2013 NBA Playoffs thread

That's a good analogy. In the SEC, great players gravitate toward those schools because they see them on TV hoisting trophies, perpetuating the cycle. You wonder if things would be different if there was a cap on recruiting budgets or how much colleges could spend on their football teams.
Throw in players being more willing to play for a college outside of their region and not just play for State U, and the advantages certain programs have are only magnified.

In the NBA, the players have more power, and the better you are, the more power you have. You can get coaches canned, you can pick which team you are traded to. In a way, it's like the gene pool. With free agency you can pick who you "hook up" with and you are going to be attracted to a situation that has a higher probability of making you happy.

So yeah, not a conspiracy, but predictable all the same.

And I say this as someone who remembers teams like the Big Red Machine, the Cowboys and Steelers of the 70s and the NBA of 70s when eight different teams won the title over 10 years. Pre-free agency teams were built in the front office over time and players had little if any sway.

 

A low point for the league, however, that had to be "rescued" by Magic and Bird in 1979.

 

If that was the result of rigging, then wouldn't you expect at least one of those nine teams to be located in the nation's largest media and population market?

I doubt San Antonio winning four (and possibly soon five) and the Knicks and Nets getting zero was in the Stern blueprint.

 

I wouldn't say they laid down. They were competitive in the first quarter, but their season-long Achilles heel -- turnovers -- came back to bite them. And there's no team better at converting turnovers to fast breaks than Miami. This also had the feel of old Super Bowls -- the underdog starts to fall behind, starts pressing and panicking, and suddenly makes things lots worse. Of course, it also helps that Wade and Bosh finally decided to show up. It's telling about the teams, as they now stand, that when Miami was on fire, it was running Indiana out of the gym, but when Indiana was on fire, it was winning by single digits. The Pacers just aren't a team, as constructed, that can score in bunches, so if the defense is breaking down, they're dead.

But I would agree that anyone talking about the refs is misguided. It was pretty clear from the second quarter on that Miami had it last night, and Indiana didn't. Just because we know what outcome David Stern would prefer doesn't mean he (always) arranges things to ensure it happens.

 

Once Wade went into attack mode straight out of tipoff, it was probably over for Indiana even though the Pacers led 12-6 and kept it close for the first quarter. Bosh had a big 30-second burst with a steal, rebound and long jumper, so it was apparent he'd be trying hard, too.

But Wade was the telltale sign that it was going to be Miami's night.

 

Also, with the cap and luxury tax, players can only make so much money. So no one is picking a team based merely on salary. You ask other questions. Where am I most likely to win? Can this team draw other talent? What organizations are well-run? Who is the coach? Where can I maximize endorsement opportunities? Where do I think I'll be the happiest?

Looking at all those questions, there's no doubt why LeBron James picked Miami over Cleveland. But that doesn't mean every player is going to just jump to the Heat or the Lakers or the Knicks. David West, for example, picked Indiana over Boston, much to the amazement of well, everyone, including Ray Allen (http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/7369405/danny-ainge-offseason-airball-signal-trouble-ahead-boston-celtics), who might not have bolted for Miami if West played with the Celtics and helped to keep them in championship contention.

 

So, who do you guys have? Spurs or Heat?

 

A 16-game schedule. And one-and-done playoff format.

 

This is largely horseshit. The one and dones don't have squat to do with it. The Lakers and Celtics won nearly every title in the 80s, the Celts won every title but one in the 60s, the Bulls won 6 in 8 years to begin the 90s, etc.--the NBA has had these issues long before the one and done phenomenon blew up.

And you miss the most obvious reasons, for example:

The NFL's one and out playoff format, same reason the NCAA tournament is so unpredictable. The NFL playoffs would be just as predictable as the NBA, and we'd have seen far fewer different champs, if they were playing a series format. You might get a miraculous helmet catch in one game, but you ain't getting it in 4 of 7.

Simply the different nature of the two sports. With only 5 men on the floor, it's considerably easier to keep together a dominating core for a sustained run over several years in the NBA. But, with 22 starters in football, there's a whole lot more pieces that can break down and more variables that can mess it up from year to year.

 

Except for those goddamn Pistons of the early to mid-aughts. Should have won 3 or 4.

 

I think they are lucky to have the one they won.

 

Yep. Should've said via the draft.