The play-in is supposed to create extra excitement, however...

that extra excitement is only the 4 games, while a whole host of games lose all of their excitement and interesting at the end of the regular season, since everyone knows they wont be ultimately meaningful due to the safety net of the play-in.

Imagine how much more thrilling the end to the regular season had been without the play-in safety net.

It would have been insane in the west.

So what youre saying is, whoever came up with the play-in needs to be fired?

All these games besides 2021 Lakers-Warriors have been pretty underwhelming for the most part.

And having a play-in in a shitty conference like the East where the 9 and 10 seeds are dog shit makes people lose interest.

Play in sucks. They have to make the regular season mean something, the play in makes it even less meaningful. 20 of the 30 teams make make a "playoff" which is just absolutely crazy. The other major 3 sports (NHL, NFL, MLB) don't have this "play in" gimmick.

MLB used to have a "play in" of sorts but only 10 of the 32 teams made it. Not 20.

Right now the NHL allows 16 of the 32 teams into the playoffs

MLB 12 of 30.

NFL 14 of 32.

By milking everything for what it's worth for money purposes, the NBA has watered down the regular season product.

[QUOTE=Carbine;14901166]Play in sucks. They have to make the regular season mean something, the play in makes it even less meaningful. 20 of the 30 teams make make a "playoff" which is just absolutely crazy. The other major 3 sports (NHL, NFL, MLB) don't have this "play in" gimmick.

MLB used to have a "play in" of sorts but only 10 of the 32 teams made it. Not 20.

Right now the NHL allows 16 of the 32 teams into the playoffs

MLB 12 of 30.

NFL 14 of 32.

By milking everything for what it's worth for money purposes, the NBA has watered down the regular season product.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14901164]All these games besides 2021 Lakers-Warriors have been pretty underwhelming for the most part.

And having a play-in in a shitty conference like the East where the 9 and 10 seeds are dog shit makes people lose interest.[/QUOTE]

That as well.

I bet the ratings for the play-in games arent very good.

You guys will complain about anything.

It certainly makes a whole lot of sense FOR THE GREEDY OWNERS.

More games ? = more ticket sales, more tv ratings.

Sure, the “traditional play-in” was just the last week or two of the season.

But…. With the “new play-in” …. It’s a way to get owners a few more high-ratings games worth of money …. And to get more regional fanbases watching and attending not just the play-in games, but the subsequent series as well. Because even if their team loses, the excitement can get them to watch more, even if only to cheer AGAINST the squad who knocked their home team out.

What people are complaining about here strikes me as an excellent argument for simply getting rid of the Eastern Conference, or most of it.

Play in tournament serves a number of functions, and is not just to generate excitement.

4 loser teams that will end up getting swept in the first round.. oooh the excitement!!

The main difference after implementing the play-in format is that securing a top 6 seed means so much more now, in order to avoid playing elimination games to get playoff berths. Between 7th-10th all except 7th will have to win a road elimination game to make it.

The secondary effect is teams may want to make a push for that 9th or 10th seed instead of calling it a season and tanking early on (eg Houston)

I don't see it as a negative. It's much more interesting seeing teams scramble to get the highest seed possible instead of just thinking in terms of 1-4 vs 5-8 (ie HCA) vs lottery. The two conferences have been more competitive this season, and I think this format will be a success in terms of creating a more competitive regular season and maintaining interest in regular season standings and seedings.

On a side note, four play-in games isn't reason enough why owners should be happy about the play-in. They get more revenue out of the in-season tourney, and IMO that tourney would be the perfect venue for young/GLeaguers to showcase their talents. I don't like the idea of regular starters playing more games and risking injury/burnout early on. Rotate and play some, give youngs some burn and see who is ready to contribute.

[QUOTE=coin24;14901190]4 loser teams that will end up getting swept in the first round.. oooh the excitement!![/QUOTE]
Won't happen, but I'd bring back best-of-five 1st-rd format.

What's very funny about it is that chef hasn't won any since three years ago, with him going 0 for 3 so far. I thought having klay play now was going to change it but nada. :ohwell:

We already watched the regular season not be thrilling without the play in. Fans started saying it didn’t even matter long before the play in existed. You don’t remember a single thing about any game to end the 2011 regular season and secure standings.

I don’t see why an 8 needing to beat 13 to hold off 9 on the last day is more exciting than having to beat 9 directly in a do or die game after dropping the big game to 7.

Just more games worth watching. Injury happens. They happened when we took the first round bye away. And when they went from 3 to 5 games. Then 7. All had more injury risk. Doesn’t make them fundamentally flawed.

The regular season is already too long. Had the Lakers lost the first play in game and won the second, they would have played 85 games in the regular season. As it stands they played 84.

It's just greed. It's a watered down product.

The NFL adding an extra game wasn't about anything other than making more money. Even though it watered down the regular season slightly. Thursday night football is absolutely awful 90 percent of the time but it's there because of money, not for the sake of the game.

Just because we watch it, doesn't mean it's for the best.

Just expand the playoffs to 10 teams from each Conference.