7 games in the first round - good or bad?

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sat May 03, 2003 2:25 pm

Well, the first round is drawing to a close. Detroit and Portland have both been down 3-something, but are close to forcing a Game 7 (or in Detroit's case, have already forced a Game 7). In years past, these teams would already have been eliminated. Now, they have a chance to not only salvage pride, but advance.

Although this means they've had more chances than the teams of the past, it also makes another interesting point - if teams from previous years who lost in the first round were playing under this year's format, would they have been able to come back? Was 5 games really enough to determine the better team, especially given the possibility of injuries, a slow start or just sheer luck?

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle - in the playoffs, you have to play from the tip off in Game 1. But as this year has proven, with a couple of extra games, teams that were eliminated and written off as inferior in years past might have been able to come back and win. If the Conference Finals and Semi-Finals, rounds that are meant to be more difficult offer a 7 game series, then surely there's no problem in extending that luxury to the first round.

Your thoughts?

by **Colin** on Sat May 03, 2003 3:54 pm

Now Portland had forced the game, and they must be damn happy it was changed. I'm glad the format was changed as I get to see even more games.

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sat May 03, 2003 3:58 pm

It's certainly good for the fans, no question.

But is it good for the league?

by **Matthew** on Sat May 03, 2003 6:58 pm

I can't see how it would be bad for the league. More games = more money from the tv contract.

The only party who can possibly have a bitch are the players, who have to play more games. But these guys are professionals and they love the game, and if they didnt want to play they wouldnt try to make the playoffs, so they can have an earlier vacation.

I think its good for everyone involved (y)

by **paul_pierce_the_truth** on Sat May 03, 2003 7:13 pm

Can you believe it used to be best of three?
Michael Jordan stomped the Miami Heat so fast one year, people in later rounds couldn't remember who the Bulls had played!!

I thought at first it was a money grubbing move, but watching Portland come back makes a believer in me, the theory that the better team will win seems to hold true. In a best of Five or Three, Minnesota, Phoenix, Orlando and Milwaukee could have advanced. But the stronger deeper teams held on.

Dallas vs. Portland
Orlando vs. Detroit
this is the pay off for these long series'.

I pick the home team in both and I am going to be wrong at least once probably.

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sat May 03, 2003 7:14 pm

Financially speaking, it could never be bad for the league. What I should have said was "is it good for the game, the teams, the players, and the nature of NBA competition?" Personally, I think it's good. I was just clarifying the point I was trying to raise.

by **Matthew** on Sat May 03, 2003 7:33 pm

Lol, back in the 50's it was best out of 3.

Dallas vs. Portland
Orlando vs. Detroit

I'm hoping the Blazers and Magic win, but ill predict Detroit to ride their momentum and Dallas to rebound

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sat May 03, 2003 7:36 pm

Michael Jordan stomped the Miami Heat so fast one year, people in later rounds couldn't remember who the Bulls had played!!

That was still a best of five series, as they won 3-0.

by **paul_pierce_the_truth** on Sat May 03, 2003 9:03 pm

Did I at any point say the Bulls eliminated the Heat in 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 games?

This is strange, I have a teacher or shadow pointing my mistakes out.

I didn't say the Bulls beat the Heat in a best of 3. Did Not.

I said it used to be best of three, and that one year.......

It was back in 1983 when it was best of 3, I knew that when I posted about Jordan. Sorry if you misunderstand me, but it's your mistake misuderstanding me and in turn pointing out something that wasn't said at all. Please do not quote me as being incorrect when I am not.

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sat May 03, 2003 9:14 pm

Did I at any point say the Bulls eliminated the Heat in 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 games?

This is strange, I have a teacher or shadow pointing my mistakes out.

You apologised for your posts in the other threads when you were not out of line, but that sentence could have been put a little better. I don't care for that remark at all.

You wrote:Can you believe it used to be best of three?
Michael Jordan stomped the Miami Heat so fast one year, people in later rounds couldn't remember who the Bulls had played!!

When I read that, it sounds like the one point, so I took it as being a mistake. There was no need to respond in the way you did, as I'm sure you can appreciate how I would make the mistake of reading those two sentences the way I did.

Now, I apologise if I sounded condescending with my post, but it was an honest mistake in the way I read your post. I did not realise you were making two different points.

by **alexboom** on Mon May 05, 2003 7:58 pm

i'm the first to think it's bad

- going from 3 to 4 wins to reach the semi conf finals, it comes harder for a weaker team to create the surprise, ie the 8th spot can beat the 1st in one or two games, but the longer is the series, the fewer are the chances to win it. look at teams like orlando or minnesota that might have beat detroit or LA in a 5 games format...
- for me it was harder to follow it. it disturbed me a little as i'm still not used to this format at the first round...
- and for TV and audience, too much basketball kills the basketball. People may be enough of it as it was the same for soccer in Europe.