Still no '16 Championship Cavs team?

[daveberg]

Quote: Originally Posted by MillsMontana

Yeah I’ll gladly pass on this year , ill buy for black friday if we have short shorts in the editor but if not nah im good lol Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I won't even bother at all. I made that mistake with 17 & 18 and traded them both back in almost instantly.

2k16 Remains my GOAT of this gen. Until we get some legit love for classic teams in terms of sig style and authentic court representation, I'm happy to stay with 2k16 and revisit 2k11 & 12.

[KyotoCarl]

A 73 win season makes you a classic team. Just winning a championship doesn't.

[ojandpizza]

Would be a good team to have to square off against that Warriors team, and would make more sense now considering how much Cleveland has changed.

How do you know they haven't been added?

[extremeskins04]

It's pretty interesting that people will completely write off a game because it doesn't have historical teams regardless of how many other incredible strides it makes to improve the game.

This is not a dig on those types of players. It's just something that I find crazy. It's like someone writing off a game completely because their favorite court doesn't have a marking on the floor that it does in real life.

Or their favorite player doesn't have the most up to date haircut.

Just saying. Everyone values things differently I guess.

[El_Poopador]

Quote: Originally Posted by KyotoCarl

A 73 win season makes you a classic team. Just winning a championship doesn't.

Beating a 73-win team in historic fashion in the Finals doesn't qualify? Honestly, I saw no reason to include either of them the year after it happened. But if the Warriors were included, the Cavs should have been as well.

If there had been other 3-1 Finals deficits prior to 2016, I might agree the Warriors should be the only one. But I'd say the Cavs team from that season is more historic than the Warriors. 73 wins can be broken, even if it is unlikely. First team to come back from 3-1 in the Finals will always be the first, and the fact that they did it against that 73-win team is even more special.

[Cavs2016]

Quote: Originally Posted by El_Poopador

Beating a 73-win team in historic fashion in the Finals doesn't qualify? Honestly, I saw no reason to include either of them the year after it happened. But if the Warriors were included, the Cavs should have been as well. If there had been other 3-1 Finals deficits prior to 2016, I might agree the Warriors should be the only one. But I'd say the Cavs team from that season is more historic than the Warriors. 73 wins can be broken, even if it is unlikely. First team to come back from 3-1 in the Finals will always be the first, and the fact that they did it against that 73-win team is even more special.

LeBron James’ championship Cleveland team will eventually be regarded as a classic. There’s so much history around that championship team.

[Mauer4MVP]

They probably should be in, just not a very "fun" team to me.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Operation Sports mobile app

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by extremeskins04

It's pretty interesting that people will completely write off a game because it doesn't have historical teams regardless of how many other incredible strides it makes to improve the game. This is not a dig on those types of players. It's just something that I find crazy. It's like someone writing off a game completely because their favorite court doesn't have a marking on the floor that it does in real life. Or their favorite player doesn't have the most up to date haircut. Just saying. Everyone values things differently I guess.

Well, like you said, it totally depends what someone's looking for. The haircut thing is a little much, but if classic teams were removed altogether I don't think it's crazy for that to be a breaking point with folks. I skipped out on a few years of 2K after their classic stuff regressed and got weird back around 2K14.

That said, I'm not quite as picky as davesberg. I don't want to speak for him but I think he's a Michael Jordan purist who never fully embraced modern basketball (post-2000's) so really sharp 90's classics were his bread and butter. I can see where he's coming from to a large degree; it's a bummer to consider that Michael Jordan plays a lot less like Michael Jordan in 2K18 than he did in 2K12.

Anyhow, like you said, we all have our things.