WyoNation.com

stymeman wrote:

ItSucksToBeACSURam wrote:The only time I have any interest in the NBA is when Golden State loses. I have grown so tired of every single Sportscenter being devoted to what Steph Curry had for lunch. There are other sports out there ESPN.

The NHL playoffs are far more exciting. My Pens are looking good this year!

it's the same when LeBron has issues as well, it's like they only know those 2 players, but I'd sure rather keep the championship out west, cuz I don't think Cleveland will be able to handle the Party/riot when/if they win it all. I'm ready for football, this is my Arizona Cardinals year(I hope)

You're correct there. Flavor of the month. This Steph Curry/Golden State "month" has dragged on forever it seems...

whomever wins it it'll be interesting to see if either of those 2 play for our Olympic team this summer, the dream in Rio for them really isn't going so well, may be years b4 anywhere in South America ever get them again

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

wyokoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:I don't like hockey.

I always knew there was something seriously wrong with you

OK. There is no hockey in Wyoming were I grew up. They took hockey off of ESPN when I was like 8 and I'm not Canadian. Why should I like hockey? Plus the best team loses all the time in the playoffs. It's a crap shoot who wins.

And so you don't like football either, since there is no seven game series and a fluke game can change the course of everything? Or March Madness either I assume?

Those are both single games. Hockey is a freaking seven game series. Seems like luck

Wait...what?!?

That's what I was thinking.

laxwyo wrote:

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

wyokoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:I don't like hockey.

I always knew there was something seriously wrong with you

OK. There is no hockey in Wyoming were I grew up. They took hockey off of ESPN when I was like 8 and I'm not Canadian. Why should I like hockey? Plus the best team loses all the time in the playoffs. It's a crap shoot who wins.

And so you don't like football either, since there is no seven game series and a fluke game can change the course of everything? Or March Madness either I assume?

Those are both single games. Hockey is a freaking seven game series. Seems like luck

Wait...what?!?

That's what I was thinking.

Seems random who wins. If you can play a whole regular season and supposedly figure out who the best team is and then have them lose in a seven game playoff series to the worst team tells me there's a lot of randomness and luck involved in the game.

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

wyokoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:I don't like hockey.

I always knew there was something seriously wrong with you

OK. There is no hockey in Wyoming were I grew up. They took hockey off of ESPN when I was like 8 and I'm not Canadian. Why should I like hockey? Plus the best team loses all the time in the playoffs. It's a crap shoot who wins.

And so you don't like football either, since there is no seven game series and a fluke game can change the course of everything? Or March Madness either I assume?

Those are both single games. Hockey is a freaking seven game series. Seems like luck

Wait...what?!?

That's what I was thinking.

Seems random who wins. If you can play a whole regular season and supposedly figure out who the best team is and then have them lose in a seven game playoff series to the worst team tells me there's a lot of randomness and luck involved in the game.

Your thinking is backwards. Any team can beat any other team in 1 game, but to win a 7-game series means you are either better than or close enough to the other team. There is so much parity in most pro sports - sorry MLB - that any team can beat any other team once. How many times in history do you think that the actual best team won the NCAA BB championship? I'd bet no more than 5 times in history.

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

wyokoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:I don't like hockey.

I always knew there was something seriously wrong with you

OK. There is no hockey in Wyoming were I grew up. They took hockey off of ESPN when I was like 8 and I'm not Canadian. Why should I like hockey? Plus the best team loses all the time in the playoffs. It's a crap shoot who wins.

And so you don't like football either, since there is no seven game series and a fluke game can change the course of everything? Or March Madness either I assume?

Those are both single games. Hockey is a freaking seven game series. Seems like luck

Wait...what?!?

That's what I was thinking.

Seems random who wins. If you can play a whole regular season and supposedly figure out who the best team is and then have them lose in a seven game playoff series to the worst team tells me there's a lot of randomness and luck involved in the game.

Your thinking is backwards. Any team can beat any other team in 1 game, but to win a 7-game series means you are either better than or close enough to the other team. There is so much parity in most pro sports - sorry MLB - that any team can beat any other team once. How many times in history do you think that the actual best team won the NCAA BB championship? I'd bet no more than 5 times in history.

Take the NBA. The regular season is very predictive of the playoffs. It's not often that a lower seed wins a seven games series against a higher seed. not much parity. That's indicative of a sport that's inherently better, in other words, no luck involved in winning the championship. Best players and teams are rewarded, not the luckiest.

LanderPoke wrote:

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

wyokoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:I don't like hockey.

I always knew there was something seriously wrong with you

OK. There is no hockey in Wyoming were I grew up. They took hockey off of ESPN when I was like 8 and I'm not Canadian. Why should I like hockey? Plus the best team loses all the time in the playoffs. It's a crap shoot who wins.

And so you don't like football either, since there is no seven game series and a fluke game can change the course of everything? Or March Madness either I assume?

Those are both single games. Hockey is a freaking seven game series. Seems like luck

Wait...what?!?

That's what I was thinking.

Seems random who wins. If you can play a whole regular season and supposedly figure out who the best team is and then have them lose in a seven game playoff series to the worst team tells me there's a lot of randomness and luck involved in the game.

Your thinking is backwards. Any team can beat any other team in 1 game, but to win a 7-game series means you are either better than or close enough to the other team. There is so much parity in most pro sports - sorry MLB - that any team can beat any other team once. How many times in history do you think that the actual best team won the NCAA BB championship? I'd bet no more than 5 times in history.

Take the NBA. The regular season is very predictive of the playoffs. It's not often that a lower seed wins a seven games series against a higher seed. not much parity. That's indicative of a sport that's inherently better, in other words, no luck involved in winning the championship. Best players and teams are rewarded, not the luckiest.

Why even have a playoff then? Just crown the regular season best record as champs. The playoffs are part of the season. If you can't beat a team 4/7, you're not the better team. Maybe the team padded their wins against sub par competition. It's why you see wild card teams win championships in football too. 3 teams in one division could be better than a division winner with a better record

LanderPoke wrote:

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

WestWYOPoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

wyokoke wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:

laxwyo wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:I don't like hockey.

I always knew there was something seriously wrong with you

OK. There is no hockey in Wyoming were I grew up. They took hockey off of ESPN when I was like 8 and I'm not Canadian. Why should I like hockey? Plus the best team loses all the time in the playoffs. It's a crap shoot who wins.

And so you don't like football either, since there is no seven game series and a fluke game can change the course of everything? Or March Madness either I assume?

Those are both single games. Hockey is a freaking seven game series. Seems like luck

Wait...what?!?

That's what I was thinking.

Seems random who wins. If you can play a whole regular season and supposedly figure out who the best team is and then have them lose in a seven game playoff series to the worst team tells me there's a lot of randomness and luck involved in the game.

Your thinking is backwards. Any team can beat any other team in 1 game, but to win a 7-game series means you are either better than or close enough to the other team. There is so much parity in most pro sports - sorry MLB - that any team can beat any other team once. How many times in history do you think that the actual best team won the NCAA BB championship? I'd bet no more than 5 times in history.

Take the NBA. The regular season is very predictive of the playoffs. It's not often that a lower seed wins a seven games series against a higher seed. not much parity. That's indicative of a sport that's inherently better, in other words, no luck involved in winning the championship. Best players and teams are rewarded, not the luckiest.

You act like that is a bad thing. That is one of the reasons that I hate the NBA, the underdogs don't win very often. I don't necessarily want the best team to win, I like seeing the underdog pull the upset. If the better team won every time, sports would be very boring.

This is why the EPL does it right. FA Cup and the real champions.

The Warriors have lost their 13th game (regular season and playoffs) tonight. They need to win out (Bulls lost 13 total including the playoffs during their 72-10 season) or lose their "best season ever" argument before it ever gets started.

If the Warriors fail to win a championship this year, where does that put them on the list of biggest failures of all-time? I would say 2nd to the Patriots failing to go undefeated against the Giants.

DVDA wrote:The Warriors have lost their 13th game (regular season and playoffs) tonight. They need to win out (Bulls lost 13 total including the playoffs during their 72-10 season) or lose their "best season ever" argument before it ever gets started.

If the Warriors fail to win a championship this year, where does that put them on the list of biggest failures of all-time? I would say 2nd to the Patriots failing to go undefeated against the Giants.

Still pissed the Pats lost that Super Bowl.

Wyokie wrote:

DVDA wrote:The Warriors have lost their 13th game (regular season and playoffs) tonight. They need to win out (Bulls lost 13 total including the playoffs during their 72-10 season) or lose their "best season ever" argument before it ever gets started.

If the Warriors fail to win a championship this year, where does that put them on the list of biggest failures of all-time? I would say 2nd to the Patriots failing to go undefeated against the Giants.

Still pissed the Pats lost that Super Bowl.

I hate those cheaters so it was a joyous occasion on my end.

DVDA wrote:

Wyokie wrote:

DVDA wrote:The Warriors have lost their 13th game (regular season and playoffs) tonight. They need to win out (Bulls lost 13 total including the playoffs during their 72-10 season) or lose their "best season ever" argument before it ever gets started.

If the Warriors fail to win a championship this year, where does that put them on the list of biggest failures of all-time? I would say 2nd to the Patriots failing to go undefeated against the Giants.

Still pissed the Pats lost that Super Bowl.

I hate those cheaters so it was a joyous occasion on my end.

Oh, brother.....

Anyone see Draymond kick Adams in the balls? Brutal.

LanderPoke wrote:Anyone see Draymond kick Adams in the balls? Brutal.

The first time was clearly incidental contact. The second was obvious that he threw his leg out at him. It was upgraded to a flagrant 2, but he isn't getting suspended. That's such poop. Adams would have got a suspension if it had been the other way around.

DVDA wrote:

LanderPoke wrote:Anyone see Draymond kick Adams in the balls? Brutal.

The first time was clearly incidental contact. The second was obvious that he threw his leg out at him. It was upgraded to a flagrant 2, but he isn't getting suspended. That's such poop. Adams would have got a suspension if it had been the other way around.

Agree completely.

sigh, sad to see them folding in the playoffs, but OKC truly has brought their A++ game this season, whoever wins just hope they destroy whomever comes outta the East

What I predict? Just like GS blew their load on San Antonio, OKC is going to blow theirs on this series and will get wiped by Lebron and the Cavs in the finals. Just my thoughts

poop, from what I saw, GS could be down 3-0 and just as easy win 4 straight as lose one more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3-2 now we'll see what the weekend holds and a return trip to OKC