Interesting read about the pros and cons of having a non conference playoffs if the season is shortened. http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/21...Playoff_System -small bit "If we had a common pool based on last season’s standings, the first round of the 10-11 Playoffs would have looked like this: Bulls/Nuggets Spurs/Blazers Heat/Hornets Lakers/Grizzlies Mavericks/Hawks Celtics/Rockets Thunder/Knicks Magic/76ers The 43-39 Rockets would replace the 37-45 Pacers as the only change to the 16 playoff teams, just as the 48-win Warriors would have replaced the 37-win Hawks in 2008. Assuming the higher seeds advanced, the second round would have featured the Bulls/Magic, Spurs/Thunder, Heat/Celtics and Lakers/Mavericks. The second set of matchups is what we saw from the second round under the current system." Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/21...#ixzz1ZsRxZpYM __________________
i agree with that format..why not just take the best 16 teams from the league? although that really does make conferences kind of insignificant
Conferences still divide teams by geographic regions, making travel less burdensome over the course of the season. In that sense it would still be useful, if not necessary.
possible solution While I'd like to see the Conferences kept in place, I also think that for teams to qualify for the playoffs, they need to have a winning record. I wouldn't mind seeing a rule that says if one conference has less than 8 teams with winning records and the other conference has more than 8, then the teams with winning records get to take their spot. This would provide for a more competitive playoff with truly the best teams fighting it out.
top 16 regardless of conference would be much more fair and exciting. i would go even farther than that though. i would make it top 26 teams, with the 6 division winners getting a first round bye. the remaining 20 teams play through the first round, and after 10 teams remain, the 6 division winners get top seeds starting from the 2nd round. having the 1st round bye would add more excitement to divisional competition. maybe throw in another reward, like choosing your own seed to avoid getting upset by a mismatch (or making a stupid decision and getting yourself eliminated).
Bulls and Nuggets, that would be fun. As for geographic concerns, there's a day in btwn games anyway. And some western cities are closer to somee Eastern teams then western teams.
I think the only real motivation for wanting a non-conference format for a short season would be to set a precedent for a non-conference format for every season. I'm not sneaky like that.
The opinion here in Houston will certainly be slanted. We've gotten the worst of the west coast dominance recently. In a straight 16 team format we've had 4 extra playoff appearances, and numerous trips out of the first round. Although still no finals trips. But even being objective. The NBA has made it so the regular season is insignificant, so if the playoffs decide everything, you may as well let the best 16 in. I'm in favor of a no division, 30 team league. Divisions only allow undeserving teams to get in, and even make deep runs. The 06-07 rockets we're better than cleveland, and they got all the way to the finals, while we were first round fodder.
more complicated, but also more exciting. the playoffs are the only thing most people care about anyway, might as well capitalize and maximize on that. make the playoffs longer and give more teams a shot. the nba playoffs are the most unique (and best) playoffs of any sport. thats the nba's advantage in the marketplace. if the nba is having problems with money and ratings, the playoffs are the answer. 32 teams and everyone goes. that would be best. shorten the 1st round to best-of-3, and 2nd round best-of-5.
No. Does not reward regular season play. That would lose more viewers of regular season due to apathy by players. And yeah, the teams with best record will have better seeds, but at the end of the day, the top 16 teams have homecourt advantage... Really? Top 16? Meh.
it's just 1 extra round. the bottom teams will almost assuredly lose, but still it gives the fans of those teams something to cheer for. (and for the owners and players, it means more $$$) ... i don't think a #32 will ever beat a #1 seed... but if it did happen then that would be amazing. the middle ground matchups are usually the most exciting anyway and we'll see more of those. as for regular season apathy, we already have plenty of that. i don't see how more playoff teams would increase apathy by players. they aren't playing just for the lowly goal of not being excluded from the playoffs, they are playing with the hopes of winning the ring. seeding and hca are important, and once the playoffs start, the intensity goes up another notch. the regular season can be shortened so each team only plays each other twice, and space the games out a bit so no more back to back garbage. more rest for the players, more longevity to their careers, more intensity per game. vote for me as commissioner and i'll bring the nba to total world domination!
I think you'd find a whole new dimension in apathy that you never knew existed with your playoff format. Why should players destroy their health and wear out their knees playing a regular season of no consequence? So, you'd shorten the regular season so you could have an extra round of playoffs? If anything, the league should go the other direction and make the playoffs more exclusive to make the regular season more meaningful.
nah i think its the exact opposite. look at the mlb for example. talk about apathy. very few teams make the playoffs and you already know who its gonna be by the end of the first month. 180 games season and after about 30 or 40 games you already know whats gonna happen for the rest of the season. so basically 20+ teams are playing over 100 useless garbage games the whole season. the only reason anybody cares at all is because of tradition. there would be less apathy with more playoff teams. look at how it is now, the top seeds continue to play hard throughout the season to maintain their top seeds. they don't become apathetic just because they know they are gonna win their division and get hca. the only teams who become apthetic are the teams who know that they aren't gonna make the playoffs. competition heats up right near the end of the season whenever there are closely seeded teams battling it out. teams that are too far ahead or too far behind will slack off and clear their benches for the last few games. but if every team was guaranteed to go, the only difference between any team would be seeding. and since all teams are in, then there is more battling for hca, because every team will have someone just above and just below them. every game becomes more important, not less important.
26 teams out of 30 get in? what's the point of having eighty two regular season games before that then??
thats why i said, shorten the regular season. theres too many games. less games, more seeds, then every game has more meaning.
Start relegating teams like they do in the EPL, and that would add excitement....lol.... Never happen, but man.... DD
And this is why you know nothing about basketball. Its already bad with over 50% of teams getting a playoff pass, now you want over 80% to make the playoffs?
