Bad East teams should not make the playoffs over good West teams. Ideas?

[joe]

That is one of the most ridiculous things currently happening in the NBA. Who wants to see the Bobcats in the playoffs over the Suns? Who wants to see under-500 teams getting swept by Lebron every single year? Not only is it boring, it kills the entire point of the playoffs: to decide the best team.

Most obvious solution: Best 16 teams make the playoffs. Abolish the Eastern and Western conferences and have balanced scheduling. Abolish divisions. Teams that coast during the regular season get punished by being placed into tougher brackets. For example last year the Heat would have played the Bulls in the first round.

One game play in:To steal baseballs idea, we make the top 6 teams in each conference guaranteed to make the playoffs. After that, the next best 8 teams face off in one game play ins. Last year, it would have looked like this:

1: Memphis
8: Denver

2: Dallas
7: Knicks

3: Phoenix
6: Atlanta

4: Charlotte
5: Minnesota

The winning 4 teams get in. Who would not watch these games? Just the allure of a one game play-in is fascinating, regardless of how likely each team would be to actually win the championship. Is Charlotte-Minnesota an interesting game under normal circumstances? Hell no. But in a one game elimination match for the playoffs? That would be amazing.

Not to mention, teams like Phoenix, who have tremendous W-L records, are not ousted by teams like Charlotte. If your record is good enough with this system, you will have a chance to make the playoffs. That is how it should be decided, not by outdated conference systems.

Another great benefit of this system: it puts more teams in the playoff hunt, but doesnt actually increase the total number of playoff teams. Fanbases like New Orleans, Cleveland, and Denver would have been emotionally invested until the very end of the season, because their teams were JUST CLOSE ENOUGH to making the 1 game playoff. That is the same effect we see in baseball. And yet, playoff integrity is not sacrificed because you dont increase the number of teams who actually make it.

If I had to vote, I like the second idea. I love one game playoffs in basketball, and it is a shame that the NBA doesnt have any. Why wait until game 7 to have a winner take all playoff game? We can have 4 every single year!




SO...




What are your ideas? The NBA needs to get a little radical with Adam Silver at the helm. The NFL is vulnerable right now, with concussions and all their PR problems. The NBA needs to take advantage and it starts with RADICAL IDEAS.

[navy]

The only reason i agree with this is the lottery system.

[Real14]

Let's see how this season go first

[JohnMax]

all of them except Cleveland and Chicago

[Real14]

all of them except Cleveland and Chicago
And Miami, Washington, New York.

[oarabbus]

Made this thread a few days ago :D


You all know how bad the JV league aka Eastern Conference of the NBA is, currently. I'm guessing SA/OKC/GS/LAC/DAL/POR/HOU/MEM make playoffs. But the thing is, the Pelicans, Nuggets, Suns, hell maybe Kings and Jazz could be fighting for a playoff spot out east. Eventually though, at some point in the future the West is going to be weaker than the East. The NBA could fix that with wildcards.

For playoffs, the top 2 teams in each division qualify, which fills 6 playoff seeds in each conference. Seeds 7 and 8, are given to the 4 teams not in the playoffs with the best record, regardless of conference. I don't know how they'd decide which conference the wild card winners go into but I'm sure Silver is smart enough to figure it out. Maybe the best wildcard gets the 7th seed spot vs the #2 seed with the lower record. next one plays the other two seed.


Silver could make it even nicer with a play-in game to get a wildcard slot. It would make teams take the regular season more seriously through the end too.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=356094

[joe]

Made this thread a few days ago :D



http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=356094

My bad man! This forum moves so quick sometimes, hard to keep up with it. I always think about this topic. We keep being told that it is cyclical, but the West has been clearly superior since at least the time when people were worried about Y2K. Enough is, as the French say, enough..

[bluechox2]

you end up with two west teams in the finals, which suck
a better idea is to move dallas/memphis/hosuton (only need 2), to the east

send out detroit and Milwaukee

[oarabbus]

you end up with two west teams in the finals, which suck
a better idea is to move dallas/memphis/hosuton (only need 2), to the east

send out detroit and Milwaukee

This guy is an idiot. Nothing wrong with the best two teams making the finals, and where is the guarantee that DAL/MEM/HOU will always be good? This does nothing to fix the problem. `



My bad man! This forum moves so quick sometimes, hard to keep up with it. I always think about this topic. We keep being told that it is cyclical, but the West has been clearly superior since at least the time when people were worried about Y2K. Enough is, as the French say, enough..


All good your topic has garnered more discussion anyway :cheers:

And true, I was trying to be "politically correct"... but the fact is The West superiority has lasted a LONG time now. And the play-in game to make playoffs is a GREAT idea, it will cause a lot of excitement, and result in teams taking the regular season seriously down to the end.

[smoovegittar]

I disagree. Besides, the East is gaining in strength every year. Too many older stars in the West.

[Legends66NBA7]

Radical ideas, hmmm ?

Get rid of conferences and divisions. Run the Top 16 format. I'm almost sure that it will yield similar results in terms of who the NBA champion is.

[oarabbus]

I disagree. Besides, the East is gaining in strength every year. Too many older stars in the West.

Wildcard play-ins result in the best teams getting in regardless of conference. And if the conferences are balanced, it's the exact same as it is now :confusedshrug:

Literally better in every way

[Sportal]

The problem the NBA seemingly would have with this idea is as follows:

The season - How do you make the season even?

The "rivalries" - Even though we know the Lakers/Celtics won't be making the Finals anytime soon, I would assume they reckon that these great rivalries from YEARS ago would be taken away from the NBA. But you could have the Lakers and Celtics in the first round... That would be awesome.

The pros to this is all quite obvious:

You have the best 16 teams in the NBA competing for the title of Champions.

The Lottery works out a lot better, the teams that truly need franchise changing faces get a better chance at getting them.

But this year we could have, let us just assume that the bottom of the West playoff positions pan-out as follows:

MEM
HOU
------
PHX
NO
SAC

etc.

Lets just assume these 5 teams are separated by 2-5 games, that's 3 good NBA teams that miss the Playoffs that year and are essentially stuck in mediocrity. That's poor. They don't get a good lottery pick and do not make playoff games. Being in the playoffs make teams more money. Those 3 are more than likely better than the 5-8 seed in the East, or 2/3 are.

The format right now just doesn't work, but it would be a pretty impressive restructure to have all sides happy, team owners and the players' union.

[Sarcastic]

Of the top 16 teams last year, 7 were in the East and 9 were in the West. You guys want to remove Conferences because 1 team in the West missed the playoffs, that would have been a bottom seeded team and lost in the first round anyway? You guys are trying to fix something that is not broken.

[oarabbus]

Of the top 16 teams last year, 7 were in the East and 9 were in the West. You guys want to remove Conferences because 1 team in the West missed the playoffs, that would have been a bottom seeded team and lost in the first round anyway? You guys are trying to fix something that is not broken.

You aren't getting it. The only reason some of those top 16 East teams had that good of a record is because... wait for it... they had way more games against shit East teams. It's very broken how is that not obvious :facepalm


edit: the East let in sub-500 teams for god's sake. No team with a losing record should EVER be in playoffs in ANY sport. You are horribly misrepresenting the facts.

[Legends66NBA7]

You aren't getting it. The only reason some of those top 16 East teams had that good of a record is because... wait for it... they had way more games against shit East teams. It's very broken how is that not obvious :facepalm


edit: the East let in sub-500 teams for god's sake. No team with a losing record should EVER be in playoffs in ANY sport. You are horribly misrepresenting the facts.

Would you say the new format would have a different result to who the NBA champion is ?

[joe]

The problem the NBA seemingly would have with this idea is as follows:

The season - How do you make the season even?

The "rivalries" - Even though we know the Lakers/Celtics won't be making the Finals anytime soon, I would assume they reckon that these great rivalries from YEARS ago would be taken away from the NBA. But you could have the Lakers and Celtics in the first round... That would be awesome.


Speaking of radical ideas, I think they should do this with the schedule:

Every team plays every other team at least twice, and on a rotating basis, play certain teams three times.

SO... two games a piece against 20 teams. That is 40 games.
Three games a piece against the remaining 9, you get 27.

40+27 = 67 game season.

But wait, the owners would never cut the amount of games, that would mean less profit!

Um, is the NFL not the most profitable sports league in America? Does the NFL only play 16 games? So how could that be?

There is a WEAK correlation between season length and profit. Baseball season is long as hell, and they still are just as popular as basketball. Where is the evidence that more games simply means more profit? That is a shallow way, a short sighted way to view things.

What about the complaint that players never try during the regular season? What about the complaint that the games do not matter? How many fans does the NBA lose to this perception? How much potential jersey sales, tickets purchased, and ratings does the NBA lose to this perception? I bet the number is huge.

You can attract so many fans by cutting the season. Market how the games will be that much more important. Market players giving it their all to win every game. Change the perception that NBA players are lazy for 90% of the year and then just start trying during the playoffs. Then you might be able to challenge the NFL.

[joe]

Radical ideas, hmmm ?

Get rid of conferences and divisions. Run the Top 16 format. I'm almost sure that it will yield similar results in terms of who the NBA champion is.

Maybe, maybe not. Grantland created a bracket last year, and the Heat would have had a TOUGH road to the finals. They had OKC I think in their bracket, Memphis. That was all before they even reached the finals. Technically the Heat didnt win last year anyway, so your point stands. But the fact is, having to face better overall competition could knock some potential champions out, who will have a greater chance of facing off against a bad matchup for them, or just seeing too many good teams in a row. Facing one 60 win team is doable. What about 2 in a row, or 3 championship level teams in a row?

[Milbuck]

you end up with two west teams in the finals, which suck
a better idea is to move dallas/memphis/hosuton (only need 2), to the east

send out detroit and Milwaukee
:whatever:

[oarabbus]

Would you say the new format would have a different result to who the NBA champion is ?


I'm not sure I could say that. Using this format the Spurs win last year and the Heat the year before that.

Again the BENEFITS of this system is except the VERY worst teams, EVERY team will take the entire season seriously, and the play-in game adds a lot of excitement. It has ALL the advantages of our current system, while removing the disadvantages - as we currently see sub-500 teams making it into the playoffs. This shouldn't happen.

[sirkeelma]

Radical ideas, hmmm ?

Get rid of conferences and divisions. Run the Top 16 format. I'm almost sure that it will yield similar results in terms of who the NBA champion is.

This.

Or maybe they can do the
1 VS 16
2 VS 15
3 VS 14
and so on..

[Sarcastic]

You aren't getting it. The only reason some of those top 16 East teams had that good of a record is because... wait for it... they had way more games against shit East teams. It's very broken how is that not obvious :facepalm


edit: the East let in sub-500 teams for god's sake. No team with a losing record should EVER be in playoffs in ANY sport. You are horribly misrepresenting the facts.


What you're not getting is that the NBA is not gonna diminish of local rivalries, and make a balanced schedule where every team plays each team an equal number of times because 1 team didn't make the playoffs that some people feel should have. The cost of travel, as well as the decrease in ticket sales is not worth it.

[Nuff Said]

I'm not sure I could say that. Using this format the Spurs win last year and the Heat the year before that.

Again the BENEFITS of this system is except the VERY worst teams, EVERY team will take the entire season seriously, and the play-in game adds a lot of excitement. It has ALL the advantages of our current system, while removing the disadvantages - as we currently see sub-500 teams making it into the playoffs. This shouldn't happen.
It would greatly enhance tanking as there would be teams completely out of the playoffs race without divisions and conferences.

[Kblaze8855]

We keep being told that it is cyclical, but the West has been clearly superior since at least the time when people were worried about Y2K. Enough is, as the French say, enough..

Because it is.

There was a point where like 26 of 30 years the East won the title...or the Lakers did.

The Lakers won the west like...half the western conferences existence. Its like 30 of 60 years.

Lakers aside the east has owned the NBA its entire history.

The East had the real tough playoffs for what...12-15 years?

Lakers were playing 40 win teams in the WCF while the Celtics, Pistons, 76ers, Bulls, Bucks, and so on killed each other.

The east was stronger in the 60s...the 80s...most of the 90s.

The west is having its time. It wont last forever. Nothing does. Its just the bounce of lottery balls and draft night decisions.

The Celtics win the lottery in 97 and the Bucks keep Dirk these topics might exist about the west right now.

Players come and go...and strong teams with them.

The guys who kept the west strong are aging. Up to everyone to draft better and make the right early decisions for the next era.

The west did the best job from 95-04 or so and gave them a run of power.

The new league is being born.

We will have to see how it unfolds.

Its entirely possible a coinflip in 1979 is the reason the east didnt win 20 rings in a row.

Seemingly small things can cast large shadows.

[joe]

Because it is.

There was a point where like 26 of 30 years the East won the title...or the Lakers did.

The Lakers won the west like...half the western conferences existence. Its like 30 of 60 years.

Lakers aside the east has owned the NBA its entire history.

The East had the real tough playoffs for what...12-15 years?

Lakers were playing 40 win teams in the WCF while the Celtics, Pistons, 76ers, Bulls, Bucks, and so on killed each other.

The east was stronger in the 60s...the 80s...most of the 90s.

The west is having its time. It wont last forever. Nothing does. Its just the bounce of lottery balls and draft night decisions.

The Celtics win the lottery in 97 and the Bucks keep Dirk these topics might exist about the west right now.

Players come and go...and strong teams with them.

The guys who kept the west strong are aging. Up to everyone to draft better and make the right early decisions for the next era.

The west did the best job from 95-04 or so and gave them a run of power.

The new league is being born.

We will have to see how it unfolds.

Its entirely possible a coinflip in 1979 is the reason the east didnt win 20 rings in a row.

Seemingly small things can cast large shadows.

I can understand that, and I appreciate your historical perspective. The West will not always be better than the East. But this has been going on for 15 years! That is a long enough time, in my opinion, to say that something needs to be done.

Why keep rewarding bad teams and GMs because eventually it will probably flip around? What if it does flip and then the East is great for 20+ years while the West is terrible? We can have better balance right now, and add single elimination tournaments to boot. It is a win-win.

[Sarcastic]

Why does something have to be done? You wanna change everything because 1/30th of the league is harmed? The cost to the other 29 teams is greater than the travesty imposed on the 1 WC team.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Top 16 i been said this for years.........Phoenix didnt make the playoffs and they wouldve ran train on every East team besides the Heats

[joe]

Why does something have to be done? You wanna change everything because 1/30th of the league is harmed? The cost to the other 29 teams is greater than the travesty imposed on the 1 WC team.

This is bigger than just Phoenix. Why did Memphis have to be a 7 seed? Why should they have had to play OKC in the first round? Actually, OKC was one of the best teams in the league. Why were they punished with Memphis in the first round?

I think the integrity of the playoffs is harmed, not just one team. The meaningfulness of playoff races.

Why should Miami get a pass with Charlotte in round 1? Miami was not deserving of a one seed last year. Just because they played in a bad conference was that the case. They coasted all year and would have been a 5 seed in a top-16 teams tournament. That is what you get for cutting payroll and not trying your hardest in December.

What is the cost to the other teams exactly? Like, bad East teams still being able to make the playoffs despite their badness? Good East teams no longer getting a pass for the entire playoffs?

[ArbitraryWater]

I'll always stick with:

No 2 conferences, 1 league, 30 teams, 16 make the playoffs...

58 regular season games (every team plays another twice, home & away).

Playoffs stay the same, best of 7 all 4 rounds, no bye's or shortened series', all in H-H-A-A-H-A-H format.

[ArbitraryWater]

This.

Or maybe they can do the
1 VS 16
2 VS 15
3 VS 14
and so on..

duh, what else do you think they would do with top 16?

[ArbitraryWater]

This is bigger than just Phoenix. Why did Memphis have to be a 7 seed? Why should they have had to play OKC in the first round? Actually, OKC was one of the best teams in the league. Why were they punished with Memphis in the first round?

I think the integrity of the playoffs is harmed, not just one team. The meaningfulness of playoff races.

Why should Miami get a pass with Charlotte in round 1? Miami was not deserving of a one seed last year. Just because they played in a bad conference was that the case. They coasted all year and would have been a 5 seed in a top-16 teams tournament. That is what you get for cutting payroll and not trying your hardest in December.

What is the cost to the other teams exactly? Like, bad East teams still being able to make the playoffs despite their badness? Good East teams no longer getting a pass for the entire playoffs?

This (Although Miami was the 2nd seed)... Only the ignorant are upset by this idea.

What's not to like? The actual TWO BEST TEAMS PLAY IN THE FINAL.... AND it's fair. Seedings and match-ups aren't decided by geographical standings.... Simply by who the best teams were and who earned it the most.

I mean, right now, the entire West is ****ED... It's a damn blood bath. These guys need to battle 82 games to just get into the playoffs... Great teams will not even have home court in the 1st round.

[Sarcastic]

This is bigger than just Phoenix. Why did Memphis have to be a 7 seed? Why should they have had to play OKC in the first round? Actually, OKC was one of the best teams in the league. Why were they punished with Memphis in the first round?

I think the integrity of the playoffs is harmed, not just one team. The meaningfulness of playoff races.

Why should Miami get a pass with Charlotte in round 1? Miami was not deserving of a one seed last year. Just because they played in a bad conference was that the case. They coasted all year and would have been a 5 seed in a top-16 teams tournament. That is what you get for cutting payroll and not trying your hardest in December.

What is the cost to the other teams exactly? Like, bad East teams still being able to make the playoffs despite their badness? Good East teams no longer getting a pass for the entire playoffs?

None of the teams you are talking about have a shot at the title anyway. This isn't baseball where a wildcard can go the World Series. You're making a mountain out of a molehill for teams that have ZERO chance at winning the title.

[I<3NBA]

bad teams should not make it over good teams, period. the solution should cover when the situation gets reversed, and it's the east who is stronger. so for me, top 16 gets in, that's it.

the consequence of that ofc is that it makes the first round boring and almost a formality, reducing the chances of an upset even more. i mean top 1 seed vs 16th seed and so on? even the 2nd round would be a formality. only the 3rd round and final would truly be exciting to watch.

[joe]

None of the teams you are talking about have a shot at the title anyway. This isn't baseball where a wildcard can go the World Series. You're making a mountain out of a molehill for teams that have ZERO chance at winning the title.

They might not have a chance at winning the title, but they could completely alter who eventually does win the title.

The more good teams you play in a row, the higher chance you will stumble across a bad match up. If a great team like the Heat plays the Bobcats, Bulls, and Pacers, they have virtually no chance of not making the finals.

But what if they had OKCs run? Memphis-Clippers-Spurs. Sure, Miami should beat both Memphis and the Clippers. But basketball is all about match ups. You keep playing those top notch teams, and you might run into someone you are better than, but just matches up well with you. It happens.

Dallas could have won the title in 2007, got matched up with Golden State. Phoenix could have win the title with Nash, kept running into the Spurs. The Spurs ran into the Grizzlies.

If someone else eliminates the Warriors in 2007 before the Mavericks have to play them, we might be talking about Dirk as a two time champion. The higher seed does not always win. The best teams should not be given tougher roads just because they will probably win any way.

[ArbitraryWater]

They might not have a chance at winning the title, but they could completely alter who eventually does win the title.

The more good teams you play in a row, the higher chance you will stumble across a bad match up. If a great team like the Heat plays the Bobcats, Bulls, and Pacers, they have virtually no chance of not making the finals.

But what if they had OKCs run? Memphis-Clippers-Spurs. Sure, Miami should beat both Memphis and the Clippers. But basketball is all about match ups. You keep playing those top notch teams, and you might run into someone you are better than, but just matches up well with you. It happens.

Dallas could have won the title in 2007, got matched up with Golden State. Phoenix could have win the title with Nash, kept running into the Spurs. The Spurs ran into the Grizzlies.

If someone else eliminates the Warriors in 2007 before the Mavericks have to play them, we might be talking about Dirk as a two time champion. The higher seed does not always win. The best teams should not be given tougher roads just because they will probably win any way.

Good post... Mavericks would never match up with the GSW, who says they start to stumble? At what point?

After the first round win they likely go on to win it all.

[joe]

The 2007 Playoffs (where the Mavericks lost to Golden State) would have looked like this:

1. Mavericks
16. Orlando

8. Chicago
9. Toronto

4. Detroit
13. Golden State

5. Houston
12. Lakers


2. Phoenix
15. Washington

7. Cleveland
10. Denver

3. Spurs
14. New Jersey

6. Utah
11. Miami


The Mavericks, 67 game winners, get basically two free rounds before they have to play a worthy team. The lower bracket is filled with some tough teams, punishment for not winning as many games as the Mavericks. We get Nash and the Suns against Lebron in round two. Golden State vs the Flip Saunders Pistons.

How does that not look, like, 100x more exciting than what actually happened?

[joe]

Last year would have been:

1. San Antonio
16. Atlanta

8. Golden State
9. Memphis

4. Indiana
13. Washington

5. Miami
12. Chicago

The Spurs have a far easier round, though a probably tougher round 2. However, they get Miami in round 3 instead of OKC, who was probably the actual 2nd best team last year.

The Heat are punished for their slacking off last year. They start with a hard working Chicago team and go right to Indiana. After that it is the Spurs. That is what you get.

2. OKC
15. Charlotte

7. Portland
10. Dallas

3. Clippers
14. Brooklyn

6. Houston
11. Toronto

OKC gets the easier run they deserved. Instead of running the Memphis-Golden State-Spurs gauntlet, they have an easy first round and a slightly tougher round 2. Round 3 gets interesting against the Clippers.

In the end, we get what was probably the real finals last year: OKC vs the Spurs.

[Kblaze8855]

If a 67 win team loses in the first round...to a 41 win team that got beat in 5 by the Jazz I might add...blaming the system is just letting them off the hook for poor performance.

You win or you lose. A great team falling apart vs a bad matchup doesnt mean the system is broken.

They won the 5th most games in NBA history.

There is no excuse for losing in the first round.

At least none to justify changing the league to prevent it.

The lowest seed has won like 5 times in 65 years.

And a couple were injury related.

Its not that big a deal.

The mixed playoffs would be fun to watch.

But teams have been dealing with it forever. It isnt some recent issue. Conferences will never be even for any extended period of time. Not one...but TWO sub .500 teams were in the WCF once in the 80s. Two 40 win teams played eachother to make the finals for the right to be beaten by the Celtics. Im sure 10 teams in the east could have beaten them or had a competitive series. But they didnt get to.

Its this way in all sports.

Divisions/conferences exist.

All you can do is win yours. some years you get it easy..some years you dont.

[Hey Yo]

The 2007 Playoffs (where the Mavericks lost to Golden State) would have looked like this:

1. Mavericks
16. Orlando

8. Chicago
9. Toronto

4. Detroit
13. Golden State

5. Houston
12. Lakers


2. Phoenix
3. Washington

7. Cleveland
10. Denver

3. Spurs
14. New Jersey

6. Utah
11. Miami


The Mavericks, 67 game winners, get basically two free rounds before they have to play a worthy team. The lower bracket is filled with some tough teams, punishment for not winning as many games as the Mavericks. We get Nash and the Suns against Lebron in round two. Golden State vs the Flip Saunders Pistons.

How does that not look, like, 100x more exciting than what actually happened?
You left out the 15th seed.

[joe]

If a 67 win team loses in the first round...to a 41 win team that got beat in 5 by the Jazz I might add...blaming the system is just letting them off the hook for poor performance.

As an aside, I would like to note that the Warriors completely blew that series against the Jazz. Slowing down the tempo in the final minutes instead of continuing to slam it down Utahs throat. Could have (should have) been Warriors-Spurs in the WCF.


You win or you lose. A great team falling apart vs a bad matchup doesnt mean the system is broken.

They won the 5th most games in NBA history.

There is no excuse for losing in the first round.

At least none to justify changing the league to prevent it.

The lowest seed has won like 5 times in 65 years.

And a couple were injury related.

Its not that big a deal.


I would agree with this, but why let it continue? It is not that big of a deal, but why just keep it in place when it is silly? Why is OKC facing a ridiculous stretch of teams when it does not have to happen? Why are we watching Indiana play garbage East teams when they dont deserve to? Especially when:


The mixed playoffs would be fun to watch.

We keep watching these same teams every year duke it out. I will puke if I see another Chicago-Miami playoff game, or Atlanta against every damn team in the East. Sick sick sick of it. Even Clippers-New Jersey is an interesting series just because of the novelty of it. And with the top-16 teams making it, I think you would have more variance from year to year with who plays who.

[joe]

You left out the 15th seed.

Fixed

[HurricaneKid]

You aren't getting it. The only reason some of those top 16 East teams had that good of a record is because... wait for it... they had way more games against shit East teams. It's very broken how is that not obvious :facepalm


edit: the East let in sub-500 teams for god's sake. No team with a losing record should EVER be in playoffs in ANY sport. You are horribly misrepresenting the facts.

This is absurd. The Giants won the Super Bowl 3 years ago and had been outscored in the regular season by 20 points. A few years before that the Cardinals won the World Series as an 83-79 team. The NBA has a much better track record of getting the best team to their title.

But you want to do away with that because a 9 seed didn't get to the playoffs. You want to throw away the things that are universal between ALL sports: accepted divisions, etc because Suns?

GTFO.

[joe]

This is absurd. The Giants won the Super Bowl 3 years ago and had been outscored in the regular season by 20 points. A few years before that the Cardinals won the World Series as an 83-79 team. The NBA has a much better track record of getting the best team to their title.

But you want to do away with that because a 9 seed didn't get to the playoffs. You want to throw away the things that are universal between ALL sports: accepted divisions, etc because Suns?

GTFO.

But the NBA is the only sport where divisions do not really matter. In the MLB wining your division is by far the cleanest way to get into the playoffs. If you don't, only TWO teams have a shot, and they have to do a one game playoff. That is huge punishment for not winning your division.

In the NFL, only two non-division winners get into the playoffs. And you play other teams in your division for over 30% of your entire schedule!

In the NBA, FIVE non-division winners make it from each conference. And you play your division rivals like 4% more than other teams. There is no substance behind NBA divisions, it is just there as a placeholder. There is literally zero point in NBA divisions.

Not to mention, since the NBA is the one sport where the best team will almost always win, it makes the most sense to simply rank everyone 1-16. Put the best 16 in, and go ahead and lets see who wins. In the NFL, the Giants can win the super bowl as a wild card. That doesnt happen in the NBA literally ever, so why let bad teams get into the playoffs to begin with?

[Kblaze8855]

Thats just it...

This is how ALL SPORTS are.

At least in America.

Sure it would be fun and different to see a Warriors/Bulls playoff series.

It would also have robbed us of some of the most major and compelling rivalries in history.

I cant even imagine the 80s NBA without the Celtics/76ers rivalry(they still had beef when it was Dana Barros vs Dee brown in the 90s).

Or the Bulls/Knicks...Knicks/heat.

The Lakers and Celtics just...belonged in the finals. They wouldnt always have been the two top seeds. They could have met earlier and left us with a Bucks/Celtics finals.

Your old foe...the playoff rivals...its part of sports.

Id love a Bulls/Knicks series that really mattered right now. If only for the pregame intro id get goosebumps.

There would be no emotional attachment to a Bulls/Nuggets series. No old rivalries. Just random mashups.

Exciting in a novelty way....

But me...I didnt mind the Suns/Spurs meeting so many times.

It was compelling every time. And when the Suns finally won? That 4th quarter from Dragic suddenly becoming a 6'3'' point guard Hakeem killing people with post fakes and stepping out for 3s?

It was epic just for the crowd to get to witness....finally beat the spurs!

I was glad the Bulls got to play the Pistons again after getting killed all those years.

It creates an emotional investment. Id never have been as satisfied seeing the Bulls beat the Mavericks to make the finals. I needed to see the Pistons slink off...vanquished.

And even with all the hate the yearly rivalries brings...there is also the respect long term. Watching Webber and Shaq on Open court talk about those battles.

The Celtics crowd...game 7...chanting "Beat LA!" to support their rivals who just knocked them out. Celtics hated the 76ers...but they want SOMEONE to Beat LA just for old times sake. Same way when Mchale told the Pistons to go beat LA after they knocked them out. Celtics/Pistons hated eachother...but those battles built a level of mutual respect.

You would lose so much of the history and emotion.

You would so rarely even get a repeat series for fans/teams to restart a rivalry.

I dont think you give up on all that history because people think the system is broken....because it went one way for a decade...after it was the other way for 2.

[ArbitraryWater]

If a 67 win team loses in the first round...to a 41 win team that got beat in 5 by the Jazz I might add...blaming the system is just letting them off the hook for poor performance.

You win or you lose. A great team falling apart vs a bad matchup doesnt mean the system is broken.

They won the 5th most games in NBA history.

There is no excuse for losing in the first round.

At least none to justify changing the league to prevent it.

The lowest seed has won like 5 times in 65 years.

And a couple were injury related.

Its not that big a deal.

The mixed playoffs would be fun to watch.

But teams have been dealing with it forever. It isnt some recent issue. Conferences will never be even for any extended period of time. Not one...but TWO sub .500 teams were in the WCF once in the 80s. Two 40 win teams played eachother to make the finals for the right to be beaten by the Celtics. Im sure 10 teams in the east could have beaten them or had a competitive series. But they didnt get to.

Its this way in all sports.

Divisions/conferences exist.

All you can do is win yours. some years you get it easy..some years you dont.

And while you wrote all that, you didn't ONCE figure that there is room for improvement and you can change it to make it equal for EVERY team?

REALLY?

So because the Issue has been one for forever, it can KEEP being one?

It's solvable....

[ArbitraryWater]

You can talk about rivalries all you want, at the end of the day, teams are getting the short end of the stick, and thats unfair....

And I'm sure Celtics/Lakers would still have clashed as many times in the Finals as they did...

[HurricaneKid]

But the NBA is the only sport where divisions do not really matter. In the MLB wining your division is by far the cleanest way to get into the playoffs. If you don't, only TWO teams have a shot, and they have to do a one game playoff. That is huge punishment for not winning your division.

In the NFL, only two non-division winners get into the playoffs. And you play other teams in your division for over 30% of your entire schedule!

In the NBA, FIVE non-division winners make it from each conference. And you play your division rivals like 4% more than other teams. There is no substance behind NBA divisions, it is just there as a placeholder. There is literally zero point in NBA divisions.

Not to mention, since the NBA is the one sport where the best team will almost always win, it makes the most sense to simply rank everyone 1-16. Put the best 16 in, and go ahead and lets see who wins. In the NFL, the Giants can win the super bowl as a wild card. That doesnt happen in the NBA literally ever, so why let bad teams get into the playoffs to begin with?

Of COURSE the NBA has schedule inequity due to conference.


That doesnt happen in the NBA literally ever, so why let bad teams get into the playoffs to begin with?

I'm sorry. What? This team has NO CHANCE. SO WE HAVE TO BREAK EVERYTHING SO THEY HAVE A CHANCE. THAT THEY WON'T REALLY HAVE.

[joe]

I dont think you give up on all that history because people think the system is broken....because it went one way for a decade...after it was the other way for 2.


I am about to agree with you on a bunch of things so judge my response here fairly. That is 30 years of likely more deserving teams missing the playoffs. Regardless of which conference it is from, is that not off to you?

Forget having the top 16 teams make it, what did you think of my second idea in the OP? That basically heals every side of the issue. Every year, the top 6 teams from each conference would remain in their conference. It is only the bottom seeds who would be subject to change, and that would allow more deserving teams (like Phoenix) to still make the playoffs.


Thats just it...

This is how ALL SPORTS are.

At least in America.

Sure it would be fun and different to see a Warriors/Bulls playoff series.

It would also have robbed us of some of the most major and compelling rivalries in history.

I cant even imagine the 80s NBA without the Celtics/76ers rivalry(they still had beef when it was Dana Barros vs Dee brown in the 90s).

Or the Bulls/Knicks...Knicks/heat.

The Lakers and Celtics just...belonged in the finals. They wouldnt always have been the two top seeds. They could have met earlier and left us with a Bucks/Celtics finals.

Your old foe...the playoff rivals...its part of sports.

Id love a Bulls/Knicks series that really mattered right now. If only for the pregame intro id get goosebumps.

There would be no emotional attachment to a Bulls/Nuggets series. No old rivalries. Just random mashups.

Exciting in a novelty way....

But me...I didnt mind the Suns/Spurs meeting so many times.

It was compelling every time. And when the Suns finally won? That 4th quarter from Dragic suddenly becoming a 6'3'' point guard Hakeem killing people with post fakes and stepping out for 3s?

It was epic just for the crowd to get to witness....finally beat the spurs!

I was glad the Bulls got to play the Pistons again after getting killed all those years.

It creates an emotional investment. Id never have been as satisfied seeing the Bulls beat the Mavericks to make the finals. I needed to see the Pistons slink off...vanquished.

And even with all the hate the yearly rivalries brings...there is also the respect long term. Watching Webber and Shaq on Open court talk about those battles.

The Celtics crows...game 7...chanting "Beat LA!" to support their rivals who just knocked them out. Celtics hated the 76ers...but they want SOMEONE to Beat LA just for old times sake.

You would lose so much of the history and emotion.

You would so rarely even get a repeat series for fans/teams to restart a rivalry.


I can agree with this. There is something special about conference rivalries. Seeing the Cavaliers and Pistons, the Cavaliers and Celtics, and Suns vs Spurs, those were special series that became more special every time they played.

At the same time, rivalries can still build with the top 16. The Suns and Spurs likely still would have met several times. The Lakers Celtics in the 80s would have met repeatedly. The Kings and Lakers would probably be the finals more often, which is how it should have been. Those Nets teams in the finals was something of a small atrocity.

I wouldnt even mind going further the other way - having teams play their own conference even more. If we are going to make everything conference based, you should have more of a say against your own conference. Think of baseball. You have inter-conference play, but it is a less common thing. Say, two games a year against every team from the other conference. That is 15 games, or you can up it to 20-25 if you like. That leaves about 58-68 games against your own conference. Then you can really build up some conference rivalries.

[Kblaze8855]

You can talk about rivalries all you want, at the end of the day, teams are getting the short end of the stick, and thats unfair....

And I'm sure Celtics/Lakers would still have clashed as many times in the Finals as they did...


You cant be sure of anything hypothetical. What I can be sure of is that the current system generated history at a rate the proposed one never could...if only due to reducing the times teams could meet and develop the rivalries that defined every era of the the league.

Im just not as excited to see Jordans Bulls play the Spurs as I am to see them play the Knicks again.

The 96 rematch vs the Magic after so many friends of mine had become Magic fans....one of the sweetest series wins of my life.

I wouldnt want to give up such things so some teams that arent gonna win anyway....lose to someone else instead of not making it.

I can see the fun in both ways.

Not like I wouldnt watch. It would be interesting.

It just wouldnt leave as much room for the kind of rivalries that did so much to build the sport.

[joe]

Of COURSE the NBA has schedule inequity due to conference.



I'm sorry. What? This team has NO CHANCE. SO WE HAVE TO BREAK EVERYTHING SO THEY HAVE A CHANCE. THAT THEY WON'T REALLY HAVE.

Again, what about the effect of OKC, the 2nd ranked team in the NBA last year, having to play Memphis in round 1? What if they had lost? They might have made the finals otherwise. Maybe Ibaka never gets hurt if round 1 and 2 are basically cupcakes. There is a bigger effect than simply one team, this ends up effecting every single team.

And lets just say it really is only about Phoenix missing the playoffs. Okay, only one team missed the playoffs. Not a big deal. But why should that be the case? Why should the Hawks and Bobcats be in over Phoenix? Why are fans being denied Goran Dragic and Bledsoe, so they can watch Kemba Walker and the boring bunch?

[tpols]

If a 67 win team loses in the first round...to a 41 win team that got beat in 5 by the Jazz I might add...blaming the system is just letting them off the hook for poor performance.

You win or you lose. A great team falling apart vs a bad matchup doesnt mean the system is broken.

They won the 5th most games in NBA history.

There is no excuse for losing in the first round.

At least none to justify changing the league to prevent it.

The lowest seed has won like 5 times in 65 years.

And a couple were injury related.

Its not that big a deal.

The mixed playoffs would be fun to watch.

But teams have been dealing with it forever. It isnt some recent issue. Conferences will never be even for any extended period of time. Not one...but TWO sub .500 teams were in the WCF once in the 80s. Two 40 win teams played eachother to make the finals for the right to be beaten by the Celtics. Im sure 10 teams in the east could have beaten them or had a competitive series. But they didnt get to.

Its this way in all sports.

Divisions/conferences exist.

All you can do is win yours. some years you get it easy..some years you dont.

So because the system's always been flawed, fk it.. lets just keep it that way.

[Kblaze8855]

Nobody but us knows who Goran Dragic is.

And you keep asking why it is the way it is....

What....isnt this way?

What sport/league?

Really im wondering.

In what sports do you not win your conference to make the finals?

That isnt me saying they dont exist...its a legit question.

Id like to see how it works for them.

EPL soccer have conferences? I dont believe they do...

[Hey Yo]

As an aside, I would like to note that the Warriors completely blew that series against the Jazz. Slowing down the tempo in the final minutes instead of continuing to slam it down Utahs throat. Could have (should have) been Warriors-Spurs in the WCF.



I would agree with this, but why let it continue? It is not that big of a deal, but why just keep it in place when it is silly? Why is OKC facing a ridiculous stretch of teams when it does not have to happen? Why are we watching Indiana play garbage East teams when they dont deserve to? Especially when:



We keep watching these same teams every year duke it out. I will puke if I see another Chicago-Miami playoff game, or Atlanta against every damn team in the East. Sick sick sick of it. Even Clippers-New Jersey is an interesting series just because of the novelty of it. And with the top-16 teams making it, I think you would have more variance from year to year with who plays who.
Miami has faced Chicago 4 times in the last 10 postseasons. Twice when LeBron was with Miami. That's not that many times.

[ArbitraryWater]

You cant be sure of anything hypothetical. What I can be sure of is that the current system generated history at a rate the proposed one never could...if only due to reducing the times teams could meet and develop the rivalries that defined every era of the the league.

Im just not as excited to see Jordans Bulls play the Spurs as I am to see them play the Knicks again.

The 96 rematch vs the Magic after so many friends of mine had become Magic fans....one of the sweetest series wins of my life.

I wouldnt want to give up such things so some teams that arent gonna win anyway....lose to someone else instead of not making it.

I can see the fun in both ways.

Not like I wouldnt watch. It would be interesting.

It just wouldnt leave as much room for the kind of rivalries that did so much to build the sport.

But it doesn't matter... IN MY OPINION, what's fair to all teams, should matter most... Instead of us possibly missing out on a few exciting series'...

I actually think it would be more exciting the top 16 way. Definitely fairer (Does this word exist?).

[Kblaze8855]

So because the system's always been flawed, fk it.. lets just keep it that way.


Every system is flawed. Every system that ever was or will be.

The issue is if the flaws have hurt the game enough to bring in another system.

Frankly....im not sure its hurt the game at all.

What....would the league have been better off in the 90s without Bulls/Knicks series? Or Celtics/76ers being so heated because they knew they probably had to meet?

Is the league better with a Celtics/Lakers finals or a Bucks/Celtics?

Did something about the epic WCF of some recent years bore you?

You didnt care for the Kings/Lakers going 7? What could possibly have been more exciting? It may have been the finals....it could not have happened at all.

If the system doesnt produce a product you find compelling...you wouldnt have been a fan all your life.

Im not sure a new system would make it more compelling.

Id watch it anyway. I watch all NBA basketball.

But im not sure there is much room to improve on history.

Maybe we get a better finals last year...

But we got one of the best of all time the year before...with the very same teams.

So im not sure how broken it is.

It would be different.

Im not sure it much changes the results. Just reduces some of the best elements of playoff ball by making rematches less likely.

Id be more excited in the short term...but change does that.

Im not sure history is better the way you propose. Its pretty ****ing good as it was.

[Kblaze8855]

Maybe my opinion is skewed by being a fan of a team that had great rivalries and yearly matchups.

But it kinda feels like breaking up the NFC east.

The rivalries do more to drive sports than we are giving them credit for.

More in football than basketballl...but still.

I saw people get in fights over the Bulls/Pistons.

It was serious business...

[tpols]

^^^
The way it works in the OPs proposal would basically weed out all the bad teams in the first round and setup similar rivalry matchups for the second round where everyone had a worthy opponent.

Like for instance, last year, barring major upsets, it would have been..

Indy-Miami in the second round instead of the third.
San Antonio vs Golden State or Memphis (SAS has seen them both)
OKC vs portland or Dallas
Clippers vs Houston


It basically would 'correct' the playoffs so that by the second round there are no weak teams left.. It would be 80% west:lol

And honestly thatd be more competitive. If the east gets better it would near 50/50 again but until then we want to see competitive playoff battles on both sides.. none of this indy-heat garbage where everyone knew the heat were gonna win everytime. I want to see them play a team like golden state or memphis.. something unpredictable and exciting.

[ArbitraryWater]

Nobody but us knows who Goran Dragic is.

And you keep asking why it is the way it is....

What....isnt this way?

What sport/league?

Really im wondering.

In what sports do you not win your conference to make the finals?

That isnt me saying they dont exist...its a legit question.

Id like to see how it works for them.

EPL soccer have conferences? I dont believe they do...

I think only in America...

Everywhere else its ONE LEAGUE... All teams with equal chances.

[Kblaze8855]

And I would have watched it. Im not saying its a dumb idea...im saying I think a lot of people begging for change arent giving due credit to the amazing playoffs/league the old way gave us. If im a Warriors fan with no real rivalries in living memory maybe I see it differently.

But ive always seen it as a chess match with the top teams. We all know the Thunder are built to beat the spurs. The Knicks built to beat the Bulls...as the Cavs attempted to do(allow me to laugh at the concept of a "Jordan stopper"...lol...laugh complete).

The Heat probably came together because of the Celtics...Wade and Lebron knew they had to beat the Celtics. Doug Christie was brought to the Kings...because they had to deal with Kobe.

I loved that they played 3 straight years. Got to see how all the moves were working out. Back when ISH had "die hard" Kings fans they were always acting like this move or that one would get them past the Lakers. Like Knick fans used to think about the Bulls. You know the Pacers made every move they did looking to knock off the Heat. And the Heat in turn signed Oden hoping he could minimize hibberts impact. Didnt need him i nthe end....but such things interest me.


There is a lot of strategy to building a team to defeat someone you know is in your way.

There are things to lose....and things to gain.

Id support the new system. Watch it like always.

But id miss some of the tinkering, most of the rivalry issues, and the history that goes with it.

[ballinhun8]

People are pretty dumb if they think a first round series of say LA/BRK were to happen.


Geographically it would be stupid to do it. The United States of America is a gigantic country. It is not England, Spain, Italy, nor Germany where it is easy to travel.


Could you imagine a top East team like say Washington having to go play the Clippers, Warriors, and Blazers in three successive rounds?

That seems "fair??"

[joe]

And I would have watched it. Im not saying its a dumb idea...im saying I think a lot of people begging for change arent giving due credit to the amazing playoffs/league the old way gave us. If im a Warriors fan with no real rivalries in living memory maybe I see it differently.

But ive always seen it as a chess match with the top teams. We all know the Thunder are built to beat the spurs. The Knicks built to beat the Bulls...as the Cavs attempted to do(allow me to laugh at the concept of a "Jordan stopper"...lol...laugh complete).

The Heat probably came together because of the Celtics...Wade and Lebron knew they had to beat the Celtics. Doug Christie was brought to the Kings...because they had to deal with Kobe.

I loved that they played 3 straight years. Got to see how all the moves were working out. Back when ISH had "die hard" Kings fans they were always acting like this move or that one would get them past the Lakers. Like Knick fans used to think about the Bulls. You know the Pacers made every move they did looking to knock off the Heat. And the Heat in turn signed Oden hoping he could minimize hibberts impact. Didnt need him i nthe end....but such things interest me.


There is a lot of strategy to building a team to defeat someone you know is in your way.

There are things to lose....and things to gain.

Id support the new system. Watch it like always.

But id miss some of the tinkering, most of the rivalry issues, and the history that goes with it.

I appreciate those things. Other side of the coin? Maybe teams just try and build their own style of team to the max, and we have more defined stylistic teams in the playoffs. But also, teams would still have to adjust. You need a wing defender for Lebron right now, no matter your conference. Things like that. I also like the meta adjustments too like you pointed out.