The stupidity is not the unevenness of the divisions. It is the absolute meaninglessness of the concept of "division" because the scheduling makes almost no difference for division teams from conference teams. Why is a meaningless thing being used as a factor to determine playoff seeding is really beyond me.
Well it's not absolutely meaningless because it does affect the scheduling somewhat. As you may know every team plays 4 teams from the same conference only 3 times. None of these 4 teams can be from the division of the team in question. But I agree with you in that I find the whole division concept stupid. But I don't think the league would get rid of it. They should just make it that you are guaranteed a playoff spot if you win your division so that all divisions are represented.
I've been a long time reader. Anyhow the Rockets are peaking at the right time and despite no Trace McGrady, we're on the verge of taking the southwest division. I don't understand the new tiebreaker rule that's in effect about the division winner getting the nod over the team with the same record that not leading the divison EVEN THOUGH we're in the top 4 and have the tiebreaker in head to head over the Denver Nuggets. Anyhow looking at the schedules of San Antonio, Denver and Houston, I think its entirely possible that all three teams can have the same record by the end of this season. We have some games against the top teams in the league, but outside of the Lakers, most of those are at home where we've done very well. We also beat a lot of the good teams on the road as well. But let's say the Rockets only lose one game (as well as the Nuggets) but it NOT to the Lakers but the Mavericks. The Spurs only lose two more games but beat the Hornets to clinch the division tie break. We would have a scenario that the Rockets, Nuggets, and Spurs would be 55-27. Then the next tiebreaker would be best winning perecentage amoung all three teams tied. Here's how each team fared: Rockets (2-2 SA, 3-1 DEN) 5-3 Spurs (2-2 HOU, 1-2 DEN) 3-4 Nuggets (2-1 SA, 1-3 HOU) 3-4 The Rockets would win the three team tiebreaker, but would lose the tiebreaker in division record to the Spurs (10-6 SA to 9-7 HOU). Would the division go to the Rockets or the Spurs in that scenario?
I love that we're going to the big show! It took us much less time to clinch this year than the last! Now it's just a matter of findingg out who we play. My gut tells me it's going to be Portland or Denver.
Sorry to say, but I do not share your same prediction. San Antonio is one up in the loss column now and has a much easier schedule down the finish than Houston.
Scribo. The tiebreak is not final over the Nuggets. It should currently be listed as "No" because Denver is leading their division. If they clinch the division and the Spurs clinch the Southwest division, then it can be changed to *No next to Denver.
I hear you, but I consider that tie break final. We took the head-to-head and win the 2 team tie break. If we met in the Playoffs and both had the same record, the Rockets would have home court. If the NBA chooses to award the Nuggets a higher seed because of a division title, so be it. It's the same concept as last year when we "closed" the Jazz out in the regular season even though they were going to get a higher seed.
I think the tie-break column is meant as a head to head, and in that case it is closed against Denver. DD
The Nuggets aren't considered in determining the division winner. So under your scenario the Spurs win the division because they win the divisional record tie break. As for seeding the teams, the Rockets <I>should</I> be the #2 seed. The Spurs and Nuggets are both 3-4 so they would have to go Conference Record (where the Spurs have a 1 loss edge) and then record against the Playoff field (where the Nuggets have the edge) to break their tie. Probably it would be Rockets, Spurs, Nuggets. However this contradicts this whole new "division leader" provision. The Rockets would not have won their division, but actually have a higher seed than the Spurs. Are we supposed to say Rockets, you lose to both these teams and throw them out of the mix? Then apply a 2 team tie break to the Nuggets and Spurs? Then it would be Nuggets, Spurs, Rockets. Last year, it would have gone down like my second paragraph stated. This is an identical situation to the Laker-Hornet-Rocket tie scenario. Last year, it was confirmed that we would have been the #1 seed. We really need to get some kind of league confirmation on this.
according to http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html (-) Tie breaker not needed (better overall winning percentage) (1) Division leader wins tie from team not leading a division (2) Head-to-head won-lost percentage (3) Division won-lost percentage (4) Conference won-lost percentage (5) W-L Percentage vs. Playoff teams, own conference (6) W-L Percentage vs. Playoff teams, other conference (7) Net Points, all games interestingly, that division leader wins tie thing does not appear in Playoff Tie-Break Procedures
SES and Scrib's Magic Number followers, How come we get no love from ESPN.com in the standings. As of 10:56 AM (CST) today, the standings do not indicate that we have not clinched the playoffs. Am I missing something? Edit: Yahoo.com has us clinching a playoff berth.
ESPN is always slow to update those standing in the event of a tie break. It usually shows up after a team has clinched regardless of a tie break or if it's a high profile team winning to make the playoffs. It'll be updated soon enough.
I am surprised the chronicle doesn't have anything on their website. You would think it would be worthy of a mini article.
