Lol, he's a writer who's reading the rules unlike you. I don't see anywhere in the rules where it says 'Orders only the top team' do you?
Why don't you read Scribo's thread? But you know what? you might be right. I don't trust the writer. I'm reading the NBA rule book right now.
I read what he said, and it doesn't make sense. I didn't see anything in the rules that resembles what he suggests he would hope not to happen.
I researched it. You are wrong. That writer is wrong. The NBA PR guy who emailed the writer is wrong. I'll post the links to the evidence shortly.
http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/NBA_alters_seeding_system-186159-822.html http://www.nba.com/features/seedingprimer07.html
c. Guidelines For Applying Tie-Break Criteria. The following guidelines shall be used when applying the above criteria to break ties for playoff positions: (1) (a) Since the three division winners receive the first three playoff positions, ties to determine the division winners must be broken before any other ties. (b) When a tie must be broken to determine a division winner, the results of the tie-break shall be used to determine only the division winner and its playoff position, not any other playoff position(s). (2) If a tie involves more than two teams, the tie-break criteria in subparagraph b. shall be applied in the order set forth therein until the first to occur of the following: (a) Each of the tied teams has a different winning percentage or point differential under the applicable tiebreak criterion (a “complete” breaking of the tie). In this circumstance, the team with the best winning percentage or point differential under the criterion will be awarded the best playoff position, the team with the next-best winning percentage or point differential will be awarded the next-best playoff position, and so on, and no further application of the tie-break criteria will be required. (b) One or more (but not all) of the tied teams has a different winning percentage or point differential under the applicable tie-break criterion (a “partial” breaking of the tie). In this circumstance: (x) any team(s) that performed better under the applicable criterion than any other team(s) will be awarded a higher playoff position than such other team(s); and (y) teams that had equivalent performance under the applicable criterion will remain tied, and such remaining tie(s) will be broken by applying, from the beginning, the criteria in subparagraph a.(1)-(6) above (for any remaining tie involving only two teams) or subparagraph b.(1)-(5) above (for any remaining tie involving more than two teams) and the guidelines set forth in this subparagraph c. I think this criteria would fall under B but I don't really understand the wording of that.
I am right, but my logic was partially wrong. The 4 way tie is not just for the top but for all the way down to the 4th. However, there IS a SPLIT. Top 4. Bottom 4. That was because of the NBA rule changes of 2007. So If the the Rockets, Suns, Spurs, and Jazz were all 55-27 and ranked 5-8, then you'd got 4-way tie breaker to go determine. BUT Jazz are top 4 because of division. And if Spurs, Rockets, and Suns are all tied at 55-27, you go 3-way tie breaker (Suns win at 5-3) to determine the last top 4 seed. THEN YOU START OVER. You split top 4 and bottom 4 and start over. That is what the 2007 playoff rule changes did.
So assuming we beat the Clippers, we are playing the Jazz whether they win or lose. But we only get HCA if the Jazz lose. It will be a 4/5 matchup with us having HCA if the Jazz lose, but it will be a 3/6 matchup with the Jazz having HCA if the Jazz win... ... So basically, all that Spurs/Jazz game will determine is whether we're playing the Lakers or Hornets in the second round.
And if you read the other thread, you would realize it's virtually impossible. Rockets vs Jazz and Spurs vs Suns...that's the playoffs. Spurs beat Suns on Wednesday, then Rockets get homecourt and Spurs get homecourt. If the Suns beat the Spurs, then Jazz and Suns get homecourt. So GO Spurs (only for Wednesday).
Kim is right. Siler's problem is that he for the head to head to head tiebreaker he factors in the records against the Jazz which he shouldn't. The Jazz have locked up a top 4 slot and wouldn't be involved in a tiebreaker to determine who the 4th team in the Top 4 is going to be. When you look at the records between Houston, San Antonio, and Phoenix you see it like this: HOU: 4-4 SA: 3-5 PHO: 5-3 That means Phoenix get's into the top 4. Then you have to go to a tiebreaker to see who's 3rd and who's 4th. Utah wins that. Then you go to a tiebreaker to see who's 5th and who's 6th. San Antonio wins that. It would break down like this: 3. Utah 4. Phoenix 5. San Antonio 6. Houston.
Assuming Houston and Phoenix wins, we will face Utah and San Antonio will face Phoenix regardless of the outcome of the Spurs/Jazz game. What will change are the seedings and who has HCA. This should give SA every reason to try to win that game to make sure they have HCA vs. Phoenix.
I think it will be this: Assume Rox beats Clippies If Jazz beat Spurs, we play Spurs with Spurs having HCA If Spurs beat Jazz, we play Jazz with Rox having HCA. Why? If Jazz beat Spurs, Jazz has tiebreaker with 3-1 head to head, so Jazz seeds #3 If Spurs beat Jazz, Jazz is 2 games behind Spurs, so Spurs seed #3 Did I miss anything?
Yeah. If the Jazz beat the Spurs then the Spurs are tied with us and Phoenix (assuming both the Rox and Suns win). Lakers, New Orleans, and Utah all win their divisions are automatically in the top 4. We go to a tiebreaker to see which of the Rox, Suns, and Spurs get the other top 4 slot. Suns win that tiebreaker and will be in the Top 4. You seed the top 4 according to record which will likely go Lakers, Hornets, Jazz, then Suns. You seed the next 4 according to record. We would be tied with the Spurs but they have the tiebreaker and it would go Spurs, Rockets, Mavs, Nuggets.
