Fauxie said:

If the Cavs get home court and stay healthy, they're going to the Finals.

uPtoWnNY said:

Home court is the key?

Graycap23 said:

For the Cavs it is if they're going to play Boston down the line. I think San Antonio is the only team that could beat the C's without homecourt advantage. The other contenders -- Cleveland, LA, Orlando -- need it to beat Boston, imo.

namepeace said:

Pretty weak 4 a so called Champ.

Graycap23 said:

Neither one of those teams are champs. Boston is. And Boston needed homecourt to beat each of their conference opponents last year.

The Spurs have the experience and mental toughness to win anywhere. The Lakers, Cavs and Orlando are deficient in at least one of those, as talented as they are.

namepeace said:

What I mean 2 say is that if u need homecourt 2 win a title, that is weak.

Graycap23 said:

That makes you weaker than past title-winners of old, but if you play up to, what, 28 games to win a title, you're not "weak" per se.

The 1985 Lakers, 1997 and 1998 Bulls, 2004 Pistons, 2006 Heat won titles without homecourt.

The 1988 Lakers, 2005 Spurs, and 2008 Celtics, to name a few, likely couldn't have won their titles without homecourt in at least one of their . That doesn't necessarily make them weak.

In any event, that's just my opinion. Only Boston and San An have the mental toughness to win a title without homecourt because they've been there and done it before. I do think the other contenders are lacking in that department.

namepeace said:

Maybe it is time 2 move the NBA title games 2 a neutral site?

Graycap23 said:

Not a bad idea at all. It could be a 2-week event, just like the Super Bowl.

namepeace said:

Email 2 David Stern.....in the works.

namepeace said:

Season ticket holders would never go for that. The reason the Super Bowl is played in a neutral spot is because it's just one game and it would be unfair for one team to have that title game at their crib without the opposing team being able to have one at theirs.

MuthaFunka said:

How about 2 at each site and the last 3 on a neutral?

Graycap23 said:

Nope. They'd still want all the games to split.

MuthaFunka said:

True.

namepeace said:

Tha fans have no real say so.....lets keep it real. If Stern wanted 2 do this and the players agreed, it would be done. I just think it's pretty weak if a team wins the title ONLY because it had home court.

namepeace said:

Then what's the point of winning your division/conference if you don't get homecourt throughout the playoffs? Bad idea, IMO.

Graycap23 said:

The fans pay their salaries. If the fans decide to not go to the games or watch the games, then there's no concession stand money, and the sponors pull out. Why do you think Stern "de-thugged" the game a few years back?

uPtoWnNY said:

The concept would still allow you to retain homecourt in the conference playoffs. But you're right, a drawback would be the disincentive to get homecourt for the Finals.

I still say it would be a Finals on a neutral site wouldn't be a bad idea. After all, a team that really wants a title would play hard no matter where to get it.

namepeace said:

Right. Which goes right back to how HCA shouldn't matter because great teams win on the road regardless of HCA or not.

Hey MuthaFunka, how about those 76ers last night?

Moonbeam said:

And then those bitches go and lose the lowly Suns . That's the one thing about the Lakers - They get EVERY team's best shot EVERY NIGHT.

MuthaFunka said:

Yeah, at least you guys have the division wrapped up! The number 1 seed is a virtual lock, but the Lakers don't appear to be as invincible as they once seemed!

MuthaFunka said:

After a Lakers' loss, I always look at the box scores of the next game of the opponent that beat them. The numbers always fall off. Because every team plays the Lakers like a Finals game, no matter what the Lakers' record is. Some scrub that never scores any points gets inspired and hits for 15 or 20. Then goes and scores 15 points TOTAL until the next Lakers game, when he comes out and scores another 14 or 18.

Comes with the territory. That's the most frustrating part of being a Lakers fan.

Moonbeam said:

Well, I still say the Lakers lack a mental toughness that may cost them down the line. Half of heir losses, IIRC, were like the last loss -- falling short after building a double digit lead. They've had several wins that they escaped with after blown leads.

But their depth should carry the day at least through he WCF. If Bynum coms back and gives'em anything, they'll find their mojo and get to the Finals. The Jazz, Hornets and Spurs scare me, but they can beat each of those teams. They can beat the Cavs. The C's are another story.

namepeace said:

A healthy(and rested) Spurs team will own the playoffs.
[Edited 3/19/09 8:55am]

uPtoWnNY said:

Is that a prediction?

Moonbeam said:

Nah, they were never invincible, I know my squadron.

namepeace said:

Yep! Last game = Donyell "Where the hell has he been?" Marshall - 9 points, ALL of them 3-pointers.

uPtoWnNY said:

Nah, that window has closed for them.

uPtoWnNY said:

Problem is, they'll be neither come May. They're going to have to slug it out in the WC semifinals and WC Finals to get to the Finals. Their fate rests on Ginobili's ankle. Which has been gimpy all season.

And they're thin by Spurs standards.

They can beat any team out West. But they're basically the same team that LA ran last season.