OK so I was reading today on ESPN, Jalen Rose wrote about how unfair it was that the Mavericks had a really good chance of missing the playoffs despite that they will likely be a 50 win squad. If not them, then the Nuggs or Warriors. And he suggested, as it has been said before, that the NBA should ditch the top-8 in each conference setup, and go to a 16-Overall setup, regardless of conference. I know that Stern would never do this, but the more I think about it, the more I think that he'd be stupid not to do this. Look at the 4 Eastern conference contenders right now. Boston, Orlando, Cleveland and Detroit. They're pretty much locked as 1-4, and have been for quite a while now. No one really cares what they do because everyone safely assumes that they have an easy ride into the playoffs in that format. If we did a top 16 format, then suddenly Detroit is battling it out with New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, L.A and Phoenix for home court advantage. Boston would not feel nearly as safe as they would have being in the meager Eastern conference, and Lebron would be sitting at #13 overall, instead of #4. What this would do is create a larger interest in the NBA Playoffs again (who the hell is going to watch the first 2 rounds of the Eastern conference, honestly?), and more than anything, increase ratings toward the end of any NBA regular season. Every season would be like a larger version of what's going on in the West right now. There would be a huge battle somewhere for, the 6-8 spots, or the 1-3 spots, or whatever. It'd make the NBA more INTERESTING. Just my .02 cents.
if i changed it, i'd let teams in the better conf take spots in the worse conf playoffs (denver and portland get to play, but they have to travel farther). naw, anything i think of has holes in it. sometimes you can't prevent mayhem.
Whats the point of having divisions and conferences when it's going to the the top 16 teams overall? To change the playoff format, you'd have to change how many times teams play each other. Keep it the way it always has been.
I think they should maybe have a wildcard-like loophole where, if there is a team over .500 that misses the playoffs when a team in the opposite conference makes it in with a losing record, they get to challenge that team for their spot. The sub .500 team would get the homecourt for this game to make it fair and make the winning team prove they deserve to get in over them. Of course, one possible negative from this is that it would look ridiculous to see the LA Lakers with an Eastern Conference Championship banner.
Didn't think the votes would be this close. I voted "no, keep it" cus I thought it could use some help. Guess I was wrong.
I'm fine with them leaving the playoff system as is, but if they do, they need to resolve the draft system. What really isn't fair is a team like Dallas winning 50 games and still slipping into the lottery where they have a shot, however small, at landing the #1 overall pick. Personally, I think this has a whole lot to do with why the Eastern Conference has been stuck in this pitiful state for the last 10 years or more now.
HUH??? If Dallas aren't good enough to make the playoffs, they cerainly SHOULD have a shot at the #1 pick!! I think you'd agree that they ARE good enough to be in the playoffs and don't NEED the #1 pick --> but then surely your argument must be that there's something wrong with the playoff system if they can miss out!! Here's the facts: 30 teams, 16 playoff spots! So a team with a losing record shouldn't really make it into the playoffs at all... but somehow they will, allowing a team with an excellent record to have a shot at the #1 pick... System needs changing. fullstop.
Why???? When that rule was introduced there were 4 (four) divisions. Ever since there have been 6 divisions the seeding has been an issue! You play the same amount of games against teams 'in your division' as you do against the other teams in your conference (except for the odd team or two), so why is winning a division significant in any way shape or form??
Dallas getting a shot at #1, hell even #7 - #14 pick is kinda scary. They'd have chance to get real decent player out of the draft and even get a player like Elton Brand.
Has there ALWAYS been 30 teams? 6 conferences? a shot clock? Face the facts man, the game is not even close to how it has 'always been', and even the playoff seeding is wildly different with 6 divisions instead of 4! The NBA needs to take the next logical step and release a new draw for next year (play each team 3 times? And 5 teams twice based upon what year it is those teams change?). And take the top 16 teams overall so that the best teams make the playoffs, and the worst teams get into the lottery. What's the point in having a draft if the worst teams don't get to take part in it?? To fix the draft format so that it reflected what happened, you'd have to change the playoff structure and.... oh wait - I think we can all see what NEEDS to happen here!
Yeah you can, you just take the teams with the best 16 records in the league. You'd have to modify the draw slightly - but it's not like it's an exact science at the moment anyway...
this is the matchup in the playoffs last season under such a plan: mavs v clippers suns v wizards spurs v nets pistons v warriors rockets v lakers jazz v heat cavs v nuggets bulls v raptors hey suns, guess what? you get to travel to DC for having the second best record. i'd call that a problem.
This is simple. If you love great basketball, you love great matchups, great games, and great playoffs leading to credible champions. The current system prevents us from seeing the best possible matchups in the playoffs. There is no excuse for this, other than "this is how it has always been done." If you prefer regional rivalries over great basketball.... I don't know what to say.
huh?? They win 2 home games, then go on the road against the 15th best team in the league ... a plane flight of 3 hours isn't much more than a flight of, say 2 hours to Seattle (which is possible under the current system) The advantage is in playing against the worse team in the first round rather than having to face a 50 win team (which would happen this year) A bigger problem is the better teams playing off early...
I think it'd be more fair, but no way it's more exciting. The high likelihood of upsets in the west are way more exciting.
Honestly they just need to put some more of the larger market teams in the east, Texas has 3 teams that are considered larger market teams alone. I wouldn't mind Houston in the east. Honestly, your suggestion wouldn't work because West teams don't play East teams as much, and vice versa. This is why Boston has a super inflated record beating up on a bunch of terrible eastern conference teams. They need to redo the teams in the conferences and they need to make it that a division winner makes the playoffs, but the seeding is still ordered by record.
If you went by my above mentioned suggestion it'd look like this: 1. New Orleans 50-22 (Division Leader) 2. San Antonio 51-23 3. L.A. Lakers 50-24 (Division Leader) 4. Phoenix 49-24 5. Houston 49-24 6. Utah 48-26 (Division Leader) 7. Denver 45-28 8. Dallas 45-28 While this might not bode well for the Rockets at the time, it'd be more fair in the long run so great teams don't run into each other at the 2nd round or even first round.
