Built Ford Tough Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Please, don't tell me the Christmas Day games need a makeover for scheduling reasons. How do you get better than the Mavericks receiving their 2011 NBA championship rings in front of the Miami players? The Lakers are must-see holiday TV, so if LeBron and D-Wade aren't available, who better to share the stage with Kobe than reigning MVP Derrick Rose and a conference finalist team? The last time we saw the allegedly revamped Knicks, they were going out like dogs to the Celtics; what better place to start anew with the most overrated franchise in American sports? http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/wilbon-111127/nba-season-start-chrismas-day-perfect-resolution-lockout Saying they are the most overrated franchise in American sports may be a bit of a stretch, but I don't know if I would disagree that they are the most overrated franchise in the NBA, at least in terms of on court production. They get hyped up by some as a great franchise due to their presence in New York, but if you look at their history in terms of on court production, it is very underwhelming for the amount of love that they get. If you look at it, since they won their last NBA Championship in 1973, they have only made the Eastern Conference Finals 5 times (Finals 2 times) and 15 times they have missed the playoffs. They have finished under .500 20 times, 9 of which where under .400 and 5 of which were under .300. On the other hand, there are just as many people who absolutely trash the Knicks as there are who overrate them. It really is a love/hate kind of franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 No shit they've been horrible for years. The reason they get so much attention is because they have arguably the best fan base in the NBA ... the reason I say that is because what team that has been so awful for an entire DECADE would have fans still show up every night? Almost a full house, if not a full house every single night even when the team is awful...Cmon now, we see cities taht can't even sell out when their team is good... That's why they get so much media love and hype and shit...because they have very dedicated fans and are a big draw when the team is even remotely competitive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Just ignore Wilbon, typical jealous 2nd city loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Overrated is PTI speak for Amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guru Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) According to Forbes, the NY Knicks are the most valuable franchise in the entire NBA. Court production or not, this franchise makes $$$$$$$$. Shit if you gave me a pick of what franchise I would like to own in the NBA I would take the Knicks in a heartbeat. You put a team like that on the Christmas day schedule because of the simple fact that their fan base is so gigantic/loyal.The Knicks TEAM may be overrated but definitely not their FRANCHISE. Edited November 28, 2011 by Guru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Nobody is denying their value, profitability or anything like that. What they do consider overrated is the fact that many people paint this picture of some rich, storied franchise when in actuality, the Knicks have been, historically, nothing more than a mediocore franchise. Nobody is foolish enough to argue that they aren't a big market, bring in a lot of revenue and have a very large fan base, but when talking about on court production, they are highly overrated as a franchise considering how highly many people think of them. I imagine that is what Wilbon meant when he said they are the most overrated franchise in sports, and its not like that is an off the wall comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Nobody is denying their value, profitability or anything like that. What they do consider overrated is the fact that many people paint this picture of some rich, storied franchise when in actuality, the Knicks have been, historically, nothing more than a mediocore franchise. Nobody is foolish enough to argue that they aren't a big market, bring in a lot of revenue and have a very large fan base, but when talking about on court production, they are highly overrated as a franchise considering how highly many people think of them. I imagine that is what Wilbon meant when he said they are the most overrated franchise in sports, and its not like that is an off the wall comment.Mediocre? Regardless of the lack of titles the Knicks have always had some good players. Ewing, Reed, Frazier, Monroe, King just to name a few. So their on court product while they have not put up good teams, they've always had star power up until the 2000's where they had a significant drop off. Of course years from now people will add Melo and Amar'e to that list. 38 playoff appearances in 55 seasons from 1946-2001, I believe calling their history mediocre is funny. Plus when you talk Knicks basketball you aren't talking just about their on-court product. That's silly when you have a franchise like the Knicks. The Knicks are in the mecca NYC in the world's most famous arena with some of the worlds most passionate fans. I don't see how you can over rate that, good players or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted November 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Mediocre? Regardless of the lack of titles the Knicks have always had some good players. Ewing, Reed, Frazier, Monroe, King just to name a few. So their on court product while they have not put up good teams, they've always had star power up until the 2000's where they had a significant drop off. Of course years from now people will add Melo and Amar'e to that list. 38 playoff appearances in 55 seasons from 1946-2001, I believe calling their history mediocre is funny. Plus when you talk Knicks basketball you aren't talking just about their on-court product. That's silly when you have a franchise like the Knicks. The Knicks are in the mecca NYC in the world's most famous arena with some of the worlds most passionate fans. I don't see how you can over rate that, good players or not. Yeah, mediocore. How exactly should I consider an all-time winning percentage of .497, which is good for 16th out of 30 teams? 38 playoff apperances in 55 years looks alright on paper (especially since you left out basically an entire decade worth of games), but don't leave out the fact that a vast majority of those years came in a league that had 10-20 teams, not 30. 11 of those playoff apperances came when there was just 8 teams in the league and another 10 came when there was only between 17-22 teams. So out of those 38 playoff apperances, nearly half of them came in a league with 20 or less teams. Then there is their Finals appearances. 3 of their 8 came in a league with 10 teams. Not that impressive. Nobody is denying that they didn't have some talented players, but really, who cares when their history consists of more losses than wins? Lets look at how similar the Knicks and Hawks are as franchises. They are nearly identical when it comes to wins, playoff appearances, championships, HOF'ers, etc... Hawks years in league - 62Knicks years in league - 65 Hawks winning percentage - .493Knicks winning percentage - .497 Hawks playoff appearances - 40Knicks playoff appearances - 40 Hawks champioships - 1Knicks championships - 2 # of HOF'ers to play for Hawks - 13# of HOF'ers to play for Knicks - 15 Hawks All-Star appearances - 84Knicks All-Star appearances - 87 Hawks 50 win seasons - 11Knicks 50 win seasons - 10 Yet nobody claims the Hawks' franchise as one of the NBA's elite, yet many hype the Knicks as one of the elite based on their accomplishments. Again, just to reiterate, I'm not arguing against the Knicks franchise as being profitable, playing in a huge market, having a huge fan base or anything like that. You are right in the sense that you can't overrate things like that. However, when it comes to the historical play and results on the court, you can definitely consider the Knicks overrated considering how people talk them up like they have some sort of rich history, when they really don't. Edited November 29, 2011 by Built Ford Tough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) considering how people talk them up like they have some sort of rich history, when they really don't.Sure they do. Original 17 teams:- Boston Celtics- Chicago Stags- Cleveland Rebels- Detroit Falcons- New York Knickerbockers- Philadelphia Warriors- Pittsburgh Ironmen- Providence Steamrollers,- St. Louis Bombers- Toronto Huskies- Washington Capitols- Ft. Wayne Pistons- Minneapolis Lakers- Rochester Royals- Tri-City Blackhawks- Syracuse Nationals- Baltimore Bullets Bolded are teams successful and maintained enough to never have to endure a move, name change, etc. Being one of the original 17 teams and one of two remaining is rich enough of a history for me. Great and storied venue doesn't hurt. The history is there, success or not. Edited November 29, 2011 by illwill21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Huge flaw in your argument though, when people talking Knicks they talk Knicks history, not what they have done over the past 10 years. Fair or not it is what they talk about. I don't believe you ever heard anyone saying in the 2000's that the Knicks were good, or anyone showing any respect to those 2000's team. Everyone knows they've sucked over the past 10 years, but aside from that they have a great history. When you think Knicks you don't think Marbury, Crawford and Steve Francis, you think Ewing, Starks, Oakley, you think Frazier, Reed, DeBusschere. I def don't think that is mediocre by any stretch. I think it's just unfortuante the Knicks were going up against Bird and Magic, than Michael, and Walt and that Lakers team team in the 70's. Seems like the Knicks have always been 4th or 5th best, but they've always been there. Edited November 29, 2011 by Z True Long Island Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted November 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Umm, what? How is that a huge flaw of my argument when I focused on their entire 65 year history? Its not like I cherry picked stats that suit my "agenda". I took the numbers from the moment they came into the league until Game 4 of the 2011 NBA Playoffs. Why should we ignore an entire 10 year period of terrible basketball when discussing a franchise? The 2000's are just as relevent to the Knicks history as the Ewing years and the Frazier years, whether you like it or not. I can play that game too. Lets take the New Jersey Nets. Lets completely ignore 10 years that paint them in a poor light. So take away their last 4 years and the 5 year stretch from 86-91 where they had a combined 0 playoff appearances and a record of 216-522, good for a winning percentage of .414. So suddenly instead of a historical record of 1,560-2,022 (.436) they are now sitting at 1,344-1,500, which is a .473 winning percentage. Instead of being 25th in historical winning percentage, they are now 20th. They also make the playoffs 23 out of 35 seasons and have 2 championships in 35 years, both of which are as good or better ratios than the Knicks boast, even if you remove the 00's (although Knicks winning percentage increases as well, obviously). You get rid of the Devin Harris', Sam Bowie's and Derrick Coleman's of the world and only focus on the Jason Kidd's, Julius Erving's and Rick Barry's instead. The bottom line is that those 10 years, whether it is the Knicks 00's or these 4 and 5 year stretches for the Nets, are just as much apart of the teams history as the Dr. J and Ewing years. You can't simply ignore them because it makes your argument look more appealing. As for illwill, you do realize that I have stated numerous times in this thread that I don't dispute their profitability, market, fan base or any of that crap, right? People talk about the Knicks like they have some great winning tradition, a la the Celtics or Lakers, when they aren't even on the levels of a Milwaukee Bucks (.522 winning percentage, 1 championship in 41 years) or Indiana Pacers (.503 winning percentage, 3 championships in 44 years). The fact is that they are under .500 all-time. The fact is that they have won 2 NBA Championships in 65 years.The fact is that in terms of winning and losing basketball games, they are historically no different than the Atlanta Hawks. So please, stop harping on something that I have never said once in this thread. I said that the Knicks history on the basketball court isn't rich and storied like many people make it out to be. Unless my standards are too high and I'm absurd for thinking that a franchise with a sub .500 winning percentage and 2 championships in 65 years shouldn't be put on a pedestal. As a basketball franchise, the New York Knicks are nothing special historically. As a business franchise, the New York Knicks are top 3 in NBA history. What exactly is wrong with thinking this? How is it in any way false or inaccurate? On the court the Knicks aren't anything special, an average, run of the mill franchise no better than the Atlanta Hawks or Denver Nuggets. Off the court they are extraordinary, up there with the the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers. So unless somebody is going to argue against what I am actually typing, which is their history on the basketball court, and not putting words in my posts, I'll respectfully bow out of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Nobody is denying their value, profitability or anything like that. What they do consider overrated is the fact that many people paint this picture of some rich, storied franchise when in actuality, the Knicks have been, historically, nothing more than a mediocore franchise. Nobody is foolish enough to argue that they aren't a big market, bring in a lot of revenue and have a very large fan base, but when talking about on court production, they are highly overrated as a franchise considering how highly many people think of them. I imagine that is what Wilbon meant when he said they are the most overrated franchise in sports, and its not like that is an off the wall comment.Jordan. Knicks would've probably had like two titles in the 90's without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 lol look at how cute he is when he's upset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted November 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 lol look at how cute he is when he's upset Right, I'm upset because I responded to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Smh just ignoring my argument then claiming I'm 'harping' on something while you accuse me of doing something that I've already admitted to doing. Yes I 'cherry picked' the stats lol hate when people say that but I'm not arguing for the recent Knicks, I'm arguing for the historical Knicks, who aren't mediocre, despite what the stats say. BTW you are coming off as mad I'm trying to debate my opinion as calmly as possible but your posts are bordering upon anger, don't see why you can't make your point in a nice friendly manner. Sort of why I try to avoid posting in the NBA section because if you or Nitro disagree with MY OPINION I get slammed for it. Edited November 29, 2011 by Z True Long Island Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Right, I'm upset because I responded to your post. Or the 300 word, 12 paragraph response with 5 bolds and 2 underlines, none of which addressing my point that you don't need to be extremely successful to have a rich history. People talk up their history because of the history, not because of the success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Right, I'm upset because I responded to your post. The Knicks had so many historic games in the 90's too with the Heat, Bulls, and Pacers. Smh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted November 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Guess I now know better than to say anything negative about the Knicks. Valuable lesson learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Guess I now know better than to say anything negative about the Knicks. Valuable lesson learned.Say anything negative you wish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamerGuy Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 I don't see how BFT was angry in his posts, they seemed to be well thought out to me. I understand that you guys will be defensive about your team, but he didn't say anything overly negative about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Felt it was directed to us, whatever, just the vibe I got reading it... Edited November 29, 2011 by Z True Long Island Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abro Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 I don't see how BFT was angry in his posts, they seemed to be well thought out to me. I understand that you guys will be defensive about your team, but he didn't say anything overly negative about them.Agreed. Made a lot of sense to me, good argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 I don't see how BFT was angry in his posts, they seemed to be well thought out to me. I understand that you guys will be defensive about your team, but he didn't say anything overly negative about them.He didn't say anything overly negative about the team. My point was that the Knicks are traditionally talked up because of the history of the franchise, not their success. It's hard to overrate a team that isn't known for success in the first place. But what I had to say was swept aside by lots of repeated points/lines, bolding, and underlining, as though I was incapable of understanding what he was saying. It's whatever, I try not to talk too much basketball on here anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted November 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 lol look at how cute the Knick fans are when they are upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 lol look at how cute the Knick fans are when they are upset.I can start talking to you like you're a [expletive]ing idiot and overusing bold and underline to make simple minded points, if you'd like :glasses: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts