League set to discuss playoff format

[Andrew]

Article

If coaches and team officials truly want to change the current NBA playoff format, they are going to get their opportunity this summer.

"Though I think it is unlikely anything will happen, we will explore it fully," commissioner David Stern said in an informal press briefing before the game Friday.

Several different proposals have been discussed the last couple of years. One is to re-seed teams in each conference after each round. Another is for the playoffs to include the 16 top teams in the league, regardless of conference affiliation and simply seed them one through 16.

For anyone who still prefers the current format as I do, it's getting harder to argue in favour of it with the imbalance this past season and the six divisions causing undesirable matchups with guaranteed seeds. Still, I have to admit I like the concept of fifteen teams battling for eight spots in each conference rather than thirty teams competing for sixteen spots and certain matchups only being possible on the grandest stage. Sentimental attachment aside, I can see the merit in abandoning that format though I'd be sorry to see it go.

[benji]

In my ideal (and arrogant!) world it would be thirty teams in competition for eight spots.

[[Q]]

i think they'll discuss it, but there won't likely be a change just yet. I tihnk the league figures that the imbalance of good teams between east and west will balance itself out eventually

[Skills]

Oh damn. Isn't the playoff format good just the way it is?
Well the East could use at least one team from the West.
Perhaps, switch two teams from the East to the West?

[Lamrock]

I wonder how the division system will be affected by the Sonics move, since Oklahoma logically would not be in the Northwest division.

I doubt anything will get done, but I would want a 16 team, no conferences or divisions format.

[benji]

I believe the league said they will stay in the Northwest.

[Lamrock]

Thats pretty illogical. The divisions are already retarded; now they make even less sense.

[Patr1ck]

I don't think the West/East thing is a big problem. It will work itself out. You can't expect a perfectly entertaining season, playoffs, and finals every single year. You also can't expect the teams in the west to constantly stay stacked, or more talented then eastern teams. It can balance itself out with draft talent and natural progression from season to season.

If you try to be fair to the teams with the best records by changing the playoff format, the you might as well change the whole East-West format, get rid of the East-West All Star Game, etc.

So a few teams played "playoff worthy" seasons. How do they deserve a playoff spot when other teams played more "playoff worthy" and actually got into the playoffs? Can't blame the league. The only problem that I saw with the current format was the fact that a division winner with a poor record could be seeded higher then a team in another division that had a better record, but that was fixed.

I can see where people are coming from with a top-16 seeded tournament, but that just eliminates the point of eastern and western conferences.

[Andrew]

In my ideal (and arrogant!) world it would be thirty teams in competition for eight spots.

That would leave 22 teams in the lottery though, which this season would mean three 50+ win teams would have a chance of winning a top three pick, if not the first overall selection. Even in a season that doesn't feature such an imbalance between the conferences or as close as race as the one in the West this year, teams that narrowly missed the postseason (and could comfortably qualify in the current format) would still be in the running to snag the top pick which isn't fair to the basement teams.

[benji]

That would leave 22 teams in the lottery though, which this season would mean three 50+ win teams would have a chance of winning a top three pick, if not the first overall selection.

Of course, can't change all the rules. Although I don't really see a problem in a 50 win team lucking into the first pick either.

which isn't fair to the basement teams.

The lottery and draft system isn't "fair" in the first place, the teams do not have anywhere near an equal chance of winning it. The only way it is "fair" is that it applies to all the teams.

What reason (not involving making money) is there to have more than half the league make the playoffs every season? Why don't we just put everyone in the playoffs?

[Andrew]

The bottom line for the league is obviously money but the amount of teams with winning records seems like a decent reason to allow more than eight teams in the Playoffs. Using this past season as an example, that would have left three 50+ win teams out of the postseason as previously mentioned, and eight overall that won at least half their games (six of them better than .500). If limiting the number of playoff spots due to the conference format is a bad idea because it leaves teams like the Warriors out in the cold, reducing the number of available playoff spots isn't going to be much better.

I do see the point though. It does trim away the teams the pretenders without putting the contenders through an extra round and it certainly would be competitive.

The lottery and draft system isn't "fair" in the first place, the teams do not have anywhere near an equal chance of winning it. The only way it is "fair" is that it applies to all the teams.

I agree, in terms of giving everyone an equal chance it certainly isn't fair. However, I would deem it a good system in that it gives borderline playoff teams a chance of getting a top three pick but gives basement teams a better chance of picking a player who can really help their team, while keeping them honest since having the worst record doesn't guarantee the top pick. If 50 win teams that missed the Playoffs won the lottery a few years in a row it wouldn't be good for the league and certainly wouldn't be good for the struggling teams trying to rebuild.

[GoHornets]

Leave everything the way it is right know.
The best teams will qualify for the playoffs, the worse ones won't

[Lamrock]

I'm still fond of a 12 team format with the top 4 getting byes.

Needless to say I'm in the vast minority.

[benji]

If limiting the number of playoff spots due to the conference format is a bad idea because it leaves teams like the Warriors out in the cold, reducing the number of available playoff spots isn't going to be much better.

No, these are two completely different situations. Nobody would be missing out for an inferior team due to geographic location. They just simply would not be making it because they were not good enough.

[Andrew]

True, but it would have seen teams that won over 60% of their games miss the postseason. In any event, I'm not particulary eager for the format to change but if it does, I'd rather they kept the sixteen seeds and just scrapped the conference format.

[[Q]]

I would've hated to see Atlanta & Philly not make the playoffs this year over GState & Portland. they've given Boston & Detroit a run for their money.

[Leander]

The playoffs are too long in my opinion. After the long season the playoffs are too long...cut them down to a best of three. Or reduce the NBA season to 60 games.

[Mayerhendrix]

IMO they need to reduce the number of games in a series to either 5-7-7-7 or 3-5-7-7.

[Leander]

3-3-3-3.

The team with the better records gets home advantage in the first and third game of one round.

We could also do without playoffs. At least I could.
There is only regular season and the team with the best records gets the title, like in European soccer leagues.

Each team should play against the rest twice. One at home, one on the road. => 58 games per season for each team.

[buzzy]

Are you kidding? Taking all the fun out of the NBA.

Then the champ would be decided through a tie braker for example, how boring is that ..

[Andrew]

I wouldn't like that either. I think the approach of having a playoff tournament structure with seven game series works well for basketball and as a fan, I want to see as much basketball as possible. If anything, a change back to the 5-7-7-7 format might be in order to shorten the first round again but a three game series would be too short.

[[Q]]

best of 3? this isn't the WNBA.

[Lamrock]

I like the length of the playoffs; and the best of 7 series is forgiving enough that a fluke, such as Indiana's 2-1 advantages in the 2005 and 2006 series losses or Dallas's 0-2 comeback in 2005 could be balanced out with the better team winning the series.

5-7-7-7 wouldn't be bad, but I like the way it is.

[GoHornets]

We could also do without playoffs. At least I could.
There is only regular season and the team with the best records gets the title, like in European soccer leagues.

Each team should play against the rest twice. One at home, one on the road. => 58 games per season for each team.

Bad idea.
Soccer is Soccer. This is NBA

[Chaser7]

Yeah I agree with GoHornets and Benji here on 2 different things.

One, yes, having the champion be whoever wins the regular season would be dumb as hell in my opinion, playoffs are definitely the better solution.

And like Benji said, having more than half the league qualify for the playoffs is a bit silly, I think Lamrock's idea of top 12, with 4 byes is a good idea. 16/30 is just dumb..