Step 1: Acceptance

We've had a difficult time here in the Search coming to terms with the fact that the Cavs got completely butt-rammed by the Spurs on national TV in the Finals. And while only 14 or so other people watched this debacle, we were still pretty embarassed. Nonetheless, we're going to give a go at debriefing what's been bouncing around our head the past week. This is going to be long...bear with us.

LeBron has taken a bit of a beating in the national media for "under-performing", which is outrageously unfair considering the epic (lack of) talent surrounding him. Donyell Marshall, Hopalong Hughes, and, quite frankly, Boobie and Z should be ashamed of their performances over the 4 games. Also, Mike Brown was outclassed in so many senses of the word that it's become impossible to keep track. The Cavs, obviously, are going to give Brown an extension, which we find to be amusing having watched almost every one of the 102 games the Cavs competed in this year. Let's just say, Ted Stepien would've been underwhelmed by potato-head's offensive strategy.

LeBron had no chance with the supporting cast he was stuck with, so let's pat him on the back for carrying so much dead weight all the way to the Finals, as opposed to beating him for being unable to overcome a constant quintuple-team at the hands of the best defensive team in the NBA. The fact of the matter is that LeBron did as he always does--make the right basketball play, find the open guy when he was trapped--and the rest of the Cavs' ass clowns came through to the tune of 36% shooting from the floor. We certainly don't mean to imply that the Cavs could have, should have, or would have (in the absence of a complete overhaul of the roster) won this Finals--all credit due to the Spurs, who are a dynasty--but it didn't have to be this way.

One of the criticisms we've seen a lot in the media since the close of the series centers around the idea that the Cavs are the worst finalist in recent NBA history (since the '59 Lakers, we hear), or that the Cavs had no business being in the Finals in the first place. Allow us first to say that the '99 Knicks were by so far worse than this Cavs team that it's laughable. The leaders of those Knicks were Heimlich Sprewell and Allan Houston. Enough said. On the second point, ESPN's Sports Guy has been especially outspoken, which is really asinine. The NBA Finals (or World Series, or Super Bowl, or Stanley Cup) have never been about pitting the 2 best teams in the league against one another, in truth. If putting the best two teams up against one another were the goal, then you wouldn't have divisions or conferences, and instead we'd live in an all-BCS sports championship world (God help us).

Were the Colts and Bears the 2 best teams in the NFL last year? Probably not. Maybe the Colts were, but there were 3 other AFC teams that were better than the Bears. Were the Cardinals the best team in baseball? They wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the AL, and yet they're the defending champs and everyone was thrilled when they won. No one's calling for those leagues to revamp their championship rounds, are they? The fact of the matter is that the East is down, yeah, but at no point were the Cavs any lower than top-3 in the East, which makes them every bit a deserving participant in the Finals. They got hot at the right time (see: Cardinals), and had the best player in the league playing sick ball. That's a recipe for the Finals in my view. Hell, the Spurs probably weren't even one of the 2 best regular season teams in the NBA! Those spots had to go to the Mavs and Suns. If we want the championships to be solely about pitting the 2 best teams in the league against one another (and can we even really say for sure who those 2 are? What if the Cavs win 67 games in a weak East next year b/c LeBron is amazing...are they better than 3 60-win West teams?), then there's no point to the playoffs at all. If the system is going to be refigured, fine, but let's hold off on saying the Cavs had "no business" playing in the Finals.

The other thing we wanted to be sure to mention is that the Spurs are, without question, a dynasty. Undoubtedly, if you watched the Finals coverage you heard Michael "The Sage" Wilbon go on about the Spurs' lack of back-to-back titles, which means they are not a dynasty. That's probably one of the more retarded things Wilbon's ever said, which is saying something b/c he's said some retarded stuff. The Spurs have won 4 of 9 rings, that is pure, unadulterated dynastic domination. Who cares about back to back? What difference does that make? This is by far and away the dominant franchise of the last decade, and anytime you dominate an entire decade, you have to be considered a dynasty. Are the 94-95 Rockets a dynasty and this Spurs team isn't?

So, bottom line, the Cavs have little to be ashamed about in losing to this great Spurs team. It's a dynasty, featuring the greatest power forward of all time (who also happens to be a top-10 player of all time), plays legendary defense, and has vast amounts of championship experience. The Cavs were there way ahead of time, and while we would have liked to see a better effort out of the troops, this whole experience has been generally positive, and the rest of the NBA should fear for their lives with LeBron on the prowl.