http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/03/09/...op-seeded-teams-to-pick-their-playoff-o/#cont this post on nba fanhouse was really interesting. basically, the first-seeded team in the D-LEAGUE is allowed to pick their opponent from the 5-8 seeds. i don't think they'd ever institute this in the nba because the team would probably end up selecting the team they were supposed to play normally, but still...
That's an interesting way of doing it. I like that. The team with the best record gets the first pick of who their first round opponent will be, then the next best team chooses, and so on. And why not repeat the process after each round as well?
That would be terrible, I rather have it like how they do it in football (soccer) with the Champions League which is simply lottery. So put 8 balls in a bowl and let one man pick each team and its opponent, this goes for the first and second round. Then it's simply the last 2 left. This is always aired live so there is no way it can be rigged. Pefeto !!
I think it is good for the first round, but still somewhat unnecessary. Because, 9/10 times the weakest team is usually the 8th seed. And the top seed plays hard anyway, to get the weakest team in the playoff picture. But, I sort of like the idea. Other playoff ideas, I like: *Shorter 1st Rounds, like baseball, go back to the 5 game or 3 game format. Sometimes, these playoff series drag on too long with players going out on shorter rest. The other 3 rounds can remain seven. * Change the format every other year, East and West some years, then in odd years like last year, the league should find a way to substitute the worst teams in the other conferences out for better teams. The NFL has little more merit to it, because of the division winners (who should be always guaranteed a spot, maybe not homefield though). Still, I know that there are going to be years, good teams won't make the playoffs. * The championships could be played at neutral sites, like Super Bowl or NCAA Tournaments. It would make things slightly more interesting, because certain cities have never hosted NBA Finals, most NBA franchises haven't. Maybe, people would like the sport more, if they could actually see some quality basketball. 2-3 games at one site, 2-3 games at another, with last being a home game possibly for the team with the better record.
I agree that the 1st round should go back to 5 games, it made it more interesting, exciting, intense and the the rest of the playoffs more durable. Do not like your 2nd idea, they should stick to just one thing every year. I like the idea of championships being played at neutral sites and they can just use logos of both teams on the floor or something. But this does post problems for most people if they have to travel somewhere after rooting for the team the whole year.
Makes sense, if LeBron or Kobe breaks their arm in the final regular season game, it changes everything. It'll also be GREAT for riling teams up.
Wow what a horrible idea. That would take out a huge element of luck in the playoffs. Dallas probably wins the championship a few years back when they won 60+ games. No way they would choose to play Golden State. Rockets don't win championships in 1994 or 1995 since the Sonics would obviously choose us both years.
Shorter series works for everyone, except maybe the league and owners. Why does work for everyone, but them? Teams and players - More rest for players, more time for coaches to plan, and other big events can be scheduled in arenas, like concerts and conventions. Less traveling for both teams. Only one road trip for the home team and two for the lower seeded team. Fans - there's a chance games can be scheduled closer to the weekend (or on weekend days) and with appropriate starting times. Anything, before 7:30, is kind of pushing it, people are still getting off work and a number of games are through the week. Games much better for days, like Thursday, Friday, weekend days, and holidays. TV and game Scheduling - Is total mess. The games are everywhere, some are on central stations, while others are on the most obscure channels. NBA should be making more deals to reach affliates, during playoffs. I'm sure there are a few stations that would love to carry the NBA on a (weekend) night without any network programming, like CW, TBS, or My Network TV. Also, the games are scheduled on the oddest nights of the week at oddest times, like Tuesday and Wednesday. Especially, NBA TV and ESPN2 games, those aren't really best networks to have them on, both are somewhat obscure. I would say TBS, FX (FOX) (which doesn't show new programming on Fridays - Mondays, usually), Spike TV, or even ABC Family. Stations that are usually on basic cable and satellite packages. This might be, because I don't particularly like ESPN or NBA TV. Also, it wouldn't be long drawn out, it only last for one round playoffs for like 2 weeks (5 game series) and maybe extra round (if the network is hurting for ratings). It would work for one of those select networks, because it would only last two weekends, which filled with old reruns and movies that have been 1,000 times anyway. I'm pretty sure an exciting NBA playoff series (at 4:00, 5:30 or 8:00 on Saturday or Sunday night) would bring more ratings than a 5th replay of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for that week.
For Dallas, it wouldn't have matter. They might gotten their butts kicked by Kobe and Co, who would have given them a better series than they did the Suns. Kobe would've had Jordan-like series against the Mavs, averaging 36 to 40 ppg. As Andrew Bynum was steadily improving and with Lamar Odom. I think the Lakers would've beaten that same Dallas team, if Kobe went all out. Remember, this is the same team Kobe went ape-s#it against scoring 63 in 3 quarters with a year before. Anything could happen. While Dallas might have beaten Houston or Denver, it wouldn't have been easy by any stretch of imagination. You think Dallas would've had an easier time trying to stop Yao and Tracy. I don't see Dallas winning very easily against us. Remember, they had no answer for Yao or Tracy, while we had slightly improved from our previous meeting in the playoffs. Denver might've been a tough out, too. Denver actually gave Dallas alot of trouble that year, like GS. Remember, Dallas wasn't as mentally strong or discipline defensively, like SA was or is. I think Denver manages two or three more wins against Dallas. That team was going to be in for an upset at some point that year, it just so happened to be GS Warriors. I think Utah, Houston, or Kobe/Phil Lakers could've brought down that Mavericks team.
i think they do that for d-league cause theres so much player movement even after trade deadlines because of callups. I dont follow baseball so i dont know how the playoff system works in Triple A.
On the reverse, the 93-94 Supersonics and 06-07 Mavs could argue the same thing for having too many games, instead so few. I'm pretty sure the Mavs and Supersonics might've won their series, if they had the same format as the 81 Lakers. Best of 3 series. It can go both ways...but sides all 3 of those teams lost fair and square. All were soundly beaten.
For a long regular season like the NBA's, the teams that do well in the season should be rewarded better. I think letting them pick their opponent is the best reward possible.
shorter series still make it easier for a lesser team to get the wins they need to pull off the upset. that's why i like moving the first round to 7 games. because that's the round where we're supposed to get rid of the pretenders to move on to the really good basketball, not give the pretenders the best chance to move on. as for whoever brought up the mavs being upset in 2006, they were 67-12 against everybody not named golden state. their point differential might not have been huge, but phoenix was the only other team that could've given them trouble, and they were on the spurs side of the bracket so it didn't matter. us, denver, and LA wouldn't have stood much of a chance at all. obviously a spurs series would have been close but they matched up very well against SA and always seemed to run their offense well against them. if they beat the spurs, that's pretty much the title because that cleveland team would have been an easy matchup for them. they weren't 67-12 by accident. just like they weren't 0-3 against the warriors by accident. the warriors just owned them.
I will say that I liked Bill Simmons' idea of infusing a March Madness aspect to the playoffs. But I would substantially tweak it: Lightning Round 1 (play in, single elimination): Conference teams #10 vs 13 (winner = A), #11 vs 12 (winner = B) Lightning Round 2 (single elimination): Conference teams #6 vs B (winner = C) #7 vs A (winner = D) #8 vs 9 (winner = E) This determines the 8 teams for each conference for Round 3 (5 game series) #1 vs E #2 vs D #3 vs C #4 vs 5 Semifinals (7 game series) Conference Finals (7 game series) NBA Finals (7 game series) I'd end the regular season on a Monday, play the lightning rounds on Wednesday and Thursday, and start round 3 on Saturday. The regular season still has to matter: The division winners are protected from single game elimination (they skip the lightning rounds) and get at least 4 days off from their last regular season game and first playoff game. Cinderella (play-in) teams have a tough road to make it into the third round, playing back to back teams with no prep time. It's good for the fanbases. Right now, a solid third of the league's fanbases know their season is shot come March, if not the All Star Break. It sucks, it hurts attendance, it reduces interest in the league, it reduces interest in renewing tickets for next year. The league likes having six meaningless division winners, because it's something those fanbases can hang their hat on and get excited about. We're a fanbase ready to end everything since we haven't been out of the first round in eons. Well, this gives literally every team in the league something to follow and be wrapped up in, down to the wire. Division winner with a Lightning Round Bye? Seeding for the lightning rounds? In the playoffs or the lottery? March and April will matter for 30 teams, not just half of them. Instead of the current, excruciatingly long and drawn out first round, we get 3 rounds of high "win or go home" excitement to kick things off. A single, best of 7 series first round can go anywhere from 32 to 49 games which the NBA overly stretches out over almost three weeks. This method gives 3 rounds that would need less than 2 weeks to fully run. Being in the lottery comes with shame. Only the bottom two teams from each conference are eligible for the lottery. The lottery is altered to determine the winner of the #'s 1, 4, 5, and 6 picks. The 2nd and 3rd picks are rewarded by a separate lottery to teams from the playoff eligible pool (26 teams, all given equal probability except for the division winners). Example: The bottom 4 (bottom two from each Conference) are given equal 25% Odds for the top pick. Once the top pick is determined, the three remaining teams are given equal 33% chances for the number four (1% for a redraw). Finally the last two teams recieve 50% chances for the number five. The division winners are not eligible for the number two pick. Only the other 20 playoff-eligible teams are, and are given equal 5% chances to win it. The division winners and 19 remaining playoff eligible teams (25 total) are given equal chances at the number three pick (4%). Once picks 1-6 are determined, the remainder are slotted as normal. This should substantially decrease tanking. The stigmata of being one of only 4 teams not in the playoffs should be damning, especially when odds are 75% that you will end up outside of the top 3. There's also no carrot to chase 20-win seasons since the worst record in the league does not buy you extra percentage points. No more sham season ending "injuries" that further alienate your fanbase.
