What the NBA should do about this East vs West bull*****

silentfan · 06-21-2003, 01:58 AM

Since the nba is an 84 game season...and the finals EVERY FRIGGIN YEAR is a ratings joke, why not let the two best damn teams play in the finals. Seems like every year, some subpar team from the east gets a free ride at a chance for a championship when there's 3 or 4 good teams from the west who have to beat each other to death just for a spot.

84 games:

29 teams

Each team plays every other team 3 times. Winner of the best of 3 wins the series and makes calculating the standings a helluva lot easier.

28 teams x 3 games = 84 games

Best 2 teams meet in the finals. Everyone is happy.

mfclark · 06-21-2003, 02:02 AM

Then when there are 30 teams after this year, what do you propose? It'd require yet another change.

It's set up now to encourage divisional rivalries and make playing within your own conference rather important, as it is those teams that you will have to beat to make it in the playoffs.

And a cumulative best of three series set? Why? Your method would require the elimination of the playoffs as we know it, if I'm reading it right, by skipping straight to the finals and pitting the two best teams against each other.

What the NBA should do is nothing, and let natural change fix things. Be patient.

AstroRocket · 06-21-2003, 02:10 AM

Um, the NBA season is 82 games. In case you were confused, that's how we ended up 43-39 last season.

rezdawg · 06-21-2003, 02:11 AM

Unfortunately, the NBA season is 82 games long. Thus, the math gets screwed up. They should stick to East and West.

AstroRocket · 06-21-2003, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by silentfan

84 games:

29 teams

28 teams x 3 games = 84 games

Also, what happened to the 29th team? Was it contracted or something?

Band Geek Mobster · 06-21-2003, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AstroRocket
Also, what happened to the 29th team? Was it contracted or something?

A team can't play itself.

As far as this 3 game per team idea goes...it's pretty terrible.

silentfan · 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Band Geek Mobster
A team can't play itself.

As far as this 3 game per team idea goes...it's pretty terrible.

Well, this whole 4 games per team and the standings system smells a lot like the stench of the college BCS. Why not make the standings meaningful by a regular season series an odd number.

Also, what I meant was the best two teams from playing in a tournament would be in the finals, hence the two best teams. There is a seeding tournament system in the NBA, why not in the NBA? It's kinda boring and predictable when a team acquires the best players and signs them to 10 year deals and they know they can be in the finals basically every year if they want it because they know exactly who they need to beat to be in the finals. Prime example is Shaq and Kobe...I don't think anyone on this board can deny that if the Lakers wanted to win it all this year from the beginning of the season they would've done it or at least been in the finals. Why do you think they are the favorites for next year? How did the Bulls win 6 championships in 8 years? Dynasties are good for the ratings, but gimme a break, it gets old especially for the people who aren't lakers and bulls fans. How many people on this board have talked about the what ifs of the Rockets (hakeem) playing the Bulls (jordan) and them meeting in the playoffs? Hmm....guilty pleasures have we? Well, none of that is ever going to happen because teams are confined to playing against teams in their own conference until the finals. In this day and age of 90 million dollar shoe deals and 100 million dollar multi-year contracts...someone is gonna try and say traveling expenses is what keeps the schedule the wa it is? LMAO.

If the NBA eliminated the stupid sub-conferences within a conferences, it wouldn't be so bad. Someone tell me why it's fair for the Mavs to have the best record in the league and be seeded 3rd? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

rezdawg · 06-21-2003, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by silentfan
Someone tell me why it's fair for the Mavs to have the best record in the league and be seeded 3rd? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

They didnt have the best record in the league.

Regardless, it doesnt matter. Whether they were seeded 1st or 8th, they couldnt beat the Spurs. Thus, they dont deserve to be in the finals.

silentfan · 06-21-2003, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rezdawg
They didnt have the best record in the league.

Regardless, it doesnt matter. Whether they were seeded 1st or 8th, they couldnt beat the Spurs. Thus, they dont deserve to be in the finals.

they tied with the spurs for best record in the league = best record in the league.

regardless, the point I was trying to make was the idiotic sub-conferences and the seeding system. Any way you look at it, the mavs should have been seeded 2nd behind the spurs, given the stupid rules about having the better conference record, etc. Giving then 2nd seed to sacramento is like rewarding the leastern conference playoff teams due to conference placement and not based on wins/losses.

rezdawg · 06-21-2003, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by silentfan
they tied with the spurs for best record in the league = best record in the league.

The Spurs had the edge in the series, thus the Spurs win the tie breaker. The Spurs were the #1 seed, deservedly so.

Band Geek Mobster · 06-21-2003, 02:39 AM

How would you decide who gets homecourt advantage for each 3 game series?

rezdawg · 06-21-2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Band Geek Mobster
How would you decide who gets homecourt advantage for each 3 game series?

Thats another flaw in the theory.

rezdawg · 06-21-2003, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by silentfan
Any way you look at it, the mavs should have been seeded 2nd behind the spurs,

In the end, it didnt matter. The Spurs played the Mavs in the conference finals, which would have happened even if the Mavs were the #2 seed. It still played out like it would have.

silentfan · 06-21-2003, 02:41 AM

Notice I never said the Mavs should be seeded first, everyone knows the spurs beat them in the head to head series and deserve the #1 seed. I didn't want to get into the details of all that hence I said they had the best RECORD which they did and for them to have the best record (albeit tied) in no logical sense should they be 3rd seed if for no other reason than the stupid NBA playoff/conference rules. Like I said, it's like rewarding an undeserving team because of some idiot's idea of how to group the teams....memphis is west, new orleans in the east?

I think you get my drift...

silentfan · 06-21-2003, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rezdawg
Thats another flaw in the theory.

you must be thinking I meant 3 game series in the playoffs...LOL

I said 3 game series during the regular season, not the playoffs. I think it's easy to calculate who should have home court advantage with an odd number of games between two teams.

rezdawg · 06-21-2003, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by silentfan
memphis is west, new orleans in the east?

First off, memphis is only in the west because they used to be Vancouver. Secondly, New Orleans is moving to the western conference.

rezdawg · 06-21-2003, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by silentfan
you must be thinking I meant 3 game series in the playoffs...LOL

I said 3 game series during the regular season, not the playoffs. I think it's easy to calculate who should have home court advantage with an odd number of games between two teams.

I know you were talking about the regular season. And no, I dont see how you can calculate who gets home court in a 3 game series.

silentfan · 06-21-2003, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rezdawg
In the end, it didnt matter. The Spurs played the Mavs in the conference finals, which would have happened even if the Mavs were the #2 seed. It still played out like it would have.

In this case yes, but what happens when the Mavs lose to the presumably better 6th seed when they should have played the worse 7th seed? You gonna apologize to all the Mavs fans who feel cheated? Didn't think so. Don't take one specific case of a wash and presume everything will always work that way under the unfair current system.

OverRRated · 06-21-2003, 02:45 AM

Finally, somewhat preaches something similar to what I've wanted for years.
Get rid of this East/West garbage.
Make every team play each other an equal amount of times, have your playoffs consisting of the best records......NO MATTER WHAT CONFERENCE THEY'RE IN.......and call it a day.

Unless Kidd stays in Jersey, and O'neal stays with the Pacers, next year's finals will make the one that just passed look like an old school Celtics-Lakers series.

rezdawg · 06-21-2003, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by silentfan
In this case yes, but what happens when the Mavs lose to the presumably better 6th seed when they should have played the worse 7th seed? You gonna apologize to all the Mavs fans who feel cheated? Didn't think so. Don't take one specific case of a wash and presume everything will always work that way under the unfair current system.

If the Mavs played the 6th seed and lost, they dont deserve to be in the Finals anyways. It doesnt matter because the team who makes it out of the conference deserves to be there. The seeding doesnt matter because the best team should be able to be all the rest of the teams.