[QUOTE=Lebron23]He's one of the most intelligent, and rational posters on this board. Starface's IQ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combined IQ of the Lakers trolls/ Kobephiles.[/QUOTE]
My post was directed at the OP, but yea I agree. :lol
Printable View
[QUOTE=Lebron23]He's one of the most intelligent, and rational posters on this board. Starface's IQ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combined IQ of the Lakers trolls/ Kobephiles.[/QUOTE]
My post was directed at the OP, but yea I agree. :lol
I like how he acts he went to Miami for the better of the league.
Bye bye to the Warriors.
Methinks LeBron doth protest too much.
I for one disagree with eliminating teams. I don't want to see quality guys like blake griffin, tyreke evans, kevin love etc have to be relegated to a sixth man role or somethinng similar to what were seeing in miami. There's plenty of talent to go around.
What you guys want is parity. And what parity does is not eliminate bad teams, it eliminates great teams.
[QUOTE=Lebron23]They have a $hitty management. Do you think Kobe would have won an NBA title if he wasn't traded to the Lakers? Hell no. He's very lucky because he was given an opportunity to play for the Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers signed Shaquille O'Neal in 1996, and Phil Jackson became their head coach after the 1999 NBA Season.
The rest is history.[/QUOTE]
How many franchises are like the Lakers? You can't be expected to be gifted perfect scenarios all throughout your career or your life. You have to deserve to be given those situations. Why is everyone else expected to earn a winning team, but you think Kevin Love and Blake Griffin should be just given one? Sometimes life hands you a shitty pair of cards, you still have to make the most of it. And if your shitty pair of cards is playing for multi-millions of dollars and the sport you love, then quite frankly, it's not all that shitty at all.
Kevin Love, Brook Lopez, Blake Griffin, or whoever should do what most NBA legends had to do. Earn their respect. Earn their titles. Stop sympathizing for them. Nearly every legend had to go through shitty years, but earned their way. Love, Griffin, or whoever shouldn't be exempt from that.
Regardless whether LeBron is right or not, he needs to shut the f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck up and play ball.
Wow, just listening to LeBron, I suddenly see his vision when he went to Miami. He didn't run off to join another top 3 player, and a top 10, for an easy path to rings.
He did it for us.
What a classy guy.
I don't know about eliminating teams. With the right talent and coaching staff, any team can be competitive. Some teams are starting to build a solid foundation.
24 teams(12 each conference) with only 10-12(5-6 each conference) making it to the playoffs.
Use the 1st round-bye format for top teams in the playoffs like they did in the 70's. This way the regular season will mean something. :cheers:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_NBA_Playoffs[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_NBA_Playoffs[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_NBA_Playoffs[/url]
This would make the regular season games a lot more important if you can get a 1st round out of it by being one of the top teams.
There were 8 different champions in the 70's. :applause:
Getting rid of the clippers, kings etc will turn their best players, players that are all-star caliber players mind you, into role players, it will turn blake griffin into an offensive version of chris anderson. Or relegate starters into role players. Not cuz they're not good enough, but just cuz there's no room.
Look at it this way, if wade was drafted by the lakers and had to play behind kobe bryant, he'd never evolve into the player we have become accustomed to watching. How is that a good thing?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Getting rid of the clippers, kings etc will turn their best players, players that are all-star caliber players mind you, into role players, it will turn blake griffin into an offensive version of chris anderson. Or relegate starters into role players. Not cuz they're not good enough, but just cuz there's no room.
Look at it this way, if wade was drafted by the lakers and had to play behind kobe bryant, he'd never evolve into the player we have become accustomed to watching. How is that a good thing?[/QUOTE]
Actually, that would be awesome. There will be less glorified regular season superstars in the league.
T-Mac and Carter would have been 3rd option players during their prime if they were to play with other top superstars.
You will also eliminate questionable HOF-caliber players(two names I mentioned) who rack their stats on shitty teams.
I sort of agree with LeBron on this. On the other hand it puts a lot of people out of work.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Getting rid of the clippers, kings etc will turn their best players, players that are all-star caliber players mind you, into role players, it will turn blake griffin into an offensive version of chris anderson. Or relegate starters into role players. Not cuz they're not good enough, but just cuz there's no room.
Look at it this way, if wade was drafted by the lakers and had to play behind kobe bryant, he'd never evolve into the player we have become accustomed to watching. How is that a good thing?[/QUOTE]
I'm a 90s guy, but weren't hall of famers like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley not high draft picks? And look at Kobe, he came in playing for a championship caliber team. Guys like Wade would still succeed, and if not, that's just life, the quality of the league is more important than how beneficial it would be to some unproven guy.
In the long-run, the quality of the league is in the best interest of them all, Contract it.
I agree with LeBron 100%. I've been saying the NBA should only have 24-26 teams for years.
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]Actually, that would be awesome. There will be less glorified regular season superstars in the league.
T-Mac and Carter would have been 3rd option players during their prime if they were to play with other top superstars.
You will also eliminate questionable HOF-caliber players(two names I mentioned) who rack their stats on shitty teams.[/QUOTE]
Ok why stop at 6 teams? Wouldn't the league be better if there were only 20? How bout 15? You see how that works?
[QUOTE=jstern]I'm a 90s guy, but weren't hall of famers like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley not high draft picks? And look at Kobe, he came in playing for a championship caliber team. Guys like Wade would still succeed, and if not, that's just life, the quality of the league is more important than how beneficial it would be to some unproven guy.[/QUOTE]
How is the quality of the league suffering? Even the clippers have 3 quality guys in griffin, gordon and kamen. And I don't understand the barkely and malone reasoning.
[QUOTE=Kurosawa0]I agree with LeBron 100%. I've been saying the NBA should only have 24-26 teams for years.[/QUOTE]
Im curious as to how you arrive at 24-26?
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]24 teams(12 each conference) with only 10-12(5-6 each conference) making it to the playoffs.
Use the 1st round-bye format for top teams in the playoffs like they did in the 70's. This way the regular season will mean something. :cheers:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_NBA_Playoffs[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_NBA_Playoffs[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_NBA_Playoffs[/url]
This would make the regular season games a lot more important if you can get a 1st round out of it by being one of the top teams.
There were 8 different champions in the 70's. :applause:[/QUOTE]
:rockon: :rockon: :rockon:
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Ok why stop at 6 teams? Wouldn't the league be better if there were only 20? How bout 15? You see how that works?[/QUOTE]
15-20 would just be too small for a full 82 game season.
24 would be perfect. Make it a 15-man active roster(16-18 total for injury and development purposes) to expand the roster a bit.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Im curious as to how you arrive at 24-26?[/QUOTE]
You need the same amount of teams in each conference. 12 or 13 would be about right.
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]15-20 would just be too small for a full 82 game season.
24 would be perfect. Make it a 15-man active roster(16-18 total for injury and development purposes) to expand the roster a bit.[/QUOTE]
So why not shorten the season, less games, more rest, more practice time, less injuries, less meaningless regular season games, better quality ball.
Why expand the roster when there are guys who don't even leave the bench every game, no need to pay for extra cheer leaders.
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]15-20 would just be too small for a full 82 game season.
24 would be perfect. Make it a 15-man active roster(16-18 total for injury and development purposes) to expand the roster a bit.[/QUOTE]
What does the season being 82 games have to do with your feeling that there's a lack of talent? Bad basketball players at game 1 are gonna be bad basketball players after game 82.
LOL @ anybody who thinks contraction is a bad idea...this is a no brainer. very few teams even try to win these days...the league is NOT competitive as it is now...too many teams and too much salary. too many players are just collecting checks
[QUOTE=Kurosawa0]You need the same amount of teams in each conference. 12 or 13 would be about right.[/QUOTE]
But you can make it even all the way down to two teams. So why stop at 24-26?
[QUOTE=Force]LOL @ anybody who thinks contraction is a bad idea...this is a no brainer. very few teams even try to win these days...the league is NOT competitive as it is now...too many teams and too much salary. too many players are just collecting checks[/QUOTE]
Come on force this isn't being genuine. All these teams try to win. Why do you think this?
[QUOTE=yeaaaman]So why not shorten the season, less games, more rest, more practice time, less injuries, less meaningless regular season games, better quality ball.
Why expand the roster when there are guys who don't even leave the bench every game, no need to pay for extra cheer leaders.[/QUOTE]
Because the fans want to see more games. Do you want a 40 game season?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]What does the season being 82 games have to do with your feeling that there's a lack of talent? Bad basketball players at game 1 are gonna be bad basketball players after game 82.[/QUOTE]
NBA still has to make money. 15-20 will just be falling back too much. 30 as it is right now is just too much as well with so many crappy teams and glorified regular season superstars.
24 would be enough to make(and save) money, have enough talents, and most importantly it'll add better competition.
We won't see bad basketball players in the league anymore so that wouldn't matter.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]But you can make it even all the way down to [B]two teams[/B]. So why stop at 24-26?[/QUOTE]
:facepalm Are you trolling or just stupid?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]But you can make it even all the way down to two teams. So why stop at 24-26?[/QUOTE]
Look at the All Star game. It is the best collection of talent the league can produce. If the game meant anything, and the players played hard, it would be better than any regular season game.
People want to see good basketball, not the watered down crap we are given.
[QUOTE=yeaaaman]So why not shorten the season, less games, more rest, more practice time, less injuries, less meaningless regular season games, better quality ball.
Why expand the roster when there are guys who don't even leave the bench every game, no need to pay for extra cheer leaders.[/QUOTE]
You expand the roster slightly to keep the teams competitive in case your superstar player(s) goes down. The reserves won't be D-league quality players either. They'll at least be above average players who can help out the team.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Because the fans want to see more games. Do you want a 40 game season?[/QUOTE]
Well I'm not asserting that's what I want I'm just throwing it out there given the stance of some people. I mean, like you said the fans want to see more games so wouldn't they be against contraction? Or they want higher quality ball, but if they do why not just shorten the season?
Or is this just an in theory argument, as in, contraction would be better for the competition but it isn't necessarily what all the fans would want?
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]:facepalm Are you trolling or just stupid?[/QUOTE]
Im just trying to show how rediculous your reasoning is. Whys stop at 24-26 teams when you can have an all-star game every night. Or every other night with 2 teams. The talent is fine.
[QUOTE=yeaaaman]Well I'm not asserting that's what I want I'm just throwing it out there given the stance of some people. I mean, like you said the fans want to see more games so wouldn't they be against contraction? Or they want higher quality ball, but if they do why not just shorten the season?
Or is this just an in theory argument, as in, contraction would be better for the competition but it isn't necessarily what all the fans would want?[/QUOTE]
Why do you have to shorten the season for quality basketball?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Im just trying to show how rediculous your reasoning is. Whys stop at 24-26 teams when you can have an all-star game every night. Or every other night with 2 teams. The talent is fine.[/QUOTE]
No, you're not showing me anything. You're just failing to see my point.
Two teams? What the f**k???
I already explained it here: [QUOTE]NBA still has to make money. 15-20 will just be falling back too much. 30 as it is right now is just too much as well with so many crappy teams and glorified regular season superstars.
24 would be enough to make(and save) money, have enough talents, and most importantly it'll add better competition.
We won't see bad basketball players in the league anymore so that wouldn't matter.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]Why do you have to shorten the season for quality basketball?[/QUOTE]
The reasons I already stated, less chance of injury, more rest, better quality when the players step on the court since they aren't tired from back to backs, travelling across the country and playing the next day etc., more practice time to execute, watching a lot of teams I'm sure you could agree many could use that.
As well, less meaningless games, I see threads talking about the Lakers and the other elite teams not trying because they aren't interested etc. Shorten the season and there are less meaningless games so people don't have to watch quality teams like the Lakers lose by 20+ to the Bucks for what some seem to attribute to lack of interest.
LeFail shut your ****ing mouth. Youre a sidekick, and you will forever be remembered as the biggest losing pos in nba history
[QUOTE=yeaaaman]The reasons I already stated, less chance of injury, more rest, better quality when the players step on the court since they aren't tired from back to backs, travelling across the country and playing the next day etc., more practice time to execute, watching a lot of teams I'm sure you could agree many could use that.
As well, less meaningless games, I see threads talking about the Lakers and the other elite teams not trying because they aren't interested etc. Shorten the season and there are less meaningless games so people don't have to watch quality teams like the Lakers lose by 20+ to the Bucks for what some seem to attribute to lack of interest.[/QUOTE]
Why would having 24 teams instead of 30 increase the chances of injuries?
The 82 games schedule is fine for a 24 team league. Most of the rosters will have above average players so even if your star player is out that team will have a couple of quality players stepping up. That's why I suggested a slight roster expansion for that.
There won't be that many meaningless games because teams like the Wolves and Bucks would have more talented players on their squad. Guys like Gerard Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, David West, ect would be on the Wolves or Bucks if we get rid of the Bobcats and Hornets.
Do you see it now???? How having less teams would be that much better. But still have enough teams for enough games and help make(save) money for the league. Not 2-15 teams like 97bulls suggested. That is too extreme!!!
[QUOTE=TheSphincter]LeFail shut your ****ing mouth. Youre a sidekick, and you will forever be remembered as the biggest losing pos in nba history[/QUOTE]
Horrible gimmick account.
Would you please shut the hell Up!
[img]http://www.godsofwrestling.com/images/chris-jericho.jpg[/img]