Sunday, May 02, 2004

Not everyone roots for the underdog

I know that everyone is peeved that the first round is taking so long. I think the Hornets/Heat series has been going on longer than the entire series run of  'Century City'. While the first round could be shortened by not having every game having exclusive TV coverage, Knickerblogger says cut the series back to best of 5:

I mean seriously, the only underdog that might win their series is the Hornets who are tied 2-2 in their series so far. 4 teams have already moved on to the next round, and 3 others are up 3-1. Is it me, or does this smack of the greatest scam of all time? How many millions is the NBA making from having about 40 extra games played with packed arenas and almost prime time television? All for what? The 5% chance that a 6th, 7th, or 8th seed might upset a better team, just to most be crushed in the next round anyway? Off the top of my head I can't think of a team past seed #5 that went two rounds other than the strike season Knicks. So can anyone tell me what's the point of the first round?

I don't know the actual percentage of lower seeds that make it past the 1st round, but I for one like the idea of making that chance minimal. I'm being serious, I can last through a non-competitive first round to get these juicy second-round matchups. Lakers-Spurs. Wolves-Kings. Nets-Pistons. Indy-Some crappy team. Well 3 out of 4 aint bad.

What if Memphis somehow upset the Spurs? The Knicks beat the Nets? Not only would the second rounds for those teams be laughers, we would be hearing all the cryin over low TV ratings and supposed decline of the NBA. I am glad I get more basketball, and there are no sacrificial lambs in the second round. I'm so amped about the Lakers/Spurs series I think my head will explode. Rockets-Grizzlies? They're underdogs for a reason, they're not as good. And I want my playoffs to see the best playing the best.