NBA playoff format change?

[LAD]

They'd probably have to adjust some of the times so that, for example, if an Eastern Conference team is playing a Western Conference team, the games start at about 5 or 5:30 when playing on the Western teams court.

Kind of like they do now for the Finals (when it's East vs. West)

 

[LAD]

This would definitely be more interesting than what we're going to have in round 1 this year.

But, I think they should adjust the match ups. I think there should still be two separate brackets:
1 through 8 first bracket
9 through16 second bracket
the last team standing from each bracket advance to the finals.

 

[tlance]

But, I think they should adjust the match ups. I think there should still be two separate brackets:
1 through 8 first bracket
9 through16 second bracket
the last team standing from each bracket advance to the finals.

What?

Are you saying that all the best teams should play each other in the first 3 rounds?

If so, that might be the worst idea ever. If not, then I apologize.

Brackets are supposed to be set up to save the best potential matchup for the Finals. You are suggesting the opposite of that. Good teams would be incentivized to tank in order to be in the lower bracket and dodge the elite teams.

 

[thunderc]

Umm, yeah, that is batshit crazy at best.

 

[bksballer89]

What?

Are you saying that all the best teams should play each other in the first 3 rounds?

If so, that might be the worst idea ever. If not, then I apologize.

Brackets are supposed to be set up to save the best potential matchup for the Finals. You are suggesting the opposite of that. Good teams would be incentivized to tank in order to be in the lower bracket and dodge the elite teams.

Yea it left me speechless lol

 

[LAD]

What?

Are you saying that all the best teams should play each other in the first 3 rounds?

If so, that might be the worst idea ever. If not, then I apologize.

Brackets are supposed to be set up to save the best potential matchup for the Finals. You are suggesting the opposite of that. Good teams would be incentivized to tank in order to be in the lower bracket and dodge the elite teams.

Well I mean aren't teams already tanking in the current system? It's been my opinion that the top team (Cavs) might have purposely lost a few games in order to play the lesser talented teams in the post season. So, IMO tanking is going to happen regardless of the system set up.

 

[LAD]

What?

Are you saying that all the best teams should play each other in the first 3 rounds?

If so, that might be the worst idea ever. If not, then I apologize.

Brackets are supposed to be set up to save the best potential matchup for the Finals. You are suggesting the opposite of that. Good teams would be incentivized to tank in order to be in the lower bracket and dodge the elite teams.

For teams to be trying to tank in order to get into the lower bracket would be hard to do. How does one put together a formula that would provide perfect timing to do that when there are other teams in the league that also play the same amount of games? With a tanking mentality there's no guarantee they would get one of those spots, or even worse, that they would even make the playoffs. That would be a slippery slope IMO.

 

[bksballer89]

For teams to be trying to tank in order to get into the lower bracket would be hard to do. How does one put together a formula that would provide perfect timing to do that when there are other teams in the league that also play the same amount of games? With a tanking mentality there's no guarantee they would get one of those spots, or even worse, that they would even make the playoffs. That would be a slippery slope IMO.

Why would teams who make the playoffs try to tank?

 

[logic]

Well I mean aren't teams already tanking in the current system? It's been my opinion that the top team (Cavs) might have purposely lost a few games in order to play the lesser talented teams in the post season. So, IMO tanking is going to happen regardless of the system set up.

This makes zero sense. If you are the #1 seed and tank you will be playing a more talented team, #7 instead of #8. You might do it for specific matchups, but that is short sighted as it could cost you home court in the ECF and a #1 should handle the first round matchup anyhow.

 

[LAD]

This makes zero sense. If you are the #1 seed and tank you will be playing a more talented team, #7 instead of #8. You might do it for specific matchups, but that is short sighted as it could cost you home court in the ECF and a #1 should handle the first round matchup anyhow.

I agree with your points - and I probably should've been more specific & said match ups. But it would appear that the Cavs stopped trying for the #1 seed to get what they perceived as the better match ups if they were seeded @ #2 last year - when we consider that for a short time at the end of last season it looked as though Miami would be the 8th seed. Most people (myself included) thought the two would match up well- thus giving Miami a good chance at winning that series.

 

[tlance]

I agree with your points - and I probably should've been more specific & said match ups. But it would appear that the Cavs stopped trying for the #1 seed to get what they perceived as the better match ups if they were seeded @ #2 last year - when we consider that for a short time at the end of last season it looked as though Miami would be the 8th seed. Most people (myself included) thought the two would match up well- thus giving Miami a good chance at winning that series.

It is extremely rare that a playoff team will ever tank. A higher seed almost always provides an easier path to the Finals. While there might not be a huge difference between the 7 and 8 seeds, there often is a big gap between the 4-5 winner and those 2 and 3 seeds.

The Cavs definitely did not tank last year. They simply decided that resting their guys was more valuable to them than HCA. They knew Boston had no chance against them. Regardless of where game 7 was to be held, they knew it wasn't going that far.

But, if you lump all the good teams in the same half of the bracket, then tanking will be a real thing for playoff teams. The top seed should have the easiest road to the Finals. Otherwise, there is no reason to expend the energy required to earn that seed.

And no, Miami might have taken a game or 2, but they had a zero percent chance of winning a playoff series against the Cavs last year. Heat fans will even agree with that.

 

[LAD]

It is extremely rare that a playoff team will ever tank. A higher seed almost always provides an easier path to the Finals. While there might not be a huge difference between the 7 and 8 seeds, there often is a big gap between the 4-5 winner and those 2 and 3 seeds.

The Cavs definitely did not tank last year. They simply decided that resting their guys was more valuable to them than HCA. They knew Boston had no chance against them. Regardless of where game 7 was to be held, they knew it wasn't going that far.

But, if you lump all the good teams in the same half of the bracket, then tanking will be a real thing for playoff teams. The top seed should have the easiest road to the Finals. Otherwise, there is no reason to expend the energy required to earn that seed.

And no, Miami might have taken a game or 2, but they had a zero percent chance of winning a playoff series against the Cavs last year. Heat fans will even agree with that.

I disagree that a higher seed almost always provides an easier path to the Finals. We can look at GS the last couple of seasons as the example. The only real advantage IMO is that they open up the post season against the # 8 seed. A lot of times seeding doesn't always tell the complete story. There are some teams that might have a run late in the season & seed lower than another team that might have more talent. Sometimes injuries play a part in where teams end up. My point is there are intangibles that they have no control over in terms of the other teams.

I also disagree with there being an often big gap between the 4-5 seeds and the 2-3 seeds. Records have shown us that the teams seeded from 4 down often are only separated by a couple of games here or there. And this has been true on numerous occasions across both conferences & also when conferences are compared side by side.

And I said it was my opinion that they didn't care about finishing out the season strong - whatever reason you want to chose- it was still done intentionally which can be viewed as a form or tanking.

I remember most heat fans didn't think they would win a series against the Cavs, but I disagreed with them then & still do now.

 

[tlance]

I disagree that a higher seed almost always provides an easier path to the Finals. We can look at GS the last couple of seasons as the example. The only real advantage IMO is that they open up the post season against the # 8 seed. A lot of times seeding doesn't always tell the complete story. There are some teams that might have a run late in the season & seed lower than another team that might have more talent. Sometimes injuries play a part in where teams end up. My point is there are intangibles that they have no control over in terms of the other teams.

I also disagree with there being an often big gap between the 4-5 seeds and the 2-3 seeds. Records have shown us that the teams seeded from 4 down often are only separated by a couple of games here or there. And this has been true on numerous occasions across both conferences & also when conferences are compared side by side.

And I said it was my opinion that they didn't care about finishing out the season strong - whatever reason you want to chose- it was still done intentionally which can be viewed as a form or tanking.

I remember most heat fans didn't think they would win a series against the Cavs, but I disagreed with them then & still do now.

Not true.

Houston did not match up well with GS, but they would have been a much tougher test than Utah.

2 years ago, we are talking about the difference between playing OKC with Durant and playing Portland.

Some years it is just a minor difference. Some, like 2016 it is massive.

Next, A high playoff seed resting players is not tanking.

Lastly, what in the world would possibly make you think Miami could beat Cleveland in a series? Are you basing that off of regular season games? If so, that is seriously flawed logic. Yes, Miami won the season series 3-1. But, LeBron only played in 2 of those games, so you can basically toss them out. In the other 2, Cleveland won 1 by 30 and Miami the other by 8. Even then, you can be sure those games meant much more to Miami then they did to Cleveland.

 

[tlance]

I disagree that a higher seed almost always provides an easier path to the Finals. We can look at GS the last couple of seasons as the example. The only real advantage IMO is that they open up the post season against the # 8 seed. A lot of times seeding doesn't always tell the complete story. There are some teams that might have a run late in the season & seed lower than another team that might have more talent. Sometimes injuries play a part in where teams end up. My point is there are intangibles that they have no control over in terms of the other teams.

I also disagree with there being an often big gap between the 4-5 seeds and the 2-3 seeds. Records have shown us that the teams seeded from 4 down often are only separated by a couple of games here or there. And this has been true on numerous occasions across both conferences & also when conferences are compared side by side.

And I said it was my opinion that they didn't care about finishing out the season strong - whatever reason you want to chose- it was still done intentionally which can be viewed as a form or tanking.

I remember most heat fans didn't think they would win a series against the Cavs, but I disagreed with them then & still do now.

You probably thought Boston could beat Cleveland too.

 

[LAD]

Lastly, what in the world would possibly make you think Miami could beat Cleveland in a series?

They had a punchers chance.

 

[LAD]

You probably thought Boston could beat Cleveland too.

Nope, didn't think that, just like I don't think trading Kyrie for IT is a good trade. And I know there were other players/options included in that trade - but I'm only talking about those two. The reason being is because they play the same position and IMO one is clearly better than the other in terms of providing scoring for their team.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Why would teams who make the playoffs try to tank?

Ask the clippers

 

[tlance]

They had a punchers chance.

They would have had the same chance the Pacers or Raptors had.

None.

 

[PhilSimms11]

NBA mulls re-seeding teams 1-16 in playoffs

I think 16 may be excessive. They expanded to 16 from 12 in 1984. Going back to 12 wouldn't be a bad thing. Last season (roughly)...
(1)GS (67-15) (w)
(2)SA (61-21) (w)
(3)HOU (55-27) (w)
(4)BOS (53-29) (e)

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

West (w) = 7; East (e) = 5

I'd like to see the dissolving of the East-West conference affiliation and simply keep the 6 divisions of 5 or 5 divisions of 6.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think 16 may be excessive. They expanded to 16 from 12 in 1984. Going back to 12 wouldn't be a bad thing. Last season (roughly)...
(1)GS (67-15) (w)
(2)SA (61-21) (w)
(3)HOU (55-27) (w)
(4)BOS (53-29) (e)

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

West (w) = 7; East (e) = 5

I'd like to see the dissolving of the East-West conference affiliation and simply keep the 6 divisions of 5 or 5 divisions of 6.

From a pure competitiveness point of view, they should never have expanded beyond 12.

They'll never go back to 12 though. Too much money to be made.