PDA

View Full Version : Fixing the Playoff fomat



31andonly
06-11-2007, 04:28 PM
I just visited espn.com and there is an Insider-article about the problem of lopsided finals!

Since I can't read the whole article, I'm wondering what their solution might be.
I don't think that I'm the only one who is bored by Finals such as this years'. Everyone knows it would be more fun to watch the best teams play each other in the Finals, the East has not the best teams in the league right now.

What do you think?

Is a change of the Playoff format necessery?

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2900512&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fplayoffs2007%2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolu mnist%3dhollinger_john%26id%3d2900512

Roaming Gnome
06-11-2007, 04:39 PM
NO!

Let me guess, this is another re-seed or seed the play-offs 1 thru 16 irregardless of conference. I couldn't read the article, but it has a feel of those very non-original ideas.

LG33
06-11-2007, 04:42 PM
Top sixteen teams make it, regardless of conference? Then we might be out of luck for the rest of the decade.

avoidingtheclowns
06-11-2007, 04:51 PM
Top sixteen teams make it, regardless of conference? Then we might be out of luck for the rest of the decade.

you'd have to totally readjust the regular season schedule for that to truly work. now reseeding the 8 teams in each conference might make some sense... but i think my biggest problem with the current playoff format is the time in between games - the fact that the first round clocks in just under a decade is ridiculous.

Hicks
06-11-2007, 05:06 PM
That might be interesting: Keep the seeding as-is to set the 16 playoff teams, then re-seed it for the actual games.

ABADays
06-11-2007, 06:08 PM
I don't see how that would work. Seems to me you would have to have all the teams playing against each other more than twice. In a weak division the top 16 could be very skewed . . . well, actually that could happen in the strong conference too.

Sollozzo
06-11-2007, 06:32 PM
This is so stupid. In every major sport there is going to be a final every once in a while that is a little lopsided.

Were the Bears really the second best team in the NFL this year? Hell no. The Pats, Chargers, and Ravens were all better teams. Should the NFL change it's entire seeding and blow the AFC and NFC up now too since they really didn't have the "2 best teams" in the Superbowl?

Oh man, the Red Sox swept the Cardinals in the World series 3 years ago. And last year the Cardinals won in a commanding 4-1 fashion. I guess the MLB should just completely blow the AL and NL up because the last couple of World Series haven't been "entertaining."

Sports writing has become a complete joke. People have such short memories it's laughable. THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THE NBA FINALS HAVE BEEN LOPSIDED. The Magic were swept 12 years ago by Houston. The Nets were swept 5 years ago. The Spurs won 4-1 in 1999. You can't have a freaking 6 or 7 game series every year. We're just 2 years removed from a 7 game finals in 2005.

I get so sick and tired of people whinning about seeding. Everyone was complaining that you didn't have the 2 best teams in the WCF's. But no one realizes that if the seeding would have played out, and that if Dallas would have gotten to the WCF's as most expected, that you'd have had either a Dallas-PHX WCF's or a Dallas-SA WCF's. Those are the matchups people wanted to see right? The seeding allowed those to be potential matchups, but it's not the people who make the seedings fault that the Mavs can't beat an 8th seeded team.

If higher seeded Houston had been able to beat lower seeded Utah and higher seeded Dallas would have been able to beat GS, then you'd have had a Dallas-Houston semifinal. That's a series everyone would have liked. But it's not the NBA's fault that neither of those teams could beat the lower seed.

No one cares to realize that it could have been a Dallas/SA or Dallas/PHX WCF, which is basically what everyone wanted right? Dallas lost to an 8th seeded team. It's that simple. That is going to mess alot up as far as the supposed "best teams" playing.

sig
06-11-2007, 06:40 PM
OK, here is a radical proposal.

I think there should be more games against teams in your own division. Get rid of the conferences and seed teams 1-16.

Play each team in your division 8 times for 32 games. Play the other 25 teams twice for the other 50 games.

W-L recoird is used to determine Division winners which are seeded 1 thru 6. Use a point system to determine 1-6 seeding. Since you play each team in your division 4 times more than non division teams then teams get 4 points for a non division win and 1 point for each division win.

Seeds 7 thru 16 will also be determined using the point system. Since non division games are weighted more heavily this might counter a team that cleans up in a weak division if they lose a lot of non division games.

The All Star game should be US vs World players.

Roaming Gnome
06-11-2007, 09:44 PM
OK, here is a radical proposal.

I think there should be more games against teams in your own division. Get rid of the conferences and seed teams 1-16.

Play each team in your division 8 times for 32 games. Play the other 25 teams twice for the other 50 games.

W-L recoird is used to determine Division winners which are seeded 1 thru 6. Use a point system to determine 1-6 seeding. Since you play each team in your division 4 times more than non division teams then teams get 4 points for a non division win and 1 point for each division win.

Seeds 7 thru 16 will also be determined using the point system. Since non division games are weighted more heavily this might counter a team that cleans up in a weak division if they lose a lot of non division games.

The All Star game should be US vs World players.


Where most of these ideas fail in my eyes, you actually covered. Most times I hear these foolish ideas about re-formatting the play-offs, they almost never take into account the regular season. The season is 82 games long and I hate every year that most sports writers don't even want to take that into account when they write their worthless little commentaries on "what is wrong with the (NBA/NHL/NFL)'s play-offs".

I do like the idea of weighting divsion games and points, but then again I'm an odd ducky that loved the old CBA quarter point system, but ultimatly I'm perfectly fine with the play-off formats as they are and don't want to see changes.

As for U.S. Vs. World style all star game...I'd hate to see us get punked like that on an annual basis. Now if we did that every 5 or 7 years...I'd be interested.

LG33
06-11-2007, 10:32 PM
As for U.S. Vs. World style all star game...I'd hate to see us get punked like that on an annual basis. Now if we did that every 5 or 7 years...I'd be interested.

We wouldn't be able to get a World All-Star team to show up and play together anyways (think of the language barriers alone). Plus, it is a bit presumptuous. However, we could field our All-Star team against another league's champ. Also, to do it every 5 to 7 years (or what not) would be unfair to that year's top players...Just a couple thoughts...

Young
06-11-2007, 11:08 PM
If the league wants to change the format that is fine but they would also have to change the scheduling so that everyone plays all the teams an even number of times. Right now I think that East teams play each 4 times a year and then they play the West teams 2 times a year and vis versua. Or something along those lines. So the scheduling would have to be changed as much as anything.

Trader Joe
06-11-2007, 11:20 PM
How about we just leave it like it has been and has worked now for quite some time? Yeah its struggling this year, but the East did win the past two championships before this year.
You know what I think spawns this attack on the playoff system? The fact that the Eastern Conference media personnel loves to jump all over their own teams. Places like NY and Chicago are quick to attack while the West coast media isn't nearly as bad at attacking their own team.

FlavaDave
06-12-2007, 10:14 AM
We wouldn't be able to get a World All-Star team to show up and play together anyways (think of the language barriers alone). Plus, it is a bit presumptuous. However, we could field our All-Star team against another league's champ. Also, to do it every 5 to 7 years (or what not) would be unfair to that year's top players...Just a couple thoughts...


He's talking Steve Nash - Dirk Nowitski - Yao Ming style World All-Star team. Like the NHL does.

LG33
06-12-2007, 11:05 AM
He's talking Steve Nash - Dirk Nowitski - Yao Ming style World All-Star team. Like the NHL does.

Oh, well then I apologize. But they would rape us.

larry
07-26-2007, 09:22 PM
you'd have to totally readjust the regular season schedule for that to truly work. now reseeding the 8 teams in each conference might make some sense... but i think my biggest problem with the current playoff format is the time in between games - the fact that the first round clocks in just under a decade is ridiculous.

amen that first round is murder. Not to mention if the Pacers get back in they play 75% or more of the 1st round on NBA TV. Which I can't get on Dish Network

larry
07-26-2007, 09:27 PM
How about we just leave it like it has been and has worked now for quite some time? Yeah its struggling this year, but the East did win the past two championships before this year.
You know what I think spawns this attack on the playoff system? The fact that the Eastern Conference media personnel loves to jump all over their own teams. Places like NY and Chicago are quick to attack while the West coast media isn't nearly as bad at attacking their own team.

<table style="width: 540px; height: 214px;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>2006-07
</td> <td>San Antonio Spurs
</td> <td>4-0 (http://www.nba.com/finals2007)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"> <td>2005-06
</td> <td>Miami Heat
</td> <td>4-2 (http://www.nba.com/finals2006/)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2004-05
</td> <td>San Antonio Spurs
</td> <td>4-3 (http://www.nba.com/finals2005)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"> <td>2003-04
</td> <td>Detroit Pistons
</td> <td>4-1 (http://www.nba.com/finals2004)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2002-03
</td> <td>San Antonio Spurs
</td> <td>4-2 (http://www.nba.com/finals2003)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"> <td>2001-02
</td> <td>Los Angeles Lakers
</td> <td>4-0 (http://www.nba.com/history/finals/20012002.html)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2000-01
</td> <td>Los Angeles Lakers
</td> <td>4-1 (http://www.nba.com/history/finals/20002001.html)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"> <td>1999-00
</td> <td>Los Angeles Lakers
</td> <td>4-2 (http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19992000.html)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1998-99
</td> <td>San Antonio Spurs
</td></tr></tbody></table>

larry
07-26-2007, 09:48 PM
<table style="width: 540px; height: 214px;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>2006-07
</td> <td>San Antonio Spurs
</td> <td>4-0 (http://www.nba.com/finals2007)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"> <td>2005-06
</td> <td>Miami Heat
</td> <td>4-2 (http://www.nba.com/finals2006/)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2004-05
</td> <td>San Antonio Spurs
</td> <td>4-3 (http://www.nba.com/finals2005)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"> <td>2003-04
</td> <td>Detroit Pistons
</td> <td>4-1 (http://www.nba.com/finals2004)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2002-03
</td> <td>San Antonio Spurs
</td> <td>4-2 (http://www.nba.com/finals2003)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"> <td>2001-02
</td> <td>Los Angeles Lakers
</td> <td>4-0 (http://www.nba.com/history/finals/20012002.html)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2000-01
</td> <td>Los Angeles Lakers
</td> <td>4-1 (http://www.nba.com/history/finals/20002001.html)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"> <td>1999-00
</td> <td>Los Angeles Lakers
</td> <td>4-2 (http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19992000.html)
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1998-99
</td> <td>San Antonio Spurs </td></tr></tbody></table>

2 East champs in the last decade. However, I like the system because it is fair. If the East can't hang that is just too bad. I def. don't want to see the West vs. West Finals. That just sounds goofy to me. Maybe they need to fix (as in repair) the draft were the East would have picked up the 2 big names this year. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer...
Don't read this Uncle Buck!!!

Instead those ping pong balls were done behind doors this time and the West won both major picks.
Not to mention the NBA's richest owner bagged the top spot in the biggest draft since Shaq.
Could a check signed by Paul Allen buy him a seat at a large stakes game of bingo?

Hicks
07-26-2007, 10:04 PM
I for one am tired of a Conference Final, or worse, a Semi-Final being more important than the NBA Finals. I think re-seeding after the first round is something the NBA needs to do. If it doesn't work, you can always go back. They need to try this.

larry
07-26-2007, 10:12 PM
I for one am tired of a Conference Final, or worse, a Semi-Final being more important than the NBA Finals. I think re-seeding after the first round is something the NBA needs to do. If it doesn't work, you can always go back. They need to try this.

I don't care what they do as long as is the East still plays the West in the Finals.

Hicks
07-26-2007, 10:23 PM
I don't care what they do as long as is the East still plays the West in the Finals.

That's the total opposite of what I'm saying. It CAN happen, if the best two teams happen to be the top of each conference, but if one conference is weak, the best two teams still play in the Finals. I could care less about "East" or "West". They're all NBA teams. Let the best play in the Finals, no sacrificial lambs allowed.

Let's see how this year's playoffs would have looked.

Here's what it was:

Detroit 53-29
Chicago 49-33

Cleveland 50-32
New Jersey 41-41

Golden State 42-40
Utah 51-31

Phoenix 61-21
San Antonio 58-24

Here's what it should have been:

1 Phoenix
8 New Jersey

2 San Antonio
7 Golden State

3 Detroit
6 Chicago

4 Utah
5 Cleveland

Plausibly, that would have made the Conference Finals:

1 Phoenix
4/5 Utah/Cleveland

2 San Antonio
3 Detroit

Plausibly, that would have made the NBA Finals:

1 Phoenix
2/3 San Antonio/Detroit

MUCH, MUCH better.

I was listening to Mike Wilbon being interviewed by Bill Simmons, and apparently there was a year way back when that the NBA had East/West mixed during a series. The world didn't end. Much more importantly, these guys travel on high-quality jets, not coach. The travel argument is bogus. They aren't riding the bus. I have 100% confidence in this working.

Also, once upon a time the NBA was known for being creative. Now it's all about clinging to the established setup as much as possible (no, basketballs and zone defenses aren't major). Time to earn back the creativity label and do something bold (like when they adopted the ABA's 3 point line. Hell, this isn't even as major as that was IMO).

FlavaDave
07-26-2007, 10:57 PM
Two best teams in the Finals. Period. There is no other way.

SycamoreKen
07-26-2007, 11:10 PM
If conferences and divisions don't matter come the second round of the playoffs, why not before then. If the goal is to get the two best teams possible in the finals then you have to start with the 16 best teams in the league at the end of the season in the playoffs. If that means 6 from the East and 10 from the West, so be it. If you don't start with the 16 best teams, then it is really a joke to reseed after the first round because one of those teams still playing may have had a worse season than a team siting at home.

This could also help the weaker conference at draft time for it would put a bigger number of their teams higher up the ladder.

Personally, I don't care what they do. Once the Pacers and Spurs are out of it I don't make a point to watch the playoffs anyway, which is strange considering how much I love basketball.

carpediem024
07-27-2007, 12:21 AM
What they should fix I think is the All-Star game.

You know maybe US Players vs. Int. Players.

PG: Nash
SG: Ginobili
SF: Peja
PF: Big Z
C: Yao

SparkyPacer
07-27-2007, 12:30 AM
Big Z and Peja over Dirk? His team sucked in the playoffs, but damn.

Sollozzo
07-27-2007, 12:33 AM
"Lopsided Finals".......God, sometimes I think people have a memory span of 2 months.

The 2006 Finals were competitive.

The 2005 Finals went to 7 games.

THere are going to be sweeps every once and a while. There was a sweep in 2002. There was a sweep in 1995. Chicago beat Los Angeles 4-1 in 1991 and Detroit beat Portland 4-1 in 90. 1989 was a sweep by the Pistons over the Lakers.

There are going to be sweeps and lopsided finals matchups every once in a while. That's how it's always been in the NBA. I think that's how it always will be, regardless of how you seed.

I know people complain that the 2 best teams (SA and Phx) played in the second round. What people forget is that the seeding allowed there to be a Dallas/PHX WCF or an SA/Dallas WCF. THose are matchups people wanted to see. It's not the NBA or seedings fault that Dallas can't beat the 8 seed.

The seeding allowed for a Dallas-Houston semis matchup, along with the SA-PHx one. Dallas Houston would have been an extremely hyped series, one that probably would have gotten good ratings. It's not the NBA or seedings fault that Dallas or Houston can't beat the lower seeds.

You are always going to have a low seed knock off a high seed every once in a while, only for that lower seed to get creamed in the next round for people to scream that seeding isn't fair. That's the way anysport with series' is going to be.

Bball
07-27-2007, 12:47 AM
Fixing the Playoffs?

Isn't there a ref in trouble for doing that already???

:rimshot:

-Bball

carpediem024
07-27-2007, 01:01 AM
Big Z and Peja over Dirk? His team sucked in the playoffs, but damn.

I just named the ones that came to mind, that are at least average.

But yeah Dirk on PF.

BillS
07-27-2007, 09:51 AM
Heck, why not go all the way and get rid of the East and West conferences completely. Travel time is no longer an issue.

Let's go to First and Second divisions, where teams finishing the season in the top half end up in the First Division and play each other and for the NBA championship the next season. Teams in the bottom half play each other and for the right to move up to the First Division the next year.

Of course, that would kill the NBA's current marketing strategy since you couldn't promote the single Hot Hype Player so at least one game in each city sells out each year, but maybe this would force some team marketing instead.

You can then work the draft so that the teams in the Second Division get prime draft picks and voila.

spreedom
07-27-2007, 11:13 AM
I say they should get rid of conferences and divisions altogether, and make the seasons 87 games long (3 against every other team). Alternate which teams gets home-court advantage (i.e. Pacers have two home games and one away vs. Detroit this year, and two away and one home next year) and eliminate the preseason completely. Nobody cares about it anyway. Then make the top 10 teams advance to the playoffs (with four "Wild Card" teams every season which play in best-of-three series'), and the best two teams shouldn't have as big a problem reaching the NBA Finals.

Infinite MAN_force
07-27-2007, 11:24 AM
I dont understand how if the east is so bad we still won two of the last four NBA finals. I mean it is the weaker conference for sure but come on. Not to mention it was well within clevelands grasp to win either of the last two games thus makeing it at least a 6 game series. They each came down the one possesion or so, its not like it was 4 straight blowouts or something.

You could certainly make the same argument for the NFL, cause everyone knows the AFC championship game was the real superbowl.

Im for staying the same, I like east vs. west, it gives you something else to identify with if your own team is out of the playoffs. Personally I hope an eastern team upsets next year just to shut these people up.

Slick Pinkham
07-27-2007, 12:20 PM
2 East champs in the last decade.


Three.

That table went back 9 years, and the West was 7-2. The year before that was the last Bulls championship, so it's 3 of last 10 for the East.

If you go back 9 more years (18 years total), it is 9-9.

Yes the same 7-2 stretch was repeated the other way during the Bulls dynasty (only Houston won from the West) and I'm biased but I think a few of those years the top 2 or 3 teams were in the East, including the Pacers in '98.

It's not really broke, so don't make stupid atempts at fixing it.

Hicks
07-27-2007, 01:10 PM
The part that's "broke" isn't about which conference holds the best teams all year long. It's about making the best matchups in the playoffs be on the biggest stages.