Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

[The 24th Letter]

Just wondering how you guys would feel about the winners of a 66 game season.

[jeremym480]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

Yes.

"*66 game season due to lockout"

They would still be the champs, but that has to be noted in the record books, in my opinion.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

lol, no.

It's not like an extra 16 games is going to make a difference.

[Drewski]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

I'd say no, I don't put an asterisk next to David Robinson or Tim Duncan's title in my mind, at least.

[Court_vision]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

Yes..........a very small free agency window and basically no training camp.

Teams with veteran squads like Dallas, Miami, Boston etc have a HUGE advantage IMO.

Boston could win it this season......66 games and no pre season + no training camp = their legs won't be as tired.

At their age, I dount they could win a normal season.

So, it "does" change things IMO.

[The 24th Letter]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

lol, no.

It's not like an extra 16 games is going to make a difference.

I agree that you shouldnt discount any ship because of missing 16 games, especially having to win four 7 game series to get to the promised land.

I disagree it will make no difference though...alot of people have mentioned that this may give the veteran teams a huge advantage....but im thinking the other way... alot of those same teams take about 16 of those "off"during the season (Spurs,LA,BOS etc)

I think theres alot less room for that now.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

Unless you're one of the Big 6, those 16 games will definitely make a difference.

That being said, I wouldn't put an asterisk next to whoever wins the Ship this season.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

I agree that you shouldnt discount any ship because of missing 16 games, especially having to win four 7 game series to get to the promised land.

I disagree it will make no difference though...alot of people have mentioned that this may give the veteran teams a huge advantage....but im thinking the other way... alot of those same teams take about 16 of those "off"during the season (Spurs,LA,BOS etc)

I think theres alot less room for that now.

I think that the way the NBA playoffs are set up, you cannot fluke your way to a title.

66 is still enough games to make sure a team like Golden State or Milwaukee doesn't get hot and win a title.

I don't think it'll make a huge difference in who wins the title.

[Weeks]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

Yes, but simply noting it was a 66 game season w/ shorter training camps. And that is all it says.

Regardless I still think whoever wins will be deserving, and not bc someone else was affected by the lockout

[st0rmb11]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

No. Not at all.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

The playoffs are the only thing that matter in the NBA, as has been proven apparently, and since the playoffs arent being shortened then no.

[Flightwhite24]

Gotta say no on this. 16 games imo is just not enough to have that big of an impact on the outcome of a season. Just my take though.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[nccomicfan]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

Not for one minute, but make no mistake, if the Heat win every Lebron critic in the world will come out of the woodwork with the asterisk comment " oh see he can't win a full season"

[VDusen04]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

I'm not sure I'd be adverse to an asterisk. However, I look at the asterisk in this situation differently than a lot of other people. I look at it strictly as a source of information. If I'm a youth looking through a basketball encyclopedia (like I used to do) and I see the 1999 season had just 50 games with no explanation, I'm legitimately confused. Give me an asterisk with an explanation, I now understand.

So yes, on a technicality, I do think an asterisk should be next to the 1999 season (though not necessarily next to the champions). However, in the spirit of the idea of this thread, no, I don't believe the champions should be looked down upon.

[The 24th Letter]

Re: Should the 2011-2012 champions have an asterisk next to their name?

Not for one minute, but make no mistake, if the Heat win every Lebron critic in the world will come out of the woodwork with the asterisk comment " oh see he can't win a full season"

Oh thats a given