Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

    interesting, radical idea

    Sorry, I didn't see the other thread on this. The article is not posted in that thread.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/playo...2=stateChanged

    SAN ANTONIO -- For those of you who don't think the NBA's playoff system needs tweaking, let Game 2 be your wake-up call. The NBA's playoff system needs tweaking.

    Thanks to the incomprehensible mediocrity of the Eastern Conference, the NBA's marquee event is becoming a joke. The Spurs are so obviously better than the Cavaliers that, LeBron factor or not, this is sure to end up as a total ratings disaster for the league. Forget Tony Parker versus Tony Soprano; how about Tony Parker versus Eva Longoria? One wonders whether ABC would have been better off airing a rerun of "Desperate Housewives" rather than Sunday night's one-sided affair.

    So while the Cavs spent the aftermath of Game 2 talking about improving their effort and their execution, we all know there's only thing that could give them a real chance: switching opponents and playing somebody from the East.

    Not that they'll admit it publicly.

    "It's just an upgrade from series to series," LeBron James said when I asked him about going from Detroit to San Antonio. "From the first round to the second round, conference finals, and then to the Finals, it's an upgrade. It doesn't matter who it is, the intensity level automatically picks up."

    Well, that's half true. For the Cavs, it's definitely an upgrade. For the Spurs ... not so much. This is going to upset some Cavs fans, but Cleveland is the weakest team San Antonio has faced in this postseason.

    Phoenix, obviously, was superior to Cleveland -- no sane person would dispute this. Additionally, I would submit that Utah and Denver were substantially better, too -- once you adjust for the increased difficulty of the Western Conference and the fact that both were peaking before they ran into the Spurs.

    Take it from somebody who was there -- San Antonio's first-round series against Denver was way more intense and competitive than these past two exhibitions. I also would argue the Spurs were far more concerned about the outcome during that matchup than they are in this series, where overconfidence seems to be their biggest enemy.

    That's just wrong, on so many levels. This is the freaking Finals, for crying out loud. You know -- Bird versus Magic, Air Jordan versus The Mailman, that type of thing. We should be seeing the cream versus the cream, not the Cavs getting creamed.

    I'd like to think this is just a one-year problem, but it was the same deal in the early part of the decade, and the current malaise could go on much longer. With next year's two marquee rookies headed West, and the Eastern Conference mired in gross managerial incompetence, we're one LeBron injury from seeing somebody such as Toronto or Washington representing the East as a "finalist" next year. That should be fun ... for about four games or so.

    A great many proposals have been floated for how to fix this problem. One is reseeding the playoffs after each round, but that idea comes up short in two ways. First, it's very problematic for scheduling and TV purposes, in part because a round couldn't begin and matchups couldn't be set until every series in the previous round was done. Second, it wouldn't solve the East-West problem we're addressing here.

    Another common idea is to seed all the teams in a single bracket by winning percentage, from No. 1 to No. 16. This, too, has a drawback, though -- it makes the distinction between East and West, or division winner and runner-up, completely meaningless. We'd still like for some of those late-season in-conference battles to have more at stake; besides, the NBA is big on giving all those division winners a little flag to hang from the rafters.

    There's a way around this, however, that still enables us to avoid watching an East-West rout in the Finals. (By the way, for those of you who wish to bring up recent East success: The West has won six of the past eight Finals and will make it seven of nine this year. Few of these series were close.)

    I stumbled upon this idea the other day when I was talking to another writer and he joked, "They should play West versus East in the first round, not the last."

    The more I think about it, this is no joke: They really should play West versus East earlier in the playoffs. It's a great way to reward the West powers while avoiding the train wreck Finals scenario created by the East's awfulness -- a scenario the league has found itself in in 1999, 2001 and 2002 and again this year.

    Here's the nitty-gritty.

    The regular season would play out just as it does now. Then the league would seed the teams 1 to 8 in each conference, just as it does now.

    Then it changes -- the two conferences would cross-match in the playoffs, so every series is set up to be East versus West. Of course, in those cases when the lower-seeded West team is able to eliminate the higher-seeded East team, then we would have West versus West, which means this system would be working exactly as intended: We would have the stronger teams meeting in the later rounds, regardless of conference.

    This year, for instance, No. 1 Detroit from the East would have faced No. 8 Golden State from the West, and No. 1 Dallas from the West would have faced No. 8 Orlando from the East.

    Although we would have lost the scintillating Warriors-Mavs series, the big picture would have been enhanced greatly under this plan. You can quickly see how much better the next three rounds might have been.

    Instead of the league's losing its MVP in the first round, Dallas would have had a virtual bye. And Detroit would have been the team facing the stern challenge of beating a torrid Golden State team that was perhaps the most atypical No. 8 seed the league has seen.

    And the situation only improves from there, culminating in an NBA Finals with Phoenix facing Dallas or San Antonio.

    BRACKET FOR MY PROPOSAL

    "East" Half
    (1E) Detroit vs. (8W) Golden State
    (4W) Utah vs. (5E) Chicago
    (2W) Phoenix vs. (7E) Washington
    (3E) Toronto vs. (6W) Denver

    "West" Half
    (1W) Dallas vs. (8E) Orlando
    (4E) Miami vs. (5W) Houston
    (2E) Cleveland vs. (7W) L.A. Lakers
    (3W) San Antonio vs. (6E) New Jersey

    As you can see, Phoenix versus San Antonio -- "the real Finals" -- wouldn't be possible until the final round, rather than in Round 2. And in the second round, we'd get the current doozy between Cleveland and San Antonio, which is entirely appropriate.

    Also, if Cleveland did make it to the league's final four, it at least would have had to beat a team with a winning record, which was not true this year. Don't you think the league would have preferred that to what actually happened?

    Instead of a neutered East, each side of the bracket has some real teams in it. Utah versus Chicago as a first-round series would have been outstanding, as would the LeBron versus Kobe matchup when the Cavs played the Lakers. And the Nuggets, instead of getting ambushed by a first-round pairing against eventual champion San Antonio (just pretend it's next week already), would have had a much more friendly pairing against injury-wracked Toronto (a matchup that instead benefited a 41-win New Jersey team).

    Are there snags here? Absolutely. For starters, every series would have to go to the dreaded 2-3-2 format because of the potential for crazy travel situations (Seattle versus Miami, anyone? How about Portland-Toronto?). Nobody really likes the 2-3-2 -- well, nobody except the road-weary media -- because underdogs have almost no chance of clinching the series at home, which is always way more entertaining than seeing them take it on the road.

    Additionally, there's the elephant in the room: television. It's tough for the league to count on an early game and a late game to program doubleheaders around when theoretically there could be several West Coast teams hosting playoff games at the same time.

    However, this is really a problem only in the second round. In Round 1, the NBA could set up its TV schedule exactly the way it does now (although it might have to guarantee home court to the top four seeds from each conference to make it work). And in the conference finals, there would be only one game a night anyway, so it shouldn't throw anything off-kilter by that point.

    Round 2 would be the biggest potential problem. In theory, there is the potential for, say, Portland, Seattle, Golden State and Phoenix to be hosting playoff games in Round 2 at the same point in the schedule. That might necessitate some funky scheduling -- a 5 p.m. local start for the early game or, alternatively, an 11:30 p.m. start on the East Coast for the late game. But that's an unlikely traffic jam, and one that potentially can be scheduled around via weekend day games and creative use of off days.

    Besides, let's keep the big picture in mind. The reward for the chance of a somewhat convoluted schedule in the second round is that we don't have to suffer through a Finals like this one or like the Lakers-Nets massacre in 2002, when the East sent a team to the big showcase that clearly had no business being there and devalued the whole event. Seems to me the benefits more than outweigh the costs, and right now there probably are a few folks at ABC who agree with me.

    As I said, Game 2 was the wake-up call. Let's hope the league picks up the phone.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-12-2007, 09:52 AM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

    I was waiting for someone to propose this. However, I refuse to give the idea any merit because Hollinger proposed it.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

      I like this.

      It might go against tradition, but I do think the current system needs something to pick up the interest.
      You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
      All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

      - Jimmy Buffett

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

        Well, when I started reading the article, I was all set to rip it and rip Hollinger. But actually it isn't a bad idea. Although I'm sure in the future when the two conferences are somewhat equal, the league will want to change it back.

        Of course one really bad thing about it is you'll have east coast teams starting some games at 10:30 and some west coast teams starting their games 5:00 or even 4:00. Next season if the Pacers have to play the Suns, I'm sure the local viewing public will love 10:30 starts. So that is a big problem.

        Another problem is travel, although that isn't a huge deal breaker.

        It will never happen.

        In these playoffs, there have been what I call 3 really, really good series.
        Mavs vs G.State
        Suns vs Spurs
        Cavs vs Pistons.

        a few others were pretty good.
        Jazz vs Rockets
        Even though it was a sweep, I'd say the Bulls vs Heat was good.

        But that is about it. So I don't know how this new set-up with solve that problem. The fact of the matter is people wanted to really only see the Mavs, Suns and Spurs play a round robin tournament, maybe we should just do that next season

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

          I say they secretly make Cleveland's hoop just a little bigger and San Antonio's hoop just a little smaller.

          I'm sure Coach Carlisle has the data available to properly calibrate the sizes to even things out......
          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

            Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
            I say they secretly make Cleveland's hoop just a little bigger and San Antonio's hoop just a little smaller.

            I'm sure Coach Carlisle has the data available to properly calibrate the sizes to even things out......
            I was thinking about that watching game 2.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

              The biggest problem isn't the mismatch. It is the fact that the series is 7 games.

              Colts-Bears would have terrible ratings if it was a 7 game series.

              I'm all for shaking it up. This is a half-decent idea.

              Do you know what this league needs? A new collective barganing agreement. These weird-*** cap rules are killing teams.
              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
              RSS Feed
              Subscribe via iTunes

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Well, when I started reading the article, I was all set to rip it and rip Hollinger. But actually it isn't a bad idea. Although I'm sure in the future when the two conferences are somewhat equal, the league will want to change it back.

                Of course one really bad thing about it is you'll have east coast teams starting some games at 10:30 and some west coast teams starting their games 5:00 or even 4:00. Next season if the Pacers have to play the Suns, I'm sure the local viewing public will love 10:30 starts. So that is a big problem.

                Another problem is travel, although that isn't a huge deal breaker.

                It will never happen.

                In these playoffs, there have been what I call 3 really, really good series.
                Mavs vs G.State
                Suns vs Spurs
                Cavs vs Pistons.

                a few others were pretty good.
                Jazz vs Rockets
                Even though it was a sweep, I'd say the Bulls vs Heat was good.

                But that is about it. So I don't know how this new set-up with solve that problem. The fact of the matter is people wanted to really only see the Mavs, Suns and Spurs play a round robin tournament, maybe we should just do that next season
                Shouldn't be a big problem here, since no one cares for the Pacers in Indiana, anymore.
                Super Bowl XLI Champions
                2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

                  Waste of time.

                  The most popular basketball event in the US features not only NO reseeding, but not even a 7 game series to avoid "lucky upsets" in round one (which is a BS concept anyway, 5 vs 7 that is).

                  You know why the NCAA is popular? Because they play many games at once, have this chance for lower seeds to sneak through (which is why GS/DAL was popular in fact), and because they don't screw around dragging it on, at least over the first 2 weeks.

                  The NBA playoffs were hurt by the lack of back-to-backs (and it was even the early 90s or at least 89 area when teams still had playoff games on back-to-back days) and Sterns refusal to have any game not on exclusive viewing. They are trying to get back to it but they are still dragging their feet.

                  Accept that not everyone wants to see every team, and if they do they usually can either DVR it or catch it on the repeat later that night on ESPN/NBATV, and just have the first round games head to head and in some portion of prime time for EVERYONE.

                  10:30 DAL/GS just so we can see a CLE/WSH matchup?


                  And then this dream that if you lay it out just right there will be no "bad" series? Of course there will. In fact I HOPE there will be some. It's sports, half the excitement is that you NEVER KNOW. If it went like a script who'd care anymore? Why even play if the #1 and #2 will face off and then 1 vs 1 for the Finals every time?

                  This just in, PHX blowing out an injured WSH team would be just as dull. Same with SA vs NJ. In fact that sounds familiar, haven't we already seen the THRILLS and CHILLS of a Spurs/Nets playoff series? Um, yeah, some "solution".


                  Fix the quality of the sport, the TV broadcasts anywhere other than TNT, and you'll have fan interest back. Reseeding is about as creative as going back to a red-white-blue ball in terms of substantial solutions.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

                    BTW Hollinger, prior to the 2004 Finals the Lakers were OBVIOUSLY better than the Pistons. Maybe let's just roll the ball out there and let them play anyway.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

                      God, I hope Cleveland pounds the Spurs at home, nothing against the Spurs, but I'm so tired of the disrespect from the media. Hell, I don't live in Cleveland, but I'm beyond irritated already. Cleveland earned the right, 'nough said.
                      ...Still "flying casual"
                      @roaminggnome74

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

                        Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                        God, I hope Cleveland pounds the Spurs at home, nothing against the Spurs, but I'm so tired of the disrespect from the media. Hell, I don't live in Cleveland, but I'm beyond irritated already. Cleveland earned the right, 'nough said.
                        Even if they don't come back, hasn't the "Least" won 2 of the last 3 titles? SA didn't exactly cruise past Detroit either.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

                          A huge part of the problem is, the damn season is toooooooo long, Mid June is for fishing, baseball, working in the garden, girl watching, and on and on and on, not freaking basketball. Of course it is all about the bottom line, so expect the season to get longer and end around the 4th of July, whoopee!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

                            Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                            A huge part of the problem is, the damn season is toooooooo long, Mid June is for fishing, baseball, working in the garden, girl watching, and on and on and on, not freaking basketball. Of course it is all about the bottom line, so expect the season to get longer and end around the 4th of July, whoopee!
                            I'm just sick enough to love that it lasts this long.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Hollinger: How to fix the NBA playoffs

                              i love that the season as a whole lasts this long, i don't love the fact that the playoffs drag on and on - there shouldn't be 2 and 3 days between games.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X