I think the nostalgia fueled broadcast makes sense, and as a long time Laker fine I had no problem with it, even though my team lost most of those finals. It was game one of a series that has been hyped in every major broadcast media. So trotting out Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, old clips and other memories of those great series was fun to watch and understandable from a network and NBA perspective. Why not play up a marquee match up as much as possible before the series possibly deteriorates into either a laugher or a snoozer.

Now, if they keep running clips of the past series throughout the rest of the series, I would think I along with most fans will tire of it. We'll see how ABC plays it, but for game one, wouldn't there be disappointment if there was virtually no acknowledgement of the history between these two teams.

long time Laker fan

That game hurt, yes, but even after they had that huge lead I never felt like this game was in the bag. Even after Farmar's lucky 3 pointer at the end of the first half you could feel the Celtics were closing in. I saw from the first few minutes of game one a Laker team that is simply not built to compete with this Celtics team. The Celtics are too big and too physical, and L.A. has no answer. They don't have one body they can throw in and give the Celts what they get. When you play a 48 minute game that's important, which is why I'm shocked the Celtics didn't sweep. I think they're that much better.

I think this Laker team overachieved. They're good, but being a long time Laker fan, back to the Cazzie Russell and Lucius Allen days, I thought it was obvious they weren't championship good. I think Phil knows this deep down as well, and that's why that loss won't eat him up as much as it would have if it had happened against the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. They have to bulk up in the middle. They need a banger. Until they get that guy who can intimidate inside, they'll be stuck where they are now. A nice spot to be sure, but second all the same.

I don't mind the videos of your blogs, but this one in particular was hard to watch. Light jazz in the background and rough winds blowing in your face made it too hard to focus on what you were trying to say. I'll read this one, but if you're going to keep these up my advice is either do then in a real studio or somewhere where it's just you and the camera.

If you want to point to a play you think determined the outcome I'd like to point to another play that could have. It was Sam Casell getting Farmar to jump up and then after Farmar is in the air, Casell literally leans into him and shoots the ball, scores and goes to the free throw line. I never understood why that play gets called a foul. Casell creates contact not Farmar, yet Farmar gets called. It's a horsebleep call and always has been which is why I was heartened to see it not called when Brent Barry tried the same thing in game 5 with the Spurs trailing. As for Bryant's steal, I have to say that with all the non-calls(Gasol was mugged so bad in the fourth quarter he's still looking for his wallet)this one wasn't as obvious as it might have been had the game been called tighter.

I appreciate you responding to my letter King, and maybe you didn't say that play determined the outcome, but you certainly implied it was a key play in the game. Fair enough. I disagree it was an abvious call, but lets hear what Pierce had to say- Pierce himself said, "He made a great defensive play," said Pierce. "He reached around and tapped the ball from behind, and it was just a great defensive play. That was pretty much all he could do that Kevin set the pick, so he was struggling. Kobe is a great player. He made two big steals on myself there in the fourth quarter that I shouldn't have allowed." Maybe he's just being a good sportsman, but maybe he's also telling it like it is.

Anyway, there is so much wrong with the current game, from those lean in fouls I mentioned being horsebleep to the fact that no one here can honestly explain what is a foul and what isn't a foul. It's lot like baseball's problem with determining what is a strike and what isn't a strike. As a fan for about 30 years or so, it feels like there is no real consistency, and to be honest, it makes me not want to watch.

I don't remember who, but it's been recommended that the refs for this or any other sport be run by a separate automomous board that has nothing to do with Stern's office. I think the implementation of an independent board would go a long way towards shoring up the NBA's image for biased officiating.

I guess you could always respond affirmatively that yes you would like a beverage, and then when they get it say you changed your mind, then say no, you would like it, then change your mind again about the type of beverage. Ask for Pepsi instad of the Mountain Dew. Keep doing this as a line of people builds behind you waiting to purchase some Pez or a National Enquirer. Keep going back and forth talkng out loud. "Hmm, do I want Pepsi, Mountain Dew or bottled water." Then after you decided, fumble through your wallet for a few minutes before finally telling the cashier you're a buck short. When it's all done, tell the cashier you're sorry for all the trouble, but after all, she/he asked in the first place.