baxus Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Sour Billy Tipton said: That statement is not wrong, you just don't agree with it. Which is fine. I don't agree with your ideals of athletics taking precedence over education. ONCE AGAIN, I'm going with laws of probability and stating that an investment of time and money to education is a better investment in terms of the student achieving a profession at the end. Compared to athletics. That is a fact. Since you're the one bringing up "facts", show me the numbers that go against my argument.. You may keep trying to switch the original statement to something else, but I'm not buying it. For those reasons, stopping this debate is the only reasonable course of action so I'll take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Billy Tipton Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 1 hour ago, baxus said: You may keep trying to switch the original statement to something else, but I'm not buying it. "I understand that millions of children are going to aspire to be them but it's the job of the parent(s) to enforce the idea that athletics should always take a backseat to academics." "the odds of them becoming famous athletes/rappers are highly against them. That education is the best investment to make in their young lives. " Those were my original statements on the matter. I haven't deviated on the matter whatsoever. I'm not here to convince you. Just giving another school of thought--pun intended-- in order to create food for thought. 1 hour ago, baxus said: For those reasons, stopping this debate is the only reasonable course of action so I'll take it. I'll just assume my requests of statistics to prove your "facts" that go against my simple philosophy won't be provided. This has been an interesting conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 So... basketball... yeah... The Mavericks are imploding from within because of sexual harassment... Shit... that wasn't basketball either... dammit... Ummm... Kawhi Leonard isn't going to play anymore and may be done with the Spurs. That's at least basketball related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Kawhi potentially becoming available this summer is one reason I'm really glad the Cavs didn't trade that Nets pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Otto Porter for Kawhi. Who says no?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Jaime L said: Otto Porter for Kawhi. Who says no?!? Otto Porter would probably be an All-Star in San Antonio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 21 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Otto Porter would probably be an All-Star in San Antonio. He would fit their scheme pretty seamlessly. Pop, if you're reading this, the homeless man's Kawhi is available! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 1 hour ago, briantw said: Kawhi potentially becoming available this summer is one reason I'm really glad the Cavs didn't trade that Nets pick. Kawhi is actually the perfect star to pair with LeBron because he's so deferential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: Kawhi is actually the perfect star to pair with LeBron because he's so deferential. A Leonard/LeBron/Love big three would be pretty fucking phenomenal. I'd think a trade would be something like Cedi Osman, Brooklyn 1st, and salary filler for Kawhi. Spurs get a prospect who many think would have been a lottery pick in this upcoming draft and a top ten pick in the draft itself. Side note: it'd be kind of funny if George Hill ended up being traded for Kawhi again. Lot of it depends on where that Brooklyn pick lands, though. If it ends up top five or even top three, it's considerably more valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 I listened to a detail of Silver's proposed changes to the playoff structure. I hate them. First, reseeding teams. I understand the desire, but I think its reactionary and unnecessary. I remember well in the mid-90's when the NFC was approaching 20 straight Super Bowl wins and San Francisco vs Dallas was the defacto league championship for four years, there was talk of reseeding for the playoffs. It was a bad idea then, and that played out when we saw Denver upset Green Bay and usher in an era of AFC prominence. Its also a bad idea because schedules are not all the same as long as we are still playing in conferences for purposes of scheduling. Second, and this idea is infinitely worse, the idea of going to play in games for the last spots. The way I heard it explained, the top 6 teams in each conference get their seed as expected. Then you have 7 play 8 with the winner getting the 7th seed. 9 plays 10 and the winner of that game plays the loser of 7/8 for the last playoff spot. Needlessly complicated. And just like my feelings in baseball, if 82 games aren't enough to settle the seeding, then you are doing something wrong. You are taking a sport that determines its champion with a series and throw in a one and done game??? What the hell? The NBA is fine right now, better than it has been in a couple of decades. Yes, its dull seeing Cleveland and Golden State every year; but that won't last longer than another year or two. Don't react to a problem that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 2 hours ago, Rhom said: I listened to a detail of Silver's proposed changes to the playoff structure. I hate them. First, reseeding teams. I understand the desire, but I think its reactionary and unnecessary. I remember well in the mid-90's when the NFC was approaching 20 straight Super Bowl wins and San Francisco vs Dallas was the defacto league championship for four years, there was talk of reseeding for the playoffs. It was a bad idea then, and that played out when we saw Denver upset Green Bay and usher in an era of AFC prominence. Its also a bad idea because schedules are not all the same as long as we are still playing in conferences for purposes of scheduling. Second, and this idea is infinitely worse, the idea of going to play in games for the last spots. The way I heard it explained, the top 6 teams in each conference get their seed as expected. Then you have 7 play 8 with the winner getting the 7th seed. 9 plays 10 and the winner of that game plays the loser of 7/8 for the last playoff spot. Needlessly complicated. And just like my feelings in baseball, if 82 games aren't enough to settle the seeding, then you are doing something wrong. You are taking a sport that determines its champion with a series and throw in a one and done game??? What the hell? The NBA is fine right now, better than it has been in a couple of decades. Yes, its dull seeing Cleveland and Golden State every year; but that won't last longer than another year or two. Don't react to a problem that doesn't exist. I am opposed to both of those changes. The West's dominance isn't structural, they just happen to have had a bit better luck with injuries and draft lotteries along with a higher percentage of well run franchises. Going to 1-16 seeding would make the regular season conference format really strange. And I personally think that the potential injustice of the 4th best West team being better than the second best East team just isn't that big a deal. The playoffs are about determining the champion, and it almost always does that. As for making a more complicated system for 7-10 seeds. It seems stupid and gimmicky. I wouldn't be too pissed off about it, but I don't see why you'd want to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 15 hours ago, briantw said: A Leonard/LeBron/Love big three would be pretty fucking phenomenal. I'd think a trade would be something like Cedi Osman, Brooklyn 1st, and salary filler for Kawhi. Spurs get a prospect who many think would have been a lottery pick in this upcoming draft and a top ten pick in the draft itself. Side note: it'd be kind of funny if George Hill ended up being traded for Kawhi again. Lot of it depends on where that Brooklyn pick lands, though. If it ends up top five or even top three, it's considerably more valuable. Slow down there buddy. There is no universe in which that deal would happen. The Cavs would have to trade Love and the pick to get Kawhi, with possibly some other players being exchanged to balance the deal out (I can see the Spurs wanting Korver, for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 2 hours ago, Rhom said: I listened to a detail of Silver's proposed changes to the playoff structure. I hate them. First, reseeding teams. I understand the desire, but I think its reactionary and unnecessary. I remember well in the mid-90's when the NFC was approaching 20 straight Super Bowl wins and San Francisco vs Dallas was the defacto league championship for four years, there was talk of reseeding for the playoffs. It was a bad idea then, and that played out when we saw Denver upset Green Bay and usher in an era of AFC prominence. Its also a bad idea because schedules are not all the same as long as we are still playing in conferences for purposes of scheduling. Second, and this idea is infinitely worse, the idea of going to play in games for the last spots. The way I heard it explained, the top 6 teams in each conference get their seed as expected. Then you have 7 play 8 with the winner getting the 7th seed. 9 plays 10 and the winner of that game plays the loser of 7/8 for the last playoff spot. Needlessly complicated. And just like my feelings in baseball, if 82 games aren't enough to settle the seeding, then you are doing something wrong. You are taking a sport that determines its champion with a series and throw in a one and done game??? What the hell? The NBA is fine right now, better than it has been in a couple of decades. Yes, its dull seeing Cleveland and Golden State every year; but that won't last longer than another year or two. Don't react to a problem that doesn't exist. Bruh, Your boy already fixed basketball. See: On 12/15/2017 at 4:59 PM, Tywin et al. said: I've always wondered if a pro team would work in Louisville. It seems like a big enough market with a rich basketball tradition. Hell, it might be the only state that prefers basketball to football. I feel like the league needs to expand to 32 teams, and Louisville might be a great location for the second team (Seattle obviously gets a team in this scenario). Now here's where Commissioner Tywin really fixes the NBA. First things first, there are no more conferences or even divisions as we know them now. One month before the season, we're having a lottery. Teams will be randomly selected and placed into 8 new divisions (which for the time being can just be called A-H, but we'll come up with some sick names for them). Each team plays their new division rivals four times, twice at each teams place, and you play all non-division teams twice, once at both teams place. This leaves us with a 68 game schedule, which would give players more time to rest between games and does away with resting players during games. It also makes games more valuable and the fans will be more invested in each game. And it does away with some of the problems with traveling. Now the fun stuff: playoffs. Each division champion gets slotted 1-8 by their record. Then we can do one of two things. We can either let the next best eight teams in and slot them by record, or we can let in each second place team and slot them by record. I prefer the former, but am perfectly fine with the latter. What makes this fun is you might randomly get a division that has Golden State, Cleveland and Houston in it. Do we leave a top 10 team out or not? Anyways, we're also shortening up the rounds. The 1st round is now three games, the second is now five, and the semifinals and finals will remain at seven. The reason for doing this is to allow for the greater chance of upsets. The 14th best team can beat the 3rd best team if the defend home court and pick one of the two road games off. I think this will foster great competition. And at the end of this gauntlet of a season, we crown a champion, go into the offseason, and do it all again next year. Whatchya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 I'm pretty impressed with the Wizards recent run. I'm not really sure how they're doing it, but they're playing their best ball since Wall went out. They've won 8 of their last 10, and included in that is wins @CLE, @IND and vs OKC. That is definitely not the kind of thing you expect from a second tier team missing their best player. Beal is really bringing it, showing no ill signs from his 2015 demise. Hats off to Scott Brooks is too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Maithanet said: I'm pretty impressed with the Wizards recent run. I'm not really sure how they're doing it, but they're playing their best ball since Wall went out. They've won 8 of their last 10, and included in that is wins @CLE, @IND and vs OKC. That is definitely not the kind of thing you expect from a second tier team missing their best player. Beal is really bringing it, showing no ill signs from his 2015 demise. Hats off to Scott Brooks is too. Watched all of last night's game - it was a really nice team win, especially after they got down by double digits. Beal's proving himself to be a guy you can run the offense through. He's unselfish early in the shot clock and can create something out of nothing when the clock is running out. My one issue with him is he still seems to get late game jitters - both in terms of missing layups and at the FT line. Saw it both in the Celtics and Cavs game. Hoping that starts to go away as he gets more reps in clutch situations. The revelation though to me has been Tomas Satoransky. Dude is like a Spurs player in every way - very high basketball IQ, only attempts shots he can make, moves the ball very well and deceptively good on defense. I'm excited to see what his role will be when Wall comes back. He's big enough that you can make him part of killer small-ball 3 guard lineups, or just have him help Oubre run the second unit and banish Tim Frazier to the deepest recesses of our bench (which alone will improve our team immensely). ETA: I did almost lose my mind when the Wizards had a 10 point lead with like 3 minutes to go and they almost blew it all by constantly letting Lebron iso up and get easy layup after easy laup. No-one on the roster can stop Lebron 1 on 1. Bring the double team and force someone else to beat you, FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Billy Tipton Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 I hope Jimmy Butler is ok. He's been one of my favorite players for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Agree with Rhom's post, dont fix what isnt broken. The reseeding proposal is foolish, a solution in search of a problem, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Billy Tipton Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 17 hours ago, Rhom said: I listened to a detail of Silver's proposed changes to the playoff structure. I hate them. Second, and this idea is infinitely worse, the idea of going to play in games for the last spots. The way I heard it explained, the top 6 teams in each conference get their seed as expected. Then you have 7 play 8 with the winner getting the 7th seed. 9 plays 10 and the winner of that game plays the loser of 7/8 for the last playoff spot. Needlessly complicated. And just like my feelings in baseball, if 82 games aren't enough to settle the seeding, then you are doing something wrong. You are taking a sport that determines its champion with a series and throw in a one and done game??? What the hell? I haven't heard about these proposal ideas. I think everyone--including Silver--would agree that the current system is best. However in the scenario you explained the 10th team in the standing would have relevance and a chance to take the 8th seed. There would be some years where most teams 10-15 in each conference would only be within a few games of each other. That would limit tanking. I would hate this change but I can understand how it's applicable to the constant negative criticisms of tanking each season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Re-seeding would only really make sense if there were one conference that was winning the NBA title every single year. But that's demonstrably not the case. I believe four of the last ten titles were won by the East, and it likely would have been five had Love and Irving not gotten hurt in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proudfeet Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 2 hours ago, briantw said: Re-seeding would only really make sense if there were one conference that was winning the NBA title every single year. But that's demonstrably not the case. I believe four of the last ten titles were won by the East, and it likely would have been five had Love and Irving not gotten hurt in 2015. That's not the issue here though is it? It's the perception that the ninth and tenth team in the West are more deserving than the seventh and eighth team in the East. Or how the second to fourth seeds in the West are better than the second seed in the East. If you are going by history, how many of those titles were won by LeBron? How many were lost by him? He has contested every final since his move to Miami. And more often than not, swept his way there. That may be due to the strength of his teams, but is surely exacerbated by the lack of competitiveness in the East. I don't quite get the intention of the play-in tournament. I guess there is incentive to be the sixth seed to avoid missing out and the seventh and eighth seeds to get two tries, but the gap in wins get so much more pronounced when you reach the ninth, tenth and eleventh teams that they are basically assured of a play-in spot even if they don't make the eighth seed. ETA Actually historical strength shouldn't be an issue. So what if it balances out? Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Besides, if we really want to take in geographical/scheduling considerations, why not do playoffs by division and have wins be the tie breaker instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.