Difference between winning in the NBA and NFL

[southwest1]

 

 

Nothing is wrong with playing in the elements. The illusion that real men play in the elements is.

No, the illusion is that David Stern would never allow this possibility even though ratings for a Finals Series would probably proliferate significantly resulting in more viewership & TV broadcasting revenue.  

[Blackhawk4]

Besides the Cowboys, you named some world-class organizations that CONSISTENTLY make good moves and have one of the best front offices that make the strategic moves to keep their franchises competitive.  That's why people have no problem with that and see it as such.  Also, the hard cap promotes parity which leaves everyone happy because if your team suck, it's most likely because your front office sucks (Browns, Lions, Jaguars,etc.)  Heck, look at our Colts.  We've had PLENTY of crappy years that we can soley credit to our front office.

 

Not the case in the NBA, you have good front offices in the NBA who try their best to win a ring but because they are always being outbidded by larger markets, players are jetting their teams to join up in a bigger market, because one bad contract is hampering them while a bigger market team just spends more money, and many more reasons, is why people are fed up.  People are tired of paying for a crap product, that is why the NBA is struggling to fill arenas and teams are moving left and right.  I can name plenty of teams in the NBA who have good front offices but go nowhere.

 

What you are doing is looking at the numbers and saying "They aren't that different".  It's deeper than the numbers.

 

No I didn't. Organizations make bad moves and it hurts them. They aren't always competitive. Lakers we're not really competitive in the mid and late 70s, the Celtics were absolutely dreadful in the 90s (though that was arguably due to some unfortunate events) and early/mid 2000s. Even the more storied franchises can have crappy years.

 

There's a reason why the changed the CBA (Even though I still think they did a mediocre job). They did make some changes that needed to be made and the cap penalty will actually start to really effect teams (If anyone thinks the Lakers truly have no problem being this high over the cap you're insane). 

 

NFL is struggling to fill stadiums as well this isn't just a basketball issue it's a sports issue in general. It's competing with television and making the sports experience in person better than sitting on the couch and watching that's an issue with both league. There's a reason why games being a blacked out has become an annoying thorn in the NFLs side.

[Smonroe]

Lots of good points on both sides. I think we have identified the Hatfields and the McCoys.

However, I'm not sure if we identified how this topic got into this forum?

BTW, this is much more interesting to me:

@nflcolts: Tune into "the Last Word" today at 6 on @1070thefan for an all #Colts edition! Show preveiw: http://t.co/NP1DMdPb7R

[rittdk01]

much easier to win in the NBA.  The teams that win do it many times.  Bulls, Lakers, spurs and now the Heat have won 6, 5, 4 and now 3 championships in a short span.     There's only a few teams that DIDNT win multiple championships in a short span.  The Mavs only won once even the Pistons and Rockets won two in a row.

 

Football and their salary cap gives it the most parity and really does give every team a chance to win.  In the NBA all the good players want to go to a few teams giving the smaller market teams very little chance.  Even when a small market team gets a  good player a big market team takes them (LeBron, Daron Williams, Chris Paul, D Howard...)

 

I used to love the Pacers when I was little and Reggie played for them.  Now I wouldn't trade 10 Pacers championships for 1 Colts SB. 

[Fx Stryker]

Pssh, forget the SB and the Finals. It's all about the World Series.

I can guarantee to you, when the Cubs make the series the WHOLE WORLD will be watching. Mainly in hopes they don't win because in that case we know the world is going to end.

Just imagine; bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, bases loaded, full count, Cubs down by one, and Soriano cranks it deep to center field.

Everyone is hoping that homerun ball gets robbed. Well except Cubs fans. We get to die happy.

[shecolt]

If you even watched the Kings vs Lakers Game 6 in 02 you'd have known it was not the last two minutes of that game that were called differently. The entire game (Especially ALL of the 4th quarter) was horribly officiated. 

 

I love how people think NFL is that much different from the NBA when it comes to competition. Look at the past 30 years of super bowl champions. Patriots and Steelers = 5/10 Super Bowls from 2000-2009, Broncos Cowboys and 49ers = 7/10 Championships from 1990-1999 and 1973-1981 outside of the Dolphins, Steelers and Raiders the Cowboys were the only team to win a title.

 

NFL and NBA aren't that different.

 

 

That real men talk is about as lame as it gets. So one athlete is more of a man than another because of the the field they play on and where they play on? Anyone else noticing how silly that sounds? I get you're joking (somewhat), but it just sounds silly...

 

I love college hoops, but can't stand the NBA (for many of the reasons that have already been posted).

 

But, I do agree with you that an athlete should not be considered more of a man due to the field upon which they play.

 

And, I also don't understand how basketball could become an outdoor sport played in all the elements. 

 

My experience with actally playing basketball has been limited to a few games of "horse" with my brothers and when I was forced to participate in games during gym class.

 

So, I may likely be clueless; but I was under the impression that basketball required a hard, flat, smooth surface which is needed for dribbling.  And, that the least little bit of moisture can make a basketball court slippery which is dangerous for the players.

 

Anyhow, I'm just sitting here wondering how feasible it would even be for basketball to become an outdoor sport. :hmm:    

[Qwiz]

I can guarantee to you, when the Cubs make the series the WHOLE WORLD will be watching. Mainly in hopes they don't win because in that case we know the world is going to end.

Just imagine; bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, bases loaded, full count, Cubs down by one, and Soriano cranks it deep to center field.

Everyone is hoping that homerun ball gets robbed. Well except Cubs fans. We get to die happy.

I will cancel the entire week's activities and tell my boss that I will not be able to work if the Cubs make the series. I'm no fan but of course the event itself would be monumental....and like you said, might as well watch before the world collapses in itself

[MacDee1975]

Since the NBA sucks a**.....I would rather have a Super Bowl.

 

In fact, i'd rather have 1 Super Bowl over 20 NBA Titles.

[Blackhawk4]

I love college hoops, but can't stand the NBA (for many of the reasons that have already been posted).

 

But, I do agree with you that an athlete should not be considered more of a man due to the field upon which they play.

 

And, I also don't understand how basketball could become an outdoor sport played in all the elements. 

 

My experience with actally playing basketball has been limited to a few games of "horse" with my brothers and when I was forced to participate in games during gym class.

 

So, I may likely be clueless; but I was under the impression that basketball required a hard, flat, smooth surface which is needed for dribbling.  And, that the least little bit of moisture can make a basketball court slippery which is dangerous for the players.

 

Anyhow, I'm just sitting here wondering how feasible it would even be for basketball to become an outdoor sport. :hmm:    

 

Basketball can be played outdoors. It has to be blacktop (concrete or asphlat usually) instead of hardwood because right off the bat condensation would make playing on a hardwood court dangerous. 

One of the problems with blacktop is well....Falling on blacktop sucks. You take skid across blacktop and well think of it like skidding across cement sort of. On a hardwood court at least you can slide across and for the most part come unscathed. Another thing (Though this really isn't a problem) is that black top is arguably harder to keep clean than hardwood. Hardwood collects dust, but blacktop gets to collect all the lovely little things mother nature leaves behind. Not really hard to blow/wipe that stuff off the court but it's more work to keep up with than a hardwood court.

[smittywerb]

No I didn't. Organizations make bad moves and it hurts them. They aren't always competitive. Lakers we're not really competitive in the mid and late 70s, the Celtics were absolutely dreadful in the 90s (though that was arguably due to some unfortunate events) and early/mid 2000s. Even the more storied franchises can have crappy years.

 

There's a reason why the changed the CBA (Even though I still think they did a mediocre job). They did make some changes that needed to be made and the cap penalty will actually start to really effect teams (If anyone thinks the Lakers truly have no problem being this high over the cap you're insane). 

 

NFL is struggling to fill stadiums as well this isn't just a basketball issue it's a sports issue in general. It's competing with television and making the sports experience in person better than sitting on the couch and watching that's an issue with both league. There's a reason why games being a blacked out has become an annoying thorn in the NFLs side.

 

- Are you serious?  The 70s was the most even decade OF the NBA.  There were no repeats!  And actually, the Lakers WERE competing and they had a nice team in West-Goodrich-Chamberlain.  

 

- I don't believe in the new CBA because it is not a hard cap.  Nothing is going to change the NBA until

 

- And when comparing the "filling" problem to the NFL, it's apples and oranges.  How many teams in the NFL have moved in the past 10 years?  Now how about the NBA?  Yeah, it's a BIG difference.  Some good teams can't even fill their arenas in the NFL.  

[Warhorse]

My history is fading, but I remember a series in the late 80's? I believe, where the Blazers were about to take a serious lead against the Lakers. I think the foul descrepancy in that game at one point was 28 - 2. Major momentum shift.

 

Try to guess which team had the 28 fouls. Can anyone with any amount of sense actually believe that was how the game was played?

[Yehoodi]

My history is fading, but I remember a series in the late 80's? I believe, where the Blazers were about to take a serious lead against the Lakers. I think the foul descrepancy in that game at one point was 28 - 2. Major momentum shift.

 

Try to guess which team had the 28 fouls. Can anyone with any amount of sense actually believe that was how the game was played?

 

for me the NBA is just a step or two above the WWF, at least the later does not pretend to be official . . .

[Yehoodi]

It is true that a better team will have a easier time to win in a 7 game series as opposed to a one game playoff . . . I do love the one game SB, but at the same time spreading out a great 7 game series over a two week period is fun too and has a differ dynamic and feel if you win . . .

[smittywerb]

It is true that a better team will have a easier time to win in a 7 game series as opposed to a one game playoff . . . I do love the one game SB, but at the same time spreading out a great 7 game series over a two week period is fun too and has a differ dynamic and feel if you win . . .

 

Basically yeah, the 7-game series isn't built for the team who has less talent.  It takes a lot of coaching (and luck) for an inferior team to win a 7-game series against a better team.  Case in point, 2011 finals.  Heat were the favorites to take it but the Mavs had coaching and a hot Dirk on there side.  That's why the NBA playoffs are pretty much predictable.  The way they are built, the majority of the better teams will make it.  I think they should actually shorten the series to 5 games.  First to 3.  And then the finals should be a 7 game series.  

 

BUT another thing is the 7 game series format drags out the playoffs which means MORE TV DEALS AND RATINGS which is so important in the NBA.

[IndyTrav]

Obviously this is an NFL forum, so this 'poll' will be a bit bias.

But Indianapolis was on fire with the Pacers this year, I think some people underestimate a good basketball team winning it all. It probably isnt the magnitude of winning a SB, but it is in the same ball park.

As for a majority of these NBA talking points "they team up" "its rigged" etc etc. I find it laughable.

You don't think NFL players team up?! Look at Denver this year alone. Every single FA was linked to Denver. They wanted to play with Peyton. Is that not 'teaming up'? Or the Eagles a few years ago?

"Its rigged...officials stinks!" Thats rich considering after every single loss, on this forum, and any other NFL forum, 90% of the blame squarely falls on the refs. Every. Single. Time...

As for parity. I dont think the gap is as large as many people think. Basketball has 5 players on the court, when you have THE player, the odds of you winning are so much higher. The Lebrons/Kobes/Birds/Magics/Hakeems/ Jordans etc....

In 23yrs there have been roughly 13 SB champs...only a few of them winning 1 (NO,Ind,STL,TB)...

[Colts_Fan12]

I'll take my pacers winning the championship over the colts just cause I want both of my teams to have a championship but that's just me

[Hans Moleman]

Winning in the NBA is more player driven, winning in the NFL is more coaching driven. This is because there's much more talent parity in the NFL than there is in the NBA. Combine that with a much larger roster and significantly higher rate of injury in the NFL, and it's tougher for teams to simply out-talent their opposition.