

Suns' point is that Pacers basketball is big in Indiana. If they're not drawing people' date=' then it's not that big. Whether if it was big not so long ago is inconsequential to the main point, as are the actual reasons for said lack of attendance.[/quote']

 

Well then by that logic, we should have gotten rid of the Red Sox too when their attendance started to dwindle, and same goes for the Celtics when they sucked ass for a decade and lost a lot of attendance.

 

If there's potential, then there's potential.

[Emmz]

The idea of disbanding the Pacers is not a good one. The Pacers have been immensely popular since the inception of the ABA. It just makes no sense.

 

This is the truth right here.

[Dipre]

I never advocated for the discarding of the Pacers. I attacked suns' point that "basketball is big in Indiana". You're literally putting words in my mouth. In fact, i find the idea of discarding teams in the first place to not be a good one. I like basketball just the way it is, and i haven't stated otherwise.

[Keeper]

Basketball is big in Indiana. Especially at the high school and collegiate level.

[Emmz]

No words were put in anyone's mouth, it was an assumption based on what I thought was inferred. If that's not the case, then that's fine too, it's not a big deal. I apologize for reaching so much.

[Spudboy]

You have no idea how big pacers basketball is in indiana' date='[/quote']

 

Suns' point is that Pacers basketball is big in Indiana. If they're not drawing people' date=' then it's not that big. Whether if it was big not so long ago is inconsequential to the main point, as are the actual reasons for said lack of attendance.[/quote']

 

Hmmm.

 

I sat through many games at the Garden when the Celts were bad or mediocre at best.

Somehow, the franchise has survived.

 

I attended every Pats game at Foxboro 1990-1994. And they just plain sucked.

 

Maybe both of those teams should have been disbanded or moved too?

[Dipre]

You have no idea how big pacers basketball is in indiana' date='[/quote']