The hard part for me is if we changed to playing everyone an even amount and how bad the eastern conference is against the West. It's possible that you might not get any eastern conference teams in the playoffs. Think about it, do you think that Boston and Detriot would have as good a records as they do if they were in the West. The east have bad enough records as it is, if they have to play the west more often, how much worse could their records get.
If the top 16 teams make it, then every Western Conference team (the distinction would actually no longer exist BTW) could make the playoffs and that still wouldn't keep all of the East teams out (only 15 teams in the West). If that happened, why should it matter? Should a less deserving team get in solely because they play further to the East? Anyway, the east would be rewarded by getting the first 14 picks in the draft, so eventually things should level out, the difference being that everything would be fair in the mean time.
We have a big country land wise and 4 different time zones. It is not as easy to travel to other teams across the country as it is in Italy or England because those countries are a lot smaller and thus easier to get around.
My bad, I didn't even see that post...I do now as I go back and look through the thread. But I really didn't steal it, I thought of this last year - I guess great minds just think alike!
We would be seeded 4th in the EAST...and isnt houston TECHINCALLY in the EAST in you drew a line down the center of the US? 2007 REGULAR SEASON Eastern Conference Eastern W L PCT GB CONF DIV HOME ROAD L 10 STREAK Boston 37 9 0.804 0.0 23-9 10-1 21-4 16-5 7-3 W 1 Detroit 35 13 0.729 3.0 24-6 6-3 18-4 17-9 7-3 W 6 Orlando 32 19 0.627 7.5 21-8 7-2 13-9 19-10 8-2 W 1 Cleveland 27 21 0.563 11.0 13-12 3-2 15-7 12-14 7-3 L 1 Toronto 26 21 0.553 11.5 17-12 6-4 14-9 12-12 6-4 W 1 Washington 24 24 0.500 14.0 16-15 6-2 15-11 9-13 3-7 L 5 Atlanta 21 24 0.467 15.5 12-15 5-2 15-9 6-15 4-6 W 3 New Jersey 20 29 0.408 18.5 15-15 2-7 10-15 10-14 2-8 L 3 Chicago 20 29 0.408 18.5 14-14 5-2 10-13 10-16 4-6 W 1 Indiana 20 30 0.400 19.0 11-16 1-7 9-14 11-16 2-8 W 1 Philadelphia 20 30 0.400 19.0 13-18 3-8 11-14 9-16 5-5 W 2 Milwaukee 19 31 0.380 20.0 13-15 3-4 13-8 6-23 3-7 L 1 Charlotte 18 31 0.367 20.5 11-21 3-8 14-14 4-17 3-7 L 4 New York 14 35 0.286 24.5 11-16 4-5 10-16 4-19 2-8 L 7 Miami 9 39 0.188 29.0 4-26 1-8 5-19 4-20 1-9 L 6
and look at the division we had to compete in compared to their's..... it's time for a change, because this system ends up screwing everybody in long run.
i think this way is fair enough in the playoff i think this way is fair enough in the playoff West No.1/2/3/4 vs. East 8/7/6/5 East No.1/2/3/4 vs. West 8/7/6/5 Now all of us know the West is more power than the East,and may be 10 years later the East is better than the West. I think play this way can be fair enough for most of the team( not including No.9,10 of the west this time)
I really don't see the logic here. What's the point of this? It just makes the road to the championship a lot easier for the stronger conference, which, for the most part since MJ left, is the West.
The Rockets missed the playoffs three times with winning records in their history (1991-92, 2000-01, 2002-03). As far back as 2001, I had thought of a privilege there should be for teams who finish with a .500 or better record, but finish outside of the top eight in their own conference, and finish with a better record than playoff teams in the other conference. Let's say that a team finishes 9th in their conference with a .500 or better record, and has a better record than the eighth place team in the other conference. What I would have is a play-in game involving that eighth place team from that one conference and that ninth place team from that other conference that finished with a better record, but hosting the game. The winner of that game would be in the playoffs in that conference regardless of who it is while the loser would enter the draft lottery. If the winner of that game was the ninth place team from its conference, then that team would be positioned solely on what their record was, which would mean that they may be positioned higher than eighth if their record was better than a few other playoff teams. If a team finished tenth in their conference with a .500 or better record, they would have to finish with a better record than the seventh place team in the other conference to be granted such a privilege. If eleventh, then they must finish better than the sixth place team in the other conference. If there was ever such a scenario, then the sixth place team from their conference would be hosting the eleventh place team from the other conference, the seventh place team would be hosting the tenth place team, then eighth would host the ninth. One word of note about ties between the teams amongst the different conferences whose records are at .500 or better: If such a privilege was to be granted to the team that finished outside of the top eight in their conference, they would have had to sweep the season series with the team they're tied with, or if they split the series, they would have to have had a better winning percentage versus the playoff teams in that other conference than that other team they would try to replace. Here are a bunch of examples of such play-in game scenarios involving the Rockets or other teams that finished outside of the top eight within their conference with a record that was .500 or better, and with a better record than some of the playoff teams in the other conference: 1991-92--Rockets (42-40, 9th in West) would have been playing the Miami Heat (38-44, 8th in East) in Miami with the right to replace the Heat in the Eastern Conference playoffs. If the winner was the Rockets, then they would have gotten the 6th seed in the Eastern Conference bracket, thus knocking the New Jersey Nets and the Indiana Pacers each down one notch to seventh and eighth respectively. 2000-01--Rockets (45-37, 9th in West) would have been playing the Indiana Pacers (41-41, 8th in East) in Indianapolis with the right to replace the Pacers in the Eastern Conference playoffs. If the winner was the Rockets, they would have gotten the 7th seed in the Eastern Conference bracket, thus knocking the Orlando Magic down to eighth. 2002-03--Rockets (43-39, 9th in West) would have been playing the Orlando Magic (42-40, 8th in East) in Orlando with the right to replace the Magic in the Eastern Conference playoffs. If the winner was the Rockets, they would have gotten the 7th seed in the Eastern Conference bracket, thus knocking the Milwaukee Bucks down to eighth. 1997-98--Orlando Magic (41-41, 9th in East) might have been playing the Rockets (41-41, 8th in West) in Houston if they either swept the season series from the Rockets or if they split the series, had a better winning percentage versus the playoff teams than the Rockets within the Western Conference. I'm sorry that I can't go back that far to see how that all went. 1992-93--Orlando Magic (41-41, 9th in East) vs. the LA Lakers (39-43, 8th in West) at the Forum in Inglewood for the right to replace the Lakers in the Western Conference playoffs. If the winner of that game was the Magic, then they would have gotten either the 7th or 8th seed in the Western Conference playoff bracket depending on how they did versus the LA Clippers, whose record also was 41-41. If the Magic swept the season series, or if split, had a better winning percentage versus the Western Conference playoff teams than the Clippers, then they would have gotten the 7th seed in the Western Conference playoff bracket with the Clippers winding up with the 8th seed, and just think, the Orlando Magic could have possibly been the Rockets' first round opponent if such a scenario occurred that season. 1995-96--Charlotte Hornets (41-41, 9th in East) vs. the Sacramento Kings (39-43, 8th in West) at Arco Arena in Sacramento for the right to replace the Kings in the Western Conference playoffs. If the Hornets were the winner, they would have gotten either the 7th or 8th seed depending on how they did versus the Phoenix Suns, whose record was also 41-41. If the Hornets swept the season series, or if split, had a better winning percentage versus the Western Conference playoff teams than the Suns, then they would have gotten the 7th seed in the Western Conference playoff bracket with the Suns winding up with the 8th seed. 1996-97--Cleveland Cavaliers (42-40, 9th in East) vs. the LA Clippers (36-46, 8th in West) at the LA Sports Arena. If winner was the Cavaliers, they would not only replace the Clippers in the Western Conference playoffs, they would get the sixth seed in the Western Conference bracket, and knock down the Minnesota T-Wolves and the Phoenix Suns (Both of who had 40-42 records) one notch to 7th and 8th respectively. 1999--In this lockout shortened season, with each team playing 50 games, the Charlotte Hornets (26-24, 9th in East) vs. the Minnesota T-Wolves (25-25, 8th in West) in Minneapolis for the right to replace the T-Wolves in the Western Conference playoffs. If the Hornets were to win that game, then they would have just gotten the 8th seed in the Western Conference bracket simply because the other seven teams' records were all better. 2003-04--Utah Jazz (42-40, 9th in West) vs. the Boston Celtics (36-46, 8th in East) in Boston for the right to replace the Celtics in the Eastern Conference Playoffs. Also, the Portland Trailblazers (41-41, 10th in West) vs. the New York Knicks (39-43, 7th in East) at Madison Square Garden for the right to replace the Knicks in the Eastern Conference Playoffs. If the Utah Jazz won their game vs. the Celtics, they not only would have replaced the Celtics, but would have gotten as high as the 4th seed in the Eastern Conference bracket instead of the Miami Heat (42-40 as well) because of a better winning percentage versus the other seven Eastern Conference playoff teams since the season series was split amongst the two, while the Portland Trailblazers would have gotten the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference bracket if they were to win their game versus the Knicks because the New Orleans Hornets and the Milwaukee Bucks, whose records were also 41-41, had a better winning percentage amongst the three teams tied. 2004-05--Minnesota T-Wolves (44-38, 9th in West) vs. the New Jersey Nets (42-40, 8th in East) in East Rutherford for the right to replace the Nets in the Eastern Conference playoffs. If the winner was the T-Wolves, they not only replace the New Jersey Nets in the Eastern Conference playoffs, they would also get the seventh seed in the East as well, and knock the Philadelphia 76ers down to eighth. The Indiana Pacers, whose record also was 44-38, would have still been the sixth seed due to them sweeping the season series from the T-Wolves. 2005-06--Utah Jazz (41-41, 9th in West) vs. the Milwaukee Bucks (40-42, 8th in East) in Milwaukee for the right to replace the Bucks in the Eastern Conference playoffs. If the Jazz were to win that game, they would have only gotten the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference bracket because the Indiana Pacers and the Chicago Bulls, whose records also were 41-41, had a better winning percentage amongst the three teams tied than the Jazz. I wonder how many people on this board wished there was such a privilege for any team who finishes the regular season with a .500 or better record, but finishes outside of the top eight within their own conference, and their record was better than some of the playoff teams in the other conference since the Rockets have three times done such a thing, which is finish with a .500 or better record and miss the playoffs even though it was better than some of the playoff teams in the Eastern Conference.
There's no logical reasoning behind that methodology...not to mention that it doesn't really solve any of the problems with the playoff system. You'd still have bad eastern teams make it and good western teams miss it - only now your bad eastern teams get knocked out by the west instead of the west.
How about making it Royal Rumble rules...draw straws and go with that order then every 10 minutes a new team comes into the arena until all 16 teams are on the court...you get eliminated when all of your team is thrown off the court....last team standing wins the trophy. It's a donnybrook, Jim Ross!
Hey, just get a load of my post in the thread entitled "The Absurd NBA Play-off Structure". It has to do with an idea of mine of giving a team whose record was at .500 or better, but not in the top eight within their conference, and has a better record than some of the playoff teams in the other conference a privilege to possibly replace a team in that other conference by beating that other team in a play-in game on their homecourt. It consists of examples of play-in game scenarios that could have been since the 1991-92 season involving 9th or 10th place teams in one conference playing against 7th or 8th place teams in the other conference providing that the 9th or 10th place teams in the one conference finished at .500 or better, and had better records than the 7th or 8th place teams in the other conference. Here is the link: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3439040&postcount=70
this is a good change for those who are opposed to a major shakeup. the truth is, you have to go all the way with this playoff seeding issue. the best records should make the playoffs, period. now the problem is that records are misleading. a crappy eastern team gets to play against other crappy eastern teams 4 times a year and only gets thier butts kicked twice a year by each western power. on the other hand, the rockets play the all the western powers 4 times a year and only get to kick eastern butt twice a year. so now to be totally fair, the schedule would have to change. everyone would have to play everyone 3 times a year which is 87 games. cut down on preseason games and it's not so bad.
The flaw in that system is simple enough. Just assume that every team is properly ranked by seeding in each conference. That means if a higher seed met a lower, it would win, if they were in the same conference. Second, assume that every team in the West is better than every team in the East. Your championship would then be West #1 against West #4, and the ideal matchup between the two best teams (theoretically West #1 v West #2) still doesn't happen in the championships.
