Some people have been saying there should be asterisk for this ring, but I think it's opposite. This should count as more than one championship. The team that wins a ring (especially if it's any of the current top 5 teams in the NBA) will prove that they can win:
1. Without home court advantage in the playoffs (they don't have to rely on having home court to win a few games).
2. In a weird environment
3. Consistently. It wasn't about a hot streak. For example if the Lakers, Clippers, or Bucks win, they prove that the first half of the season wasn't just a fluke and that they weren't just riding on a "hot streak." If any of these top teams win, it shows that their roster and coaching staff were built to win a championship.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35855 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:31 am Post subject:
KBandKB wrote:
Some people have been saying there should be asterisk for this ring, but I think it's opposite. This should count as more than one championship. The team that wins a ring (especially if it's any of the current top 5 teams in the NBA) will prove that they can win:
1. Without home court advantage in the playoffs (they don't have to rely on having home court to win a few games).
2. In a weird environment
3. Consistently. It wasn't about a hot streak. For example if the Lakers, Clippers, or Bucks win, they prove that the first half of the season wasn't just a fluke and that they weren't just riding on a "hot streak." If any of these top teams win, it shows that their roster and coaching staff were built to win a championship.
Do you asterisk 1999 or 2012? _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Some people have been saying there should be asterisk for this ring, but I think it's opposite. This should count as more than one championship. The team that wins a ring (especially if it's any of the current top 5 teams in the NBA) will prove that they can win:
1. Without home court advantage in the playoffs (they don't have to rely on having home court to win a few games).
2. In a weird environment
3. Consistently. It wasn't about a hot streak. For example if the Lakers, Clippers, or Bucks win, they prove that the first half of the season wasn't just a fluke and that they weren't just riding on a "hot streak." If any of these top teams win, it shows that their roster and coaching staff were built to win a championship.
Do you asterisk 1999 or 2012?
Nope --- maybe 1999, but definitely not 2012. 2012 was almost a full season, just short of a dozen games in the regular season.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35855 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:46 am Post subject:
KBandKB wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
KBandKB wrote:
Some people have been saying there should be asterisk for this ring, but I think it's opposite. This should count as more than one championship. The team that wins a ring (especially if it's any of the current top 5 teams in the NBA) will prove that they can win:
1. Without home court advantage in the playoffs (they don't have to rely on having home court to win a few games).
2. In a weird environment
3. Consistently. It wasn't about a hot streak. For example if the Lakers, Clippers, or Bucks win, they prove that the first half of the season wasn't just a fluke and that they weren't just riding on a "hot streak." If any of these top teams win, it shows that their roster and coaching staff were built to win a championship.
Do you asterisk 1999 or 2012?
Nope --- maybe 1999, but definitely not 2012. 2012 was almost a full season, just short of a dozen games in the regular season.
Why asterisk 1999 but not this season? _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Some people have been saying there should be asterisk for this ring, but I think it's opposite. This should count as more than one championship. The team that wins a ring (especially if it's any of the current top 5 teams in the NBA) will prove that they can win:
1. Without home court advantage in the playoffs (they don't have to rely on having home court to win a few games).
2. In a weird environment
3. Consistently. It wasn't about a hot streak. For example if the Lakers, Clippers, or Bucks win, they prove that the first half of the season wasn't just a fluke and that they weren't just riding on a "hot streak." If any of these top teams win, it shows that their roster and coaching staff were built to win a championship.
Do you asterisk 1999 or 2012?
Nope --- maybe 1999, but definitely not 2012. 2012 was almost a full season, just short of a dozen games in the regular season.
Why asterisk 1999 but not this season?
I don't asterisk 1999, I said maybe... I need to look at that season again to see what the huge differences were. 50 games instead of 82 so that would be a 32 game difference. But no differences in the playoff format, so probably would not really warrant an asterisk. The only weird thing is that an 8th seed made the Finals, so that would need to be looked at more carefully to see if playing a shortened season made that happen.
Why this season should not be asterisked:
This season, the Lakers will play eventually 71 season games, which is even more than what was played in 2012. Basically almost a full slate of games.
Then you add the fact that if we win, we would have won without home court advantage, so if anything, we should get an even bigger prize: First team in the most recent history (besides the 90's Rockets) to win a championship without HCA.
Then you add the fact that most teams will be 100% healthy. Some teams that actually won rings in the past "got lucky" because a major opposing player got hurt midseason or something like that. I guess we'll find out if any major players here get hurt.
And then as I said, if the champ is a team like the Bucks, Clips, or Lakers, it shows that they were truly a dominant team, that they didn't have to rely on a "hot streak.' If any of these teams win, it proves that their roster is good enough to win and didn't just "get lucky."
And finally, playing in a bubble type environment seems even more challenging than normal.
I say a championship is a championship no matter how many games are played. Look back at 1999 when the Spurs won their first. Of course everyone wanted to put an asterisk next to that Title, however, no one really speaks on that now and Timmy has his 5 rings in spite of.
After everything that has happened if they win the title they will have definitely earned it. _________________ "We are the goodest." - Shaq ESPN interview
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144474 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:48 am Post subject:
You can’t possibly vote for the yes option, not all teams will play under the same circumstances. Not all teams are even playing, only the hand picked teams. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
You can’t possibly vote for the yes option, not all teams will play under the same circumstances. Not all teams are even playing, only the hand picked teams.
Yeah the teams who were mathematically out of the playoffs sure would make the championship a lot tougher.
As others have said.. you could argue this as a much tougher championship to win or it is inferior in value but either way the fact that bottom 8 teams weren't included has nothing to do with that.
If the Lakers win, no asterisk. If the Clippers or Celtics win, of course I will be saying it is an asterisk until the day I die. Double standard? Absolutely. _________________ Wow. Luke has gone full (bleep) on us. - DB
you and I were typing the same thing at the same exact time....spooky
exactly. I'll add to this....
If the Lakers win no asterisk for the Lakers.
But there is an individual asterisk for lebron.
Why? SO that we all are aware that one of these rings for him, whilst equivalent to a regular ring seen from the team's perspective, is only a partial individual ring for himself, due to the circumstances.
if the Lakers don't win, asterisk all around for whoever does. Cuz its bogus.
Why is it bogus? Because....how come whenever we are doing well, the NBA has to step in and ruin our momentum? First the veto, now this.
But wouldn't that still be an asterisk for the Lakers? No, because they owe us a couple of freebies to make up for the veto and other things. Just like they "gave" dallas the ring to make up for the debacle in 2006.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum