PDA

View Full Version : Anybody else hate the 2-3-2 format?



leon
06-10-2004, 11:47 AM
Sorry if this has been discussed, but I don't understand why the NBA has one playoff format for the first three rounds, then another for the championship. I would assume they are trying to cut down on the travelling when the East meets the West, but that doesn't really make sense either. I mean, is it really that much farther to fly from LA to Detroit than it is to fly from LA to San Antonio? You have a day off between each game anyway.

If you insist on using 2-3-2 for the finals, then why not use it for all of the playoffs?

I think the 2-3-2 format is a disadvantage for the team with the three middle games. In order to hold serve on their home court they are forced to win three consecutive games. After wrestling home court away from the Lakers, Detroit now has to win three in a row in order to keep it. I say go back to 2-2-1-1-1 for all rounds of the playoffs.

ChicagoJ
06-10-2004, 11:56 AM
The reason was the high cost of commuting between the two coasts during the energy crisis of the late seventies and early eighties. They've just never fixed it. :unimpressed:

Its awful if your team doesn't have HCA. No home team has ever swept the three-game homestand; and I'd be shocked if the higher-seeded team in the finals would ever lose three-straight road games.

Kstat
06-10-2004, 12:20 PM
I look at this differently:

First of all, this started back when LA and Boston were meeting in the Finals every other year. It seems rather pointless to have game 4 in LA, game 5 in boston, game 6 in LA, and game 7 in boston, doesnt it? Not only i that a heck of a lot of coast-to-coast tripes, but i imagine its gotta wear on the players. From that standpoint, I agree.

Secondly, even though the home team hasnt swept games 3 4 and 5, the ROAD team has swept them on THREE different occasions. Detroit in 1990, Chicago in 1991, and LA in 2001. IMO, the only reason the home team hasnt won all 3 games is there hasnt been a home team that was good enough and NEEDED to win all 3 games. You're telling me Houston in 1995 wouldnt have won the middle 3 if they needed to?

Eventually there will be a team that wins the middle three games. Detroit will be that team.

ChicagoJ
06-10-2004, 12:31 PM
IMO, the only reason the home team hasnt won all 3 games is there hasnt been a home team that was good enough and NEEDED to win all 3 games. You're telling me Houston in 1995 wouldnt have won the middle 3 if they needed to?

Well, that's an interesting point, Houston might have swept that series if all four games were in Orlando.

But it is extremely rare that the higher-seeded team so overmatched that they'll lose three in a row, period.

Hicks
06-10-2004, 12:33 PM
I sure thought the Pacers NEEDED to win all 3 in 2000. :shrug:

indygeezer
06-10-2004, 12:41 PM
I hate it. For the reasons stated above. It's just wrong. (I'm sure right now the Lakers love it) Lose one of those 3 home games and you have the mental disadvantage of KNOWING you HAve to win out there again.

Arcadian
06-10-2004, 12:53 PM
Its good for the media coverage. It makes it more affordable for smaller news papers to follow. Allows more time for the media to interact with the players. So in that sense it is good pub.

From a basketball stand point I'd just assume that it was like every other series but I can honestly say that I don't think that the format effected the outcome or kept the better team from winning.

Bball
06-10-2004, 01:29 PM
Eventually there will be a team that wins the middle three games. Detroit will be that team.

Your confidence and faith are nice but I am not sure they are rooted in reality. It will be hard for Detroit to win 3 straight games in this series. It would be hard for anybody to do it. While I don't put the Lakers on a pedestal I certainly respect that they will not go down without a fight.

Of course you didn't say Detroit would do it THIS year! ;)

-Bball

Kstat
06-10-2004, 01:38 PM
Actually, i can think of at least ONE occasion where it's helped:

in 1984, with the Lakers leading 2-1, the Celtics stole a victory in LA to knot up the series. The Celtics were so pumped that they just HAMMERED LA inthe Garden in game 5, and Larry Bird shot some ungodly percentage (15/20 I think). Boston took a 3-2 lead and won the series in seven.

Now, in 1985 they put the 2-3-2 format in. The Lakers again took a 2-1 lead. Boston AGAIN stole a victory in LA in game 4 on a Dennis Johnson buzzer-beater. However, With the home crowd to back them in game 5, LA WON the game, took the 3-2 lead, and the Celtics were the demoralized team, played like absolute garbage in game 6, and the Lakers put them away to win the series.

I believe Larry Bird said himself that the 2-3-2 format really helped LA win that series.

Kstat
06-10-2004, 01:42 PM
Eventually there will be a team that wins the middle three games. Detroit will be that team.

Your confidence and faith are nice but I am not sure they are rooted in reality. It will be hard for Detroit to win 3 straight games in this series. It would be hard for anybody to do it. While I don't put the Lakers on a pedestal I certainly respect that they will not go down without a fight.

Of course you didn't say Detroit would do it THIS year! ;)

-Bball

I can think of a few reasons:

1- Detroit has a CLEAR edge in energy, even in Staples. At the Palace thats only going to go more in Detroit's favor.

2-Detroit has an advantage in DEPTH. Once again, LA will eventually get fatigued quicker on the road.

3-You win road games with defense. LA has none.

This seems a good a case as any where the home team should have a clear advantage for games 3-5.

leon
06-10-2004, 01:55 PM
It seems rather pointless to have game 4 in LA, game 5 in boston, game 6 in LA, and game 7 in boston, doesnt it?

Then why have game 4 in New Jersey, game 5 in Detroit, game 6 in New Jersey and game 7 in Detroit? If you are going to use 2-3-2, use it all the way through.

Kstat
06-10-2004, 02:11 PM
It seems rather pointless to have game 4 in LA, game 5 in boston, game 6 in LA, and game 7 in boston, doesnt it?

Then why have game 4 in New Jersey, game 5 in Detroit, game 6 in New Jersey and game 7 in Detroit? If you are going to use 2-3-2, use it all the way through.

its a combined 2,000 miles to make 4 consecutive trips beyween NJ and Detroit. Its a combined 10,000 Miles to make the same trips between LA and Boston....

Kstat
06-10-2004, 02:14 PM
I doubt that he can appropriately genuflect before me (and others) after so rigidly extolling that self-righteous nonsense nor could he provide the proper level of obsequiosness.... commensurate with penance for such folly.

Congratulations on owning a thesaurs.

Here's to blowhards.....may we never learn....

Coming from a LAKER fan? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

leon
06-10-2004, 02:15 PM
2-3-2 balances out the HOME COURT ADVANTAGE between teams.

I don't see how that's the case at all. The way I see it, in a 7 game series between two fairly even teams there are two primary factors that change from game to game. The first is homecourt advantage. The second is adjustments that are made from game to game. The losing team usually makes more adjustments, and thus has an advantage in the next game.

The adjustments that are made make it extremely hard to win three games in a row in a closely contested series. The adjustment factor somewhat negates the homecourt advantage during those three middle games.

leon
06-10-2004, 02:19 PM
its a combined 2,000 miles to make 4 consecutive trips beyween NJ and Detroit. Its a combined 10,000 Miles to make the same trips between LA and Boston....
I'm aware that LA is farther away from Detroit than NJ is. My point is, if 2-3-2 is considered to be fair then why not do it for the entire playoffs?

Fool
06-10-2004, 02:20 PM
I don't think I am following your argument

First, My impression of why it was changed from 2-2 1-1-1 to 2-3-2 was based mostly on fairness to the lower seeded team.

That it was changed based on the fact that teams play twice as many games in their conference as they do against the Conference they face in the Finals.

IOW

...if thee HIGHER SEEDED Conference is weaker, the team with the higher seed is actually SANDBAGGING (as Cory and others here claim the West to be doing...lmao).

Therefore the team with the lower seed (but possibly the better team) is able to take Game one or Game two on the road and SWEEP their home games to win the title outright if they are good enough.

How does going from 2-2-1-1-1 to 2-3-2 change the fact that the lower seeded team can win the first two game on the road and close it out at home?


Travel is an issue but NOT THE BIG ISSUE OR FACTOR some may have been lead to believe or that others here make it out to be.

Financial considerations and travel fatigue affect both teams rather equally.

While I agree that both TEAMS are effected equally in the 2-2-1-1-1, I believe the main argument in the "travel" theory is that it helps EVERYONE else as they travel 3 times not 5 (though I am far from convinced that travel is why the finals are 2-3-2).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now as to Kstat's MENTALLY MASTURBATED THEORIES, i.e....

3-You win road games with defense. LA has none.


....are hilarious and belong in a COMEDY FORUM for Sports Fans.

GOD FORBID he is wrong.

I doubt that he can appropriately genuflect before me (and others) after so rigidly extolling that self-righteous nonsense nor could he provide the proper level of obsequiosness.... commensurate with penance for such folly.


Here's to blowhards.....may we never learn....
:champagne:
:cheers:
:laugh:

Perhaps there is an debatet or competition between you two that I don't know about but that seems harsh to me. And while "genuflect", "extolling", "obsequiousness" (note the "u"), "commensurate", and "penance" are used correctly, I don't believe you can call his extolling self-righteous as he is not claiming anything about himself but rather his favorite team. He doesn't claim that his defense will win the 3 home games.

rabid
06-10-2004, 02:42 PM
The best, and probably only legitimate, argument against the 2-3-2 format was one of the first ones posted in this thread:


I think the 2-3-2 format is a disadvantage for the team with the three middle games. In order to hold serve on their home court they are forced to win three consecutive games. After wrestling home court away from the Lakers, Detroit now has to win three in a row in order to keep it. I say go back to 2-2-1-1-1 for all rounds of the playoffs.

Understand what he's really saying here. In a "normal" playoff series, the logic is that the higher-seeded team can be victorious by winning all four home games. The lower-seeded team can win the series by winning all three of its home games and stealing one on the opponent's home court.

With this logic, it becomes clear that the lower-seeded team is at a greater disadvantage in a 2-3-2 series, because, in order to "hold serve," that team is required to win 3 in a row at home. The higher-seeded team, on the other hand, can win no more than 2 consecutive games in the series and still be victorious without having to win on the opponent's floor.

The simple fact is that it is much more difficult to win 3 consecutive home games than 2 consecutive home games, whether you are the higher or lower seed in a playoff series. The problem with 2-3-2 is that one team, which already has one less home game than their opponent, is expected to win 3 consecutive games in order to hold home court. Since no lower-seeded team has ever won all 3 home games in a 2-3-2 series, you're essentially asking them to win at least 2 road games instead of at least one. It's unfair and it seems to have made for shorter NBA Finals series on several occasions (2000 Pacers anyone)?

My two cents. :tongue:

Fool
06-10-2004, 03:00 PM
Perhaps you should look to be clearer in your points and less hostile in thier tone since so many are having a problem with them.

"I stated from the outset that it was my understanding and gave the reasoning as I UNDERSTOOD IT. " Exactly, that is what I am asking about. I don't understand you explination of how you understood it. It was less than clear and I was asking for a clearification.

However, since all you care to do is throw insults in an attempt to show mental capacity I doubt you could explain it coherently and at this point could care less about it.

Gyron
06-10-2004, 03:36 PM
Does anyone else find it humorous to see a Piston's Fan arguing with a Laker's Fan on a Pacer's board?

:laugh:

Hicks
06-10-2004, 03:38 PM
Does anyone else find it humorous to see a Piston's Fan arguing with a Laker's Fan on a Pacer's board?

:laugh:

:lurk:

ChicagoJ
06-10-2004, 04:36 PM
I think I was reading in Oscar's autobiography that the NBA Finals, in the early seventies, were 1-1-1-1-1-1-1.

Now that's back when teams took busses to a lot of road games, especially in the midwest. And if they flew, it was commercial and coach. So I just don't buy into the whining about travel at all.

Hoop
06-10-2004, 04:48 PM
I think it would make for better final's matchups with the 2-2-1-1-1 format. Who cares about the travel, teams have their own damn planes. They ride on them 50+ times a year, what difference would a few more trips make?

Liquid Slap
06-10-2004, 05:11 PM
I doubt that he can appropriately genuflect before me (and others) after so rigidly extolling that self-righteous nonsense nor could he provide the proper level of obsequiousness.... commensurate with penance for such folly.


Here's to blowhards.....may we never learn....
:champagne:
:cheers:
~~ :laugh: ~~

BURGER FLICKLE!!!!

ChicagoJ
06-13-2004, 11:35 PM
I look at this differently:

First of all, this started back when LA and Boston were meeting in the Finals every other year. It seems rather pointless to have game 4 in LA, game 5 in boston, game 6 in LA, and game 7 in boston, doesnt it? Not only i that a heck of a lot of coast-to-coast tripes, but i imagine its gotta wear on the players. From that standpoint, I agree.

Secondly, even though the home team hasnt swept games 3 4 and 5, the ROAD team has swept them on THREE different occasions. Detroit in 1990, Chicago in 1991, and LA in 2001. IMO, the only reason the home team hasnt won all 3 games is there hasnt been a home team that was good enough and NEEDED to win all 3 games. You're telling me Houston in 1995 wouldnt have won the middle 3 if they needed to?

Eventually there will be a team that wins the middle three games. Detroit will be that team.

I'm starting to fear this might actually come to pass. :puke: