mentally stimulating diversions
Just For Fun
Can you name the NBA champs in last 30 years (1980-2009)?
Enter a team in the box below
Correctly named teams will show up below
Click any empty Year(s) won or Team to answer for that location
This quiz has not been verified by Sporcle
Popular trivia games today
Things That Are Yellow
Geography Bunker IV
For the Birds?
Word Ladder: Beatles Songs
US Cities: West to East
'Q', 'X', 'Y', and 'Z' Movies by Picture
Missing Word: The Godfather Actors
A Decade of iTunes
Enter answer for
/8 teams correct
Show Missed Answers
1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009
1981, 1984, 1986, 2008
1989, 1990, 2004
1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007
HIDE THIS WARNING
You might also like these games:
NBA Championship Coaches
NCAA and NBA Title
for this game.
(Warning: comments may contain spoilers)
NBA champs in last 30 years Quiz
Created Oct 12, 2009 in
Game Plays 2,027
Friend Scores and Standings
Loading friend results....
Top Games Today in Sports
1992 Dream Team Minefield
MLB 250 HR and 5 Gold Gloves
Premier League XIs (2012-13)
NBA Best Lineups (2012-13)
Top Games with Similar Tags
NBA Team Last All-Star
NCAA and NBA Title
NBA Last Five 25.0+ PPG Player...
Top User Games in Sports
★ 4 Big 4 ★ Match-Up Blitz
Sport Alphabetical Anti-Bunker
Top 20 NBA Block Leaders 2013 ...
2012-2013 Top Five Scorers of ...
Oct 12th, 2009 at 06:25 GMT
should take 'sixers' for 76ers. a small gripe though.
Oct 12th, 2009 at 14:24 GMT
Eight champs in the past thirty years, yet people say baseball has a parity issue.
Oct 12th, 2009 at 18:47 GMT
There is a lot more variance in baseball, so the inferior team has a much better chance of winning. That doesn't make it fair that the Yankees and Red Sox can outspend every other team by ridiculous amounts.
Oct 12th, 2009 at 18:48 GMT
The NBA doesn't have a parity issue...it has a general incompetence issue. There are plenty of front office guys for teams in the NBA that have no business being there. And it is impossible for some teams to get better if the guys in charge have no idea what they're doing.
Oct 12th, 2009 at 19:26 GMT
Good quiz... I would make it so each year is seperate... it would be harder and not so easy. Cuz when I see 2009, i dont care about the other dates in that one cuz i already no its "THAT TEAM!" I would make them all seperate answers.
Oct 12th, 2009 at 20:29 GMT
I think 3 minutes is a little long for only eight answers.
Comment below threshold:
Oct 12th, 2009 at 20:42 GMT
bstarr66: Funny how people claim the Red Sox outspend everyone else by ridiculous amounts when they are 4th in payroll and haven't been first in payroll for quite some time. You know the Red Sox are closer to the Rays in terms of payroll than they are to the Yankees? Don't lump those two together.
Oct 12th, 2009 at 21:16 GMT
The Red Sox do have an unlimited payroll, they just use it a lot more wisely than the Yankees do. If they had signed Teixeira instead of the Yankees, which they tried desperately to do, they would have a much closer total payroll to the Yankees then what they do have. The Red Sox always pursue the same big free agents the Yankees do and they offer just slightly less ludicrous contracts out. They just get outbid time after time again, making their total salary line a little bit more reasonable. Yes on absolute dollar terms they are closer to the Rays. But in terms of offseason strategy, they are closer to the Yankees than anyone else outside of maybe the Mets and Cubs.
Oct 12th, 2009 at 22:37 GMT
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Parity being the word. The issue, if parity is involved at all, should be a 'lack of parity' issue. But really that's still a poor way to put it, so the word ought to be left out. And there are arguments for both sides. Me, I think the NFL levels the playing field a bit too much, so that you're not sure what the playing field even is. Are the Patriots good? Are the Cowboys? Will the Super Bowl champs from (any given) last year even make the playoffs? Is my favorite player still on my favorite team? The NFL fan no longer knows. As for the two leagues with 'lack of parity' issues - MLB and the NBA have the same problem but for completely different reasons. The NBA's problem is inherent in the sport itself. There are only 5 players on the court for each team. A top player can play the whole game, every game. Get a star - Lebron, Kobe, MJ, Hakeem, Bird, Magic, Duncan - and you'll win. Get a few stars and you'll win. And so on. But there are only so many legitimate stars at a given time, and once on a team, they tend to stay put for a long time. It's not fair, and I find the NBA unwatchable on account of it (it's the only sport, baseball included, where you can accurately predict division champs and playoff seeds and finals matchups before a game has been played), but it's not the league's fault. Unless they somehow force teams to trade their best player every 3 years, it's going to continue like it's always been. Baseball, tho - that's not inherent in the sport. That's a league problem. I feel bad for fans of Pitt, KC, and so on in the modern era. They have no chance at all. Baseball ought to reward scouting and drafting and player development, as well as shrewd trading and free agent signing. But they don't. The Yankees botch seven free agent signings, and sign seven more people to make up for it. The Cubs (my team, so no bias here) make a horrible trade, but make up for it in free agency or by stealing players in a deadline deal with Pittsburgh. And on and on. No league but maybe hockey has it just right.
Oct 12th, 2009 at 23:27 GMT
Barzuniac, no one has time to read that
Oct 13th, 2009 at 04:28 GMT
You have time enough to follow me around this site to the most obscure places, and take shots. I'm pretty sure you have plenty of TIME to read it. What you may not have TIME to do, is learn how to read. But then you're an army man, who in another post said everyone here was liberal because it was a lot of teachers and 'other people who couldn't make it in society'. You're trash. Go die.
Oct 13th, 2009 at 04:29 GMT
Actually I take that back - you don't have to go die, you can stay here and die if you want. But it's imperative that you die.
Oct 13th, 2009 at 16:48 GMT
Once again, I get voted down for stating facts. Every team pursues free agents cochiseTX. Even if the Red Sox signed Tex, they still wouldn't have the second highest payroll. To say they have an unlimited payroll is ridiculous. You say they have unlimited money but then tell me they got outbid for something? How does that work? If they have unlimited money, explain to me how they could be outbid. And their offseason strategy is to sign some players like everyone else. Here is the what I was responding to earlier, "Yankees and Red Sox can outspend every other team by ridiculous amounts". That is not true at all, I provided facts.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Google+
2007-13 © Sporcle, Inc.
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties
Go to the Sporcle.com Mobile Site →