League set to discuss playoff format

[The X]

I'm thinking playoffs should be 5-5-5-7 if kept with 16 teams, or at the very least, go back to 5-7-7-7.

I would prefer playoffs to be cut to around 12 teams. It should be harder to make playoffs than miss out (at present it's not, considering more than half the teams make the playoffs). The top 2 teams from each Conference get byes through the 1st Round, so 3 vs 6 & 4 vs 5 in each Conference go at it. 1st place team plays winner of 4 vs 5 & 2nd place team plays winner of 3 vs 6. If they were to go with this format, I would suggest a 3-5-5-7 format. This change would probably require re-aligning of Conferences & Divisions, based on geographical location. There still should be a prize for winning divisions, maybe 1st Round bye, & wildcard spots for non-division winners.

Either way, needs more excitement. A shortened season would also be nice, but I'm not expecting that, so slightly shortened playoffs would be a nice alternative.

[Jeffx]

True, but it would have seen teams that won over 60% of their games miss the postseason.

Happens in the NFL too, Andrew, where you have one dominant conference(AFC), and teams with 10 wins miss the playoffs. Hey, those are the breaks. My opinion is, handle your business.

I would like to see a 5-7-7-7 playoff format. The opening round shouldn't take that long. Back in the day, it was best 2 of 3. I'm not in favor of that format, because too much crazy sh!t can happen(8th-seeded Houston beat the defending champion Lakers in 1981).

[Mayerhendrix]

Once again, it all comes back to the major question: Who should benefit, the NBA or the true fans? The NBA would benefit from a shorter playoff schedule, as the staggered NBA playoffs currently alienate many potential fans. But the true fans would get less basketball, and less drawn-out trench fights.

[Oznogrd]

Happens in the NFL too, Andrew, where you have one dominant conference(AFC), and teams with 10 wins miss the playoffs. Hey, those are the breaks. My opinion is, handle your business.

I would like to see a 5-7-7-7 playoff format. The opening round shouldn't take that long. Back in the day, it was best 2 of 3. I'm not in favor of that format, because too much crazy sh!t can happen(8th-seeded Houston beat the defending champion Lakers in 1981).

I personally prefer the non dominant conferences, i like having to guess who the best is, not knowing from week 3 (in the case of the NFL), July (MLB), or All star Break (NBA)

While i do think it is too long for spectators, I like the 7-7-7-7 format solely because you may be able to win the first and second round in 7 games, but eventually, the "pretender" teams are weeded out just due to a lack of endurance after 2 long series. However, as for the teams getting left out: it truly isnt the amount of teams they let in screwing people over, its the divisional thing. A division winner with a worse record than a non division winner is automatically in yet the possibly better team could be left out high and dry. Get rid of the divisions for playoffs (keep them for scheduling purposes only). and have the top 8 records in each conference go to conference playoffs.

[Andrew]

Happens in the NFL too, Andrew, where you have one dominant conference(AFC), and teams with 10 wins miss the playoffs. Hey, those are the breaks. My opinion is, handle your business.

I don't disagree and I think the same can be said any playoff format, if you want to be in the postseason and in the best position to win it all, win as many games as possible. I'd just hate to see really good teams win 50+ games and miss out on the Playoffs, especially if those teams won the lottery a few years running and some top rookies ended up warming the bench for potential contenders while the basement teams continued struggling to rebuild, though I realise that's a worst case scenario.

I guess I just like the unpredictable nature of having sixteen teams in the Playoffs. It's easy to write off the lower seeded teams as being a waste of a playoff spot but without them you wouldn't have memorable underdog moments like the Knicks in 1984 or 1999, the Nuggets in 1994, the Rockets in 1995 and the Warriors last year to name a few.

Alternatively, two new teams could be established bringing the total to 32, allowing the top half of the league to qualify for the postseason and the bottom half hoping for luck in the lottery.

[Sauru]

we should limit the playoffs to 8 teams and at the same time eliminate 6 teams from the nba all together

[Andrew]

That would be another way of handling it. Which teams do you propose?

[Sauru]

not sure really, it was more of a sarcastic responce to everyone wanting to limit the teams in the playoffs. i think they are fine just the way they are. however if they did limit teams in the playoffs i would rather they cut back on the overall teams too. kinda raise the compitition of the league. drop to 24 and let a third in sounds ok to me, but like i said i do like the current set up in the nba.

[Andrew]

Since the subject has been brought up, I'd be very surprised to see an NBA club fold in this day and age. More likely they'd go the way of the Sonics, being bought by a new group who wants to move them to a new city in the hopes it will increase profits with a new fanbase.

[benji]

I'd just hate to see really good teams win 50+ games and miss out on the Playoff

Why? What's so special about "50" wins or winning "one of every two games" that it "means playoffs"?

especially if those teams won the lottery a few years running and some top rookies ended up warming the bench for potential contenders while the basement teams continued struggling to rebuild, though I realise that's a worst case scenario.

And only if they weren't to alter the lottery rules...and it's not like their winning the lottery would destroy bad teams either, the worst team would still pick at least 4th.

And that's what happens now anyway. How long have teams like Atlanta, New York, languished in the gutter while San Antonio, Detroit dominate their conferences? Lousy teams will make lousy moves, good or lucky teams make good moves.

Alternatively, two new teams could be established bringing the total to 32, allowing the top half of the league to qualify for the postseason and the bottom half hoping for luck in the lottery.

Ugh. More expansion is the last thing the league needs. It's finally getting over the last round.

[Andrew]

Why? What's so special about "50" wins or winning "one of every two games" that it "means playoffs"?

A team that wins 50 or more games generally has a top ten record, better than two thirds of the league having won over 60% of their games. Should a team like that have an opportunity to get the best player in the Draft or should they have an opportunity to compete for the championship? I personally would rather see at least the top ten teams in the league, the top third have the opportunity to compete in a tournament to determine the champion.

But beyond that, it is admittedly just a big round number.

[shadowgrin]

I think the only reason the league is set to discuss the playoff format is because of the teams that won half their games and missed the playoffs, yet if you look at the results of the playoffs, a change in format of abolishing the conferences doesn't guarantee the "best" teams duking it out.

Just look at the Western Conference, most people say the first round match-ups, with the exception of Utah-Houston series, are worthy as conference finals but the results stink. Denver swept, Mavs choked, and Suns almost swept. This is the conference that most people consider superior because of the parity and identical records between the teams yet come playoff time it was boring to watch because of the disparity in each series as compared to the Eastern conference.

In the Eastern conference, two teams that are not worthy to be in the playoffs because of their record as compared to the teams in the West gave a surprise to Detroit and Boston, teams that most people consider not only among the elite in the East but in the league itself.

As I said before, having the top 16 teams regardless of conference doesn't guarantee that we get to watch a better playoffs.

But an eight team playoff format is a different and intriguing matter.

[Sauru]

i wonder, if the hawks do win (please no) will people still bitch and cry about the playoff format? if we changed it the hawks would not even be in the playoffs and as of now they are involved in the best first round series

[Skills]

i wonder, if the hawks do win (please no) will people still bitch and cry about the playoff format? if we changed it the hawks would not even be in the playoffs and as of now they are involved in the best first round series

Maybe the Celtics fans will..

[benji]

I don't see how that follows. Just because a resulting series was exciting does not mean there are not inherent structual flaws still in the system. If it had played out that the Hawks were crushed in four games by 55 points in each, that would not have changed the case to overhaul the system.

If there had been a 16 team, independent of conference, playoff, the first round would be Celtics vs. Raptors/Blazers. If there was just eight teams, it would have been Celtics vs. Jazz in the first round.

[Matthew]

Or the Celtics and Jazz in the 2nd round.

[Andrew]

i wonder, if the hawks do win (please no) will people still bitch and cry about the playoff format? if we changed it the hawks would not even be in the playoffs and as of now they are involved in the best first round series

I think there'd still be objections to the current format and a preference towards abolishing the conference format amongst a lot of fans. I could also see the idea of returning to a 5-7-7-7 format being more popular if the Hawks pull off the upset; the Warriors knocking off the Mavericks last year seemed to excite a lot of people but then the excitement faded when it meant other matchups didn't come to be, so it would seem the excitement and novelty of 8th over 1st upsets wears off pretty quickly. Needless to say, a 5-7-7-7 format would already see that possibility eliminated.

[benji]

The fewer games in a series, the more favorable the series is to the lesser team. It is easier to win three games against a superior team than it is to win four.

How would moving back to five games "eliminate" the possibility that an eighth seed could knock off the first seed?

[Andrew]

It wouldn't. I was referring to the Celtics/Hawks series, which would be over at this point if the Playoffs were still using a 5-7-7-7 format. It was ambiguous wording on my part.