Magic Number Thread

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
For Playoffs: 3. Any combination of 3 wins or 3 losses by the Bobcats will do it.

For 7th seed: 5. 5 games to play, and we're in a dead lock with Detroit. Tie breaker is determined by our final game against them in Detroit (detroit owns conference or division if we lose and are tied head to head)
 

??? ??????

New member
Joined:
Apr 2, 2009
Posts:
2,435
Liked Posts:
4
Location:
Columbia, MO
3 is such a low magic number with 5 to play and 6 to play for the Bobcats.

I just can't imagine us blowing this one.
 

cool007

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
688
Liked Posts:
2
Location:
Mundelein
dougthonus wrote:
For Playoffs: 3. Any combination of 3 wins or 3 losses by the Bobcats will do it.

For 7th seed: 5. 5 games to play, and we're in a dead lock with Detroit. Tie breaker is determined by our final game against them in Detroit (detroit owns conference or division if we lose and are tied head to head)

Actually, Detroit also plays Indiana before us. So if Detroit loses to either us or Indiana, then we get the tie breaker I believe.

So Detroit needs to win BOTH games to win the tie breaker for the 7th seed.

As far as Bobcats, it's any combination of we win 2 and they lose 1, or they lose 2 and we win 2, then it's pretty much over mathematically as well I think.
 

??? ??????

New member
Joined:
Apr 2, 2009
Posts:
2,435
Liked Posts:
4
Location:
Columbia, MO
cool007 wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
For Playoffs: 3. Any combination of 3 wins or 3 losses by the Bobcats will do it.

For 7th seed: 5. 5 games to play, and we're in a dead lock with Detroit. Tie breaker is determined by our final game against them in Detroit (detroit owns conference or division if we lose and are tied head to head)

Actually, Detroit also plays Indiana before us. So if Detroit loses to either us or Indiana, then we get the tie breaker I believe.

So Detroit needs to win BOTH games to win the tie breaker for the 7th seed.

As far as Bobcats, it's any combination of we win 2 and they lose 1, or they lose 2 and we win 2, then it's pretty much over mathematically as well I think.

No, it's just winner of our matchup. Because if Detroit loses to Indiana, and beats us, we will be tied in the season series. Then it goes to division, where we will be tied 8-8, then it will go to conference, where the Pistons have a few games on us, and there's no way for us to tie and have a better conference record.
 

TheStig

New member
Joined:
Apr 5, 2009
Posts:
3,636
Liked Posts:
38
I really wish teams like Detroit couldn't just coast into the post season like they are doing. So many more deserving and interesting teams are fighting to get in and here comes a wounded and uninterested Detroit group. They have played like absolute dog cr@p over the second half of the season and just cheapens the playoffs, I was really rooting for the bobcats to overtake them. Detroit just looks like they are going through the motions and that they know they won't be back next yr. Its time for them to rebuild and blow it up.
 

cool007

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
688
Liked Posts:
2
Location:
Mundelein
Not really. They have had injuries and Iverson's distractions.

Also, Stuckey is not what many had hoped and they really miss Billups leadership and on top of that their coach just SUCKS - I have to admit, he is worse than Vinny (and I didn't think it was possible). Actually it is. We had Jimbo last year.

Pistons just don't have enough talent anymore and they seem like Bulls team from last year. A lot of 1-on-1 and other BS.

I would also like Charlotte over Detroit but then again I think Detroit (if they put their mind to it), can give a TOUGH series to Cavs in the first round (assuming we make the 7th seed).
 

sth

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
2,851
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Billings, Montana
Yeah there seem to be problems in California with public officials pay automatically increasing too fast. One town arrested their mayor and city council because they were making over 500,000 a year. And of course California has to have voters approve tax increases and they approve spending so spending goes up and taxes always go down. Having governor Arnold didn't help either, not that earlier governors did much.
 

Top