Zlinedavid

Wasn't a factor then. The only non-North America CART event prior to the split was the season opener in Surfers Paradise, Australia, which was partially subsidized by the Aussies. Rio didn't come until 1997-ish, and that was it until 2001 when the real attempt came. Penske saw the forest through the trees and made the jump back before the 2002 season. Ganassi did the same a year later, which was the turning point. They both knew that those types of schedules weren't financially sustainable.

CART was broadcast live nationally on either ABC or ESPN until 1995 or so.

A) The sport wasn't dying in 1995. CART had several great seasons after the split, while the IRL was borderline painful to watch. The biggest blow was the tobacco advertising ban, which cut off a huge supply of money. But, that was going to happen regardless. B) Want to know who planted the seed of the IRL in Tony's mind? Bernie Ecclestone (or for F1 fans, Satan incarnate). Now what motivation would the then owner of the premier European racing series have to influence George to focus on US drivers? The fact that Fittipaldi was thriving, Newman/Haas had just poached Mansell and Penske almost luring Senna to CART had him scared to death. CART was almost F1s equal at that point. C) The 22/7 rule. If Prince Tony wants to set his own standard for the 500, fine. But don't try to subsidize the series by limiting the 500 field to 7 non-IRL drivers. D) The IRL didn't start to take off until CART shot itself in the foot with their mismanagement and their attempt to conquer Europe, and Penske and Ganassi switched back in the early 00s.

Aminu-Lillard-McCollum....Green/Curry/Thompson.....hard to bet against the 2x defending champs, but damn. This will be a 3PT slugfest.

Public Enemy #1 for Indiana sports traditions isn't Myles Brand. It's Tony George. He did everything short of shotgunning a 2 quart bottle of mineral oil, climbing up to the flagstand, dropping his pants, and spraying a river of liquid $#%& as the winner crossed the line. And that would at least have provided a moment of entertainment, which is more than I can say for the 1997 or 1998 500s themselves. I said that last year, after 22 years, finally felt like 1996. These cars look like the descendents of the 1990s. They sound like the descendants of the 1990s. There's a slew of young, talented drivers. Newgarden/Rossi is a rivalry that could rival Little Al/Michael. There's also the sub-headline of Alonso attempting to become the 2nd Triple Crown winner this year. My pick is Newgarden. I'm pulling for Rossi. But I wouldn't discount Alonso for a second.

There are legends being born and legacies being cemented before our eyes this year. Curry and Kawhi moving further away from superstar and more towards legend. The rise of the Greek Freak. And Lillard knocking on the door, showing that he should be in the conversation about the best of this era too.

While this might sound like hyperbole, keep in mind, Jordan averaged 37 a game in 1986-87 (and yes, it was 82 games). 45 isn't as much of a stretch as you might think.

I think DeAndre Jordan would have done just as well in earlier eras. A guy to bring forward (aside from the obvious Jordan)? Bird. He could sink an off balance three with one guy in his face and another punching him in the junk. Leave him alone and don't touch him? Almost not fair.

I didn't say good, I said not terrible...lol

Vogel coaching LeBron AND Lance.

I think guys like Nash and Kidd would have adapted. They were athletic enough to handle the tempo today, and weren't horrible shooters. What I wonder is how guys like Iverson would have done. Athletic as all hell, but his game was based on getting past his man and driving, which goes against the trends of today. Jump shooting wasn't his forte.

Stockton was a better defender, because he had to be. That Era of the game demanded it. Today, that level of D isn't being asked of players. It doesn't hurt, but it's not as high up on the list of priorities. It's not whether one is better than the other. It's not about if its the way it "should be". It just is.

You could be the most brilliant tactician in the world, but you're going nowhere if your troops aren't behind you. And you're likely going to get beat by some good but not great tacticians who has a group solidly behind him. Some groups need a kick in the ass, some need a pat on the back. Good leaders can and know when to apply both.

At one point in the evolution of football, I'm sure people uttered the phrase "Yeah, he can run the ball, but where can you put him on defense?" Point is not to diminish defense, but to say that greatness always has the element of time brought into it. Games and they way they are played evolve.

Best I can come up with is he has the shooting ability of Bird with the quickness of Iverson.

He's also unique in the sense that there's nobody to really compare him to stylistically. Jordan-Kobe, Magic-LeBron, etc. There have been dead-eye shooters, there have been lightning quick point guards, but being off the charts at both hasn't (IMO) happened.

I don't use this word lightly, but Curry's 2nd half was Jordanesque.

Depends on who your Batman is.

Bucknugget sounds like a Shakespearean insult. "Thou art a daft bucknugget!"

Just like Archie shouldn't have wasted time on Romeo?

LeBatard himself grates on me, but the show isn't without its hilarious moments:

He's listed as 6'7", taking listed heights for what they're worth.

Text message received by Draymond Green from his mother: "Just go out there and play the game. Shut up." Draymond Green's mom is ok in my book.

I think a realistic possibility is going back to the best of 5 opening round. It's not very often that 1st round series go the full 7 (this year, one went 6 and one went 7). In terms of revenue, there's only 3 total games that could have aired on TV. Cuts down on travel, cuts down on the cushion needed when scheduling the 2nd round, and allows the 2nd round to start that much earlier. Edit: And by "realistic", I mean worth discussing, not that anyone is actively talking about it.