Does the NBA playoff format need changed?

[IAWarnerFan]

A change that would make it possible for the 16 best teams to make the playoffs instead of 8 and 8?

 

[Folster]

No crying! We missed fair and square. Even if we did squeak in we'd still lose easily in the first round to whoever we played. The Suns are just a mediocre and old team right now.

 

[Andrew]

I said yes, because we would be like the 4th seed in the East right now. While the Bulls are below .500 and like 7th.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

No crying! We missed fair and square. Even if we did squeak in we'd still lose easily in the first round to whoever we played. The Suns are just a mediocre and old team right now.

I agree 100%.

If you need to manipulate the rules to get somewhere, you don't deserve to be there anyway.

 

[cobbler]

Wouldn't be right anyway unless all teams from both conferences played the other equally.

 

[mojorizen7]

Yeah, the 2-3-2 Finals format needs to be changed to the regular 2-2-1-1-1.
Its a ridiculous home court advantage concept.

 

[Bufalay]

Yeah, the 2-3-2 Finals format needs to be changed to the regular 2-2-1-1-1.
Its a ridiculous home court advantage concept.

That format sure didn't help the "couldn't win a freaking home game" Suns.

 

[French Fries]

I agree 100%.

If you need to manipulate the rules to get somewhere, you don't deserve to be there anyway.

it does sound bad if you look at it that way. but not looking retrospectively here, wouldn't it be nice to see the better 16 teams playing in the playoffs regardless of conference (or division)?

 

[Darth Llama]

The playoff brackets are fine the way they are.

I do however agree that the 2-3-2 format for the finals is lame.

 

[dodie53]

2-3-2 is used maybe to save travel expenses?

 

[Darth Llama]

2-3-2 is used maybe to save travel expenses?

That's exactly why. Because it's a West Coast vs. East Coast thing they are trying to reduce travel time and cost. I would rather just see them add an extra off day between travel times and leave it the way the other rounds are set up.

 

[mojorizen7]

That's exactly why. Because it's a West Coast vs. East Coast thing they are trying to reduce travel time and cost. I would rather just see them add an extra off day between travel times and leave it the way the other rounds are set up.

^Exactly.
The fact that 3 of the first 5 games played are on the road for the "home team" is ridiculous, including the usually critical game 5.
The argument for the 2-3-2 format that i've often heard is that you've got games 6 & 7 at home which is brutal for the road team.....yeah ok, if the home teams lucky to survive 3 straight on the road in games 3,4 and 5 and avoid a split in games 1 & 2.
As the road team, getting a split in games 1 or 2 and then heading home for 3 straight is a nice luxury IMO. I'll take that.

 

[Errntknght]

Dang, I can't figure out exactly why people don't like the 2-3-2 format - do they think it doesn't give the top team enough advantage or if they think its too much advantage? 'lame' isn't very informative.

I would guess offhand that the effect of it as opposed to the traditional 2,2,1,1,1 is to slightly diminish the advantage to the higher rated team. If thats the case, why would anyone object to it? After all, the higher rated team may have gotten that status due to being in the weaker half of the league so wouldn't you want to minimize the advantage?

I think I will run a little simulation to see if there is much statistical difference between how the higher rated team fares in each of the two home game patterns. One thing I would bet on is that the higher rated team always has some advantage. Just to see how well I can guess, I'll say that the 2,3,2 gives less advantage but the change is under 2%. (Assuming the two teams are statistically equal - i.e. if one team is a 60-40 favorite in home games then the other team is also a 60-40 favorite at home.)

 

[Errntknght]

The result of the simulation is that no ordering of the home game pattern changes the statistics - and now I understand why that should be true. As far as statistics is concerned one plays all seven games - we only truncate the series when the remaining games cannot effect the final outcome so whether you play all seven or not, doesn't matter. But playing them all out makes the statistics more obvious - one team has the advantage of playing one more game at home and what order you play the games in makes no difference at all in the sense that if you take the results of seven game then shuffle their order around, the team that wins 4 or more stays the same. In real life, the psychology of momentum or backs-to-wall might matter but in this simulation it's simple statistics.

 

[mojorizen7]

^
whut?

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[PDXChris]

Wouldn't be right anyway unless all teams from both conferences played the other equally.

I agree.

Someone brought up the Bulls. Just to point out, they are 17-13 against the West. The Suns are 16-14 against the East lossing to the Bulls twice. Unless you have a completely balance schedule, you can not go off of current records. The Bulls also had to play the Cavs, Magic and Celtics more times than than Suns, while the Suns played the Lakers more, the only true power house in the West. The Bulls were 3-8 against the East power houses, while the Suns were 1-5. There are just too many factors unless everyone plays everyone the same amoount of times.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

I agree.

Someone brought up the Bulls. Just to point out, they are 17-13 against the West. The Suns are 16-14 against the East lossing to the Bulls twice. Unless you have a completely balance schedule, you can not go off of current records. The Bulls also had to play the Cavs, Magic and Celtics more times than than Suns, while the Suns played the Lakers more, the only true power house in the West. The Bulls were 3-8 against the East power houses, while the Suns were 1-5. There are just too many factors unless everyone plays everyone the same amoount of times.

True, but it also could be argued that there's more great teams in the West(Lakers, Nuggets, Spurs, Rockets, Blazers, Hornets, Jazz, and Mavs) than the East(Cavs, Celtics, and Magic). Under my proposed system the Suns would go up against the Cavs as the 8th seed in the East. Record wise the Suns would be good enough for 5th or 6th in the East, but that wouldn't exactly be fair for the teams above the Suns in the WC.

 

[PDXChris]

True, but it also could be argued that there's more great teams in the West(Lakers, Nuggets, Spurs, Rockets, Blazers, Hornets, Jazz, and Mavs) than the East(Cavs, Celtics, and Magic). Under my proposed system the Suns would go up against the Cavs as the 8th seed in the East. Record wise the Suns would be good enough for 5th or 6th in the East, but that wouldn't exactly be fair for the teams above the Suns in the WC.

I would not call any teams below the Lakers, Celtics, Cavs and Magic great. They are good team. What it comes down to, is if every team does not play each other the same amount of times, there is no way to know what the records would look like. For all you know the tier below the Lakers could all be around .500 and the Bulls could have won 50 games. If is a "what if" question and will never happen. It is easy to argue for your team when they are on the outside looking in, but when it comes down to it, there is no perfect system and I like the current one.

 

[MarkWest]

Yes! I've been thinking this too for a while.

There should be 16 teams
#1 and #2 seeds are conference standings leaders
All division leaders are garaunteed an 8 seed or lower
Tie goes to:
1) Season series winner
2) Best home record
3) Best conference record
4) Best division record
5) Best difference between points for and points against

It would create a lot of great inter-conference match-ups! If the playoffs started right now under this system, Phoenix would be playing Orlando in the first round! The best teams in the league would be guaranteed to get in. That's not too much of a problem this year, but it sure would've helped last year!

 

[HooverDam]

Im fine with the 8 in the west and east, but Id like the first round to go back to 5 games. We did see GS beat Dallas a few years ago in the first round, but I still think the 7 game first round is too long and makes upsets too few. Plus the NBA playoffs seem to go on for freakin' ever and it loses some of its luster to me. Now I dont expect the league to ever reduce the number of playoff games for fear of losing too much money.

Heck, I think it would be really fun to see a 3-5-7-7 set up, shorter earlier round series' would lead to more of a March Madness feel. But again, won't ever happen or even be considered for a nanosecond.

 

[Folster]

Im fine with the 8 in the west and east, but Id like the first round to go back to 5 games. We did see GS beat Dallas a few years ago in the first round, but I still think the 7 game first round is too long and makes upsets too few. Plus the NBA playoffs seem to go on for freakin' ever and it loses some of its luster to me. Now I dont expect the league to ever reduce the number of playoff games for fear of losing too much money.

Heck, I think it would be really fun to see a 3-5-7-7 set up, shorter earlier round series' would lead to more of a March Madness feel. But again, won't ever happen or even be considered for a nanosecond.

Totally agree. The playoffs start in April and carry on through June. A best of three first round series would be dynamite. But you're right, it'll never happen.