Better Finals Matchup for the NBA: Heat-Thunder or Heat-Spurs?

Unless you're a fan of the Philadelphia 76ers, Indiana Pacers or Boston Celtics, you can probably manage to agree that the Miami Heat would be the most entertaining representative from the Eastern Conference. 

Watching LeBron James attempt to redeem himself after a letdown against the Dallas Mavericks in the 2011 NBA Finals would be entertainment at the highest level. Plus, it's not like Dwyane Wade and a healthy Chris Bosh are boring. 

The better question is who should we unbiased fans root for to emerge from the tougher Western Conference: the Oklahoma City Thunder or the San Antonio Spurs? 

Neither option would be bad in any way, which makes this one of those wonderful questions where there really is no wrong answer. 

If you're looking for a chance to watch history made, the Spurs are the team for you. Tim Duncan has an opportunity to win a fifth ring and solidify his legacy as a top-10 player of all time. If "The Big Fundamental" is able to hold up the famed Larry O'Brien Trophy yet again, we'd have no choice anymore and would have to consider the Spurs dynasty among the greatest ever. 

We've been conditioned to think of the Spurs as a boring, fundamentally sound, defensively-oriented team that plays with a lack of anything resembling glamour. They've flown under the radar all year, but San Antonio is anything but unglamorous now. 

Gregg Popovich realized that his team was better suited for playing offensive basketball and has gradually made that change. The result has been a team that may very well be better than any of the previous title-winning squads in Spurs history. 

With Duncan anchoring the still-solid defense and Tony Parker leading the charge on the other end of the court, this is very much an entertaining team to watch. 

The speedy French point guard has taken his game to another level this season and can score at will while still playing within the flow of the offense. Additionally, Manu Ginobili's Euro step is always a thing of beauty. 

However, as entertaining as the Spurs may be to watch as a whole, the lack of individual superstars makes them a less appealing opponent for the Heat than the Thunder. Duncan, Parker and Ginobili may be three of the best players in the league, but they're not media-driven superstars. 

Between Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, the Thunder have more star power than Joel Zumaya during the 2006 ALCS.

Durant has been the second-best player during the 2012 NBA Playoffs, falling just short of the level set by LeBron. It's a status he's become used to after a runner-up campaign for MVP and a third-straight scoring title. 

Thanks to his increased defensive presence, his much-improved skills as a facilitator and his versatility as a scorer, Durant has easily become one of the must fun to watch players in all of basketball. Personally, I still think Westbrook is more fun. 

The point guard has a level of explosiveness unmatched at his position and he throws down dunks with an anger normally reserved for people that wind up in jail. Sure, he sometimes makes poor decisions and pulls up to shoot jumpers early in the shot clock a bit too often, but his unpredictability is entertaining. 

It would be enough for the Thunder to have just that dynamic duo. However, they have blocks galore in the form of Serge Ibaka and the one-and-only James Harden. 

You know you want to see the mohawked, bearded wonder coming off the bench and lighting up the scoreboard in the NBA Finals. 

The Spurs may be the better team, as well as my pick to advance to the NBA Finals after dispatching the Thunder in five games, but the Thunder would make for a better Finals matchup with the Heat.