Jump to content

NBA 2011-'12 and off season discussion Thread


553 Bridgeton

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 611
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As the immortal Marv Albert would say "Yes."

 

 

 

 

According to 'very early' info on the new cba here some basic info.

 

1)The delayed 2011-'12 NBA season will start on Christmas Day (Dec. 25) with the already announced games on ABC/ESPN.

After Christmas a new schedule will be announced with majority of games on intra-conference i.e within eastern division.

 

2)Regular Season will now be 66 games and full playoffs. The last possible game of the 2012 NBA Finals as late as June 30.

 

3)Very brief Pre season will start on Dec. 9.

 

Details will be announced later on new salary cap/luxury tax.

 

 

More to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners want the players to get 47-48% but the players dont want that. I think this season will be wiped out. I give it 0 chance we will see a game on Nov.1st.

 

Sorry buddy there will be a season. With that said, we were 'this close' by a fingernail of the '11-'12 season being wiped out.

 

And guess who correctly predicted they would be playing by around X-mas/New Year's?:cool: Almost dead on with my guess of a 66-game season as i said around 55-60 games. Nice call Shortline.:tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have sites like dictionary.com or wikipedia, if you know you can't spell it right, then try those places first or not say you can't spell it. Saying you can't spell it right as an excuse is just lazy. And type properly, I can't figure out when one statement ends and another begins.

 

As for the recession, so what about baseball players, hockey, football, etc? They still make millions. If there are still fans, then players will still want to cash in on their own names and 'brand'.

=

Let's get this season started!

 

A short season could really help out the Knicks [provided they do better than just over 500]. Maybe they could be like the '99 Knicks and make it into the Finals. That would be really great, but that's expecting too much especially with Walsh gone and the idiot Dolan "letting Thomas back in".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have sites like dictionary.com or wikipedia, if you know you can't spell it right, then try those places first or not say you can't spell it. Saying you can't spell it right as an excuse is just lazy. And type properly, I can't figure out when one statement ends and another begins.

 

As for the recession, so what about baseball players, hockey, football, etc? They still make millions. If there are still fans, then players will still want to cash in on their own names and 'brand'.

=

 

 

A short season could really help out the Knicks [provided they do better than just over 500]. Maybe they could be like the '99 Knicks and make it into the Finals. That would be really great, but that's expecting too much especially with Walsh gone and the idiot Dolan "letting Thomas back in".

 

Being fair Concourse King Of redbirds is only 14-15 years old.

Other part of the update on lockout ending is fact, the NBA All star game in Orlando will now still be played.

 

IMO The NBA(also NHL)regular season is too long with 82 games. I always felt it should be around 70 games anyhow like it was back until the early 1970's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome news... ironically I was listening to a song from the Space Jam soundtrack (A basketball movie).

 

Knicks are reverent, and the Lebron James saga continues, that dude will get at least 2 rings. I think he gets the first one this season, but people will STILL hate on him if its a shorten season, cause he won it only because its a shorten season lol, First time I been exited about B ball in quite some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who wins a championship this season will have a star next to there name and the season will to. How many times do you hear them talking about the spurs winning in '99? However I wouldn't be surprised if the heat does win it this year. But IMO anyone who gets going fast this season will probably win, and it will be one of the vet teams ex, Lakers, Mavs, Celtics. The shorter the season the better for the vets on those teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who wins a championship this season will have a star next to there name and the season will to. How many times do you hear them talking about the spurs winning in '99? However I wouldn't be surprised if the heat does win it this year. But IMO anyone who gets going fast this season will probably win, and it will be one of the vet teams ex, Lakers, Mavs, Celtics. The shorter the season the better for the vets on those teams.

 

 

 

Granted the Spurs over the past decade have overshadowed as a great team. When they won it in 2003 and '05, it gave them credibility especially for Duncan IMO. With that said, fair or not no matter the 2012 Champion will not be that respected due to this lockout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being realistic here, the Spurs beat a Knicks team that got it going due to it being a short season, had it not been for that the Spurs would have had a much tougher opponent. There recent championships they beat the Nets who came off a sweep to the lakers the year before and really wasn't that great, then they faced a young cavs who had no chance. All I'm saying the Spurs really had easy match ups in the finals. Easy match ups = easy wins, basketball is all about match ups; if you have a bad match up to your advantage you will win.

 

....I'm jus sayin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the biggest change out of this new CBA between Stern/Owners and the players is this issue of realignment I saw just now on ESPN. As early as next season (2012-'13 season)besides the Nets moving to Brooklyn, it's possible divisions in the NBA could fade into history. The NBA could be just split into the Western and Eastern Conferences only. And names like the Atlantic Division fade away as well.:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being realistic here, the Spurs beat a Knicks team that got it going due to it being a short season, had it not been for that the Spurs would have had a much tougher opponent. There recent championships they beat the Nets who came off a sweep to the lakers the year before and really wasn't that great, then they faced a young cavs who had no chance. All I'm saying the Spurs really had easy match ups in the finals. Easy match ups = easy wins, basketball is all about match ups; if you have a bad match up to your advantage you will win.

 

....I'm jus sayin'

 

I so totally agree! I've never really thought the Spurs were as great as the Lakers. Beating those 3 teams is not a 'dynasty'. They were lucky to have easy opponents. And one of those times the Spurs got in the finals because the other team in the western finals had to bench some players for some altercation in a previous game. If not for that, the other team could've advanced. Same for the Knicks some years back against Miami [infamous Jeff Van Gundy hanging on for dear life game]. If they had all their players for the remaining games, I'm sure they could've advanced further.

 

Summing it up: I hate the Spurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I so totally agree! I've never really thought the Spurs were as great as the Lakers. Beating those 3 teams is not a 'dynasty'. They were lucky to have easy opponents. And one of those times the Spurs got in the finals because the other team in the western finals had to bench some players for some altercation in a previous game. If not for that, the other team could've advanced. Same for the Knicks some years back against Miami [infamous Jeff Van Gundy hanging on for dear life game]. If they had all their players for the remaining games, I'm sure they could've advanced further.

 

Summing it up: I hate the Spurs.

 

 

Or another way of putting it. Anyone here remember the 1978 and '79 NBA world champions? They were the Washington Bullets and old Seattle Sonics.

IMO the Spurs are the early turn of the 21 Century version of those '2' teams.

Just like the Spurs won in the few years of the Post-Jordan era, The Bullets(now Wizards) and Sonics(now OKC Thunder)won in the post Chamberlain/West/Willis Reed era which does not get as respected by most NBA fans and sports historians fair or not.:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are any more 'super teams', then they may as well contract some of the lesser teams/cities. There's no way you can have a super team against an average one and still be in the same league. That plus if one team has too many talent together, everyone else has basically 'leftovers' and there's a major imbalance.

 

Though for the Knicks, wouldn't Paul be a 'younger Billups'? If Billups were younger, then they technically have a 'big 3'.

 

For the Nets - yeah sad, but not too surprised about that. The team looks to still be in rebuilding mode and I doubt he'd want to stay that long for a losing team. Also didn't Walsh want him? Seems like the Nets paid 'little' to get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.