interesting scenario, but not likely to happen. the whole change in seeding was a knee-jerk reaction to the series a few years ago when Dallas played San Antonio in the second round, thus becoming the "Western Conference Finals" it wasn't necessary, as the following years proved that anything can happen in the first round (GSW over Dallas), hance the entire system needs to be reworked again. now you have two or three teams that are better than the fourth seed and Utah is guaranteed nothing but an easier matchup in the first round... for Houston, it's a difference of matching up with Utah or Phoenix. for the Jazz, it's a difference of matching up with New Orleans or Houston. which side would you rather be on? it's a double edged sword that fixes one problem , then creates another...
Yes and no. From a purely marketing standpoint I wouldn't watch the playoffs if the entire East Conference didn't make it in, same analogy here. The Southwest division is ridiculously tough. If the entire playoff structure was basically the southwest division and Utah and LA people wouldn't watch, basketball would decline and it would be harder to find televised games, and then I'd be forced to watch March Madness. Seriously, who wants that? I mean I love Duke, but the Rockets are where it's at.
Again, if it doesn't matter, why do it at all? This argument supports elimination of the rule. Acknowlegding it's lack of effect on homecourt (excepting the special case you list below) only amplifies how artificial and unnecessary it is. I'm perfectly aware and I'm still whining. And I disagree with this decision. Strongly. In this rare exception one team is rewarded and another is punished for no other reason than geography. Not for playing better, or playing worse, for winning or losing. That's wrong. Period. The argument can be made that playoffs are chaotic and unpredictable in any case- for example, Warriors vs Mavs last year. But that was the 2nd or 3rd time in historyi that has happened. But even if it was chaotic, that's still not an excuse to reward one team and punish another based on geography. It's silly. Who gains from this artificial mucking with rankings? The fans? The ones that aren't smart enough to see that conference rankings aren't done by record alone? Who profits from this? How does this help the NBA, that the league does this?
They would be rewarded with an automatic playoff spot. If they finish 41-41 and 2 other teams from different divisions finish 43-39, the division winner would grab the last spot. That's a reward for winning the division. We can agree to disagree
Really? I think fans care about their team, maybe a few other stars, and that's pretty much it. Seriously, who cares if a team from your region makes it, if it isn't your team? Was Yankees/Sox bad for baseball? Yankees/Mets? Giants/Pats bad for the NFL? Does anybody here honestly think that last years' Cavs/Spurs finals was better than a (hypothetical) Spurs/Phoenix finals? Seriously? We were robbed of an incredible finals- why? To satisfy some artificial feeling of location/region? I think quality playoff matchups trump artificial regional borders, BIG time. Poor playoffs matchups means everybody loses especially the fans! Anyone who loves great basketball, who wants to see the best play the best, should want to eliminate artificial rankings that interfere with that. The current conference structure punishes western teams for being located in a strong conference and rewards eastern teams for being located in a weak one. That's bull****. Other than fans of sub-500 eastern teams who get a chance in the playoffs they certainly do not deserve... who gains from this? If you love basketball, you love great matchups.
Any division-based system necessarily has some unfairness in it, due to the unbalanced schedule and playoff rules. However, in each conference the schedule preference is already very weak (4 games vs division oppts. 3.6 games vs each other non-division same-conference team, on average). If we removed any division seeding bonus (guaranteed top 4), we would be left with a system where division rivalries are essentially meaningless. While this is the "fairest", it greatly dilutes rivalries between teams. It's simply more exciting to feel like we're fighting our neighbors in SA and Dallas for something, instead of having to randomly hate Sacramento.
yeeep, I think a 16-winning streak team should automatically be awarded a top 3 seed in the playoffs, and a 20 winning streak team should automatically be awarded the No.1 seed and homecourt all the way. GO Rox.
Point of the divisions were to guarantee home court advantage... And the 4th seed has home court advantage so theres a non division leading team that can clinch home court... I hope Houston get it
No pro sport? I think the argument should run the other way! The are basically no pro sports which run the inane seeding system that some American pro-sports choose to run. In many countries around the world there are pro sports made up of teams in different divisions - but the playoffs are made up the 8 (or 4 or even 16) best teams that play the particular sport. It's a crying shame that Denver wins 60% of their games and looks like missing the playoffs while New Jersey is sitting pretty in 8th having won 42.6% of their games. Philly and Washington (also having lost more games than they've won) aren't complaining. While Indiana's atrocious season of injuries to stars could all be remedied by 3 wins in a row at this stage. Fans of Sacramento realise their team is way out of contention - but they'd be comfortably 8th seed in the East. The whole NBA seeding thing is a joke - should be flat out the top 16 teams in basketball - sure, keep the divisions and conferences to facilitate the draw (that's normal for pro-sports), and it even promotes the great rivalries between neighbouring teams! Plus we'd get to see the RIGHT teams in the playoffs (the teams who actually build their ball-club to be a contender). Think about it this way: If Denver lost every remaining game this season, then they'd still have a better winning % than the 8th seed in the East currently has. Nolen is right - and I suspect even the TV ratings might be good when the best teams in basketball were duking it out deeper in the playoffs! Currently, of the 16 teams currently in the playoffs, we're guaranteed to see at least 2 of the worst 6 teams in the second round. (For those who don't get that: in theory, none of the worst 8 teams should make the second round - yes, upsets happen etc! But you get the point - there's no option to see the BEST teams in the second round, we're guaranteed 2 of the worst 6...) And I suspect that even NY fans might have some interest in watching the best players on the big playoff stage... C'mon NBA, adopt the normal system of playoff seedings for pro-sports! Are there still people out there who think divisional leaders should get rewarded for winning less games than other teams? That argument is so tired.
Ok, what if Utah finishes 6th with the record, but wins the division? Are they the 4th(or 5th) or the 6th? This is very likely scenario. Me thinks they will be the 4th, so the rule is freaking r****ded.
They get 4th, but not homecourt. So it means that, of the teams with records 3-6: team who finished 3rd best record plays 5th best record team who finished 4th best record plays 6th best record. So the ADVANTAGE in that scenario goes to the team 4 over team 3... both have homecourt, but team 4 plays team 6 - which is r****ded since it's elimination. Well done! You finished 3rd - now you get a tougher first round matchup...
Thats the issue that has been prevelant recently. Utah had the 6th or 7th best record and by that virtue, should be matched up against the 2/3 seed. But because they are better than Denver and Portland they will get the 4 seed but the 5 will have HCA. The Jazz should be playing San Antonio/LaLakers, but instead get Houston/New Orleans.
Are you Jeff? [Jeff - Houston: This may be a stupid question but I have asked several others and still don't have an answer. I'm a huge Rockets fan... Why is Utah ahead of us in the conference standings? We have a better record and a higher PCT score. Does it have something to do with divisions? I can't seem to find the answer. JS: Divisions it is. If you win your division, you automatically get in the top four. So with Utah leading the Northwest, they're the four seed, with the Rockets sliding down to five.] http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300027423
Quite frankly, I would like it for as long as the NBA will still have this two conference--three five-team division format, for each team to play each divisional rival at least six times per season, then play the other ten teams within the conference three times each while playing most of the non-conference opponents twice each. Otherwise, the league should either revert back to the old two-division format in each conference or just do away with divisions altogether. One other thing, I wonder if the trades the Rockets made with both San Antonio (Scola) and the Hornets (BJax) would have even happened if such a scheduling scenario existed in which divisions are heavily emphasized.
