There's no way of saying this without sounding like a grumpy "old head", clinging to the past on the flimsy justification that "that's how we've always done things". Or, for that matter, a salty fan whose team has been taken out of the Playoffs because of it. To the latter point, that's not the case, as the Bulls remain my favourite team and they made the top six. As for the former point...well, maybe I'm drifting in that territory.
Still, the Play-In Tournament needs to go. At least in its current approach. That it has its supporters is kind of bewildering to me.
My view of the Playoffs is that if you're not in the top eight in either conference after 82 games, you haven't earned a spot. Even if that's the result of misfortune such as injuries, that's the way it goes. Sometimes the playing field will be even, sometimes one conference will be more competitive than the other. If you want to secure a Playoff berth and contend for the championship, you need to be one of the top teams in the league, start to finish. In a league where more than half of the teams make the postseason, we don't need to punish the seventh and eighth seeds by rewarding the ninth and tenth; especially those that are over ten games under .500.
Indeed, that's what puzzles me about support for the Play-In Tournament. For a long time, fans have opined that too many teams make the Playoffs. Under this format, twenty teams - or two thirds of the league - have a chance at being in the postseason when the regular season draws to a close. While the Play-In hasn't changed the initial result too much - I believe the Atlanta Hawks have just become the first team to knock out a seventh or eighth seed - it shouldn't have that opportunity in the first place. It's a system that punishes teams that played well enough to be in the top eight while rewarding teams that fell short, and in some cases, were painfully mediocre at best and lousy at worst. I don't like that approach at all.
It made sense when the pandemic shutdown ended up shortening the 2020 and 2021 seasons. It gave teams a chance to emulate the final push that they might've otherwise made in a regular 82-game season. Now that the schedule is back to normal, there's no need for it, at least in that format.
I will say that I don't dislike the idea of a Play-In Tournament to act as a tiebreaker for the eighth seed. While I'm fine with the numerical tiebreakers - they've worked fine for years - it might be fun to instead settle it with a one-off, winner takes all game between teams that are tied for eighth place. I could get behind that, as it's a sensible change that decides things on the court. I don't think it's absolutely necessary, as I still believe that if you want to solidify your place in the postseason, you need to be good enough and consistent enough to be in the top eight outright when the regular season ends. Ties will occur though, so it's an idea to consider at the very least.
Letting the ninth and tenth seeds get one more shot at the postseason, especially when there are no ties, and they may be several games back and well under .500? That's punishing success and rewarding failure in my book. It's little more than a gimmick, and the league doesn't need those. I've said it before, but it feels like Adam Silver is trying to put his stamp on the NBA with stuff like this, when keeping what's working would frankly be a much better legacy.
I know, I know, we have to be open to change, and there were plenty of changes that led to the NBA being what it was in the era I liked better. And yes, nostalgia goggles can be distorting. As Sam Viviano (the art director of MAD) once said, "MAD was at its best whenever you first started reading it". I'm sure there were criticisms of the changes to the NBA that were just the way of things by the time I started watching, and many of them probably turned out for the best. I'd suggest it's because they followed some sound logic though, just as there were changes that happened after I began watching which were likewise improvements. The Play-In Tournament isn't one of them.
Ideas like the Play-In Tournament, and Adam Silver's suggestion of a midseason tournament, just feel unnecessary; attempts to fix what isn't broken. Like changing the jersey nomenclature, it's making these sweeping changes while failing to address bigger problems, such as flopping, inconsistent officiating, the referee's inability to make quick decisions on instant replays that are clear as day, and so on. They give the illusion of leadership and innovation, when a lot of the problems with the game - plus new ones, like the style of play becoming an impromptu three-point shootout - remain. It's like repainting a leaky roof instead of fixing the holes. There's a superficial improvement, but the bigger issue hasn't been resolved.
When the late David Stern talked about ambitious ideas like expansion into Europe, or changing the game ball without consulting with the players first, he was criticised and scoffed at. We recognised that expansion into Europe wasn't a necessary step for a US-based league, and the fact that it was an ambitious and out-of-the-box idea didn't automatically make it a good one. Now, I get the impression that the wildest ideas Adam Silver may suggest will be considered visionary and brilliant, no matter how little sense they may make, or how unnecessary such a change would be.
In all things, we do need to consider change and move forward. But in considering change, we evaluate the necessity, the feasibility, and the pros and cons. Sometimes, the new idea isn't better; at least not in its first form. That's the Play-In Tournament as it currently stands. Under this format, mediocrity can be rewarded at the expense of others' success. Second chances are awarded to teams that had months to make their mark. It's a safety net for teams that had bad luck, but in turn, it's throwing teams that had better fortune under the bus.
By all means, revamp the Play-In Tournament as a tiebreaker that's used when necessary. In its current form though, it sucks, and it needs to go.