70's NBA

[llemon]

You may have a different definition of relevant than I do. The NBA was irrelevant on a national level because it was largely ignored by much of the country. It wasn't even close to where the NFL and MLB were. Just because it was relevant to you, me and others who followed the sport, doesn't mean it was relevant to the rest of the sports viewing world (aka the majority of sports viewers). Their championship games were often played on tape delay at 11:30 at night. Networks don't do that to relevant sports.

The NBA is more popular today than it has been in it's entire history. That is the opposite of irrelevant. We can talk about the level of team play not being as good, or complain about the commercials or network shilling during games, but those are different conversations. In fact, I'd say that the very fact that networks are showing NBA games in primetime on multiple channels and are shilling their programs during games speaks to how relevant the NBA is now. Networks don't waste time advertising shows that they want people to watch during broadcasts that no one is watching.

Also, I never said Dr. J was irrelevant. A sport can be irrelevant on a national level and still have relevant players. I'd say guys like Wilt, Jerry West, John Havlicek, etc. were also relevant, but the league they played in wasn't at the time. Just because a player is relevant doesn't mean the sport he plays is.

Who cares about the rest of the sports viewing world. This is a basketball forum.

To me football and hockey are irrelevant because I care about neither.

 

[trojanfan12]

Who cares about the rest of the sports viewing world. This is a basketball forum.

To me football and hockey are irrelevant because I care about neither.

So you do have a different definition of irrelevant that apparently doesn't expand beyond your own little world.

Good to know.

Also, I'd say that the NBA cares/cared a great deal about the rest of the sports viewing world, since it was attracting a good sized portion of the rest of the sports viewing world that has made the league relevant.

 

[llemon]

So you do have a different definition of irrelevant that apparently doesn't expand beyond your own little world.

Good to know.

Also, I'd say that the NBA cares/cared a great deal about the rest of the sports viewing world, since it was attracting a good sized portion of the rest of the sports viewing world that has made the league relevant.

And I'll say again, I've been following the NBA since the '62-'63 season, and I followed the ABA for it's last six seasons, so they have obviously been relevant to me.

I decide what is relevant to me. What is supposedly relevant to anyone or everyone else is not my concern.

The World-Wide stage means nothing to me.

Then again, is anything really relevant? Is life relevant?

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Then again, is anything really relevant? Is life relevant?

Have you been drinking too much cough syrup?

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Careful @llemon if you post too often you'll lose credibility since you're not a Heat or a Lakers fan.

 

[trojanfan12]

Have you been drinking too much cough syrup?

He's been hittin' that purple drank.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Careful @llemon if you post too often you'll lose credibility since you're not a Heat or a Lakers fan.

Not necessarily true. You don't post often and you have no credibility either.

 

[trojanfan12]

Careful @llemon if you post too often you'll lose credibility since you're not a Heat or a Lakers fan.

You didn't lose credibility because you're not a Heat or Lakers fan.

You lost credibility because you start pissing matches with anyone who disagrees with you and then cry when they make a fool out of you.

 

[llemon]

Have you been drinking too much cough syrup?

Have you lost the ability to think?

 

[trojanfan12]

Is the sky in llemonland yellow?

 

[llemon]

Is the sky in llemonland yellow?

I'm not sure. That's called perception. I generally see it as blue, but I'm not sure that's the color it is.

 

[TeddyJackEddy]

The 70s was generally the worst period in The NBA, other than back when they only passed the ball going back to the 30s and 40s.
The 70s was 90% showboating, but The Celtics, Knicks and a few other well coached teams played good ball.
Magic and Bird brought team ball back into vogue in 1980.

 

[llemon]

The 70s was generally the worst period in The NBA, other than back when they only passed the ball going back to the 30s and 40s.
The 70s was 90% showboating, but The Celtics, Knicks and a few other well coached teams played good ball.
Magic and Bird brought team ball back into vogue in 1980.

I disagree. The 80's introduced 'Showtime', and you think the 70's were about showboating?????

 

[HurricaneDij39]

So you do have a different definition of irrelevant that apparently doesn't expand beyond your own little world.

Good to know.

Also, I'd say that the NBA cares/cared a great deal about the rest of the sports viewing world, since it was attracting a good sized portion of the rest of the sports viewing world that has made the league relevant.

Your own perception means everything to everything.

Take the Red Hot Chili Peppers for example. I happen to enjoy their hardcore stuff from the late 80's (even though I myself was born in '88) as opposed to the lolly-pop shit they produce today. But, they are generally considered a much more commercially successful band today than they were back then.

I own countless vids featuring coverage of the 80's NBA, but I wish I had more regarding the 70's. Seemed like an intense era of NBA basketball. I also think there was plenty of overlooked parity in the 90's as well as the early 2000's. Jordan and the Bulls just happened to dominate the field and eventually the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

After that, it just seemed like the NBA had suffered from withdrawal and $tern had tried and manipulate the system a bit. But, that's just the way I see it...You probably have a different "perception" completely, which is my point that one's perception makes a major difference.

 

[tlance]

Your own perception means everything to everything.

Take the Red Hot Chili Peppers for example. I happen to enjoy their hardcore stuff from the late 80's (even though I myself was born in '88) as opposed to the lolly-pop shit they produce today. But, they are generally considered a much more commercially successful band today than they were back then.

I own countless vids featuring coverage of the 80's NBA, but I wish I had more regarding the 70's. Seemed like an intense era of NBA basketball. I also think there was plenty of overlooked parity in the 90's as well as the early 2000's. Jordan and the Bulls just happened to dominate the field and eventually the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

After that, it just seemed like the NBA had suffered from withdrawal and $tern had tried and manipulate the system a bit. But, that's just the way I see it...You probably have a different "perception" completely, which is my point that one's perception makes a major difference.

Parity in the 90s and early 2000s?

When 1 team dominates and the rest are relatively equal, that ain't parity. In fact, it is basically the opposite of parity and exactly what the NBA has today with GS, Cleveland and then everybody else.

The league has drawn its highest ratings when it has had dominant teams. Ratings are good for the league, although clearly not good for the bottom feeder teams.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

Your own perception means everything to everything.

Take the Red Hot Chili Peppers for example. I happen to enjoy their hardcore stuff from the late 80's (even though I myself was born in '88) as opposed to the lolly-pop shit they produce today. But, they are generally considered a much more commercially successful band today than they were back then.

I own countless vids featuring coverage of the 80's NBA, but I wish I had more regarding the 70's. Seemed like an intense era of NBA basketball. I also think there was plenty of overlooked parity in the 90's as well as the early 2000's. Jordan and the Bulls just happened to dominate the field and eventually the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

After that, it just seemed like the NBA had suffered from withdrawal and $tern had tried and manipulate the system a bit. But, that's just the way I see it...You probably have a different "perception" completely, which is my point that one's perception makes a major difference.

Pssh, under the bridge was the shit.

 

[trojanfan12]

Take the Red Hot Chili Peppers for example. I happen to enjoy their hardcore stuff from the late 80's (even though I myself was born in '88) as opposed to the lolly-pop shit they produce today. But, they are generally considered a much more commercially successful band today than they were back then.

Love the Chili Peppers.

I own countless vids featuring coverage of the 80's NBA, but I wish I had more regarding the 70's. Seemed like an intense era of NBA basketball. I also think there was plenty of overlooked parity in the 90's as well as the early 2000's. Jordan and the Bulls just happened to dominate the field and eventually the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

The 70's were a lot of fun. But the NBA was basically a barnstorming league at that time. There wasn't a lot of structure and the coaching wasn't as good as we have seen from the 80's on. As the league has grown in popularity, the level of play and coaching has really gotten better.

The 70's was fun because being an NBA fan back then was kind of like being in on something that a lot of folks didn't know about. Back then, you had to try to find NBA games. Now, you can watch pretty much every game.

If you haven't already, see if you can find the triple overtime game between the Celtics and Suns Game 5 from the 1976 finals. If it's not the greatest NBA game ever, it's in the discussion.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Parity in the 90s and early 2000s?

When 1 team dominates and the rest are relatively equal, that ain't parity. In fact, it is basically the opposite of parity and exactly what the NBA has today with GS, Cleveland and then everybody else.

The league has drawn its highest ratings when it has had dominant teams. Ratings are good for the league, although clearly not good for the bottom feeder teams.

The Bulls and Lakers of those years were the teams the media focused itself on, but make no mistake - Those teams absolutely worked for everything they achieved. It's not like today where LeBron or Curry take the elite's best shot for a few games a season and face mediocre teams the other 70+ games while going through the motions.

Jordan and others from that era more often that not brought out the best in their teammates as well as their competition. There was no "superteams" in the 90's, just "good" teams taking their best shots night in and night out taking their best shots at the Bulls. Jordan had his work cut out for him.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Pssh, under the bridge was the shit.

A couple of good hits on this year's album but it's tough to stay interested through the whole CD since everything is so low-key...

 

[tlance]

The Bulls and Lakers of those years were the teams the media focused itself on, but make no mistake - Those teams absolutely worked for everything they achieved. It's not like today where LeBron or Curry take the elite's best shot for a few games a season and face mediocre teams the other 70+ games while going through the motions.

Jordan and others from that era more often that not brought out the best in their teammates as well as their competition. There was no "superteams" in the 90's, just "good" teams taking their best shots night in and night out taking their best shots at the Bulls. Jordan had his work cut out for him.

I just don't agree.

The Bulls battled the Knicks and Pacers, but those teams were nowhere near as good. They just physically beat the crap out of the Bulls because they could under league rules.

The Lakers always had one or two rivals in the West (Blazers, Spurs, Kings) who were on their level or close to it, but the NBA Finals were just about a forgone conclusion during the Shaq/Kobe run. AI's 6ers might have been the worst Finals team I have ever seen.

I guess what I am saying is that we have as much parity now as we had back then. The power structure is actually pretty similar.