An Interesting Article I read...(Could Mean Rox in Playoffs)

It's a possibility they've floated because the East is, of course, so weak. I would like to see the best teams in there, so the idea is OK to me; what interests me, too, is realignment,although I wonder if they'll actually do anything radical on that front or just nudge New Orleans to the West.

 

It certainly won't happen this season. I suspect the player's union would have to agree to it and why would any of the teams in the East vote to accept this? At the very least, the owner's would have to agree and I don't see that happening.

 

Would the schedule have to change? I don't think it would be fair for two teams with the same record when one team plays LA 4 times and the other plays CHI, CLE, etc, 4 times. Then again, they may just leave it and still just take the top 16.

I guess it would be pretty exciting. Just hope that the power doesn't change anytime soon and 5 yrs from now it would be 14 East teams and 2 West teams. Would be pretty hard for the Rockets to make it then...unless they...nope, it would be pretty hard.

 

I like it the way it is. The only reason we are b****ing about it is because we've been on the short end of the stick several times now.

To put it another way, would you Stros fans be happy if you had the best record in the central but got left out because the Phillies have a better record? Win your division...or win enough to get in in your own conference.

 

This is supposedly a consideration for 2004 when the Charlotte Bobcats enter the league. There has been talk of going to either four 8-team or eight 4-team divisions based primarily on geographic locations.

That would still create some geographic rivalries with those teams playing more often.

The most rumored was four 8-team divisions with the division winners each getting the top four seeds like it is now but seeding the remaining 12 teams simply by record and not based on division.

That makes the most sense to me.

 

MAN THAT WOULD BE LIKE HUBER COOL...... It would be cooler cuz then there would actually be competion in the playoffs... WOW that would be crazy, i can just imagine the main playoff picture now.. SHAQ vs. YAO FINALS HISTORY... wow to bad that would only happen when we get even better like 5 years from now

 

I think the original idea is really cool, but this one sounds like the best idea to me too. Hopefully if say the Lakers finish #1 seed and the Rockets finish #2 seed, the first time they meet wouldn't be until the finals, not before then because they're both from the west.

NO! It will happen in 1-2 years, 3 MAX.

 

I'm not speaking as a Rocket's fan here, but I do think it would improve the league.

I'm usually a traditionalist, but the East has been so bad for the last few years I've changed my mind.

Some of the Eastern Conf. teams in the playoffs are putting up a worse winning pecentage playing a weaker schedule than several teams in the West the last few years. It's made the NBA Finals a foregone conclusion, and that's bad for the game.

As a Rocket's fan, I don't really give a damn if they're the 8th or 9th best team in their conference now. Either is just not something to brag about.

It does make sense that Stern has a vested interest in seeing the best teams in the league in the playoffs, and oh yeah there's that Chinese guy who went home too soon this year.

 

thats really good. No more teams like the Magic, Bucks, and celtics or raptors in the playoffs.

 

they should definetly have the top 16 teams make it, and instead of having western teams playing western teams more often, they should play 41 games verse east teams, 41 vs west. there would be atleast 12 west teams in.

 

I think this idea only really works if every team plays every other team the same amount of times, rather than playing teams in your own conference twice as much. I mean, one conference could just be more evenly matched than the other or one conference could have more completely useless teams than the other.

My proposal is just add each team's record against the opposite conference on top of their final record. I know that's too kludgy to actually be used, but in my opinion it would be the fairest solution. Also, this "revised record" couldn't be used to jump ahead of teams in your own conference...just teams in the opposite conference.

For instance, if this were the Rockets 2000-2001 season. Their record would be 45-37 + 25-5 record against the eastern conference which equals 70-42, which would have given the Rockets the 10th seed in the playoffs that season.

 

I don't see a point in awarding playof spots via conference - they're meaningless.

Either make them mean something, or drop the fiction.

At the very least, you need some base line requirements. While I'd be in favor of a total revamp, you at least need some baseline requirements like:

1. No team without a winning record can make the playoffs if a team w/a winning record is excluded.
2. Winning a division does not guarantee at least a #2 seed.
3. Playoffs should be seeded irrespective of division, so that you don't have absurdities like the Eastern Conference champion going to the Finals, while teams like Sacramento get eliminated in the Conferenec Semis.

 

gee great idea, why dont we change the format of the playoffs EACH year to reflect where the best teams are so we can have to best ratings we can..

this is stupid..


LEAVE IT ALONE

 

1. Why should we leave it alone? What is good about the current system? Do the divisions actually mean anything?

2. The changes would permanently mean that the best teams got into the playoffs. So you only need to change it once.

This isn't about changing the system to get the Rockets in the playoffs. It's about changing a system w/o meaningful divisional differences, but nevertheless bases playoffs on them.

 

Very good idea - I totally agree. In every league the best teams should be allowed to get into the playoffs. The actual situ makes not so much sense. And the games will likely be a lot better. But I would have been in a mode that every team plays the same opposite teams as much as everyone else.

Of course now we would benefit and be in the playoffs because theh east is so weak. Even if the east would be as strong as the west it would be good. To become a champion you should be on or near the top no matter which conf. you are.

change accepted !

 

this would've been nice to have the last 3 years. 2 more playoffs for us. it won't even matter to us in the near future.

i don't know if i like having everyone play each other equally (which might be required to just let the top 16 in) b/c i like playing SA 4 times and new york 2 times. still, anything to keep crap east teams out is good for me.

it's amazing, they can't even match the records of western conference teams and they even get to play an easier schedule by playing more in the east. the east is so bad and will struggle for at least a few more years that this should be considered and implemented. i like the 4 or 8 team divisions (assuming the 4 team follows the same rule as the 8) but i would probably go with the 8 team divisions. the 4 team divisions in the nfl just seem too small.

 

It is an interesting idea.. but i'm assuming why they have divisions/conferences in the playoffs is because the teams don't have to travel back and forth across the whole country throughout the whole playoff series.. so if the majority of the teams in the playoffs were from the west they'd get an unfair advantage

 

Every league realizes that conferences are a good thing. They provide rivalries and give fans something to talk about. They also provide organization which allows us to more easily remember the teams.

The promblem, IMO, has been conferences. This is particularly true in basketball for a couple of reasons.

1. One conference has tended to dominate. At one point, this was the east and now it is the west. The only time that wasn't the case was in the 80's with the Celtics and Lakers, but even then, there were many more good teams concentrated in one conference even if the two best were on either coast.

2. There is no real conference separation. Unlike baseball where interleague play was just adopted or football that has a rotating interleague schedule, the NBA has its teams play every team every year. It's good in the sense that every team (and their fans) get a chance to see every other team and its players. But, it also doesn't diminishes the integrity of having separate conferences.

The idea of divisions is still a good one for the reasons I mentioned. I'm just not sure that conferences make much sense any longer. If they were truly separate conferences, if they had formed like the NFL did with the merging of two complete leagues or if they carried different rules like the DL in American League baseball, it would make more sense.

In the case of the NBA, it just doesn't.

 

The NFL had a very long period of ridiculous dominance by the NFC. I don't see anything particularly different about the NFL vs NBA, wrt having a one conference structure with more likelihood to create dominance.

pendulum swings in the NBA seem to be more a result of the fact one superstar is often enough to construct a Top 4 team...so, the pendulum will swing with the swinging of one conference having increased odds in the lottery of landing the superstars. FAncy can also create a fast swing. The current state of the West has also been amplified by free agency...Shaq, Webber and all Portland's spending helped create the dominance as much as the drafting of Nowitzki, Kobe, Garnett, and Duncan.

In the NFL, landing one player via draft position or FAncy doesn't have as much influence over creating or maintaining domination.