So I was bored reading I think Hollinger/Simmon's articles about having a play-in to the playoffs and how NBA is losing $400 million this year really NBA needs a gimmick (and playoff shortening). So I'm just wonder if you would like my format or the format it is now, which do you think would just be overall better? Obviously this is out of sheer boredom and there is no rumor of anything like this happening. I get bored in NBA seasons that Rockets aren't making the playoffs . SO HERE IT GOES: 1) NBA's way: - Top 8 teams from each conference get into playoffs - Play best out of 7 game series each round. - Takes 3 months+ to complete - ETC, you guys obv know this already. 2) MY way (with some help from Hollinger/Simmons: - Top 12 teams make the playoffs automatically (doesn't matter which conference, just top 12 overall teams). - Rest of the teams have a giant playoff for the remaining 4 spots, so reach the semis and you are in (then play out to determine which seed you actually are, 13,14,15, or 16th). (1 game series). So essentially 2-4 weeks to end the season in this playoff mode. (just play 1 game a day, and break days where NBA deems necessary) - Top 2 teams host playoffs in the CLOSEST city to them with a football stadium. (So if last year LA would be in San Fran or San Diego, not sure which is closer, and Cle would be in the Brown's stadium). (even if they are knocked out play continues there, allows people to buy multiple tickets much like NCAA). - Finals destination is predetermined (just like NFL) - Everything is 1 game series (much like NFL). Only 1 game per day (outside of 1st round), happening on Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun (days can change if need be), but happening @ key hours: primetime on weekdays, and either primetime or noonish on weekends. (rest of days are off). So basically you are playing your hearts out for 1 BIG game and it would only take about a month, maybe a month and change to complete the entire playoffs. - This break period would also bring excitement/discussion, much like how it is in the NFL, which can only bring more viewers. - 1 game Finals would make even non NBA fans excited for the game. Hell my family watches 0 football the entire season (I'm the only NFL fan in the house), but when the Super Bowl comes around EVERYONE watches it. - NBA charges 2x for tickets, and has a standing room area. (Football stadiums average 3x as many seats as NBA stadiums, so this essentially is making NBA same money as all 6 game series). And I BELIEVE the viewing audience will be plenty large enough that they can charge more for TV commercials. Just some thoughts, what do you guys think? I just really know I'm HUGE NBA fan and even I get bored of playoffs (outside of when Rockets are in it), but I mean that's not good. I watch at least 150 games of basketball during the regular season, and I get bored, that can't be good for NBA's ratings. So thoughts, which do you like? What would you add? This is purely a discussion post.
I enjoy the NBA playoffs, so why would I want it to be a month shorter? I like your idea except for the single game elimination part.
By same way, I mean the current way. First round- 5 games Semis- 7 games Conference- 7 games Finals- 7 games
1, 2, 3, 4. Don't know why leagues have to make this so hard (baseball too). But I guess the dearth of (seriously) competing spring/summer playoff programming is too tempting to pass up.
The way of making the playoffs is a decent idea, but I don't really like the home court thing. I think other cities should always have the opportunity to host the playoffs should their team make it.
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.
IMO, the main problem with the NBA playoffs is the ridiculous amount of off-days during the first round because of TV.
I don't like the play-in idea. I would like to see the 16 seeds go to the 6 division winners and the next 10 best teams, regardless of Conference. Seed them 1-16 based on record, and then have your tournament. That would probably wind up with 10+ Western teams a lot of years, but I'd be fine with that. You'd also get some much more interesting competition in the second rounds and beyond. Here's how it would break down now: 1 Cleveland 16 Chicago 8 Utah 9 Phoenix 4 Dallas 13 Toronto 5 Denver 12 Portland 2 LA Lakers 15 Memphis 7 Boston 10 Oklahoma City 3 Orlando 14 Milwaukee 6 Atlanta 11 San Antonio Right now, LeBron would draw Chicago in the first round and face the winner of Utah\Phoenix in the second. To get past the third round, the Cavs would have to beat the likely second round matchup of Mavs-Nuggets. That's earning a trip to the Finals. Celtics and Thieves would throw down and then have to face the Lakers in round 2. This just seems like better matchups. Frankly if the 2 best teams in the league are in the same Conference, they should be playing for the title, not meeting up in the earlier rounds. I would have no problem if a Conference (assuming East) was eliminated after one or two rounds. The Mavs-Spurs second round matchup a few years back was a travesty. Granted, they kind of fixed that with the stupid top 4 rules. Of course with a mixed-Conference playoff seeding, you throw out the Conference-based schedules. You play division opponents 4 times. That's 16 games with 66 left over to play the other 25 teams. You play some 3 times and some 2.
Overall, I like the NBA way, but I would just get rid of the divisions, seriously the only thing they are good for are tiebreakers, all this business about "the top team in the division garuntees a top 4 seed" is just bull****"
The NBA playoffs need to be shortened. The problems mainly arise with the 1st round of the playoffs, where the teams are often mismatched and there will be 2 or 3 exciting series out of 8. They also have problems setting things up on TV, last year one of the unattractive series had to wait for 5 days in the middle of the series to resume. They can fix the playoffs in 2 ways: shorten the 1st round series to 5 games, or speed up the scheduling. Have teams play back to back during the home-home games and have no more than 1 day off between games. I know that means there will be games not shown on national TV, but local tv will cover the games for the local fans and 3/4 every night isn't bad.
I would like to see the teams with a .500 or better record who finish outside of the top eight in their own conference be given a chance to replace teams in the other conference only if their record is also better, but if tied, the team not in the top eight in their own conference would have to have swept the two games played with that team in the top eight in the other conference, or if split, it would have to have compiled a better winning percentage versus the playoff teams than that team in the other conference that made the top eight, but if the winning percentages were the same, then point differential. I would grant such a team missing the top eight in their own conference a chance to compete in the other conference by having it play that other team in the other conference for the right to replace that team in a one-game playoff on that other team's home floor. The loser of that game would enter the draft lottery. For instance, at the end of last season, the Phoenix Suns finished 9th in the WC with a 46-36 record, and the Detroit Pistons finished 8th in the EC with a 39-43 record. So if such a privilege existed for the Phoenix Suns at the end of last season, they would have been playing the Detroit Pistons in a one-game playoff at the Palace of Auburn Hills for the right to replace the Pistons in the EC. If the winner of that game was the Suns, they would not only replace the Pistons in the EC, but would end up with the 5th seed in that conference, and knock the Heat, the 76ers, and the Bulls down one slot each because of their record being better than each of those three teams.
Heh, me too. I agree, something does need to be changed. I love the NBA and cherish the 40 games in 40 nights plus some, but for the casual fan, yawn. Also frustrating that Rockets could be making a playoff run in the East, while it seems unlikely we're playoff bound in the west. I don't really mind this particular season cause I want a lottery pick, but any other year I'd be upset. No way the conferences are split though. Eventually the East will make a comeback. More than half the teams making the playoffs seems a little much. Six from each conference seems like a better idea, but I don't like the idea of playoff byes like the NFL. At the very least we need to shorten the 1st round back down to 5 games.
How about the top 16 teams make the playoffs regardless of who is the division winner? If this were to happen I'm sure the NBA would have to reconsider regular season scheduling, but I've always felt that this format would make for an even more interesting playoffs.
I'd rather have only 6 teams make the playoffs per conference. Except have them seeded randomly for playoffs. One thing I agree with you is the single elimination, that would make things more interesting, just like fewer games would be. And more importantly Jazz and Mavs are only allowed to play in the playoffs once a decade. I mean, they're never going to win it all anyways, so why bother.
I dont think playing in football stadiums is a good idea, I mean, why you have arenas designed for basketball, in the most important time (playoffs & finals) also the people that operates the NBA arenas, would not be so happy about not getting the playoffs in their stadiums, and not win more money. I would do like baseball and only putting the 4 best of each conference (no divisions) with 7 games series. Playing only one game in the NBA finals could be good for having more audience of casual fans.
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
