How NBA should format their playoffs.

YaosDirtyStache · Mar 6, 2010

NO x100 man...

its fine the way it is.

tmacROX1 · Mar 6, 2010

plutoblue11 said:

Those are some great ideas, especially playing at neutral sites, letting the bottom teams play out for the playoff spots and having a Super Bowl-like event. Most of all, having the 16 best teams play for the championship, instead of the eight best from each conference. It would change things up a bit.

But I rather see the current or traditional format of NBA playoff series, so would the league and advertisers. In reality, it works much better. Also, the ratings aren't that terrible, yet to permeate extensive change. It's also when the NBA gets their biggest audiences in the playoffs at it's been their biggest money maker for years. People, the fans, advertisers, networks, and David Stern all dream of having the long drawn out 5-7 game series. There's no reason to change all of that. Again, emphasize that the the commish and advertisers want the same kind revenue coming in as they did during 2 - 3+ months of basketball. Basically, the networks and advertisers have more the gain from long drawn out a series vs. a shorter one .

Also, the NBA didn't always have 8 teams into the playoffs from each conference, it only happened when the league expanded...because they were several winning teams who missing the playoffs as well.

There was a time, each conference only sent 4-6 teams to the playoffs (in 60s). From the 50s to 80s, the top seeded team actually did not play in the first round (like the NFL). The first round was only 3 games long (over with in a week's time). The league has often tinkered with its playoff style, which is a given.

The NBA Playoffs was fine in the 5-7-7-7 format, 3-7-7-7 , or 3-5-7-7 format, the way it was pre-2004, make the 1st Round, the best of 3 or the best of 5. You might could shorten the semi finals back to 5 games, and keep everything else at 7 games. If there is one thing that needs to be shortened in the basketball is the ...regular season. I could make the case that season would probably be better and more interesting with less game and staying pat in the playoffs.

That's what makes the NBA playoffs exciting are the back and forth battles.

The one game NBA Finals (NBA playoffs) is very risky, here's why. If you remember SA/Detroit or SA/Cleveland series or any of the series with the Nets involved (even against the Lakers), those series are universally panned for being awful and unwatchable.

Why would people get excited about watching one game between the Nets and Spurs vs. seven games. Though in the case of the Spurs vs. Pistons series, the ratings actually picked with each game headed to Game 7 (which has been the most watched NBA game in the US over the last 5 years). Kind of hard to believe that last game between the Pistons and Spurs scored a better Nielsen rating than any of the later Finals games. #1

If a series has good battle going on, people will watch it (you can't get that out of a one event game), also the NBA hasn't quite fallen down to the level of NHL yet ... yet.

People aren't going to necessarily welcome over the NBA, because it is shorter. It's rarely gotten NFL ratings beyond the Jordan years (90s) and Showtime Lakers-The Bird Celtic years (80s). Most of the time, not even surpassing the World Series, which only has happened about two or three times in the last 40 years Changing the playoff format wouldn't drum up the excitement to the level of the NFL. Also, people aren't as connected to their fanbases (outside of Pacific teams - LAC; GS; LAL; SAC; PHX; UTH; POR; and SEA-defunct and Northeast teams - NY, Chi, Det, Philly, Bos). It's those odd franchises that are really struggling (which could beg the argument for less games).

There's not anything wrong with the current playoff format.

In fact, the NBA playoff ratings for this decade have actually been off the chart. The numbers are almost always at the top, especially with the games on ESPN and TNT . . . the conference Finals games on ABC (when it's not on Saturday Night).

Lakers-Spurs (series: 00-01, 01-02, 02-03, 03-04, 07-08); Suns-Spurs (series: 02-03, 04-05, 06-07); Bulls-Celtics (08-09, broke a record for an ESPN audience, last year) ; Any Western Conference Finals in this decade; Miami-Dallas (05-06); Dallas-GS (06-07); Dallas-SA (05-06); and lastly people have even watched Houston playoff games.

Recently, most of the NBA's biggest failures have come in the NBA Finals and on network television. Even in the past (like some critics), I've always pointed to the coverage on ABC/ESPN as being somewhat responsible for that, since the Finals often did well on NBC and CBS, regardless of match-ups, sometimes. As well as the NBA (David Stern) for not taking network television seriously enough, which is another reason ratings freefall, during the Finals and most of the regular season, alot of people haven't seen some of the better teams that are playing (outside of the usual 4 to 6 teams). Also, if they are only going to prop a select few games, they shouldn't put them on opposite NASCAR or a Major PGA event.

But to be fair, I only think the league can promote teams, so much, because fans are attracted to individuals in these kind of sports. It's just part of the culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association_Nielsen_ratings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation..._and_controversies#Racial_and_cultural_issues

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....+knicks+lakers&rnum=15&hl=en#d15c5af32bbe779b
Click to expand...

stoped reading after first line. sorry, too much for my bball IQ

roflmcwaffles · Mar 6, 2010

Ariza4MVP said:

this is way to complicated...and cant really decided advancement by just 1 game...

i would leave it how it is except make the first two series only best of 5.
Click to expand...

It is essentially March Madness. Idk to me till elimination games, the playoffs aren't all that exciting, but I guess its just me.

Agent94 · Mar 6, 2010

Get rid of conferences and divisions. There are 30 teams. Expand the season to 87 games. Play every team 3 times. One home, one away, the last game alternates.

Then take the top 16 teams and rank them by record.

leebigez · Mar 7, 2010

Agent94 said:

Get rid of conferences and divisions. There are 30 teams. Expand the season to 87 games. Play every team 3 times. One home, one away, the last game alternates.

Then take the top 16 teams and rank them by record.
Click to expand...

Saved me the keystrokes. This has been my idea for a long time.

rage · Mar 8, 2010

Agent94 said:

Get rid of conferences and divisions. There are 30 teams. Expand the season to 87 games. Play every team 3 times. One home, one away, the last game alternates.

Then take the top 16 teams and rank them by record.
Click to expand...

You are solving the wrong problem.

Forums

How NBA should format their playoffs.

Which way would you prefer?

NBA Way.

My New Way.

YaosDirtyStache Member

tmacROX1 Member

roflmcwaffles Member

Agent94 Member

leebigez Contributing Member

rage Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!