Simple question...

Do you like the fact there's 8 teams in each conference, with the possibility of a team (like GS) being left out and others with losing records getting in? Or would you be in favor of some kind of change to the current system (there is like only way you can really modify it though)?

Well, I tried.

OT: Let's go Tigers!

I like it as it is. While it may seem unfair this year, the West isn't going to be loaded for decades...

Eventually it will even out. I think it would be stupid to change it. It has never proved to be a flawed system, who cares about the Warriors missing out? They aren't giong to win the Title anyway.

The main purpose of the NBA playoffs, just like every other professional sport, is for the best team in each conference to play for the championship...

So no. For all the other things David Stern has fucked up in this league. Keep the playoff format as is.

If you can't prove to be one of the top 8 teams in your conference, even if you win 48 games, than you don't deserve to be in the playoffs...I don't feel sorry for Golden State one bit.

If you can't prove to be one of the top 8 teams in your conference, even if you win 48 games, than you don't deserve to be in the playoffs...I don't feel sorry for Golden State one bit.

That's true, but let's compare them to the Atlanta Hawks who won, what, 8 games fewer than they did? Granted, they're going to get slaughtered by Boston, but they still were able to get into the playoffs.

I don't mind the playoff system myself...I think it sometimes gets a little boring and might be a little too long, but other than that it's cool.

In my ideal world, the series before the conference finals would be best of 5, the top two teams from each division would be playoff locks, and each team would be guaranteed three days rest between series. But those are minor things. I'm mostly fine with the playoff system as it is.

Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
In my ideal world, the series before the conference finals would be best of 5



Yeah, now thats a good idea. Takes about 2 weeks out of the playoffs, and get things rollin...

No, now that's a terrible idea. Takes about 2 weeks out of the playoffs, and brings down revenue...

If we're talking about things we don't like about NBA scheduling, this is going to turn into a long thread.

1. Early rounds do not need to be best-of-7. Agreed fully. All it does is increase the risk of injury, and any team that can't get past the first round decisively in 5 games or less isn't going to make it far anyway.

2. Starting players on every team are overworked, fuel costs are high, and too many regular season games are utterly meaningless. The number of regular season games can be cut by at least 25%.

3. Stern out, Blaha in.

Screw golden state. If you can't make the top half of your conference you deserve to play golf in april.

Best of 5 series lend themselves to fluky upsets. It's the padding that TV demands in the schedule that makes the playoffs last forever, not so much that they're playing best of 7.

I like the idea of the Top 16 getting in, regardless of conference. Would make for some interesting match-ups of all deserving teams. If one conference is more represented, so be it. Golden State won 11 more games than Atlanta, and did so against much better competition. If they were in the East and had the same record, they'd have home court in the first round. And, I repeat, they did this against better competition.

I also prefer Best of 7 series. Greater chance that the better team moves on in my opinion.

Well if they did that, why even have conferences? They would be useless.

I don't like having 16 teams in a 30 team league get in. That's more than half, and the playoffs are supposed to be an honor. Look at football or especially baseball, your season is relatively successful by making the playoffs. Not so in the NBA, ATL will have no pride about what they accomplished at the end of this week. Make it 12 teams, with the top 2 seeds in each conf getting a bye and the first round being best of 3. I would say best of 5 but then the top seeds would be resting too long, maybe if they played the 5 games in 1 week lol.

I don't really feel bad for GS. If the playoffs didn't pay attention to conf then why have the confs? This year is an anomaly, one team every 20-30 years getting shafted is not just cause to change the way everything is done.

I agree with Ux. They play all season to eliminate 14 teams? I think thats right.

What was the lowest seed to ever win the finals? Maybe the 4th seed?

Cut the playoff fied down a few teams. It'll never happen though. Too much money involved.

I agree with Ux. They play all season to eliminate 14 teams? I think thats right.

What was the lowest seed to ever win the finals? Maybe the 4th seed?

Cut the playoff fied down a few teams. It'll never happen though. Too much money involved.

Didn't Houston win one of its back to back (jordan baseball years) championships with a really low seed? May have even been an eigth but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Best of 5 series lend themselves to fluky upsets.
IIRC as of a couple years ago, the statistic was that 84% of the time that a team wins Game 5 to take the lead, they win it all by Game 7. And this doesn't count the teams that outright win their 4 in 4-5 games. So, it's not going to be THAT much of a flukefest with best-of-5.

And honestly, I like flukes every once in awhile -- keeps things entertaining.

I don't like having 16 teams in a 30 team league get in. That's more than half, and the playoffs are supposed to be an honor.
A little history is in order, here.

After the ABA terms were merged in, having only 10 of 23 playoff teams was deemed too little. It was already showing signs of strain because top teams would sit while the wildcard was played, creating a lull. So, it was decided to make it 16 out of 23 teams. Teams with marginal records got their chance to be crushed in the big spotlights. Jordan's Bulls made the playoffs for the first three years with 38-44, 30-52, and 40-42 records, but it got him the playoff exposure early on. Was that a good thing?

I'm ok with that aspect of things as they are, having lived through both of the extremes.

It might be worthwhile to have a single-elimination "best of the rest" NIT kind of series for the bottom feeders, so more teams can end on some kind of high note. It sucks to see your team tanking it just to get good draft position. Throw in the two top NBDL teams to balance it out -- give them a reward.

At one point, weren't the 5 game series, 3-2, or 2-3? Thats where things could get flukey.

I hate the 2-3-2 format too.

2-2-1 is what I remember for the 5 game series.