What if the playoffs used this system?

[hipn]

East:

RANKS -

1 v 2
3 v 4
5 v 6
7 v 8

and say these are the winners:

2, 3, 5, 8.

Then---->

2 v 3
5 v 8

and winners face winners, because I really hate it when most of the time the 1st and 2nd seed make it to the conference finals... I wanna see some upsets, I want to see different teams in the finals, different style of plays, not just Pistons and Spurs. Maybe if we play like this, the finals one day could be............

RAPTORS VS SUNS
BOSTON VS SPURS
PISTONS VS CHARLOTTE


who knows.....

[Malfa]

uh no, i would rather have the finals go to game 7 then only game 4.

[Buckley]

I would keep the 7-7-7-7 format. The one thing I would change is order the seeds by wins, not by division and then wins. For example, the Mavs would be the 2 seed instead of the 4, even though their in the same division as San Antonio.

[Fitzy]

yeh i think they should keep what they have right now

[Riot]

They need to change the first round back to 5 games.

[Andrew]

I'd rather see the top two teams battling it out in the Conference Finals. Besides, it's not as though upsets don't happen with the current format. The only problem with the current format is that a really good team with one of the best records in the conference can be dropped as low as fourth by virtue of the expansion to six divisions and the rule that all division champs qualify as one of the top three seeds. But I'm not convinced it's bad enough to warrant a change in the format.

Maybe if we play like this, the finals one day could be............

RAPTORS VS SUNS
BOSTON VS SPURS
PISTONS VS CHARLOTTE

Only if one of those teams moves West, unless you're referring to Conference Finals.

Basically, what you're suggesting gives an advantage to the lower seeded teams which I don't really agree with. The top teams have competed hard all season to earn certain advantages. I don't think it's fair to take away those advantages just so lesser teams could make it further in the postseason.

[Pera]

Just leave the playoffs like there are now

[Matt]

They need to change the first round back to 5 games.

i agree.....although the first year of the 7 game Rnd series Pistons were down 3-1, and under the old rule would have been knocked out. I guess that helped then!

[Andrew]

Mind you, Tracy McGrady would probably be in favour of that change.

[Leander]

In my opinion the best 16 (?) teams in the league should reach the playoffs. Reaching the playoffs because of the best records in the league is more fair than using divisons as some divisions are really poor. As a consequence teams with a higher record than some qualified teams do not reach the playoffs. A .45% team sometimes reaches the playoffs whereas a .50% team doesn't...because their division is better and the .45% team's division sucks.

[Andrew]

But you've still got to divide up the teams somehow in the playoffs. I don't think a random drawing would be good and a 1 vs 16 matchup wouldn't be too thrilling. Traditionally the East vs West format has worked, every so often there's an imbalance. The fact the league went to six divisions instead of four obviously didn't help.

[benji]

Why would anyone want the two best teams in a conference to play in the first round, then reseed with the possibility that the eighth seed makes it all the way to the Finals simply due to luck?

However. The NHL used to (hell if I know if it still does) reseed after each round. So the top seed would always draw the worst team. "Though reseed after each round" isn't as big as it sounds as it was only the second round, and usually only two teams switched around at most.

If you took sixteen teams you would go
1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16
2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15

For the two conferences. It would definately help it so we don't have to possibly watch teams like the Sixers be in the playoffs over probably six or seven better teams.

[Fresh8]

I say the League goes back to a shorter first round. 5-7-7-7 was good!

[hipn]

What I was tryign to say was, seeing the top 2-4 teams in the playofs winning all the time and gettign to the final four of eahc conference is boring. I want to see different teams with upsettign wins and stuff.

I mean, Id rather see an 7-8th seed team make it to the finals because they worked hard to even get into the playoffs and they should have a chance of getting to the top fairly, not play the #1-2 seed.

[shadowgrin]

Top seeds play lower seeds in the 1st round as some sort of incentive for the top seeds for playing hard and gaining that winning record over the lower seeds. The NBA shouldn't change it, I don't want lower seeds going to the Conference Finals because of "help" from the NBA.

Bring back the 5-7-7-7 format. The 5 game series in a 1st round gives more chances at an upset.
Also bring back the 2 divisions in both conferences. Having 3 divisions creates crazy playoff seeding results.

[Andrew]

What I was tryign to say was, seeing the top 2-4 teams in the playofs winning all the time and gettign to the final four of eahc conference is boring. I want to see different teams with upsettign wins and stuff.

I mean, Id rather see an 7-8th seed team make it to the finals because they worked hard to even get into the playoffs and they should have a chance of getting to the top fairly, not play the #1-2 seed.

Why shouldn't the team that plays better - high seed or low seed - win? Personally, as interesting as upsets are I'd rather see the elite battle it out than a couple of scrappy teams who got their by luck. And how much of an upset is it if the lower seeded teams are given a leg-up in the first place?

And again, it negates the advantage that the top teams have earned with their play during the regular season, which is more unfair than lower seeded teams having to play top seeded teams or not having home court advantage.

[hipn]

To me its sounds like verybody here is basically saying the lower seed teams should not even be in the playoffs.

Wouldn't it be more interesting seeing the elite teams of a conference battle for the top spot? Wouldn't you want to see say... Detroit eliminating the Heat in the first round and then then Nets winning their series and beating the Pistons?

[Matthew]

No, what we're saying is that the regular season should count for somthing, and the big matchups should be in the finals and conference finals, not in the first round.

What your saying is a team like miami should tank games to be a 7th seed so they play the 8th seed in the first round.

[hipn]

I am not saying they should... I am just saying that for the actual 6-7-8th or lower seeds should be given a chance to make it to the top or near that. I KNOW and everybody KNOWS that no player in the NBA wants to LOSE.

[Matthew]

I dont think you do know, becuase you want incentives given to teams that are mediocre.

[Andrew]

To me its sounds like verybody here is basically saying the lower seed teams should not even be in the playoffs.

Wouldn't it be more interesting seeing the elite teams of a conference battle for the top spot? Wouldn't you want to see say... Detroit eliminating the Heat in the first round and then then Nets winning their series and beating the Pistons?

That's not what's been said at all. The point is, the top teams have earned certain distinctions/advantages by virtue of their performance in the regular season. Evening things out (so to speak) strips the top seeds of that advantage and rewards the inferior teams for having worse seasons. Additionally, it's handing the lower teams better odds on a plate simply so we can see someone different in the Conference Finals instead of allowing them to earn it as in years past.

I don't think that's any fairer than the current system that's in place.

I am not saying they should... I am just saying that for the actual 6-7-8th or lower seeds should be given a chance to make it to the top or near that. I KNOW and everybody KNOWS that no player in the NBA wants to LOSE.

As Matthew already said, the system you've put forth basically rewards mediocrity.

Consider how up in arms people are about the fact it's likely we'll see San Antonio/Dallas in the second round when it's a matchup more suited to the Conference Finals. I can't imagine a system where top matchups are exhausted in the very first round being any more popular.

[The_Flying_Tomato]

I say the League goes back to a shorter first round. 5-7-7-7 was good!

I agree. Get the annoying first round over quicker.

[Laxation]

Why would you reward teams that come 8th in the playoffs?

As you said it, 8th plays 7th, 1st plays 2nd. This means that coming first means you have a tougher chance of making it through the first round that the team that comes 8th.

Then you (hipn) go on to say that the teams that come lower worked hard to even get in the playoffs. And i suppose this is opposed to the teams that didnt work hard at all, but won the majority of their games. Obviously teams like Detroit and Spurs havent worked hard to win at all this season, unlike a team like Philly who have tried hard all season long, and deserve a spot in the playoffs.

[artestfighttrainer]

they def. need to fix it and not have it like how it is now

The arguement is that the division winner should get an incentive but I reckon screw that and just base it on w-l record

eg. Spurs should face Dallas not in 2nd round but in conf. finals if both make it through this yr

5-7-7-7 should come back, its too long and Mr Stern is over milking the playoffs.

[Fresh8]

A 5 game first round is both quicker and an upset would be more likely. I don't care if playing 2 more games increases sales.