Can You Buy a Church?

I was over on ESPN's website hoping to read something interesting previewing tonight's Spurs-Hornets showdown (I think New Orleans will win and San Antonio will get an infusion of foreign talent during the offseason -- Tiago Splitter, etc. -- and win the 2009 championship when the odd-numbered year gives them the edge) but instead my eye was caught by this eye-catching headline: "Wade buys mom a church after she completes turnaround".

Can you even buy a church? I wondered. But it turns out that Wade didn't so much buy his mom a church as he bought a building in which to house a church that she founded a bit back. My assumption is that it's not actually possible to buy a church or other non-profit institution, though presumably one non-profit could be folded into a larger, richer one in a purchase-like scenario. Anyways, consider this a basketball/church thread.

Comments

I've read the isolated story here and there about how certain U.S. diocese have had to close down churches that they cannot keep open.

I have to believe that some of these structures will have been sold at some point....

(And I think I read that this an option in the U.S. re: the horrible split within the anglican/episcopal community due to gay priests and such).

Posted by JRVJ | May 19, 2008 7:39 PM

Sure you can buy a church! In 2005 my Quaker Meeting bought an Episcopal church. The Episcopal congregation had outgrown its building and was building a larger building. The Quaker Meeting had outgrown its building and so was looking for a larger one. (A Zen group bought our old meetinghouse.)

Actually, I believe it's quite common for growing congregations to buy up when a larger church becomes available.

Posted by Bob Gaines | May 19, 2008 7:50 PM

On the matter of nonprofit ownership, there are examples of mergers: two universities in Ohio is the most recent one I can think of. The boards basically come to a decision about what to do with the net assets, which usually just go to the resulting institution under a contract that spells out whatever it is the board wants.

As for non-non-profits buying non-profits, it is possible for a non-profit to convert to something else, but that requires satisfaction of temporarily and permanently restricted net assets (basically, either refunding donors who imposed restrictions or getting them to remove restrictions). I would imagine that process significantly involves regulatory authorities.

You should ask your friends at the Nixon Library; they did something similar, I think. What did the old board of trustees say about?

Posted by Marshall | May 19, 2008 7:52 PM

Sure you can buy a church! In 2005 my Quaker Meeting bought an Episcopal church. The Episcopal congregation had outgrown its building and was building a larger building. The Quaker Meeting had outgrown its building and so was looking for a larger one. (A Zen group bought our old meetinghouse.)

Actually, I believe it's quite common for growing congregations to buy up when a larger church becomes available.

Also, the Spurs are going to win tonight.

Posted by Bob Gaines | May 19, 2008 7:52 PM

Sure you can buy a church. If the congregation belongs to a denomination that consecrates it's buildings, it can be deconsecrated. Otherwise, if the congregation (or their leader or whoever owns the title) decide to sell, they can just sell. I know of two private residences and one Buddhist center in Santa Cruz, CA that started life as churches of one kind or another.

Posted by Drypoint | May 19, 2008 7:55 PM

i think the team that scores more points will win tonight, but that's just a guess.

meanwhile, are we allowed to talk about synagogues too? because the synagogue i attended while growing up in allentown, pa was sold a couple of years ago to the allentown general hospital who needed the land (the congregation used the money to build a new synagogue more conveniently situated to where the jewish population currently lives rather than where it lived 50 years ago or so when it was first built).

Posted by howard | May 19, 2008 7:57 PM

Can you even buy a church?

How much you lookin' to spend. Might be able to help you'se out.

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 7:59 PM

"because the synagogue i attended while growing up in allentown, pa..."

So do you love or hate Billy Joel?

Posted by Petey | May 19, 2008 8:00 PM

I'm shamelessly on the Hornets bandwagon. Actually, maybe I qualify as a loyal fan -- I loved the early-90s Hornets with LJ and 'Zo and Muggsy. And Rex Chapman! And teal jerseys! Who wouldn't love that team?

By the way, has Robert Horry officially become more loathsome than Bruce Bowen? I've always though Horry was horribly overrated, due to his luck in landing on great teams and his luck in landing a few big shots. But for the first half of his career, he was a decent, above-average NBA forward. Now he only comes on the court to hurt people. Classy.

Posted by too many steves | May 19, 2008 8:08 PM

petey, very droll! actually, although i have been known to leave the radio on when billy joel comes on, he's not my cup of tea, but i must say that i've always appreciated the fact that people have heard of the ol' hometown thanks to him (even though the factories were in bethlehem).

speaking of local pride and basketball (to try to tie this together), i've mentioned before that my early basketball-watching experiences were with the allentown jets of the eastern basketball league, as a result of which i got to see the aging paul arizin play (for camden) and also got to see the young walt simon and hank whitney (special al note: original Nets) play (the team's star was a fabulous low-post player named roman thurmond: kevin mchale had nothing on him! of course, he was playing against eastern league defenders, which is to say, against no one who cared about defense).

such is local pride that i own a couple hundred shares of a REIT, liberty property trust (http://www.libertyproperty.com/) entirely for the thrill of reading their annual report and seeing how many properties they own in allentown.

is that too much information?

Posted by howard | May 19, 2008 8:11 PM

Isn't it fascinating how the Spurs have managed to become the thug team of the NBA while still retaining a wholesome image?

Posted by Petey | May 19, 2008 8:14 PM

a still small voice in the back of my mind said, wait, are you sure about the last name?

not roman thurmond (sorry, nate!); roman turmon!

Posted by howard | May 19, 2008 8:20 PM

I guess it's an information gap thing. Low-information NBA fans don't know that the Spurs are dirty. I don't know anyone who follows the league closely who respects the Spurs. So they're like Hillary that way. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Posted by too many steves | May 19, 2008 8:20 PM

"is that too much information?"

Nah. It's blogtown.

"he's not my cup of tea"

Piano Man is a crucial album, though everything he's done since then is a bit maudlin for my taste.

Posted by Petey | May 19, 2008 8:20 PM

maudlin: a perfect word for billy joel, but without your link, petey, i'd never have known that ron tutt was the drummer on piano man; while i've got nothing against piano man, my idea of a crucial 1973 album is new york dolls....

Posted by howard | May 19, 2008 8:26 PM

You can buy a church. I think what Matt had in mind is the idea of buying a congregation.

Posted by John | May 19, 2008 8:39 PM

Apparently Matthew never watched 21 Jumpstreet.

Posted by mad6798j | May 19, 2008 8:42 PM

and yet, apparently, you can buy the presumably non-profit (though, presumably potentially profitable) pennsylvania highway system. who knew?

Posted by deeluzon | May 19, 2008 9:15 PM

in new york...it depends. For a catholic church, you just need to bishop or whoever to sign off on it. For 'non-hierarchical' churches, you need the court to sign off before you buy anything from a church. This is actually becoming an increasingly active issue, since so many churches have such great real estate and shrinking congregations

Posted by bill | May 19, 2008 9:24 PM

You can't buy a non-profit becuase they don't have ownership shares. You can buy the assts of a non-profit but the proceeds have to benefit the non profit, not an individual. A non-profit could give assets away to another non-profit with similar goals.

Posted by M | May 19, 2008 9:30 PM

When I lived in boston, there was a big church converted into condos--story here.

This NYT piece from 1985 hits on some of the issues in church conversions.

How can you have forgotten the Limelight!

But if you'd like to be traditional, it does appear you can buy a church.

Posted by theoajones | May 19, 2008 9:32 PM

When I lived in boston, there was a big church converted into condos--story here.

This NYT piece from 1985 hits on some of the issues in church conversions.

How can you have forgotten the Limelight!

But if you'd like to be traditional, it does appear you can buy a church.

Posted by theoajones | May 19, 2008 9:35 PM

The church of my youth, St. Aloysius on El Camino in Palo Alto, was sold about twelve years ago for annoying but defensible reasons.

Interestingly, it was bought by the Ananda Marga or one of the other American Hindu organizations, who have distinguished themselves by the respect with which they treated the facility. (Kind of a nice piece of multiculturalism in its own way.) In fact, I can name a few Catholic bishops that might take lessons from them.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 19, 2008 9:36 PM

You can't buy a non-profit becuase they don't have ownership shares. You can buy the assts of a non-profit but the proceeds have to benefit the non profit, not an individual. A non-profit could give assets away to another non-profit with similar goals.

Posted by M | May 19, 2008 9:42 PM

If Robert Horry is in any way responsible for winning this series tonight I am going to jam a butter knife through my temple.

Retire already. I actually thought he was retired. Give somebody else a chance.

Posted by Wu Tang | May 19, 2008 9:46 PM

this article is topical.

Posted by bill | May 19, 2008 9:51 PM

And bring back 'The Table'. That is some fine viewing.

Posted by Wu Tang | May 19, 2008 9:53 PM

This is all so esoteric...

D-Wade is a basketball superstar, so I'm sure he thinks he can buy a church regardless.

Meanwhile, Hillary is prepared to sabotage thew Dems...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | May 19, 2008 9:56 PM

Meanwhile, Hillary is prepared to sabotage thew Dems...

I hear the Thewish vote is huge in Florida.

Posted by scythia | May 19, 2008 10:16 PM

I guess it's an information gap thing. Low-information NBA fans don't know that the Spurs are dirty. I don't know anyone who follows the league closely who respects the Spurs. So they're like Hillary that way. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

You're an idiot.

Posted by Eric | May 19, 2008 10:43 PM

Also, the Fabulous Forum in Inglewood now belongs to a black megachurch.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | May 19, 2008 10:49 PM

I think New Orleans will win

I hate you.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 19, 2008 11:04 PM

we had a discussion here recently about "experience," and i think we just saw what "experience" means: the knowledge not to start hoisting 3s with abandon too soon. i trust the hornets will remember that next year.

Posted by howard | May 19, 2008 11:09 PM

A church that I was once a member of participated in the closest thing I've ever seen to a church being bought out by another church. The church was a fairly large (avg. weekly attendance of over 1000) suburban Southern Baptist congregation. The senior pastor of the church left (I believe he was thrown out, but this was long after I left) and the church wasn't able to service the debt from an aggresive building program. The congregation and remaining staff accepted a merger offer from an even larger congregation looking to expand into the area. The merger was successful, at least from a marketing standpoint. The congregation doubled in size in a year or so.

Posted by William Ockham | May 19, 2008 11:12 PM

Churches are big business. Not only can you buy one, you can also buy everything you need to run it.

There are hundreds of PowerPoint sermons available for download, along with plenty of music for the organist, choir or Christian rock/alternative/country band. Just call yourself the Bible Church of the Something or Other and say that you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior. You don't need a fancy credential on your wall, but if you want one, you can get that online, too.

I've attended popular, successful multi million dollar churches in Phoenix where the service is canned from start to finish. The performances are always brilliant and the performers are no doubt sincere, but if you watch closely, every PowerPoint has a tiny copyright notice at the end.

Posted by aatos | May 19, 2008 11:15 PM

Pargo almost won that game by himself. Wow.

As for buying churches... there's a difference between buying building and implements and buying a functional church. If Matt means the former, he's obviously never seen Alice's Restaurant. What do they teach in Haavaad nowadays?

Posted by Eric | May 19, 2008 11:49 PM

Pargo almost won that game by himself? What game were you watching? He made a couple of nice plays early in the fourth quarter, and then chucked up a bunch of ridiculous shots rather than run the offense, which completely stymied their rhythm during the key stretch from 6 to 3 minutes left.

I am no big Horry fan, but his foul in game six was not a dirty play. (The hip check into Nash on the other hand, was a dirty play and he was rightfully suspended for two games.) Horry braced himself for contact, except West didn't back into him normally but jackknifed himself after the pass was deflected. Horry would have had his forearm in the middle of West's back, where it is supposed to be and legal.

The Spurs flat beat the Hornets tonight because they were quicker to loose balls - one of the key plays of the game was Ime Udoka snagging an offense rebound away from Chandler and setting up Duncan for two free throws, so that instead of having a chance to cut the lead to 5-6 points, it went back to 10. Duncan hit all of his free throws and Paul missed several. The Hornets lost their poise consistently through the series. They have a ton of talent - more talent if not more depth than the Spurs - but they are going to have to improve mentally.

Posted by Curtis | May 20, 2008 12:11 AM

Churches can be sold to whomever has money: in a certain west coast city several churches (available for various reasons, including inability to maintain the property) have been converted to: (be amazed!)

- dance clubs, with great wooden floors (after pew removal), stages for bands/dj's, and high ceilings for light shows and high tech lights. Any stained glass windows also look great when outside lighted. service bars can be located in the transcepts (on cross-shaped buildings), and other rooms (like the choir rooms) repurposed into VIP rooms or green rooms for performers. Pipe Organs have an active market, or make a great visual.

Jager sings: "Please let me introduce myself, I'm the..."

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 20, 2008 12:50 AM

Isn't it fascinating how the Spurs have managed to become the thug team of the NBA while still retaining a wholesome image?

Texans seems to have gotten in the habit of embracing brands whose facade doesn't square with reality.

Posted by PowerGamer | May 20, 2008 12:59 AM

Curtis -- Pargo got the game to three and his offensive boards were key -- perhaps you don't know about those? What game did you watch? If he wasn't there, the game is over with 3:00 minutes left, double digits. The rest of the team shriveled up. He kept chucking but there were no other players out there.

The Nash check was the same exact thing as the West back pick. Watch the Nash replay again, without all the ESPN anchors bleating in your ear. He got in Nash's way for a check-foul, closed up when he realized the collision would be worse than expected because Nash was steaming toward him. Nash goes flying by his own volition -- Nash really sold that foul. No man flies like that after a little bump. It managed to get Horry suspended but then Nash's dumb teammates broke a widely understood league rule. Nash flopped there. It was a foul, but not terribly dirty.

Posted by Eric | May 20, 2008 1:03 AM

And I was THIS close to getting back to the States and seeing a Hornets game in New Orleans.... sigh...

And I'm sorry, but flopping has gotten pretty ridiculous in the playoffs. Spurs seem to be the worst, but I saw a few from the Celts/Cavs series (homer alert: I saw more from the Cavs but I'm a Celts fan... so that's taken with a bucket of salt).

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 20, 2008 1:16 AM

Lakers over Spurs in 6
Detroit over Boston in 6

Lakers over Detroit in 7

You heard it here first.

Posted by 55 | May 20, 2008 1:33 AM

I just got back from the arena. Man, the Hornets deserved to get beat tonight. Pargo did fine, but what the hell was he doing with the ball all the time? We have this other guard who's not bad...did the announcers say something about that?

Eric is right that Pargo needed to chuck because of the collective choke...home wins require momentum, which can't happen if you never hit more than two shots in a row. It was infuriating.

Calling Horry/Nash a flop is just moronic. You must be rewatching it in slow mo. You don't risk injury to sell a foul.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 20, 2008 1:41 AM

nolaboyd, regardless of how the shooting is going, were i coach scott, i would, with 5-6 minutes to go, have reminded mr. paul that that nice mr. wade earned himself a ring and an MVP (and a bunch of commercial endorsements) by taking it strong to the hole and counting on the refs to reward him for aggressive play....

but i'm actually posting because of LnGrrrR, who has given me another opportunity i've taken several times this postseason to post about this: when i was an adolescent, my parents gave me a subscription to SI for my birthday, and the first issue i received (12/9/63) had a story that i recall as named "how i draw fouls and win games," but that must have been a subhead or something, since the article is called, on the SI cover, "smart moves that score points." it's by frank ramsay, the great celtic guard and fantastic free-throw shooter, and now that it's been posted online, i'll let him (and his co-author frank deford) tell you about it:

Frank Ramsey once was fouled so quickly after coming into a game that his Celtic teammate, Bill Russell, commented, "Frank was still so cold he had to warm up before shooting his free throw." No one has ever been better at the art of suckering an opponent into committing fouls than this former All-America from Kentucky. Ramsey capitalizes on the fact that, by its rules, basketball is a non-body-contact sport. When contact occurs—even accidentally—the chances are a foul will be called. Free throws account for some 20% of points scored, so it obviously is more blessed to be fouled than to foul. While it is both efficient and ethical to lure an opponent into committing a foul, Ramsey takes this strategy even further, into the realm of gamesmanship—which may affront some concepts of fair play but is accepted practice in the most skilled strata of the sport. The spectator's appreciation will be enhanced by Ramsey's revelations on the following pages.

WHY I FALL

Drawing fouls chiefly requires the ability to provide good, heartwarming drama and to direct it to the right audience. I never forget where the referees are when I go into an act. The most reliable eye-catcher is still the pratfall. Particularly on defense, when everything else fails, I fall down. Luckily, I happen to be type-cast for the part, because I have a peculiar running style—back on my heels, with my knees locked. It makes falling very easy and natural-looking for me.

I am beaten here. My man has a clear drive past me to the basket, unless I step in front of him—and that would be a definite blocking foul on me.

Instead, I shift my weight to get as much of my body as I can in front of him without moving my feet. If the official is anywhere behind me, it will appear as if I am in front of my man.

Then, at the first contact, I fall down—as if my man had charged right into me. With any luck, the foul I deserve will be called on the other guy.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075469/index.htm

on it goes from there (in the original with drawings of how he does it, as you might guess from the words, which are not included in this online version from the archives). ramsay's concluding thought:

All the pros know about this sort of thing. They know what I've been getting away with, without having to see drawings. But it isn't easy to combat these moves when they're done properly.

he said that in 1963: there ain't nothing new under the sun, LnGrrrR.

PS. for the young people here who don't know frank ramsey, he was the classic celts sixth man (he's the guy havlicek replaced), who averaged 13.4 in 24.6 minutes a game over 9 seasons, and as he says, he was so good at drawing fouls that he had 4.9 FT attempts, making 4 of 'em, in those 24.6 minutes:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/ramsefr01.html

Posted by howard | May 20, 2008 2:31 AM

What a surprise. Peja disappears in the playoffs. Who could've ever foreseen that one?

-----

Udoka!

-----

Alone among the six billion on the planet, I'm hoping for a Spurs/Pistons Finals.

Give me craft over flash any day of the week.

-----

And what the hell was wrong with Timmy this entire series? Was it just Chandler bothering him, (which is quite possible,) or is it time to stick a fork in Timmy?

Posted by Petey | May 20, 2008 6:43 AM

Also:

Henry Abbot correctly notes that New Orleans should be regretting the Bobby Jackson for Bonzi Wells deal right about now.

Posted by Petey | May 20, 2008 6:50 AM

The Spurs a thug team??
What nonsense! That's like the wingnuts calling Obama a Muslim. Say it enough times and some people will start to believe it, but it's still B.S.
The Spurs are like a troop of Boy Scouts. They are straight arrows on and off the court. All I hear is intense jealousy coming through with comments like that.
I'm damn proud of my home team for pulling this one out and if we can steal a road victory in L.A. in the next two games it will clear the way for the first repeat championship in the team's history.

Posted by Mike Thomas | May 20, 2008 9:15 AM

Chandler is a very good defender of Duncan. Except for Rasheed Wallace and Shaq, he may be the best in the league. Which made it all the more surprising that the Hornets continued to double team him so much. (Of course, Byron Scott knows better than anyone what it feels like to be on the losing end of 22 points, 20 rebounds, ten assists, and eight blocks...)

Duncan had a terrible first two games when he was sick, but then after that he was fine. He did put up something like 23 boards in game 5. He will almost always pass out of the double-teams because he trusts his teammates. Duncan is the key to everything the Spurs do on defense, and when the Hornets are held in 82 at home, that is a big time performance.

I am with Petey - give me Pistons-Spurs in the finals.

Last night was not the night to just barrel into the lane and throw your body around and let the officials bale you out. Until the intentional fouls at the end, there only were something like 25 free throws the entire game.

Posted by Curtis | May 20, 2008 9:18 AM

Of course you can buy a church. Willie Nelson bought the one he went to as a child.

Posted by Ray | May 20, 2008 9:44 AM

I think you have an excellent shot against the Lakers, Curtis.

Having Bowen and Udoka to throw at Kobe makes things possible that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

I think the Lakers would've been close to a lock against the Hornets, because like Utah, New Orleans simply don't have any defenders who can make Kobe work hard.

Posted by Petey | May 20, 2008 9:45 AM

The Spurs a thug team??
What nonsense! That's like the wingnuts calling Obama a Muslim. Say it enough times and some people will start to believe it, but it's still B.S.
The Spurs are like a troop of Boy Scouts. They are straight arrows on and off the court. All I hear is intense jealousy coming through with comments like that.
I'm damn proud of my home team for pulling this one out and if we can steal a road victory in L.A. in the next two games it will clear the way for the first repeat championship in the team's history.

Posted by Mike Thomas | May 20, 2008 9:51 AM

one of the key plays of the game was Ime Udoka snagging an offense rebound away from Chandler and setting up Duncan for two free throws

Yes. Watching it, you knew the Hornets were about to race to the lead, and then a moment later you knew they weren't. HUGE play.

Posted by rb | May 20, 2008 9:54 AM

Udoka!

Posted by Petey | May 20, 2008 9:59 AM

curtis, i'll just note that it doesn't matter how the game has been called or anything else: when you are at home in the 7th game of the playoffs and trailing with 5 minutes to go and you have a great point guard, you take it to the hole: it's not about throwing your body around (you want to make the 2 and get the free throw), it's about aggressive play making good things happen.

of course, old-school fuddy-duddy that i am, i have no problem with the spurs and pistons going at it again, but we shall see....

as for duncan, he did average 13 rebounds this series, his shot just wasn't dropping. it wasn't his most dominant series ever, but he makes 1 more hoop a game and he shot 50% for the series.

Posted by howard | May 20, 2008 10:55 AM

JimPortland - it's not just on the West Coast. In Brunswick, MD, there is a wonderful little coffee shop called "Beans in the Belfry." It occupies an old church building whose congregation apparently couldn't keep it up. They have live music every weekend, and serve a pretty good cup of coffee. (I've been unable to find out whether they took the business plan from Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem).

Posted by Tel | May 20, 2008 11:02 AM

And what the hell was wrong with Timmy this entire series? Was it just Chandler bothering him, (which is quite possible,) or is it time to stick a fork in Timmy?

This debate irritates me so much. Four years ago, Tim Duncan was one of the most valuable players in the NBA every year. One of the best power forwards in the history of the game. You had to double him or he would kill you. If you doubled him he might still kill you, but he would also find open guys all night long.

Today Duncan is still an all-star. There is no need to stick a fork in a bonafide all-star. But it's a long way from all-star to best power forward ever and that's the difference with Duncan. They would not have won it all last year if it weren't for Tony Parker developing a truly great outside shooting game. In 2003, 2005 Duncan was good enough that Parker didn't need that game for them to win titles. Now they do, and it still might not be enough. Although the Lakers will be a lot easier to face without a Duncan-frustrating Bynum on the floor. (Not to say that Bynum would preform this role if he were healthy, but if he were healthy and able to perform this role, the Spurs would have no chance. This is one of several reasons why the Spurs title chances are diminishing very quickly with each passing year- this may be their last best shot)

Posted by mpowell | May 20, 2008 11:31 AM

In the Catholic church, probably the Orthodox as well, the ground the church is on is considered "consecrated ground" and that is quite litteral. Blessed objects may not be sold, doing so is called simony. Usually now when a church is sold, a ritual of "deconsecration" performed (in the past, churches have been destroyed when they could no longer be used, and the land was to be sold).

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | May 20, 2008 11:43 AM

mpowell, i agree that bynum's development, and a full integration of gasol, make the lakers extremely dangerous next year (hell, they may have enough this year, although i've doubted it aloud), but there's no particular reason why duncan-ginobli-parker, with some fresh legs around them, won't remain fully competitive another 2-3 years....

Posted by howard | May 20, 2008 11:43 AM

In the Catholic church, probably the Orthodox as well, the ground the church is on is considered "consecrated ground" and that is quite litteral. Blessed objects may not be sold, doing so is called simony. Usually now when a church is sold, a ritual of "deconsecration" performed (in the past, churches have been destroyed when they could no longer be used, and the land was to be sold).

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | May 20, 2008 12:16 PM

I think I enjoyed last year's championship more than any of the others because as it was happening I could feel that there may not be another one. You can't count them out this year, for sure.

Kobe and Bowen are analogous to the cheetah and the impala, the results of millions of years of evolution to do battle particularly with each other. Bowen is never as good as when he is guarding Kobe, and yet Kobe often enough has another level that makes it all irrelevent. Regardless, it is captivating.

Jackson will almost assuredly let Gasol and the rest play straight up on Duncan in an attempt to control the paint and the three point line. So if Duncan isn't over 25 points per night, Lakers will likely win this series.

I don't see how the Lakers keep Parker out of the lane. The last time we played the Lakers in the playoffs was 2004, when Parker was but a pup. He got hit hard a couple of times in games two and three and then called it a series. He has taken enormous strides since then. Fisher can't stay in front of him, and if you stick Kobe on him, then Manu gets a favorable matchup.

Posted by Curtis | May 20, 2008 12:16 PM

In the Catholic church, probably the Orthodox as well, the ground the church is on is considered "consecrated ground" and that is quite litteral. Blessed objects may not be sold, doing so is called simony. Usually now when a church is sold, a ritual of "deconsecration" performed (in the past, churches have been destroyed when they could no longer be used, and the land was to be sold).

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | May 20, 2008 12:20 PM

pop finally hit on a truly effective lineup of bowen and udoka, rather than udoka subbing for bowen, along with the big 3 (i hadn't seen him use the combo much before). provides very good D and very good 3 point shooting. and udoka truly stepped up (i thought it would be a one game thing, but he kept at it). so i don't see the spurs getting blown out by the lakers, but also think the lakers are more likely to crush the spurs if they again sleepwalk through a couple games (duncan was pretty obviously out of sorts for the first couple games, but didn't really turn it on even once better).

Posted by dj superflat | May 20, 2008 1:01 PM

but there's no particular reason why duncan-ginobli-parker, with some fresh legs around them, won't remain fully competitive another 2-3 years....

We may not be saying different things, but, Lakers aside, going into next season, are the Spurs favored over Utah or the Hornets? If Utah learns to win on the road, they are not a good matchup for the Spurs. The Lakers big advantage there, that Utah has a tough time with Kobe (when not hobbled by back trouble), does not apply with regards to the Spurs. And unless Paul regresses, the Hornets can keep getting better. I just think instead of being a presumptive front-runner, the Spurs will be the 3rd or 4th best team in the West moving forward. And if Utah and the Hornets can learn to play like champions (win on the road, not fold in tough games), the Spurs are in trouble.

Posted by mpowell | May 20, 2008 1:40 PM

we are not saying anything much different, mpowell: the spurs would not go into next year as the favorite. all i'm saying is that doesn't mean that they can't win again: it's going to depend on what they do with the rest of the roster.

Posted by howard | May 20, 2008 1:58 PM

Utah was the one team I wanted no part of during the play-offs as a Spurs fan. The bracket fell as favorably as could reasonably be expected for the Spurs this year. Same thing happened last year when Dallas fell out.

Spurs should still be favored over the Hornets. I know this is a contrarian position, even in San Antonio, but the Hornets will take a step back, not a step forward, next year. They lost their cool and their focus repeatedly, and that is a formula to become the next incarnation of the Nuggets or Suns.

The Hornets will be the team in a couple of years that we look back on like the Jail Blazers or the 2000-2003 Kings and wonder why they never broke through and whatever happened to them. And then we will remember, and it will seem sad and unfulfilling.

Since Jordan was a Bull, I don't think there has been a season (maybe the 2002 Lakers are the exception) in which a team has been a big favorite coming into the season. Even coming into the post-season, you realistically have a group of about four to six teams that have a realistic shot at the title, and everything breaks well enough for one of them to win.

I think the Spurs will continue to be in that group of reasonable title contenders for the next couple of years. Whether they win another title while that window is open remains to be seen, of course, but my guess is probably not.

And I feel a lot better about Utah being in that group next season than I do New Orleans.

Posted by Curtis | May 20, 2008 2:25 PM

the Hornets will take a step back, not a step forward, next year. They lost their cool and their focus repeatedly, and that is a formula to become the next incarnation of the Nuggets or Suns.... The Hornets will be the team in a couple of years that we look back on like the Jail Blazers or the 2000-2003 Kings and wonder why they never broke through and whatever happened to them.

They lost their cool and focus in a game 7 against the defending champions and looked bad on the road. That happens to many young teams. Chris Paul looked good in all of the first six games and only struggled in the seventh, again the mark of a growing young player. Could they get worse next year? Sure. I don't know how Paul could possibly play better than he did this year and it's conceivable that other players will get worse. But this is exactly the kind of playoff series that toughens a young team, not the kind that breaks it.

Meanwhile, your other examples just aren't ringing true for me. The Kings were built around an aging star and couldn't survive past him. The Suns never really lost their focus, they just got beaten. The Nuggets have never done anything in the playoffs and play no defense; I don't see how they're remotely comparable. The only team of the four you've mentioned that I see as even close is the Jail Blazers, and one example doesn't make a convincing pattern.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 20, 2008 3:04 PM

Why so down on the Hornets? The big difference, as far as I see it, is that they have a young, reliable superstar in Chris Paul.

Who was that guy on the Blazers? Wallace? Any of the younger guys were not that good and head-cases.

With Utah, your best player is too old (Nash), so you don't have much flexibility or window, but the Suns were a threat for 3 years to win a title. Maybe they will eventually win a title with Stoudemire in 5-7 years.

West took a while to develop so who knows what he will really do. Peja is older and maybe proven unreliable. But what is wrong with Chris Paul and Tyson Chandler? Seems like a good core to work from. Paul might regress b/c it's hard to duplicate this kind of season, but I don't see why you would be pessimistic about their future. Maybe they faltered this year in the playoffs, but Paul is only 23. There is still room for improving composure here. They did administrate a beat down in 3 out of 7.

Posted by mpowell | May 20, 2008 3:04 PM

screwed up a few things=Utah=Phoenix. And I somehow missed that you were actually talking about the Kings. But remember, that team was one win away from a title.

But Antid Oto said it better. Except I really don't think the Blazers are a good example either.

Posted by mpowell | May 20, 2008 3:16 PM

mpowell; The only reason I thought the Blazers were reasonably close was because they were in fact a young team with promise and the other three weren't. I agree that there were actually other reasons why they fell apart, that it had little to do with playoff setbacks.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 20, 2008 3:27 PM

Yeah, the Blazers were supposed to be the young team with talent, but in retrospect it's easy to see why that was wrong. You could argue that hindsight is 20:20, but I think it was clear up front that Rasheed Wallace was a headcase and he was the guy they needed to be a star. But Chris Paul is a really good centerpiece. He had a great regular season, and it will be hard to improve on it. But it's the postseason that counts and I think he could definitely improve there. If he plays better, or Peja doesn't stink up the joint, they might win that game 7.

Posted by mpowell | May 20, 2008 3:47 PM

"Alone among the six billion on the planet, I'm hoping for a Spurs/Pistons Finals."

Petey, if this happens, I'd be willing to trade a Hillary presidency for a Lakers-Celtics match-up in a second.

Anyway, I said Lakers over Celtics at the beginning of the playoffs, and I'll stick with it now. These should both be great serieses, though.

Posted by too many steves | May 20, 2008 5:11 PM