NBA moving to ignore divisions in playoff seedings

The NBA is moving forward with its plan to seed conference playoff teams 1-8 regardless of division winners, a person familiar with the situation told USA TODAY Sports.

The person requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly until the competition committee and owners addressed it later this summer.

In the 2015 playoffs, the Portland Trail Blazers were the fourth seed in the Western Conference because the current system favors division winners, which the Blazers were. However, the Los Angeles Clippers, Memphis Grizzlies and San Antonio Spurs had better records than Portland but were seeded lower.

To re-iterate the league's stance on seeding 1-16 regardless of conference, that is not something high on the NBA's agenda now.

"We are very focused on the divisional seeding process, and I think we are going to take a very close look at whether we should seed at least 1 through 8 by conference as opposed to giving the division winner that higher seed," Silver said. "So that is something we are taking a close look at that, and we may change that fairly quickly. As I've said earlier, that is a vestige of a division system that may not make sense anymore."

"Ultimately where we came out is this notion of 1 through 16 seeding, while it seems attractive in many ways, because of the additional travel that will result, it just doesn't seem like a good idea at the moment," Silver said earlier this month. "This notion of, for example, this team (Golden State) would have played Boston in the first round under a 1‑through‑16 seeding and would have had to crisscross back and forth across the country, which does not seem like a good idea, especially based on the earlier question based on the health of our players, and focusing on actually reducing the amount of travel and back‑to‑back."

About damn time

I guess it's the right thing to do, but I still don't think it's absolutely necessary. Sometimes there'll be anomalies, especially when a bunch of teams have very similar records, but if you're a true contender, truly capable of going all the way...then it really doesn't matter where you're seeded. Looked at all the hubbub over the Clippers and Spurs being a first round series. The Clippers ultimately blew a 3-1 series lead to the Rockets; the Spurs blew a 3-2 series lead (with Game 6 at home) to the team that went on to blow a 3-1 series lead. The notion that that series "deserved" to be the Western Conference Finals seems a bit silly, now.

They definitely don't need to do 1 through 16 seeding. For the sake of a couple of teams hovering around .500 making token Playoff appearances, it's not worth changing a system that's worked just fine for decades.

Looked at all the hubbub over the Clippers and Spurs being a first round series. The Clippers ultimately blew a 3-1 series lead to the Rockets; the Spurs blew a 3-2 series lead (with Game 6 at home) to the team that went on to blow a 3-1 series lead. The notion that that series "deserved" to be the Western Conference Finals seems a bit silly, now.

It was a far better series than the actual Conference Finals.

They definitely don't need to do 1 through 16 seeding. For the sake of a couple of teams hovering around .500 making token Playoff appearances, it's not worth changing a system that's worked just fine for decades.

So most years, it won't be much different to how it's done now. Occasionally, it'll be significantly better.

Where's the downside? The absolute worst-case scenario is that nothing changes. In what way has the current system worked 'just fine'?

And it's not just about letting in the teams that are finishing 9th and 10th in the West right now, it's also about having the teams that are finishing third and fourth in the East finish significantly lower in the overall field. And maybe Cleveland faces Houston in a competitive Conference Finals instead of beating the snot out of Atlanta.

So say Aldridge walks, Utah disappoints and OKC suffers a bunch of injuries again... Could the NW division champ miss the playoffs or would they be put in as the 8 seed? Conference-less playoffs would be a step in the right direction, this doesn't really make much of a difference - even with the higher seed, Portland didn't have homecourt advantage vs. Memphis.

Seeding is stupid. I say lottery, get rid of conf too.

Top 16 teams with random playoffs schedule. Let's go.

It was a far better series than the actual Conference Finals.

It was, no argument here. That's just the way it happens, sometimes.

this doesn't really make much of a difference - even with the higher seed, Portland didn't have homecourt advantage vs. Memphis.

If it'd been introduced before this year, Portland would have played the Clippers instead of Memphis.

Indeed, and under the 05/06 system they'd have played the Spurs. Any of those scenarios would have resulted in Portland not having homecourt advantage and losing in 5 games. IMHO if you want to be a champion, you should be able to beat any four teams. Somehow I doubt that if you shuffled the playoff seeding, the team that lost to the team that lost to the team that lost to GS would have made the Finals. The conference discrepancy is a much bigger issue, but this change means the NBA can be like, "oh, we did something".

They should restructure the regular season to balanced schedules for every team if they're doing away with conference seeding. Is it logistically possible to have every team play each other the same amount of times?!?

If they do play the same amount of time, we'd have less than 60 games or 90 games.