Imagine if the Nba always had a "Top 16"...

[theoneneo]

We would have never got to see this classic performance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3-to7R2e44

In 1986, the Bulls snuck into the Playoffs with a a whopping 30 wins

I think a total of 18 teams had a better record.

Now I ask, if you had to make a decision either Top 16, or keep it the way it is now, would you? :kobe:

It's not the NBA playoff format that's broken, it's just the league ain't as star driven as it once was. Now I would love to see KD and Goatbrook, as well as AD in the playoffs, but why should the rules change just cause they currently are looking out?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

...And just imagine all the upsets and quality basketball you're missing out on when the TOP teams don't actually get in.

[Genaro]

And can you think about how many good series and performances didn't happen because of this system?

And this ain't about KD, Westbrook or Brow, this is a long time problem since the West is much stronger and usually has 10 .500 teams while in the East you got 2 teams sub .500 going to the playoffs.

[T_L_P]

Top 16 is a great idea.

East teams get it easy enough padding their W/L against each other...why should they also be allowed to get into the Playoffs with 38 wins. :biggums:

The only counter-arguments are bullshit. Who the **** cares about rivalries? The don't exist anymore, and the ones that do are on basketball terms, not historical or geographical ones.

I'm not from America so this argument intrigues me (although I'm not sure how true it is):

Casual fans from the East coast wouldn't get home early enough or stay up late enough to watch a W/W Finals (forget which one). And vice versa for the West.

Does this argument have any stock, or was I just reading BS?

[theoneneo]

So ya'll support when Eastern conference players Collude and basically weaken the already weak conference, reducing it to what it is now?

And don't say this isn't about the Thunder or Anthony Davis, cause this is exactly what it's about. This is where the gripes started coming from.

Thunder are my team(Now that the Lakers are rebuilding) but if they can't pull it together with the remaining games they have left, that's too damn bad, better luck next year. This is the way it's always been, and will most likely always be.

[T_L_P]

So ya'll support when Eastern conference players Collude and basically weaken the already weak conference, reducing it to what it is now?

And don't say this isn't about the Thunder or Anthony Davis, cause this is exactly what it's about. This is where the gripes started coming from.

Thunder are my team(Now that the Lakers are rebuilding) but if they can't pull it together with the remaining games they have left, that's too damn bad, better luck next year. This is the way it's always been, and will most likely always be.

Were you watching last year? People, myself included, were up in arms about the Suns missing the Playoffs.

Star power is overrated. People are starting to see it.

We want good basketball. The Horford-less Hawks last year had no business being in the postseason. The Suns, who would've been a top 5 seed out East (arguably higher given they'd have a joke of a schedule), had lots of business being there.

Again, this isn't about Durant or Davis. It's about seeing the best teams compete. The fact that this year's Heat or Nets might compete in Playoff ball is disgusting. :facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Top 16 is a great idea.

East teams get it easy enough padding their W/L against each other...why should they also be allowed to get into the Playoffs with 38 wins. :biggums:

The only counter-arguments are bullshit. Who the **** cares about rivalries? The don't exist anymore, and the ones that do are on basketball terms, not historical or geographical ones.

I'm not from America so this argument intrigues me (although I'm not sure how true it is):

Casual fans from the East coast wouldn't get home early enough or stay up late enough to watch a W/W Finals (forget which one). And vice versa for the West.

Does this argument have any stock, or was I just reading BS?

The only counter arguments are from "fans" of teams that are doodoo and not in the playoff hunt. :oldlol: I understand WHY they would be opposed to this BUT I'm a basketball fan first, team homer second. The games inegrity and quality would be so much better under this new format. It would probably get teams to quit tanking as well (always a plus).

BTW, The East Coast (New York) is 3 hours ahead of the West (California).

[theoneneo]

Were you watching last year? People, myself included, were up in arms about the Suns missing the Playoffs.

Star power is overrated. People are starting to see it.

We want good basketball. The Horford-less Hawks last year had no business being in the postseason. The Suns, who would've been a top 5 seed out East (arguably higher given they'd have a joke of a schedule), had lots of business being there.

Again, this isn't about Durant or Davis. It's about seeing the best teams compete. The fact that this year's Heat or Nets might compete in Playoff ball is disgusting. :facepalm

I understand, but the west has been tough literally for the last 10 years or so. That's just what it is. But you can't penalize teams because of that.

Eventually the east will bounce back once it's young stars start developing.

If you want a tournament style post season then watch College Basketball.:confusedshrug:

[JellyBean]

The playoff format is fine the way it is. If teams make the playoffs in their conference with 30-35 wins, good for them. The other teams that misses out from the other conference with 40-45 wins, sad that you are in a tough conference. But those are the breaks. It is a cycle.

[Sarcastic]

Everyone's making a big fuss over teams that will just lose in the first round anyway. The 1, 2 or 3 seed of the conference will advance to the finals like 99% of the time anyway.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

...And just imagine all the upsets and quality basketball you're missing out on when the TOP teams don't actually get in.
This.

[Spokelahoma]

I saw an idea someone had a few months ago that I kinda like. Top 6 teams from each conference, then take the next four teams with the best record, doesn't matter their conference

[oarabbus]

I saw an idea someone had a few months ago that I kinda like. Top 6 teams from each conference, then take the next four teams with the best record, doesn't matter their conference

This is the best idea. And if they can implement it with Wild cards it'll make it that much better.

[Roundball_Rock]

Everyone's making a big fuss over teams that will just lose in the first round anyway. The 1, 2 or 3 seed of the conference will advance to the finals like 99% of the time anyway.

Exactly. :oldlol: People are acting like the world was deprived because we did not get to see a few more games of the Suns last year.

All this is overreaction. The West is slightly deeper with 10 solid teams but the East has 6 solid teams now. There will be a disparity in the first round but when we are down to the final 8 teams in the second round there will be comparable strength among the teams. The top teams in the East are comparable to the top teams in the West. People are overreacting last season when key injuries to the Bulls, Nets and Hawks decimated the ranks of East contenders, leaving only the Heat and Pacers. The East was solid in the early 2010's and the final years of the 2000's.

One small change that could reduce the short-term imbalance between the conferences is putting Memphis in the East where it should be. Other than that, stay the course. Preserve the rivalries. The AFC lost the Super Bowl for 15 consecutive years and the NFL survived.

[ArbitraryWater]

Exactly. :oldlol: People are acting like the world was deprived because we did not get to see a few more games of the Suns last year.

All this is overreaction. The West is slightly deeper with 10 solid teams but the East has 6 solid teams now. There will be a disparity in the first round but when we are down to the final 8 teams in the second round there will be comparable strength among the teams. The top teams in the East are comparable to the top teams in the West. People are overreacting last season when key injuries to the Bulls, Nets and Hawks decimated the ranks of East contenders, leaving only the Heat and Pacers. The East was solid in the early 2010's and the final years of the 2000's.

One small change that could reduce the short-term imbalance between the conferences is putting Memphis in the East where it should be.

Smh :facepalm

The playoffs must be incredibly boring to you guys then when its the top 2-3 seeds anyway.


Shit like this makes my blood boil. You have a ****ing Warzone in the West, 8 something elite teams opposed to 3 in the East (last year the East was a Barbie beachhouse), and you guys act like it doesn't matter... ugh

[T_L_P]

Everyone's making a big fuss over teams that will just lose in the first round anyway. The 1, 2 or 3 seed of the conference will advance to the finals like 99% of the time anyway.

The mot juvenile argument I've ever read. Congratulations.

People want to see good basketball. A 6 game series between the Suns and Bulls would be a lot better than a Bulls/Nets sweep (just making up matchups).

If that's how you feel why don't we just skip the first two rounds altogether? :facepalm

[Sarcastic]

The mot juvenile argument I've ever read. Congratulations.

People want to see good basketball. A 6 game series between the Suns and Bulls would be a lot better than a Bulls/Nets sweep (just making up matchups).

If that's how you feel why don't we just skip the first two rounds altogether? :facepalm


Pretty sure the Bulls/Nets series went to 7 games, and was an awesome series.

Why would anyone care to see Suns/Bulls, when the teams haven't had any sort of rivalry since 1993? Regional/conference rivalries are a real thing, and do help promote interest in the sport.

[Roundball_Rock]

Smh :facepalm

The playoffs must be incredibly boring to you guys then when its the top 2-3 seeds anyway.

The first round rarely matters. How often do the #1 or #2 seeds lose in the first round? Usually the 4/5 and maybe the 3/6 series are the only good first round series.


You have a ****ing Warzone in the West, 8 something elite teams opposed to 3 in the East (last year the East was a Barbie beachhouse

A lot of that is hype. Regular season Western races are close but what happens in the playoffs? The first round was epic last year but the Spurs swept the Blazers and embarrassed the Thunder in the next two rounds. In 2013 there was not one 7 game series in the West. The WCSF's were 4-1, 4-2 series and the WCF was another Spurs obliteration, this time in a sweep.

The West has not had a 7 game WCSF since 2011. The WCF has not been truly competitive since 2010. The WCF has not gone 7 games since 2002. In contrast, the East had 7 game ECF's in two of the last three years. The WCF has been lousy almost every year since 2002.


Pretty sure the Bulls/Nets series went to 7 games, and was an awesome series.

Why would anyone care to see Suns/Bulls, when the teams haven't had any sort of rivalry since 1993? Regional/conference rivalries are a real thing, and do help promote interest in the sport.

Exactly. Losing those rivalries so a team like the Suns can lose in the first round is a bad idea.

Right now the Suns are 13th overall. That would mean they would play #4 Houston. #15 New Orleans would play the Warriors. The #16 Thunder would play the Hawks. The Bucks would play the Grizzlies. The Rockets, Warriors, Grizzlies would easily win these series. The Thunder in theory could compete with the Hawks but in practice they have not been dominant this year even when healthy. Moreover, the Thunder are a very fluke team this year due to injuries to both their superstars. We can't lose regional and historical rivalries because the Thunder may finish 9th in one year due to injuries.

[Hey Yo]

Top 16 is a great idea.

East teams get it easy enough padding their W/L against each other...why should they also be allowed to get into the Playoffs with 38 wins. :biggums:

The only counter-arguments are bullshit. Who the **** cares about rivalries? The don't exist anymore, and the ones that do are on basketball terms, not historical or geographical ones.

I'm not from America so this argument intrigues me (although I'm not sure how true it is):

Casual fans from the East coast wouldn't get home early enough or stay up late enough to watch a W/W Finals (forget which one). And vice versa for the West.

Silver's going to have to fudge something in order to keep the TV ratings.

Does this argument have any stock, or was I just reading BS?
Example: Cavs vs Clippers or Toronto vs. Golden St.

Clipps and GS home games on the West coast would tip-off at 7:00 or 7:30pm. That means all fans of the NBA on the East coast would be seeing tip-off at 10:00 or 10:30pm which means they would need to stay up till at least 12:30am or later to watch the whole game and be miserable at work the next day.

Vice versa: Clipps and GS when traveling to the East coast means their fans are pissed because tip-off for them on the West coast is 4:00 or 4:30pm which means they're still at work more than likely and will miss some of the game.

Silver's going to have to crunch some numbers to figure out how to keep the ratings if the scenario's above happen.

[ArbitraryWater]

The first round rarely matters. How often do the #1 or #2 seeds lose in the first round? Usually the 4/5 and maybe the 3/6 series are the only good first round series.



A lot of that is hype. Regular season Western races are close but what happens in the playoffs? The first round was epic last year but the Spurs swept the Blazers and embarrassed the Thunder in the next two rounds. In 2013 there was not one 7 game series in the West. The WCSF's were 4-1, 4-2 series and the WCF was another Spurs obliteration, this time in a sweep.

The West has not had a 7 game WCSF since 2011. The WCF has not been truly competitive since 2010. The WCF has not gone 7 games since 2002. In contrast, the East had 7 game ECF's in two of the last three years. The WCF has been lousy almost every year since 2002.



Exactly. Losing those rivalries so a team like the Suns can lose in the first round is a bad idea.

Right now the Suns are 13th overall. That would mean they would play #4 Houston. #15 New Orleans would play the Warriors. The #16 Thunder would play the Hawks. The Bucks would play the Grizzlies. The Rockets, Warriors, Grizzlies would easily win these series. The Thunder in theory could compete with the Hawks but in practice they have not been dominant this year even when healthy. Moreover, the Thunder are a very fluke team this year due to injuries to both their superstars. We can't lose regional and historical rivalries because the Thunder may finish 9th in one year due to injuries.

Haven't seen so much bullshit in one post in a long time...

Obviously, most of what you say is completely irrelevant.

[tpols]

Yes it should be in that format.. Regional rivalries is a bs argument. Grizzlies clippers gave some of the chippiest best playoff rivalry I've seen over the past five years and they're on opposite sides of the country. Spurs Lakers was a constant rivalry and there very far apart.. It doesn't matter at all how close two teams are nowadays. Just want to see good competitive ball every round.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Haven't seen so much bullshit in one post in a long time...

Obviously, most of what you say is completely irrelevant.

That Laker and Celtics rivalry sure is special. Two lottery tanking teams battling for bragging rights... for who's actually worse.

Nobody cares about "rivarlies" unless teams are good. Period.

[OnFire]

Nobdy from the east wants to stay up until 2am trying to watch their team in a round 1 playoff matchup with days beteween lasting multiple weeks... just because the Suns... who are barely relevant, can come in and lose round 1 instead of a east coast team...

I really dont see the big deal. Playoffs are not round robin, there being more tough West teams is just an excuse for west coast fans who think they will win the title of they can be in the east. Stop hiding from San Antonio bitches, you still will have to face them in the finals, does mean really that much? Play 3 good teams instead of 2 good teams? Then you have to play the Finals.

[Roundball_Rock]

Example: Cavs vs Clippers or Toronto vs. Golden St.

Clipps and GS home games on the West coast would tip-off at 7:00 or 7:30pm. That means all fans of the NBA on the East coast would be seeing tip-off at 10:00 or 10:30pm which means they would need to stay up till at least 12:30am or later to watch the whole game and be miserable at work the next day.

Vice versa: Clipps and GS when traveling to the East coast means their fans are pissed because tip-off for them on the West coast is 4:00 or 4:30pm which means they're still at work more than likely and will miss some of the game.

Silver's going to have to crunch some numbers to figure out how to keep the ratings if the scenario's above happen.

Which is why it will never happen, as much as I would love to see the Suns win one or two first round games before promptly exiting.

As I said earlier, a minor fix to this "issue" is to put Memphis in the East where it belongs. That would strengthen the East and weaken the West and result in more relative balance.

It isn't just regional rivalries but rivalries produced by frequent match ups between teams. With 16 team seeding the odds that teams meet several times over the course of a few years greatly diminishes--and along with it the chances of rivalries developing.