Blowouts

[crimsontide43]

The average margin of victory in all Tennessee High School games on Oct.5 was 27.5. Not a very competitive product. They say concussions may be the downfall of high school football, but lack of quality games will be a major factor. Only 15 of the 125 games were single digit margins.

[Governm]

2 hours ago, crimsontide43 said:

The average margin of victory in all Tennessee High School games on Oct.5 was 27.5. Not a very competitive product. They say concussions may be the downfall of high school football, but lack of quality games will be a major factor. Only 15 of the 125 games were single digit margins.

That's because of all the good players transferring. Good players go to good teams and the rich get richer.

[BarneySox2007]

3 hours ago, FightOnForWilliamBlount91 said:

That's because of all the good players transferring. Good players go to good teams and the rich get richer.

And the poor keep getting poor and then take a week off.

Edited October 9, 2018 by BarneySox2007

[Governm]

11 hours ago, BarneySox2007 said:

And the poor keep getting poor and then take a week off.

Not just talking about WB. This stuff is happening everywhere and at every level of sports. The best example is the Golden State Warriors. Anybody who isn't a GS fan will tell you they have ruined the NBA. 

Any time you have all the talent concentrated in one or a few teams, you are going to see blowouts. That stuff kills competition.

[GREYRIDERx]

3 hours ago, FightOnForWilliamBlount91 said:

Not just talking about WB. This stuff is happening everywhere and at every level of sports. The best example is the Golden State Warriors. Anybody who isn't a GS fan will tell you they have ruined the NBA. 

Any time you have all the talent concentrated in one or a few teams, you are going to see blowouts. That stuff kills competition.

The nba was ruined decades ago

[GREYRIDERx]

3 hours ago, FightOnForWilliamBlount91 said:

Not just talking about WB. This stuff is happening everywhere and at every level of sports. The best example is the Golden State Warriors. Anybody who isn't a GS fan will tell you they have ruined the NBA. 

Any time you have all the talent concentrated in one or a few teams, you are going to see blowouts. That stuff kills competition.

"All the talent".. thats a pretty broad statement. No one has all the talent ... good grief man.

[kwc]

3 hours ago, FightOnForWilliamBlount91 said:

 Anybody who isn't a GS fan will tell you they have ruined the NBA. 

Golden State having more talent on their team didn't ruin the NBA. I don't care about eras or the current make-up of the NBA. There have ALWAYS been teams that dominate in the NBA. They dominate because they have the most talent on their team. It has ALWAYS been like that. This is OLD HAT. Golden State is just more RECENT. Don't be fooled by what you see now, and don't be misled by folks who don't know the history of something, and just complain, because, that's what they do. Who cares how the talent got to Golden State! The NBA will adjust. It always has. This is no different. Golden State will not come close to being as dominant as the Boston Celtics of the 50's and 60's. NOW .... THAT was domination. No team since has been able to replicate it. The Lakers of the 80's. The Bulls of the 90's.  The Spurs of the early 2000's. All of those teams were loaded. Regardless of how they aquried the talent.

Golden State is doing their thing currently ... but they are one of many NBA franchises who've had a dominant team in an era.

Don't get it twisted.

Edited October 9, 2018 by kwc

[Governm]

57 minutes ago, GREYRIDERx said:

"All the talent".. thats a pretty broad statement. No one has all the talent ... good grief man.

Read the full sentence. "Any time you have all the talent concentrated in one or a few teams, you are going to see blowouts. 

[Fballfan1978]

thats really a interesting stat to point out, but i really wouldn't be that surprised if that margin has been like that for years.

[Governm]

14 minutes ago, kwc said:

Golden State having more talent on their team didn't ruin the NBA. I don't care about eras or the current make-up of the NBA. There have ALWAYS been teams that dominate in the NBA. They dominate because they have the most talent on their team. It has ALWAYS been like that. This is OLD HAT. Golden State is just more RECENT. Don't be fooled by what you see now, and don't be misled by folks who don't know the history of something, and just complain, because, that's what they do. Who cares how the talent got to Golden State! The NBA will adjust. It always has. This is no different. Golden State will not come close to being as dominant as the Boston Celtics of the 50's and 60's. NOW .... THAT was domination. No team since has been able to replicate it. The Lakers of the 80's. The Bulls of the 90's.  The Spurs of the early 2000's. All of those teams were loaded. Regardless of how they aquried the talent.

Golden State is doing their thing currently ... but they are one of many NBA franchises who've had a dominant team in an era.

Don't get it twisted.

But how many of those teams had a roster full of guys that could be "The Guy" on any other team in the league? You can have a great team that competes for years without multiple franchise players.

I am a Dallas Mavericks fan. Look at what they accomplished with one superstar and a mixture of stars past their prime and role players. They won a championship, played in another one, and won 50+ games every year for over a decade.

Edited October 9, 2018 by FightOnForWilliamBlount91
.

[kwc]

21 minutes ago, FightOnForWilliamBlount91 said:

But how many of those teams had a roster full of guys that could be "The Guy" on any other team in the league? You can have a great team that competes for years and not have multiple franchise players.

I am a Dallas Mavericks fan. Look at what they accomplished with one superstar and a mixture of stars past their prime and role players. They won a championship, played in another one, and won 50+ games every year for over a decade. 

The Celtics of the 50s and 60s. The Lakers of the 80s and 90s and the Spurs of the 2000s. All had teams with multiple players that could have been the MAN on other teams. All of those teams were STACKED. Even the Celtics of the 80s, that co-dominated with the Lakers. Those weren't teams with one dominant player and other good players. Those teams had MULTIPLE superstars that could go to other teams and be the MAN. They stayed with their teams because they could win more championships that way, they were making plenty of money, and there was no free agency, like it is today. Heck, the Bulls of the 90s aren't too far behind in talent distribution across the team.

I see no difference in talent across the board on the Lakers of the 80s in comparrison to the Golden State of today. I see no difference in talent across the board with the Celtics of the 50s and 60s in comparrison with the Goldn State of today. Dallas is not, and never has been in the same class as the teams I just mentioned. Even with the accolades you mentioned.

Edited October 9, 2018 by kwc

[Governm]

5 minutes ago, kwc said:

The Celtics of the 50s and 60s. The Lakers of the 80s and the Spurs of the 2000s. All had teams with multiple players that could have been the MAN on other teams. All of those teams were STACKED. Even the Celtics of the 80s, that co-dominated with the Lakers. Those weren't teams with one dominant player and other good players. Those teams had MULTIPLE superstars that could go to other teams and be the MAN. They stayed with their teams because they could win more championships that way, they were making plenty of money, and there was no free agency, like it is today. Heck, the Bulls of the 80s aren't too far behind in talent distribution across the team.

I see no difference in talent across the board on the Lakers of the 80s in comparrison to the Golden STate of tofay. I see no difference in talent across the board with the Celtics of the 50s and 60s in comparrison with the Goldn State of today. Dallas is not, and never has been in the same class as the teams I just mentioned. Even with the accolades you mentioned.

They were just the second most winningest team from 2000 to 2012 or so. Right behind the Spurs that you mentioned. 

I get it. There have always been great teams that had dominant runs. But even those past great teams like the Bulls had some good series.  Come on, man. Did you even watch the Warriors playoff run this summer? They won most of those games and most werent even close. They never really had to sweat. It was boring...