This business of everybody wanting the rockets to end up 6th rather arbitrary. How about the team with the best record get to chose which of the 4 bottom playoff team it plays in the first round, the team with the second best gets to chose second, 3rd team 3rd and 4th team no choice. This serves as an extra reward for the teams with the best regular season record and would mean that noone ever gained by tanking. Apart from in the lottery. Its interesting how this would work this year. Presumably Memphis/sacramento would be picked first and the rox would end up playing Seattle if they fancied us more than the Nuggs.
That would never work. But I don't like how this current system is running right now, division leaders get top seeds automatically. So a potential team in a bad conference could have a .500 record and still beat out a winning team, just because they are division leaders. Look at the Sonics and Nugs, one of them could be a #3 seed, even though they have worst records then the Kings and Mavs. I just don't like how it is done, espcially since we are in the hardest division in the NBA.
And how much fun would it be if the #1 selected the #2 team out of pure confidence. It'd be like a boxing match: "We want YOU Tim Duncan. Bring it."
I like that idea. But, then, I also like the idea of eliminating automatic bids entirely and making all bids at large across the league.
That would be really cool, but you would have to abandon the divisional seeding then or it wouldn't be equitable. I would also feel really sorry for the first coach who didn't pick the lowest ranked team and lost - talk about second-guessing!
How about seeding get determined by a "selection" committee and we set up four brackets? There would be 4 number one seeds, and the last 4 seeds remaining could be called the "final four".
An ideal seeding system shouls (in order of importance): (1) reward regular season performance. (2) mean that to the greatest extent possible, teams always have an incentive to win and not to tank. (3) mean that the best teams (meaning the best teams at playoff time, since the NBA season is long and full of injury, etc) meet in the later rounds. (4) create excitement (and even intrigue) at the end of the season. (5) not depend on a committee: subjective and endless arguments. The problem with the current system (leaving asside the division issue which can be thought about independently) is exemplified by the Nuggets situation. Had their spurt started a little later, they could easily have ended up eighth (they still could). But since they are the hottest team in the NBA meeting them is no reward for winning the Western Conference. What I think is good about the system that I suggest is that it rewards overall regular season performance more than currently, particularly winning the conference, which currently means rather little, but also will tend to keep the best teams away from each other in the first round (since the conference winner will normally be one of them). It does also create a little bit of fun waiting to hear who the coaches pick...
I think they should have the same system as NCAA football... The top 2 teams play a 1 game playoff for the championship.
You beat me to it. BCS rules! The "media poll champ" Cleveland Cavs vs the "coaches poll champ" SA Spurs would be a great matchup! Half time show with Ash Simpson would rock the house. A $14 million reward for each team wouldn't hurt either.
How about we match the playoff teams up with the closest point spreads. Then it would make gambling more interesting. Plus David Stern would love it.
Actually, on reflection, I think that the neatest system would be if the three division champions got to choose which of the five remaining teams it wanted to play. That way the last matchup would be between the two teams that none of them wanted. Which would be a suitable reward for not winning your division. Then the playoff seeds would probably be: Phoenix vs Memphis/Minnesotta. San Antonio vs Kings/Nuggets Seattle vs Nuggets/Kings Houston vs Dallas.
I think one minor change would make the current system be equitable. Allow the division winners to be guarranted of one of the top 4 seeds, but have the seedings of the top 4 (3 division winners plus the next team with the best record) determined by record. That would keep the importance of winning divisions (assured of a berth and top 4 seeding) but eliminate the 1 major flaw with the current seeds. This flaw is that the #6 seed could get home court and generally will play an easier team whereas the #5 seed will never have home court (even if they have the 4th best record in their conference) and probably play a tougher team than the #6 seed. This correction would eliminate 95% of the incentive of the playoff teams for tanking.
That is a good suggestion. 95% is too optimistic though because teams with excellent regular season records can end up hobbling into the playoffs. That means that the teams below them will still sometimes have an incentive to tank in order to meet them.
If the teams have the right to decide, it will be a whole new branch for Las Vegas and consipiracies...but I like the idea if it can be honest
Perhaps the 95% level is optimistic, but those are the breaks (some teams get hot, some teams get injuries, etc). What is not fair is the #6 seed for most seasons will get the easier draw than the #5 seed (odds are the worst division winner is not as good as the next highest team from the top 2 divisions), and the #6 seed has a chance for home court where it is impossible for the current #5. That system has inherent flaws, but the rest I don't have a big problem with (giving division winners automatic berths or even a top 4 seed).
