Looks like the expected Spurs/Mavs 2nd round matchup is going to cause some changes. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2335631 HOUSTON -- The two best teams in the Western Conference are on course to meet in the second round of the playoffs, which is a problem. Even David Stern recognizes as much, which is why his league is taking a closer look at changing the postseason seeding format to prevent similar scenarios from unfolding in the future. Under rules implemented when the league expanded from four divisions to six last season, the top three seeds go to each of the division leaders, with the fourth through eighth seeds going to the teams with the next best records in the conference. The Dallas Mavericks (41-11) currently lead the Southwest Division by one game over the San Antonio Spurs (40-12), who have the second-best record in the conference but would drop into the fourth seed if they failed to win the division. "I think the one thing there may be some interest in ... would be to maybe look at how you seed the top four teams," deputy commissioner Russ Granik said Saturday. "One thing that we have kicked around is whether you might say, all right, those same four teams are going to get the top four seeds, but maybe you do it in accordance with their records." The issue will come up for further discussion when the league's competition committee meets in June. Granik all but ruled out giving playoff berths to the top eight teams in each conference, saying the league wanted to keep an incentive for winning the division. He also said the league has no interest in re-seeding teams after each round of the playoffs. Other matters addressed by Stern and Granik at the commissioner's annual All-Star news conference included: • Stern discounted the possibility of moving All-Star Weekend overseas, a notion he had considered in the past. The 2007 game will be in Las Vegas, and the league is negotiating with New Orleans for the 2008 game. "We really don't think there's an overseas destination that makes sense for us from a building perspective. And in addition, we don't really currently have the time within the schedule to do something like that." • On the issue of the Seattle SuperSonics relocating if they cannot win approval for public financing of a new arena, Stern sounded as though he'd support a move after the team's lease expires in 2010. "I think if the situation is not ultimately improved ... I think the Board of Governors would be inclined to listen to their partner's request for an opportunity to be in a place where there is a good lease and a good facility," he said. • Stern also was unequivocal in saying the Hornets would return to New Orleans for the 2007-08 season, though he complimented Oklahoma City by saying it had proved itself as a major league city. He also said he had spoken to representatives from Kansas City, San Diego and Anaheim, Calif., about those cities' interest in attracting an NBA team, although expansion is not in the league's immediate plans. • Pushing back a timetable he established prior to the season, Stern said he expected to name a new deputy commissioner to replace the departing Granik sometime in April. • Speaking of the league's decision to hold the 2007 All-Star Game in Las Vegas, Stern said it was not a "dry run" for possibly relocating an NBA franchise there, reiterating that he would remain opposed to such a move as long as casinos in that state continue to accept wagers on NBA games. "We have one issue with Las Vegas, and it's not about gambling, as I've said. Forty states have lotteries, and those that don't have Indian reservations with gambling establishments, or video poker in their eating establishments, so everybody gambles now. Whether that's right or wrong, that's state government policy that's been left to the states, and that's what America does."
Why is it better to win your division than to try to acheive the best record possible (and really what's the difference)? The seeding where division leaders get the top seeds over better teams from other divisions is stupid. The best teams should get the top seeds. They finally realized there is a problem, but it's like their in denial over what the actual problem is.
Because they want the divisions to matter. Otherwise, each conference would be one big 15 team division. Maybe if they just guaranteed division winners 3 out of the top 4 seeds and W/L records determined home court advantage. This way, the Mavs and Spurs would be #1 & #2 in the West with the Suns #3 followed by Denver. This would still push the Clippers to #5 even though their record is better than Denver but they would have home court advantage over the Nuggets in Round 1. Sounds like a plan to me.
Sorry for my ignorance but can anyone please tell me the rationale behind dividing the confenerce into divisions?
Sorry for my ignorance but can anyone please tell me the rationale behind forcing the wildly popular Oklahoma City Hornets out of sold out Ford arena in the healthily functioning city of Oklohoma City, to play in a sure to be empty arena in a moldy wasteland of rot. New Orleans was a disfunctional city any few blocks past downtown and the Quarter, robbed and raped by its local, city, and state government. The flooding revealed the rot. The Hornets should move themselves and their families to Dead Orleans as soon as the NBA moves its offices and families to Mold City. The players should sue the NBA for unconsiousable cruelty.
If they really want divisions to matter, then they should make it matter in the scheduling too, like the NFL. As it is now, teams play the same number of times against division rivalries as against other teams in the same conference. So what's the meaning of winning the division? Personally, I'd rather just get rid of the divisions and have too big conferences, which is what it is anyway, except in the playoffs seeding. Most Rockets fans hate the Lakers and the Jazz a lot more than the Grizzlies and the Hornets. And I am sure the interstate rivalry against Dallas and San Antonio would still be there even if we were in difference divisions.
Gee, thanks for looking in to it now. We would have played Seattle in the first round last year, then Phoenix, under this format. We would have killed the Sonics.
My question is, I wonder who gets homecourt advantage when the 3rd seeded winner of the crappy Northwest Division plays the 6th seeded team, who will likely have a better record than the winner of the Northwest division. And if indeed the 6th seed does get homecourt advantage, how unfair is it that the 6th seed does get home court, but the 5th seeded team, who has a better record than the 6th seeded team, doesn't get home-court.
Yeah, everybody is trying to get that 6th seed. If the Clippers are out of reach of the division title, they may want to move down to "fight" for that sweet 6th spot with the Hornets and the Grizzlies. Crazy.
I think they should simply guarantee the divisional winners playoff spots, just not the top 3. For example, if Denver were to win its division but have a record worse than 8 other teams, just put Denver in as the 8th seed and kick the other 8th place team out. This would be better b/c the divisional winner would make the playoff but not create the crap we have in our division where the best 2 teams in the west are forced to be 1st and 4th seed.
How about getting rid of 7 game series for the first round. It's way too long and boring, quite frankly.
No way, I'm all for the 7 game series. That way, I get to watch a couple more games of the Rockets in the season. once they're knocked out of the playoffs, I don't watch the NBA playoffs anymore.
