SI.Com Article - "NBA Regular Season is Meaningless"

1 combined league. No conferences

Best 12 teams in the entire league make the playoffs. No more of a #8 qualifier in one conference having 30 wins, and a left out #9 in another conference has 58 wins but has to stay home.

Seed 1 vs 12 and so on...The best postseason teams would be sure to advance.

Shorter playoffs. (I think the NBA playoffs are too long, too). 1st round back to 5 games like the old days. Since the best would go against even lesser lower seed teams than before, they could smoke through them. Or, it gives the lesser team a chance. Some actual drama.

But since more games in a season and bowl games work similarly in that both have higher payouts REGARDLESS of watering down competition and accolades, fat chance it'll happen anytime soon.

We'll probably see a Lakers TV network before we see shortened games.

 

I like a best of 5 playoff series throughout the playoffs with only 1 game in the finals. Keeps it short and maybe the NBA finals could garner almost as much popularity as the Superbowl.

Btw none of what any of us suggested in this thread will ever come true as long as Sperm is at the helm. He's all about $profit$.

 

i think we should do what i think is best.

 

Reduce the regular season to 50 games.
Every team automatically qualifies for the playoffs.
Regular season record determines home court advantage.
Every series is best two out of three, including the Finals!

You're welcome.

 

I think the number of games is fine the way it is right now. If you cut the number of games to 40 or 50 you end up with a season that is only about 3.5 months long. Plenty of teams get better as the season goes along and other teams that realize the chemistry isn't there make moves and improve. I don't think 40 or 50 games is enough to really see how well a team plays together especially if you factor in injuries. It took the Suns from last yr a while to get things going and they turned out to be a pretty good team by seasons end.

As mentioned earlier, NBA players don't need as much rest so there would be no need to stretch the season out for as many months as it covers now. With a season so short injuries that once only kept players out for part of the season would keep them out for an entire year. Lastly, I would hate it if basketball season ended in late April or early May and I had to watch only baseball until September.

 

This must be your new catch phrase. I swear you put this line in half your posts.

 

The point of the article was that players/teams/fans/etc. don't take the NBA regular season seriously. Are you saying that in MLB, the regular season is taken more seriously? In the NBA do you have players routinely skipping games so they can rest? In MLB, the players try just as hard during the regular season as they do in the playoffs? Would a pitcher ever pitch on less rest during the regular season like he might in the playoffs? I mean I just saw this argument the other day on ESPN - what's more important, finishing the season up strong or lining up your pitching rotation for the playoffs.

 

Iam fan of the NBA because they almost play every day .. U Never get bored ..
But iam sure it would be more healthy for the players to just play 41 games or 29 .. But i def prefer the current system but wouldnt mind a change ..

 

I like 82 games, but would prefer if it was more consistently every other day. Unrealistic, I know.

Doubt they will kill the conferences, even if the East has an advantage due to worse competition. The east also brings in more revenue I'd imagine.

As far as playoff length, yea it's a bit long. I lose interest after the Rox are done every year. I imagine for the fans of teams that are consistently contending, they stick with it no matter how long the playoffs go. For the teams that don't regular season matters, and the 1st round is a big deal. Kind of where the Rox are.

Bottom line...there's no money in reducing the regular season or playoffs, so it won't happen. If the league ever takes a dive, I would guess we could see these kinda changes.

 

I'd like to see less regular season games and keep the same playoff system. gives everyone a chance.

I love the way the NFL is set up. it gets really intense and the fans of each team really unite.

 

I'm with mazyar (no homo). More games is better. Is all you guys care about who has the trophy at the end of the season playoffs? In that case you shouldn't watch any games, just wait until the finals.

I like watching b-ball, and enjoying the drama of the season. If there was less games, we wouldn't even get to beat Miami twice this season.

 

So why did they only do this in the last week if every one of the 162 games is so darn important?

Why focus on the worst playoff teams? Is it not beneficial to secure a higher seed for the better teams? Are teams not usually trying to get the highest seed they possibly can? Two years ago the Rockets went from 2nd to 5th by losing the last game of the season. I don't see what having 82 games has to do with the Hawks having a bad record and making the playoffs. They would still have a bad record if there were only 70 games.

But it seems like you're only singling out basketball. I don't think there's much difference in the sense of urgency in the regular season b/t baseball and basketball (probably the same in hockey too but I don't watch it). I think intensity is higher in all sports in the playoffs, not just basketball. What I would like to see is getting rid of all the 4 game in 5 night scheduling. Too often teams forfeit that 4th game, especially on the road due to sheer fatigue. If that means losing a few games then fine. I also hate the best of 7 first round, always have. It should go back to best of 5.

 

Home court advantage is so unbelievably important...

 

Saying "more teams make the playoffs than don't" is just really meaningless when the 16 best teams don't make the playoffs. If you didn't win 50 games in the West last year, you didn't make the playoffs, while the Celtics only won 50 and won their division. So the Rockets, for example, would have needed to have one of the 9 best records in the entire league to make the playoffs last year (51 wins), which is a lot harder to do than your phrase indicates.

 

I agree with getting rid of conferences, I just don't see the point of them.

 

The solution is simple, if you don't want to watch it, turn it off. If you don't like the way it is structured, then watch the games that mean something to you. The season is long, yes but in certain instances that could be a good thing. How many teams start out with players injured? How would it affect the Rockets with a shorter season from last year to this year regarding Yao. He could essentially be lost for two seasons instead of one. How would a shorter season have affected the championship team of 95 when the Rockets were not healthy until just about playoff time.
In my mind the revenue gained from the extra games allows the teams to put a better product on the floor. By the way you only get to rest player if you have don well enough to do so. Do you remember just two short years ago when the seeding came down to the last games of the season. Teams fight for home court advantage even after clinching a playoff spot. For playoff teams it is not only until after their seeding has been determined that they may rest players (because then and only then do the games become meaningless). I think the NBA has found a good balance, football has 16 games (soon to be 18), baseball has 162.
I liked the comments of some of the posters and would agree, I just like to watch basketball as well. As far as the playoffs go, I think the talent of the league makes the playoffs compelling in that 1 through 8 you never know what could happen.
I do agree that going back to 5 games in the first round would add more drama and would be better.