- Thread starter
- #1
PhilSimms11
Well-Known Member
I'm just throwing out the question. Do you think any changes should be made? Do you like it the way it is? I'll post my idea here in a minute...
Top 16 teams but more balanced schedule of course
Play the 1st round the way they always do--1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th, 3rd vs 6th, 4th vs 5th in each conference. After that, seed the remaining 8 teams 1-8 and have another 1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th, etc. Last year's quarterfinals would look like this...
(1)GS (67-15) vs (8)WAS (49-33)
(2)SA (61-21) vs (7)UTA (51-31)
(3)HOU (55-27) vs (6)TOR (51-31)
(4)BOS (53-29) vs (5)CLE (51-31)
You could either lock bracket this or do it the way the NFL does with the highest remaining seed playing the lowest remaining seed. If you were to do the lock bracket scenario we could have a GS-CLE semifinal match-up. The Cavs would have to avoid phoning in so many games if they don't want to meet the Warriors before the Finals. Some of you may point out that the travel would be unfair to #1 GS vs #8 WAS. I hear you. However, one plan to alleviate some of that would be to change the schedule. Instead of a 2-2-1-1-1 you could go 2-2-3. This means a 5-2 format advantage for the higher seed instead of the traditional 4-3. I think that's fair. Would that not motivate teams to stop phoning in games during the regular season? With the lock bracket format it'd look like this...
(1)GS (67-15) vs (8)WAS (49-33)
(4)BOS (53-29) vs (5)CLE (51-31)
(2)SA (61-21) vs (7)UTA (51-31)
(3)HOU (55-27) vs (6)TOR (51-31)
Have the top 10 teams in each conference make the playoffs but have it be the 7-10 teams in each conference face off in a cross over (7 in E vs. 10 in W and so on) best of 3 series with the winner going onto face #2 in the East.
Play the 1st round the way they always do--1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th, 3rd vs 6th, 4th vs 5th in each conference. After that, seed the remaining 8 teams 1-8 and have another 1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th, etc. Last year's quarterfinals would look like this...
(1)GS (67-15) vs (8)WAS (49-33)
(2)SA (61-21) vs (7)UTA (51-31)
(3)HOU (55-27) vs (6)TOR (51-31)
(4)BOS (53-29) vs (5)CLE (51-31)
You could either lock bracket this or do it the way the NFL does with the highest remaining seed playing the lowest remaining seed. If you were to do the lock bracket scenario we could have a GS-CLE semifinal match-up. The Cavs would have to avoid phoning in so many games if they don't want to meet the Warriors before the Finals. Some of you may point out that the travel would be unfair to #1 GS vs #8 WAS. I hear you. However, one plan to alleviate some of that would be to change the schedule. Instead of a 2-2-1-1-1 you could go 2-2-3. This means a 5-2 format advantage for the higher seed instead of the traditional 4-3. I think that's fair. Would that not motivate teams to stop phoning in games during the regular season? With the lock bracket format it'd look like this...
(1)GS (67-15) vs (8)WAS (49-33)
(4)BOS (53-29) vs (5)CLE (51-31)
(2)SA (61-21) vs (7)UTA (51-31)
(3)HOU (55-27) vs (6)TOR (51-31)
Hunger Games. Each team sends a representative and all 16 fight to the death.
It would also cost the league major revenue when there isn't an East team in the playoffs past the second round. It's already hard during the finals when the games are out west and starting at 10:30 and there is an east team. But more late starts throughout the playoffs mean fewer eyes in major markets seeing games and ads, which is where the big money comes.For years, I have been against changing the playoff format. It seemed to be an overreaction to how bad the East is. The East won't always be down like they are now, just like the West didn't stay down like they were in the 90's.
After some more thought and reading other opinions. I think that balancing the schedule and seeding the top 16 according to record might actually be the best way.
It would prevent teams from missing the playoffs because they happen to play in the wrong conference and would automatically adjust to any competitive differences between the conferences.
It would also cost the league major revenue when there isn't an East team in the playoffs past the second round. It's already hard during the finals when the games are out west and starting at 10:30 and there is an east team. But more late starts throughout the playoffs mean fewer eyes in major markets seeing games and ads, which is where the big money comes.
So if this actually happened, who wins? LeBron maybe has the physical advantage but he's just not mean enough.
Westbrook? Draymond?
Gotta be Swaggy P right?
Well, If we are being realistic, none of those guys are going. They are sending somebody expendable. That in mind, you need a crazy dude on the end of the bench.
Warriors probably send Matt Barnes. Cavs wave the white flag and send Jose Calderon.
Is Nikola Pekovic still in the NBA? If so, he wins.