David Stern Proposes New playoff format

[KDawg295]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... id=2446425

[BIG GREEN]

This is the way it should've been all along. Stern makes a good proposal for once.

[cyanide]

I'm glad. I was surprised to see Dallas be the 4th seed despite a phenomenal record. I wonder how he's going to 'reward' the division winners. Maybe a banner but no higher seed over teams with better records?

[Mazzocchi]

so what would the current playoffs look like with thsi seeding? (including the first round)

[Mayerhendrix]

Western Conference:

1. San Antonio
2. Dallas
3. Phoenix
4. Denver
5. Memphis
6. Los Angeles (Clippers)
7. Los Angeles (Lakers)
8. Sacramento


Eastern Conference:

1. Detroit
2. Miami
3. Cleveland
4. New Jersey
5. Washington
6. Indiana
7. Chicago
8. Milwaukee

[KDawg295]

based on those new standings..which teams that are in new matchups would have had different outcomes?

[Anthony15]

based on those new standings..which teams that are in new matchups would have had different outcomes?

New jersey and Washington would be great series, and washington could probably pull it out. Denvermight win, since memphis hasn't won a single game in the palyoffs through out their history!

[Fitzy]

i think that system would work, a good proposal

[benji]

Denvermight win, since memphis hasn't won a single game in the palyoffs through out their history!

Except that's completely irrelevant...and Memphis would be facing a far worse team instead of the team that is currently in position to win the West.

[dada]

Probably wasnt his idea.

Sounds pretty good though. Denver....I dont even know what to say about Denver, at least they somewhat had a benefit.

[Andrew]

I still don't like the idea. I don't think it's necessary to change a format that has been in place and worked fine for decades just because one year there's a discrepency in one of the conferences. I know the system works in the NHL but what works for one professional sports league isn't necessarily what's best for another.

Besides, with the way the Spurs/Mavericks series has played out so far, does it matter that it's not being played in the Western Conference Finals? Not that it's been boring but it could very well end up finishing 4-1 Mavs tomorrow. Hardly the epic Conference Finals-worthy battle everyone was predicting.

And I have to come back to the example of the 1995 Houston Rockets. If you're good enough to win it all, it shouldn't matter where you're seeded. The Dallas Mavericks themselves could prove that this year.

[Matt]

the only problem i have right now is that Dallas/SAS winner will go from playing the best team to a 2nd tier team. Kind of anti-climatic, even though the best team still wins.

[Andrew]

But that series itself is anti-climactic, unless the Spurs come back and force a seventh game.

[air gordon]

not really. other then game 2 every game has been decided in the final minutes, a few on the last play

[Mayerhendrix]

Sometimes a record doesn't indicate how good a team is. Like this year, Boston had a huge amount of games decided in the final minutes and they kept it close most of the time.

[Sauru]

couple of thoughts here

1. i much rather see dallas and phoenix is the conference finals than dallas and the spurs. that is purely just my opinion as i never really liked the spurs

2. i liked the old way of the nba, where we only had 4 divisions. i never liked this 6 div crap and i dont know if i ever will.

[Mayerhendrix]

Nobody likes the Spurs because they've beaten out everyone's favorite teams so many times.

True that Phoenix is more fun to watch though.

[benji]

I still don't like the idea. I don't think it's necessary to change a format that has been in place and worked fine for decades just because one year there's a discrepency in one of the conferences.

Except, it's only been in place for two years?

[iKe7in]

Based on the lack of parity in the league right now, it would make more sense to cut out the first round all together, and just let the top 4 teams in. Based on this year's results, only 4 teams start the year with any chance of winning anyways.

Maybe when the shape of the league changes, when more than four teams have any sort of depth, or when 90% of the league learns how to play defense, when general managers don't screw up their cap position every year, when star players play for the same team for more than five years, then maybe they could change back. Then again, they do like money, and an extra playoff round, however embarassing for the blownout underdog, does provide some extra revenue.

[Andrew]

I still don't like the idea. I don't think it's necessary to change a format that has been in place and worked fine for decades just because one year there's a discrepency in one of the conferences.

Except, it's only been in place for two years?

This exact incarnation of the playoff seedings has only been in place for two years with the addition of the Bobcats and expansion to six divisions, yes. But the format itself - giving the top seedings to the division winners and not reseeding the teams in the second round - has been in place for decades and that technicality has come into play before. As I said, it looks worse now that the top three seeds are assured and a 60 win team is the fourth seed but why should the league be so quick to change a long standing system (albeit one that's changed slightly due to the new divisions) because of what happens in one conference, one season?

not really. other then game 2 every game has been decided in the final minutes, a few on the last play

I suppose I exaggerated a bit and the Spurs' victory today which of course was another close one evens things up a bit. But the Mavs did win three straight and if they close out in six, I don't know if I'd call it a matchup that should have been the Western Finals.

2. i liked the old way of the nba, where we only had 4 divisions. i never liked this 6 div crap and i dont know if i ever will.

I'm with you. I'd prefer to see the league change back to those division alignments over the proposed changes.

[Fenix]

There are 30 teams in the league. How exactly can you divide that with 4?

[Andrew]

Seeing as though they used to divide up 29 teams in four divisions, I don't think it's an absurd idea. Instead of divisions of 7 and 7 for 14 teams in the West and 8 and 7 for 15 teams in the East, there'd be a 15 teams in a division of 7 and 8 in both conferences.

[Fenix]

I completely forgot that there were previously 29 teams in the League. Still, wouldn't that system make life easier for teams in a 7 team division? There would be less competition and a smaller possibility for a bunch of heavy contenders to gather up in the same division. That's a bit unfair.

[Andrew]

Not really. No more so than the situation in the Northwest at the moment. Teams would still have to compete hard for a playoff spot because there wouldn't be that third automatic spot for a division winner. There wasn't any problem having uneven divisions before the Bobcats came along. Sometimes teams are up, sometimes they're down. Some years the divisions don't look as even. That's just the way it is. You can't just keep changing the division alignments and formats just because sometimes there's an imbalance.

[benji]

But the format itself - giving the top seedings to the division winners and not reseeding the teams in the second round - has been in place for decades and that technicality has come into play before.

They aren't reseeding the teams in the second round. They're reseeding the top four teams based on record, so the three division winners and the other best team.

When there were only two divisions it was fine because the second and third seeds would play in the second round regardless. So if New Jersey only had 47 wins and got the second seed for winning the division, the Pistons 54 was good enough for third. But with three divisions in 2004 it would've resulted like this:

1. Pacers (61-21) vs 8. Celtics (36-46)
4. Pistons (54-28) vs 5. Hornets (41-41)

2. Nets (47-35) vs 7. Knicks (39-43)
3. Heat (42-40) vs 6. Bucks (41-41)

So the Pistons won 7 more games than the third best team but as a result they have to play Hornets-Pacers-Nets/Heat for the Finals. The toughest route of any team. Nets would only have to beat Knicks and Heat/Bucks to get to the East Finals.

Under the new plan the Pistons would be rewarded with the number two seed and thus get the second easiest first round matchup, still have to face the Nets in the second round, while the Pacers get rewarded for their number one seed by getting the Heat in the second round.

We have to consider how teams get to the Finals. If the Suns were to have coasted through the Lakers and Nuggets/Clippers in five games (three of the four worst West teams in the playoffs), while the Mavericks had to take down Memphis and the Spurs both in seven (two of the four best West teams in the conference), the Suns would have a distinct advantage in getting to the Finals despite being the weaker team. The East has taken advantage of the easy path to the Finals in recent years. If the Cavaliers can beat the Pistons, then the Heat's toughest series could be their first against the Bulls and they'd have coasted into the Finals. While a Dallas/San Antonio/Phoenix (even Clippers!) will have come through the fire, especially Dallas which despite being posting the second best record in the conference would have to have beat the fourth, first and if Suns, third best teams in the conference.

Yes, if Dallas can do it, it adds to their legtimacy as a powerhouse, but it reduces their chances at winning it. And reducing the chances of the best teams due to a technicality that could/would occur for the next five years seems silly. (And it would've probably been this way for a while, what with Lakers-Kings at the top of the Pacific and the Mavericks previous tussle with the Spurs for the top of the Midwest)

Then again, I've swung to the other extreme after being opposed to changes and now I'm in favor of seeding the entire playoffs regardless of conference because of the path issue. And only taking a minimum of five-six teams from a conference. So I don't have to see too many Eastern teams being chewed up in the first round. Even if the Northwest is the worst division in the league.

They changed to the three division format because they wanted to better geographically align the teams. Which aside from out of place teams like Minnesota, Phoenix and Washington they managed to do quite well.

Just because the Mavericks might beat the Spurs 4-2, I don't see how you can not say it's the real Western Finals matchup. It's the two best teams in the conference by far. I mean in 2001, the Lakers swept the Spurs in the West Finals. You could make a case for the Kings being the second best team in the conference during the season, but the Lakers went through them to get to the West Finals, they didn't just avoid them. And they were the defending champions, and Spurs the champions the year prior. Even though it was lopsided after the Spurs aside from Duncan fell apart, it was still the matchup that was the Western Finals in any regard and the one everyone had been anticipating all season.