MVP Candidate and vanilla face of the league openly crying about play in games

[Codeine Bryant]

What "excuse" did I make? This is literally the system and always has been in every American sport. I didn't need to make an "excuse" for conferences existing.




You see, in American sports we have these things called "conferences" and in order to play in the Finals, you have to win your "conference". What is happening in the other conference is completely irrelevant to whether you win your conference or not. Since the Knicks don't play in the Western Conference, they are completely irrelevant to your path to winning the Western Conference.

Ah, the pedantic willfully ignorant response. About what I expected from you.

Still no explanation of how a play-in tournament that essentially punishes teams for already being in a tougher conference makes any sense, especially in a day an age where all Star players are trying to play less games and preserve themselves for the playoffs.

So let’s institute more games right before the playoffs during a condensed season.

Give me some more American History lessons about that topic, Professor Dankster

 

[concise]

Nah. A lot of you are being intentionally obtuse about this like multiple faces of the league don’t sit out routinely and try to rest for certain stretches and be prepared for playoffs.

Try telling guys like Bron, Kawhi, and KD (the last 5 Finals MVPs...) that “it’s only 3 games, suck it up.”

It’s fine when Coli’s favorite players need rest and to pace themselves. When it’s a guy you guys don’t like, fukk em, it’s just a couple games, don’t be p*ssy.

Play-in starts with the 7th seed.
No 7 seed has ever made the NBA Finals.
If taking games off drops you to 7th or 8th, you were never a contender.

 

[Codeine Bryant]

Play-in starts with the 7th seed.
No 7 seed has ever made the NBA Finals.
If taking games off drops you to 7th or 8th, you were never a contender.

No team had ever beaten a 73-9 team in the Finals before either

Guess they should have just given the Warriors a trophy after they went up 3-1, right?


This thread is all sorts of terrible plea copping. You guys can have it.

 

[Saint1]

Because the 8th seeds are usually trash. Make it something worth watching

 

[Codeine Bryant]

Last post: no 9 or 10 seed has ever won an NBA Finals.

Or made the Conference Semis

Or made the Conference Finals


But that doesn’t jive with the narrative, right boys

 

[concise]

No team had ever beaten a 73-9 team in the Finals before either

Guess they should have just given the Warriors a trophy after they went up 3-1, right?


This thread is all sorts of terrible plea copping. You guys can have it.

They were a 1 seed and lost in the Finals like 1 seeds sometimes do. There's no extra bonus beyond that.

You're all over the place crying for a team who is not as good as they think they are.

 

[Codeine Bryant]

They were a 1 seed and lost in the Finals like 1 seeds sometimes do. There's no extra bonus beyond that.

You're all over the place crying for a team who is not as good as they think they are.

The irony of you guys defending 9th and 10th seeds as being playoff worthy, while telling me my team being a 7 seed and they’re not about to do shyt anyways

You can’t write this stuff

Oh, and don’t think I didn’t notice how you said “the 7th seed has never made an NBA finals.”

What about an 8th seed? Oh, that doesn’t fit your narrative, eh? So you’re essentially just creating a strawman to defend a system where you can big up the 8/9/10 seed while simultaneously shytting on the 7 seed as being hopeless.

Oh, and a 1 seed that won 70 games never lost before. So you still have yet to explain why your bad logic doesn’t translate over.

 

[concise]

The irony of you guys defending 9th and 10th seeds as being playoff worthy, while telling me my team being a 7 seed and they’re not about to do shyt anyways

You can’t write this stuff

Oh, and don’t think I didn’t notice how you said “the 7th seed has never made an NBA finals.”

What about an 8th seed? Oh, that doesn’t fit your narrative, eh? So you’re essentially just creating a strawman to defend a system where you can big up the 8/9/10 seed while simultaneously shytting on the 7 seed as being hopeless.

Oh, and a 1 seed that won 70 games never lost before. So you still have yet to explain why your bad logic doesn’t translate over.

https://www.thecoli.com/posts/41590518/

I already went over this in another thread on this topic. 7 and 8 seeds mostly just get spanked, so they might as well give us some entertainment with teams closer to their level.
The playoffs being as bloated as it is is all about having extra games on TV, otherwise it wouldn't be more than 4 or 5 teams per conference.

 

[Codeine Bryant]

https://www.thecoli.com/posts/41590518/

I already went over this in another thread on this topic. 7 and 8 seeds mostly just get spanked, so they might as well give us some entertainment with teams closer to their level.
The playoffs being as bloated as it is is all about having extra games on TV, otherwise it wouldn't be more than 4 or 5 teams per conference.

This is my entire point.

The play-in tournament doesn’t positively effect the quality of basketball we get during the postseason. And if anything, it will most likely hurt the quality of series and play. With less rest for the lesser teams and arguably shyttier teams being thrown into the tournament.

This is a play strictly for entertainment purposes. (And possibly to shoehorn Zion into the playoffs last year and this year...)

Thanks for proving my point for me

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Ah, the pedantic willfully ignorant response. About what I expected from you.

I literally explained the exact system to you, that's pretty much the opposite of "willfully ignorant".

Still no explanation of how a play-in tournament that essentially punishes teams for already being in a tougher conference makes any sense, especially in a day an age where all Star players are trying to play less games and preserve themselves for the playoffs.

The play-in tournament doesn't punish anyone for being in a tougher conference. Being in a tougher conference is the punishment for being in a tougher conference. Not that it matters, cause the Knicks ain't gonna win their "easier" conference with their "easier" path either.

Literally everyone in the Western Conference has to play by the exact same rules for winning the Western Conference. Literally everyone in the Eastern Conference has to play by the exact same rules for winning the Eastern Conference. Teams in the Western Conference might wish they were playing in the Eastern Conference, but they don't get to.

No matter what happens, the Mavs are not going to be facing the Knicks under any circumstances. And it's not because of the play-in tournament, it's because they're mediocre teams that play in different conferences and aren't good enough to represent their conference in the Finals. Sorry to break it to you.


The criteria for going to the Finals is winning your conference. That has NEVER changed. What happens in the other conference is completely irrelevant.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This is a play strictly for entertainment purposes.

Someone better break it to @Codeine Bryant that this is the only reason sports exists.

 

[Codeine Bryant]

I literally explained the exact system to you, that's pretty much the opposite of "willfully ignorant".




The play-in tournament doesn't punish anyone for being in a tougher conference. Being in a tougher conference is the punishment for being in a tougher conference. Not that it matters, cause the Knicks ain't gonna win their "easier" conference with their "easier" path either.

Literally everyone in the Western Conference has to play by the exact same rules for winning the Western Conference. Literally everyone in the Eastern Conference has to play by the exact same rules for winning the Eastern Conference. Teams in the Western Conference might wish they were playing in the Eastern Conference, but they don't get to.

No matter what happens, the Mavs are not going to be facing the Knicks under any circumstances. And it's not because of the play-in tournament, it's because they're mediocre teams that play in different conferences and aren't good enough to represent their conference in the Finals. Sorry to break it to you.


The criteria for going to the Finals is winning your conference. That has NEVER changed. What happens in the other conference is completely irrelevant.

In case you think you’re absurdly clever or have great insight, I think the vast majority of people know that the Mavericks are not a great team and would be surprised if they made it out the first round. Myself included.

I don’t understand how that has anything to do with discussing the merit of a play-in tournament. But you seem to really enjoy letting me know the team I root for ain’t shyt. Quality input.

The play-in tournament literally punishes teams for being in the tougher conference. Again, the Mavs would be the 4th seed in the East... The Hawks, Celtics, and Knicks would be play-in tournament in the West. Instead, they have comfortable playoff spots.

So tell me again, how is this play-in tournament not inherently shyttier for the West 7th seed that would literally have home court in the opposite conference?

“The play-in tournament doesn’t punish anyone for being in a tougher conference.” is what you said. The literal standings and projected playoff bracket directly contradict what you’re saying. But hey, don’t let that stop you from continuing to be dense about this topic and tell me more about how the Mavs aren’t real contenders.

Since you seem to have reading issues, I’ll remind you again that I’m well aware they aren’t real contenders.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

In case you think you’re absurdly clever or have great insight, I think the vast majority of people know that the Mavericks are not a great team and would be surprised if they made it out the first round. Myself included.

I don’t understand how that has anything to do with discussing the merit of a play-in tournament. But you seem to really enjoy letting me know the team I root for ain’t shyt. Quality input.

The play-in tournament literally punishes teams for being in the tougher conference. Again, the Mavs would be the 4th seed in the East... The Hawks, Celtics, and Knicks would be play-in tournament in the West. Instead, they have comfortable playoff spots.

So tell me again, how is this play-in tournament not inherently shyttier for the West 7th seed that would literally have home court in the opposite conference?

“The play-in tournament doesn’t punish anyone for being in a tougher conference.” is what you said. The literal standings and projected playoff bracket directly contradict what you’re saying. But hey, don’t let that stop you from continuing to be dense about this topic and tell me more about how the Mavs aren’t real contenders.

Since you seem to have reading issues, I’ll remind you again that I’m well aware they aren’t real contenders.

No, I don't think it takes amazing insight to realize how conferences work, pretty sure most of us figured this out before the age of 10.

You're still talking about what path the other teams have as if they other teams aren't still competing to win THEIR conference, not YOUR conference. Their path is irrelevant to whether or not you win your conference.

Literally nothing that happens to the Hawks, Celtics, and Knicks affects your changes of winning your conference. Nothing.

 

[Codeine Bryant]

No, I don't think it takes amazing insight to realize how conferences work, pretty sure most of us figured this out before the age of 10.

You're still talking about what path the other teams have as if they other teams aren't still competing to win THEIR conference, not YOUR conference. Their path is irrelevant to whether or not you win your conference.

Literally nothing that happens to the Hawks, Celtics, and Knicks affects your changes of winning your conference. Nothing.

You’re literally arguing a point nobody is even contending

We all know how conferences work. And how this play-in tournament will work.

The discussion is about the actual merit behind making 7 and 8 seeds have to fight against 9 and 10 seeds and how that plays out in the grand scheme of things when trying to get the BEST teams in the league, regardless of conference, in the playoffs.

You keep trying to lecture me about how long conferences have existed and how you need to win your conference like anybody ever said otherwise...

To call you intellectually dishonest would be an understatement

The clever and insight bit was in regards to the Mavs being contenders. And you still managed to make THAT about “How conferences work”

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You’re literally arguing a point nobody is even contending

We all know how conferences work. And how this play-in tournament will work.

The discussion is about the actual merit behind making 7 and 8 seeds have to fight against 9 and 10 seeds and how that plays out in the grand scheme of things when trying to get the BEST teams in the league, regardless of conference, in the playoffs.

You keep trying to lecture me about how long conferences have existed and how you need to win your conference like anybody ever said otherwise...

To call you intellectually dishonest would be an understatement

If literally your only goal is to "get the best performing teams in the playoffs", then yes, a late mini-tournament has a better chance of doing that because that way the hotter team at the end of the season gets in rather than some team with a big injury or coasting on early-season performance.

Just look at the NCAA: play-in teams have above-average success (UCLA went from being a play-in team to making the Final Four this year, and VCU did it too before that, plus La Salle, Tennesee, and Syracuse have all gone from play-in to Sweet Sixteen). Play-in teams have a better record in the NCAA than all other 8, 9, 10, or 11 seeds, which is a real-life example proving that if you want the most successful representative, winning a play-in game is a good way to get it.

But of course, that would ignore that "getting the best team" is only a small part of why the play-in game exists, so making that argument is kinda pointless.