Here is how I would fix the NBA playoffs

How about this to spice up the playoffs:

Top 8 teams from each conference, East and West.
The top 4 teams from each conference get to CHOOSE their opponent each round. So instead of the 1 vs the 8, the 1 could select the 7th team, or 6th team if they feel it's a better matchup. It's a rolling order with the 1st seed getting the first shot to pick and so on.

Could lead to new rivalries, more competitiveness on the underdog teams and also create interesting dynamics. Does a team pick the lower seed even though they may have been hot leading into the playoffs? Does the lower seed pick the better matchup team for them regardless of record? More disrespect for an opponent would lead to better games, imo.

CitySushi said:

How about this to spice up the playoffs:

Top 8 teams from each conference, East and West.
The top 4 teams from each conference get to CHOOSE their opponent each round. So instead of the 1 vs the 8, the 1 could select the 7th team, or 6th team if they feel it's a better matchup. It's a rolling order with the 1st seed getting the first shot to pick and so on.

Could lead to new rivalries, more competitiveness on the underdog teams and also create interesting dynamics. Does a team pick the lower seed even though they may have been hot leading into the playoffs? Does the lower seed pick the better matchup team for them regardless of record? More disrespect for an opponent would lead to better games, imo.

Click to expand...

I could deal with that

I've always liked a 1 vs. 16 format myself but the whole higher seeded teams picking their opponents I've never agreed with. Will be interesting to see what they come up with.

The following is NOT a serious suggestion:

First 12 teams are automatically in, regardless of Conference.

13th Best Plays 30th
14th Best Plays 29th
15th Best Plays 28th
16th Best Plays 27th
17th Best Plays 26th
18th Best Plays 25th
19th Best Plays 24th
20th Best Plays 23rd
21st Best Plays 22nd

Single Elimination games, no draft consequences.

Best Seeded team of remaining teams, automatic playoffs (13th Seed). (If 13th Best wins, they're in. If 30th beats them and the 14th best team wins, they're in.)

1st Best Remaining Team plays the 8th Remaining Team
2nd Best Remaining Team plays the 7th Best Remaining Team
3rd Best Remaining Team plays the 6th Best Remaining Team
4th Best Remaining Team plays the 5th Best Remaining Team.

Single Elimination game.

Then:

1st Best Remaining Team plays the 4th Best Remaining Team
2nd Best Remaining Team Plays the 3rd Best Remaining Team

Double elimination (modified):

Winners play each other. Winner gets 14th spot, loser gets 15th Spot.
Losers play each other, winner gets 16th spot.

Then, regardless of conference, seed the teams accordingly.

Reduce regular season to 78 games. The last team to qualify will have played 82 games to qualify. Top 12 teams will only have played 78.

4 Best SuperTeams, regardless of their conference are in a division of their own.
The rest of the teams are in a 4 team division.
Play your division four times. (12 games)
Play the other conference teams 2 times. (30 games)
Play non-division conference teams 3 times (33 games)
Play three of the SuperTeams once (3 games)
Iron out issues with vagueness/tiebreakers/contradictions by coin flips where the chooser of the coin flip is determined by rock, paper, scissors. No interference, best of three.

Take the best player from the runner up and put him on the winner's roster for next year.

Big Z 1990 said:

Sometimes there can be a huge difference in the quality of teams from one conference that would be otherwise left out and teams from the other conference that actually get in.

Click to expand...

THIS^^^^ is exactly why I agree the format should be changed. It's just not fair the way it's currently set up.

Why do people always talk about the NBA going w/ the best 16 teams for the playoffs? They never stated that - they just threw out the idea of reseeding which is not even close to being the same thing. Amazing how some folks don't appear to pay attn. to anything.

LAD said:

THIS^^^^ is exactly why I agree the format should be changed. It's just not fair the way it's currently set up.

Click to expand...

Not fair to who? Lets be honest. Regardless of the format there really are only 2-3 teams that have any shot of winning the NBA title at this time & very likely there really is only one team that will pull this off barring major injuries.

Think moving to a top 16 playoff concept is a knee jerk reaction to a couple things. A decade + bad East and the possibility of LeBron going to the West which would inevitably pit the two best teams in the NBA in the West making the WCF series practically the NBA Finals.

In the 90s it was the East that was dominant and the West was weak. It goes back and forth on which conference is the more dominant one. I say leave it as is.

SoCalWizFan said:

Not fair to who? Lets be honest. Regardless of the format there really are only 2-3 teams that have any shot of winning the NBA title at this time & very likely there really is only one team that will pull this off barring major injuries.

Click to expand...

Yes there are only a few teams that can actually win because of the system they currently use. However, if they were to change that system it would most likely change those odds.

It's not fair to the teams in the West who don't make the playoffs because of limited space (only 8 seeds) but have a better record than some of the teams in the East whom do make the playoffs. This new format would ensure that the teams with the best records (top 16) would actually make the playoffs regardless of their geographic location.

Why do you think LBJ is against it? Because it would mean that he probably wouldn't be at the top of either Conference - as shown in this new format currently his team would be 5th - and more susceptible to losing before making it to the final stage because of the competition that would be lined up ahead of him.

Mecca said:

Yeah, this is not the WNBA.

They revamped the playoff seedings out of necessity and it works really well because the two teams that were head and shoulders above the rest, consistently played each other in the WCF.

Add in the fact that the league is in dire straits and they had to do something to drum up interest.

That's not the case in the NBA.

Click to expand...

But I think the NBA is looking to increase viewership during that 1st round at the very least - especially in the East.

OregonDucks said:

Think moving to a top 16 playoff concept is a knee jerk reaction to a couple things. A decade + bad East and the possibility of LeBron going to the West which would inevitably pit the two best teams in the NBA in the West making the WCF series practically the NBA Finals.

In the 90s it was the East that was dominant and the West was weak. It goes back and forth on which conference is the more dominant one. I say leave it as is.

Click to expand...

At the very least I think they need to shorten the # of games for the first two rounds. The teams that make it to the Conference Finals/Finals are playing entirely too much basketball. More especially if they do it consistently.

First of all, I like the idea of realignment from 6 divisions of 5 to 5 divisions of 6. That eliminates conferences, which I'm in favor.
Pacific--GS, LAC, LAL, PHX, POR, SAC
Midwest--DAL, DEN, HOU, OKC, SA, UTA
Southeast--ATL, CHA, MEM, MIA, NO, ORL
Central--CHI, CLE, DET, IND, MIL, MIN
Atlantic--BOS, BKN, NY, PHI, TOR, WAS

Play your division 4 times each (20) and everyone else twice each (48) for a total of 68 games. Some think 82 games is excessive and roughly 70 is more than enough for a complete season. This would give the league a much more balanced schedule. Imbalanced schedules has been an argument against the 1-16 format. Also, do we really need 16 playoff teams? How about taking the 5 division winners and 7 best records? 2016-17 would have looked a little like this:
(1)GS (67-15)
(2)SA (61-21)
(3)HOU (55-27)
(4)BOS (53-29)

(5)CLE (51-31) vs (12)MEM (43-39)
(6)UTA (51-31) vs (11)ATL (43-39)
(7)TOR (51-31) vs (10)OKC (47-35)
(8)LAC (51-31) vs (9)WAS (49-33)

Revise the 1st round back to best-of-5 (2-3 format). After that, it's best-of-7 with a 2-2-3 format. That means the team with home court could have a 5-2 advantage instead of just 4-3. Adds incentive to not take games off even with only a 68-game schedule.

larryjohn said:

Bill Simmons is annoying ... but he has an interesting idea for playoffs.

The basic idea is the first round (and sometimes the 2nd one) is boring and pretty useless.

His idea -- is keep top 14 seeds like they are. (ignore conferences) Then have a single elimination playoff with other teams (all who aren't in top 14) for the last 2 spots. (which would last about 1 week) The winner of this playoff would get an added bonus of something like a better draft pick (or maybe add 1 pick -- they get top pick of 2nd round) ... and maybe a $5M trade exception. (or something that makes winning this really important)

Then regular playoffs happen.

There are variants. Cut regular season to 74 games. Give the top 2 seeds their choice of who they play in the first round. (from selection of any of the other 14 playoff teams) Change first round to 5 games.

The general idea is that the "playoff to make the playoff" would be 'must watch' TV ... much more interesting than the normal first round. (although that could end up to be boring -- which is why moving it to 5 game playoff would help)

Click to expand...

Not sure how this is must see basketball. Watch the worst teams in basketball compete to see who gets blown out in the real first round of the playoffs? Doesn't sound so intriguing.

PhilSimms11 said:

First of all, I like the idea of realignment from 6 divisions of 5 to 5 divisions of 6. That eliminates conferences, which I'm in favor.
Pacific--GS, LAC, LAL, PHX, POR, SAC
Midwest--DAL, DEN, HOU, OKC, SA, UTA
Southeast--ATL, CHA, MEM, MIA, NO, ORL
Central--CHI, CLE, DET, IND, MIL, MIN
Atlantic--BOS, BKN, NY, PHI, TOR, WAS

Play your division 4 times each (20) and everyone else twice each (48) for a total of 68 games. Some think 82 games is excessive and roughly 70 is more than enough for a complete season. This would give the league a much more balanced schedule. Imbalanced schedules has been an argument against the 1-16 format. Also, do we really need 16 playoff teams? How about taking the 5 division winners and 7 best records? 2016-17 would have looked a little like this:
(1)GS (67-15)
(2)SA (61-21)
(3)HOU (55-27)
(4)BOS (53-29)

(5)CLE (51-31) vs (12)MEM (43-39)
(6)UTA (51-31) vs (11)ATL (43-39)
(7)TOR (51-31) vs (10)OKC (47-35)
(8)LAC (51-31) vs (9)WAS (49-33)

Revise the 1st round back to best-of-5 (2-3 format). After that, it's best-of-7 with a 2-2-3 format. That means the team with home court could have a 5-2 advantage instead of just 4-3. Adds incentive to not take games off even with only a 68-game schedule.

Click to expand...

And you've just cut how many millions in revenue? Who is going to take less money, the owners or the players?

LAD said:

At the very least I think they need to shorten the # of games for the first two rounds. The teams that make it to the Conference Finals/Finals are playing entirely too much basketball. More especially if they do it consistently.

Click to expand...

I liked the best of 5 series for round 1.

LAD said:

Yes there are only a few teams that can actually win because of the system they currently use. However, if they were to change that system it would most likely change those odds.

It's not fair to the teams in the West who don't make the playoffs because of limited space (only 8 seeds) but have a better record than some of the teams in the East whom do make the playoffs. This new format would ensure that the teams with the best records (top 16) would actually make the playoffs regardless of their geographic location.

Why do you think LBJ is against it? Because it would mean that he probably wouldn't be at the top of either Conference - as shown in this new format currently his team would be 5th - and more susceptible to losing before making it to the final stage because of the competition that would be lined up ahead of him.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Because of the system certain teams don't have a shot of winning the NBA title rt now? I am not talking about more teams making the playoffs because that is basically irrelevant because (unlike the NHL) lower seeds in the NBA never go far & certainly don't make it to the finals or win the title.

OK - so who from the West has a legit shot of winning the title besides the Warriors or possibly the Rockets? Answer - nobody. Not the Thunder, Timberwolves, Spurs, Nuggets or whoever. Sure - reseeding or taking best 16 teams (again NBA is not proposing that) would involve more - perhaps more deserving teams - in the mix, but it won't change the fact that only 2/3 teams have a shot at the title.

BTW - folks need to take a closer look at the standings. The 1-8 records of the East & West are very, very similar at this time. Sure - the talent level may be different but not the records - at least not thus far this season.

SoCalWizFan said:

Seriously? Because of the system certain teams don't have a shot of winning the NBA title rt now? I am not talking about more teams making the playoffs because that is basically irrelevant because (unlike the NHL) lower seeds in the NBA never go far & certainly don't make it to the finals or win the title.

OK - so who from the West has a legit shot of winning the title besides the Warriors or possibly the Rockets? Answer - nobody. Not the Thunder, Timberwolves, Spurs, Nuggets or whoever. Sure - reseeding or taking best 16 teams (again NBA is not proposing that) would involve more - perhaps more deserving teams - in the mix, but it won't change the fact that only 2/3 teams have a shot at the title.

BTW - folks need to take a closer look at the standings. The 1-8 records of the East & West are very, very similar at this time. Sure - the talent level may be different but not the records - at least not thus far this season.

Click to expand...

Of course the odds increase for EACH team that makes the playoffs when the format is deigned to advance the TOP TEAMS only. Part of the reason for the imbalance is because teams with lesser records are making the playoffs while teams with better records miss the playoffs solely because of their geographic location. And who with a functioning brain would think with that type of system in place we would see competitive series?

Let's not forget why they are even considering the change in the first place - to attract and/or keep viewership. We don't know what that looks like in terms of the new system because they haven't proposed ANYTHING at this point. But one would have to think that would mean they're looking for more competitive series throughout ALL the rounds. They can't change the order in which the teams meet, such as 1 vs. 8 because if 8 plays 7 what is left for the final round? So, what is the alternative? To find a way to get better competition into the playoffs.

Finally, we've seen more than a few teams compete very well against GS. To your point about 1-8 seeds of both conferences being very close only proves our point about the series being more competitive if ONLY the teams with the top records make it into the post season. With a top 16 team playoffs it would eliminate people being able to predict who will make it to the Finals & tune out until then - which is the point anyway.

Remember that I stopped short of advocating a top 16 unconferenced format.

The format I am advocating is not unlike what has been used in the CFL for years and what used to be used in MLS.

bksballer89 said:

I would leave it as is......

Click to expand...

Agree, when the East had the better teams, I don't recall playoff complaints. I don't know why people want to fix whats not broken.