New York Knicks
What the hell have they done to be considered a historic franchise? Amar'e and Melo were supposed to bring back NYK basketball.. but.. when did it leave? They've been bad since as long as I can remember. Just two times they've actually been decent. Willis Reed years and Patrick Ewing years. They're the most overrated franchise in sports history in the most overrated "basketball" city playing in the most overrated arena.
and they have the worst public address announcer ive ever heard,Wilson Chandlaaaa....its funny but if i were a fan it would get old and then just piss me off every time he says a name weirdly.
It's one of the original NBA teams that's why. Same thing with the Chicago Cubs.
They've been competitive just never took over the league
70's NBA was in its down years...2titles
80's NBA is back Boston/LA/Detroit
90's The Jordan Era wit a lil bit of The Dream and a dose of fundamentals(Tum Duncan if you aint get it)
00's LAL, SAS took it over Miami and Boston got 1 each
10's This is where the Knicks have to make a run and its starts with this off-season
As for them being back they are jus competitive again unlike they've been the past 8 or so years
They have a ton of great players who played primarily for them. The "Legends" on NBA Live include about 7 of those guys out of maybe 70 total. It's more of a star player thing, I think.
Well, being the oldest franchise in it's original area is one. The other is the history. We won two titles, we got to three others if I'm correct. We never broke the title pictute, but in 1994, we did make it to the title. 1999, we made it as well.
In terms of HISTORIC ( which doesn't have to do with winning), the Knicks rank in the top 3-5 with Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit.
They're the most overrated franchise in sports history in the most overrated "basketball" city playing in the most overrated arena.
1. Knicks are not the most overrated. 4 title apperances, two in the last 25 years.
2. Go look back at the HISTORY of the NBA in New York. We pretty much HELD UP the NBA in the 70's, 80's and early 90's.
3. I guess the most overrated arena? You have to name me the most underrated arena first. Also, people were talking about it on twitter just saying "I wish I was there"
Call me whatever, but if you honestly believe your words TOL, you are a hater.
The two most overused words on the site: "overrated" and "hater".
Not a fan of either.
In the 90's when Michael Jordan finally vanquished the Pistons and was running wild on the Eastern Conference...he needed competition, enter the New York Knicks. Say whay you want about them being the most overrated franchise in all of sports (which quite frankly is a laughable statement), the truth is that the NBA and New York Knicks is synonymous will basketball as a whole. And the venue certainly helps. So many great moments for both opposing teams and the Knicks have happened at where they play, Madison Square Garden.
And I don't know how a person can say the have only been decent twice, during the Willis Reed and Patrick Ewing Era. If winning two titles (Reed Era), and being a perennial threat to win a championship (Ewing Era) then as a Knicks fan, I'll take it. And by the way here are some facts that give you some food for thought...
1. In NBA finals appearances, the Knicks are fourth with 8, winning twice in 1970 and 1973, beating the "All-Mighty" Los Angeles Lakers in both appearances.
2. The Knicks are the only 8th seeded team in playoff history to win a Conference championship.
3. Speaking of Conference championships, the Knicks have 15 appearances all time, which is 5th out of all the teams, they won the Conference championship 8 times, good for 4th all time.
"1. Knicks are not the most overrated. 4 title apperances, two in the last 25 years."
The Houston Rockets have won more NBA titles in the last 15 years..
"2. Go look back at the HISTORY of the NBA in New York. We pretty much HELD UP the NBA in the 70's, 80's and early 90's."
Are you sure it had NOTHING to do with Bill Russell vs Wilt Chamberlain? Nothing to do with Magic vs Larry vs Erving? Nothing to do with Michael Jordan? The Knicks did NOTHING to hold up the league. There were superstars on other teams to do that. That statement of yours is FLAT OUT RIDICULOUS.
Most underrated arena?
How about the Staples Center. It's seen more championship finals appearances in 12 years than MSG has seen in it's entire existence.
Hell, the Harlem Globetrotters have been a better franchise than the New York Knicks.
The Rockets do have more titles, correct. But like I said, Historicaly doesn't have anything to do with winning.
You obviously didn't understand the held up the NBA part. Go look up players who lived/born in New York. They were pretty much top players in every era except the 00's.
What does titles apperances have to do anything about the arena?
I can name about 8 franchises that have been more successful than the New York Knicks.
- Los Angeles Lakers
- Boston Celtics
- Chicago Bulls
- San Antonio Spurs
- Houston Rockets
- Detroit Pistons
- Utah Jazz
- Seattle Sonics
And don't tell me MSG has had great Knick moments. We all know it has many more highlights of the OPPOSING players going in there and dropping 50 or 60pts. There have been more magical moments of the opponents dominating in the Knicks or the Knicks themselves failing, than there are moments of the Knicks succeeding. And you as a Knicks fan knows that first hand.
If the Knicks were not in New York, a great market, they'd be just another Bucks teams.
Not to mention....anyone will tell you. When the Knicks are good, the NBA gets more viewers. Any NBA players would tell you, MSG is historic and people love playing there.
When the Knicks are good, the NBA gets more viewers.
The only reason for that is because they are in a big market. Not because they are historical. They are the Cubs of basketball.
I think you fail to understand that the NBA, HISTORICALLY, has only two dominant franchises, the Celtics and the Lakers. They have the most appearances combined and outside of them, the numbers are eerily similar for other NBA teams...take a look at the 76ers...there appearance and wins in the finals are similar to the Knicks.
And Yes, I'm pretty sure that Chamberlain vs Rusell didn't have any impact on any of those era's because Russell stopped playing in 1969. Magic vs Bird didn't happen until 1979, in which during the 1970's there was a huge Baltimor Bullets/ NY Knicks rivalry that helped carry the league (Fraiser vs Monroe AKA Fire vs Ice). And Like I said, Jordan's main competition during the 1990's, which is arguably his boom period, even withstanding two retirements during that decade, was the NY Knicks.
And please don't ever say that MSG is overrated, especially since its seen more historical performances and playoff games than most NBA arenas. Not to mention numerous great regular season performances. Just stop hating please...
"If the Knicks were not in New York, a great market, they'd be just another Bucks teams."
I think you could say that about any team that plays in a small market...and you mean to tell me that the Bucks don't have any history. At one point they had what could be said as the greatest player in history, Oscar Robertson.
Wait a second, no disrespect, but that's what makes New York New York. The fact that it's a big city and historically, we've been everywhere from lotto to inches away from winning a title. Have they struggled? Yea, but let's not act as if none of those teams did on your "better then NY" list.
Maybe I'm confused...how is Seattle better then NY historically? How is Houston? If anything, Houston should have been the team of the 80's but they FAILED. How is Utah better then NY historically ( No disrespect Nomoney)
If were going last 15 years, the Knicks should be LAST. I'm admitting that. However, if were going from the debut of the franchise until today, the Knicks are top 5 at the worst.
Thank you...we are talking HISTORICALLY correct...only a handful of teams have a better track record than the Knicks historically. I'll say Lakers, Celts, Bulls, Spurs, and maybe the 76ers...other than that, not too many teams have a better track record than the Knicks. And here's another thought...of all time franchise wins by NBA team...the Knicks are 10th.
You could make an argument for San Antonio, definitely not Houston considering they languished miserably in San Diego before even coming to Texas.
Well, Narc.. You basically told me that during the 70's.. it was the NBA's weakest point. You know who won rings during the 70s? The Knicks. They won rings when the league was at it's lowest. When the league is competitive, they don't win.
I don't care how many times a team has made it to the finals, have they won? No. Does anybody say, "Well, LeBron has no rings, but he's made it to the conference finals a couple of times" No, they never say that. Making your statement pretty much worthless.
"since its seen more historical performances and playoff games than most NBA arenas"
Yes, all of MSG's highlights, historical performances, and playoff moments were what?
- Michael Jordan dominating the Knicks
- Reggie Miller dominating the Knicks
- Patrick Ewing's missed layup
- Kobe Bryant dominating the Knicks
- LeBron James dominating the Knicks
See the trend there? It's about the Knicks failures and the opponents dominance. That's MSG's basketball history.
"of all time franchise wins by NBA team...the Knicks are 10th."
Isn't that sad to say? Knowing that they're the oldest franchise and still 10th in wins? I think that stat goes my way rather than yours...
I remember this play vividly, and I was only eight years old.
The Spurs won rings in 2000's....you can argue the league was weak this past decade. What's your point? Houston won two titles when Jordan left and NEVER saw the conference finals again. At least the Knicks players were up there in age, the Rockets DIED off after, at least the Knicks had a excuse, you guys would have NEVER won a title with Jordan there.
- Latrell Sprewell in Game 3
- Allan Houston's 50 point game
- Larry Johnson's 4 point play
- Willis Reed's comeback
- Clyde Fraizer's monster playoff game 7 vs LAL
- Pat Ewing's monster game 5 in 1994
Guess the Knicks don't have any moments in thier history, you're right.
All the players to have come out of NY.
You miss the point. The Spurs have seen more moments in the last 10 years than the Knicks have seen in their entire franchise. For being one of the oldest franchises and only having 6 big moments is pretty sad.
I'm through debating. There's no winning against a Knicks fan. You have your opinion and I have mine. I respect the fact that you love watching your team and I will keep my opinion.
But that's not what you said. You said "history" that means a teams entire history.
Since 1995, the Rockets have ONE big moment. McGrady's 13 in 35. That's it. ONE big moment. For real, how many big Houston home moments have thier been? For real. Worry about your own team.
Titles win respect. Not "moments" The Rockets have the same amount of rings in 15 years than the Knicks do in 65+
You make it seem like making it to the Finals happens every damn day! Look at the actual numbers of teams who have made it to the finals...OUTSIDE of the Celtics and Lakers...go ahead and tell me what you see. And during the 1970's the league had six different Western Conference Champions...that's pretty damn competitive if you ask me. And during the 1970's its not like the Celtics weren't a good team, they won NBA Championships not once but twice. Don't try and discredit the other teams in the league at that time, they were just as good as the teams now, plus they played a tougher, more defensive minded style of ball did they not?
The Knicks have a lot of moments against them as they do for them.
- Larry Johnson's 4 point play
- Willis Reed limping on to the court druing game 7
- The Trent Tucker Rule
- Bernard King's 60 points
- The dunk by John Starks....I'll leave it at that
But you brought up history. You bring up history and then stick to a small sample size. That's what makes your whole argument lame.
You got to our level in title wins, cool man. But like I said, Houston's had ONE big moment in 15 years. You don't have anything to say about NY. Let's worry about Houston getting back to the playoffs man. In fact, let's worry about them actually getting a player we care about before bashing another team.
Uhh.. The Rockets had a better record this season WITHOUT two superstars... as a matter of fact, WITHOUT one superstar. (2-0 vs the Knicks) So watch what you say.
By one game...not to mention they had a unit that played the whole season together.
"Let's worry about Houston getting back to the playoffs man."
You've been waiting a couple of years to be able to use that comeback.
But I've been using it for two seasons. You had a better record by one game, when we traded main pieces for a star.
Let's get back to the playoffs Houston. Aren't ya'll looking for a coach now? Let's stick to that.
And none of them are borderline all-stars. All of them are just role players.
Unlike the Knicks that had an All-Star the entire season, two All-Stars for part of the season (and Felton/Billups at PG), not the mention we start a 6'5 center and a 6'8 power forward. We don't whine about our size, we just go out there and compete.
"Let's get back to the playoffs Houston"
Hahaha! Nice comeback, atleast we win a couple of games when we get to the playoffs, not get completely demolished in a sweep. First playoff appearance with TWO superstars and getting swept? What a sad and pathetic excuse for a team.
And just how did they do in the playoffs this year..oh wait.
We just go out there and compete
- And that's lead ya'll to ping pong balls the past 2 seasons. Congrats on that.
And they gutted their core to get the other one...when Melo wasn't there, they were the better team. The Rockets, like use had to claw to get above .500. And why argue for the Rockets of all teams? They haven't done much since Olajuwon or even before him.
"We traded main pieces for a star"
Umm.. we never had main pieces. Nice try.
The Rockets are a consistent playoff team despite being in the West and lacking healthy superstar talent.
The Rockets got the same amount of playoff wins this year as the Knicks! LMFAO! Wow, that one had to hurt
Kevin Martin and Luis Scola aren't main pieces? Nice Try.
Don't sit there with a straight face and say that Scola and Martin are on the same level as Stoudemire and Melo. Just don't.
Noone said they were. The Rockets fan were sitting waiting for Yao, while having Scola and Martin, turned around to bite them, not they back in the lotto. The Knicks? Playoffs.
Like I said, you guys had ONE shining moment since 1995. Please stop.
Poor dude.. The Knicks make the playoffs, get swept and you use that argument as if they did anything. Maybe some day you'll wisen up.
I don't want to get into this discussion because comparing the current Knicks and the Rockets probably wasn't the point.
I'm a Knick fan, I like the history, I think it is important to the NBA that the Knicks be good. I like MSG and there have been many famous events there. Sadly, not many have them have been basketball games lately. Hearing "The World's Most Famous Arena" is starting to ring a little hollow to my ears. But this fame goes back to being the boxing mecca for over 100 years. Frazer-Ali fought there. But boxing doesn't really do it these days for a lot of sports fans.
The Ewing Era was lots of fun and the Knicks were very relevant even if they didn't win any championships. Now we are in the Dolan Era. It could last another 20 years folks, so get used to it.
The Media makes everything that happen in New York seem more important, in sports I'm not sure if that is fair. But if you win in New York, special things happen. Look at those championship Knicks. Phil Jackson, Willis Reed, Walk Clyde, they all have gone on to have had a huge impact on the NBA. Bill Bradley went on to be a U.S. Senator and a legitimate Presidential Candidate. All teammates from the last Knicks Champions. Winning in New York is different. It isn't fair necessarily but it is the truth.
NoMoney, was that Spike jumping on LJ at the end of that video?
that was some good read and arguments man... thanks for the awesome laugh...lol
The Cowboys for most overrated franchise?
As for the first round match up, when your second best player player has back spasms, and your starting point guard is lost halfway thru the first game, against a clearly better team, one would expect losses. A sweep... well...
Yes, the Knicks are horribly overcovered and overrated in the medias eyes, but I don't recall most people besides some Knicks fans predicting them to be competitive against the Celtics. Nor has anyone expected anything from the Knicks for almost a decade. The Knicks had the most talent in the league once, and they won 2 championships. Other than that, and a Ewing led decade of almosts, theres not much to speak of.
But like in 2003 in Boston, theres a huge fanbase of multiple generations hoping, wishing, praying, living and dying with every shot, waiting to end this long string of futility. So you can maintain your opinion. Most mature Knicks fans would agree painfully, given we've lived those &$#%#&@! moments the most intimately. But that doesn't stop us from loving our team, through it all. Paying exorbident prices to see Eddy Curry and Othella Harrington.. every night! Even when attendance figures where low they were still higher than half the league.
Maybe thats why people feel theyre overrated. The amount of love Knicks fans have for our team is unwavering. It can go from positive to negative, but its always support. Can you really hate on that?