It ensures the absolute BEST competition. How could anyone be against that? :facepalm
Printable View
It ensures the absolute BEST competition. How could anyone be against that? :facepalm
[QUOTE=FLDFSU]Even if the Heat did not exist, I see little reason to change the current format. You are going to get the same result at the end of the day: the champion. Whether by eliminating conferences or leaving it the same...
Jordan's Bulls still win
Shaq/Kobe Laker's still win
Duncan's Spurs still win
Detroit still wins
Lebron's Heat still win
Dirk's Mavs still win
Boston? Nope, they still win
What changes? Who suddenly fails to become a champion? Jordan because he had to face another western conference opponent?
And there is a reason that ALL professional leagues use the current system rather than a single conference set up. Chief among them is that you create geographical rivalries that you are FAR more likely to get in the current format.[/QUOTE]
if the team who is going to win will win no matter what format, then why not change it? the first rounds will be more interesting and give all the teams in the west a chance to compete...
or are you scared because then the heat would actually have to face real competition and have a higher chance of getting knocked out before making it to the finals?
[QUOTE=selrahc]if the team who is going to win will win no matter what format, then why not change it? the first rounds will be more interesting and give all the teams in the west a chance to compete...
or are you scared because then the heat would actually have to face real competition and have a higher chance of getting knocked out before making it to the finals?[/QUOTE]
I guess.
I have no idea why some are so interested in who comes in second place tho. As I said, who cares that the 49ers could have beaten the Broncos in the SB...you still lost to the Seahawks, the champions. 2nd=not 1st.
And there is a drawback to eliminating conferences. You are far less likely to get a Spurs-Mavs or Spurs-OKC or LAC-MEM or a MIA-INDY series (rivalries). Or a Heat-Knicks series from the late 90s. Or Cavs-Celtics series from the mid 2000s. etc.
You have potentially eliminated historic rivalries and therefore "interesting" first round match ups. And under this format, it will be much harder to create new rivalries because the chances will be slimmer that those teams will meet in this expanded bracket.
But I digress.
[QUOTE=FLDFSU]Even if the Heat did not exist, I see little reason to change the current format. You are going to get the same result at the end of the day: the champion. Whether by eliminating conferences or leaving it the same...
Jordan's Bulls still win
Shaq/Kobe Laker's still win
Duncan's Spurs still win
Detroit still wins
Lebron's Heat still win
Dirk's Mavs still win
Boston? Nope, they still win
What changes? Who suddenly fails to become a champion? Jordan because he had to face another western conference opponent?
And there is a reason that ALL professional leagues use the current system rather than a single conference set up. Chief among them is that you create geographical rivalries that you are FAR more likely to get in the current format.[/QUOTE]
NBA is a pro league with only 32 top professional teams.
There's is more to a sports league than just who wins in the end.
Minnesota wins more games than teams making the playoffs in the east, they deserve recognition for being better than those teams. They deserve the extra money that comes with making the playoffs. All this goes for any team that competes better.
[QUOTE=ZenMaster]NBA is a pro league with only 32 top professional teams.
There's is more to a sports league than just who wins in the end.
Minnesota wins more games than teams making the playoffs in the east, they deserve recognition for being better than those teams. They deserve the extra money that comes with making the playoffs. All this goes for any team that competes better.[/QUOTE]
Not trying to be a jackas% but Minnesota doesn't deserve sh*t if they cannot finish in the top half of their conference. You want more money and recognition Minnesota? Stop giving up 104 points a game and figure out a way to not have a losing record on the road.
And if your not first, your last.
IMO, if Miami can't beat the Clippers in the finals, they might as well lose to the Hawks in the first round.
[QUOTE=FLDFSU]Not trying to be a jackas% but Minnesota doesn't deserve sh*t if they cannot finish in the top half of their conference. You want more money and recognition Minnesota? Stop giving up 104 points a game and figure out a way to not have a losing record on the road.
And if your not first, your last.
IMO, if Miami can't beat the Clippers in the finals, they might as well lose to the Hawks in the first round.[/QUOTE]
If they can finish in the top half of the league they should be there.
A core value of sports: if you win more than somebody else, then you shold be recognized as being better.
But OK Ricky Bobby, by your theory there's no point watching any NBA except the last 4-7 games..
I bet somebody was high when they said that.
Atlanta and Charlotte are gonna be in the playoffs...
Dallas, Phoenix or Memphis will not.
The system is fine... :roll:
[QUOTE=FLDFSU]Not trying to be a jackas% but Minnesota doesn't deserve sh*t if they cannot finish in the top half of their conference.[/QUOTE]
So because of geography, Minnesota doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs.
k
Should stay how it is.
It's not practical to have 1 whole league. Scheduling would be insane and top off that, the favourites would still be the favourites to come to the final 4 teams and Finals, which would be Indiana, Miami, OKC, and San Antonio.
It cannot and will not happen.
[QUOTE=Droid101]No. If you did it by record, there is no guarantee that Miami or Indiana makes the finals. That's the point.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=330107[/url]
We already have this thread. Junk this one.
In the round before the Finals, it would be OKC vs. Indiana, and Spurs vs. Miami or Clippers.[/QUOTE]
Did you even bother reading what my point was ? It doesn't matter what type of style your using even when it's completely non-practical, Indiana and Miami are going to come out on top as the East representatives. And what about the guarantee ? Dallas, Phoenix, and whichever lower seed of the West (along with the East) aren't seeing the Finals if pretty much guaranteed.
Look at the round before the Finals that you posted. You've basically agreed with me. :oldlol:
[QUOTE=wagexslave]This would be changing something that IS broken, so what's the point of your post?[/QUOTE]
One conference just has more depth. That doesn't mean it's broken.
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]One conference just has more depth. That doesn't mean it's broken.[/QUOTE]
One conference is a complete joke with joke teams making the playoffs. It's broken, accept it.
[QUOTE=wagexslave]One conference is a complete joke with joke teams making the playoffs. It's broken, accept it.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing broken. The GM's in the West just acquired better talent over the years. If this is broken, the other leagues are also broken.
To have a seeding like this is just absurd and it would never effect the outcomes of the Top East teams anyways. So what if Minnesota, Memphis, Dallas, and Phoenix all make it ? They aren't winning a title or going far enough. You're still getting Miami and Indiana in the ECF, more than 95% of the posters here have already called it and no low seed team from the West is changing that.
[QUOTE=OmniStrife]Atlanta and Charlotte are gonna be in the playoffs...
Dallas, Phoenix or Memphis will not.
The system is fine... :roll:[/QUOTE]
This.
[QUOTE=FLDFSU]Not trying to be a jackas% but Minnesota doesn't deserve sh*t if they cannot finish in the top half of their conference. You want more money and recognition Minnesota? Stop giving up 104 points a game and figure out a way to not have a losing record on the road.
And if your not first, your last.
IMO, if Miami can't beat the Clippers in the finals, they might as well lose to the Hawks in the first round.[/QUOTE]
you're an idiot and i guess that is why you are against this idea.
I would not call you an idiot if your reasons were travel distances but the reasons you have been giving are totally wrong.
Just think if grizzlies were in east. i am using memphis here because they are the only lower seed playoff team in the west which would make it tough for heat. even if heat manage to win in 5, they would get tired. Just imagine playing bulls, memphis and pacers in first 3 rounds.
Same for an clippers or okc if they play 3 very physical teams instead of 1 physical team like memphis and 2 fastpaced teams.
In my opinion regular season should be 58 games with every team playing every other team twice. Stop caring about past records because of less games resulting in lesser points and start caring about a better product.
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]There's nothing broken. The GM's in the West just acquired better talent over the years. If this is broken, the other leagues are also broken.
To have a seeding like this is just absurd and it would never effect the outcomes of the Top East teams anyways. So what if Minnesota, Memphis, Dallas, and Phoenix all make it ? They aren't winning a title or going far enough. You're still getting Miami and Indiana in the ECF, more than 95% of the posters here have already called it and no low seed team from the West is changing that.[/QUOTE]
How do you know that, though? Sure SA/DAL (or SA/PHX) and OKC/MEM, will probably be short series, but are they NOT physically taxing?
Having a tougher road to the finals (where physicality, defense and intensity picks up) matters, IMO.