Why its better to be the lower seed in the finals.

by **-Young Buck-** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:58 am

I have no idea why they have it set up like this. But in the NBA finals the games are played "home home, away, away, away, home, home" for the top seed. This totally gives the advantage to the lower seed. If everyone takes care of home court, the lower seed will alway be up 3 games to 2 going into the 6th game, where the top seed would need to win 2 games in a row. While the lower seed has the luxury of losing a game, and still being able to win it all. Why do they set it up this way if the higher seed is supposed to have home court advantage? It should be "home, home, away, away, home, away, home". Now that would be fair. This has nothing to do with what happened in this years finals, this just has to do with logic. I dont even think any of the series (rounds 1,2,3) have this format untill the NBA Finals. (correct me if im wrong) Its just silly, and david stern needs to fix this crap, along with division winner/playoff seeding mess.

by **Mayerhendrix** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:50 am

Who knows, but then again whoever wins Game 1 wins the series 60% of the time (which would be the higher seed). And it's not so easy just to "protect home" for 3 games straight, seeing as how only the 2004 Pistons and the 2006 Heat have done it.

by **Matt** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:21 am

i think it's designed to encourage a 7 game series, and have the home team a double stab at the championship if necessary. It sort of gives the home team a chance with those 3 games.

by **scrub** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:09 am

I think it has to do with travelling. They have the opportunity to finsih the last 3 with home, away, home because they are on the same coast but can you imagine havin to travel after game 4 - Miami, Dallas, Miami, Dallas. That would take a lot outta you when the current format cuts down on the travel. I think it would be suitbale to do; HHAAHHA

by **GloveGuy** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:16 am

The better team always wins.

by **maes** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:32 am

It was because at the time every Finals was seemingly Bird's Celtics vs Magic's Lakers, and the coast to coast travel was wearing down on the players. Stern wanted both teams to be fresh when playing the Finals and not tired and slow from travel fatigue. It was also a cost issue for the teams way back then.

I think Stern has commented he's open to changing the format, since it obviously gives the lower seeded team the advantage (unless it goes the full 7) and times have changed. NBA teams make enough money to make the travel costs negligible.

by **Mayerhendrix** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:24 am

That time teams used public airplanes instead of charter planes, and the strain from traveling that way was much greater. Also to make it easier for the newscasters to be at the games.

by **-Young Buck-** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:24 am

weejontee wrote:I think it has to do with travelling. They have the opportunity to finsih the last 3 with home, away, home because they are on the same coast but can you imagine havin to travel after game 4 - Miami, Dallas, Miami, Dallas. That would take a lot outta you when the current format cuts down on the travel. I think it would be suitbale to do; HHAAHHA

all they have to do is sperate the games by 3 days each instead of 2. Come on, they play back to back games during the season in different arenas. This shouldnt be any different.

by **hipn** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:05 am

They should make the whole play-offs 5 games for each series or one game each series. Im so tired of 7 game series. MAKE IT BEST OUT OF 5.

by **-Young Buck-** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:23 am

hipn wrote:They should make the whole play-offs 5 games for each series or one game each series. Im so tired of 7 game series. MAKE IT BEST OUT OF 5.

you think the NBA would approve that? they would lose alot money if they did that.

by **Mayerhendrix** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:14 am

No way to the 5 game series...it took 4 games for this to even BECOME a series.

by **Dro** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:22 am

The 2-3-2 is so lame...there have been plenty of legendary and unforgettable finals in the 2-2-1-1-1 format, and travel is faster today than it's ever been before! Playing 3 games in a row on the road for the higher seed has to be more draining than a bit of travel.

by **funk99** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:53 am

it means that one team gets the 4 homes if it goes to 7 games. they should just play it at a arena that is not home to both of the teams

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:28 pm

In theory it's an advantage for the lower seed but historically speaking the higher seed hasn't been at too much of a disadvantage. Consider that since the 2-3-2 format was implemented, the home team has only won the middle three games twice (Detroit in 2004, Miami this year).

If they do change it to 2-2-1-1-1, I guess there's no problem with that. However, I do feel the NBA is too quick to change rules and formats these days. Again, in 22 NBA Finals series, only two series have seen the home team win the middle three games. Sure, it's happened twice in the last three Finals series but on the whole it hasn't been too much of a disadvantage. I don't think a change is absolutely necessary, there's no huge problem that must be fixed.

If a team is truly capable of winning a championship, if they are destined to win it all, it shouldn't matter. Sure, home court is an advantage but if you're truly a great team then you should be able to win no matter where you play; home, away, or in a tin shack in front of fourteen people on neutral grounds.

by **debiler** on Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:37 pm

Why not make it 3-3-1? In a potential game 7, the higher seed would have the deserved home-advantage. But I like the 2-2-1-1-1 format best. If it weren't for travelling, 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 would be the best, imo. With the first and last game for the higher seed.

by **scrub** on Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:52 pm

May sound stupid but why not get a neutral venue for each Finals but it would kinda defeat the purpose of the seeding structure....

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:05 pm

debiler wrote:Why not make it 3-3-1? In a potential game 7, the higher seed would have the deserved home-advantage.

That's giving too much of an advantage to the higher seed. No one's ever come back from 0-3 in the Finals, even with three straight games at home I don't think the odds would greatly be improved. The 2-3-2 format has worked out well with only a couple of teams winning the middle three games at home and if the NBA really wants to eliminate that "advantage" (only three teams have come back from 0-2 so it's not as though the home team is greatly disadvantaged by the 2-3-2 format), 2-2-1-1-1 would be a better choice.

by **debiler** on Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:52 pm

Andrew wrote:
debiler wrote:Why not make it 3-3-1? In a potential game 7, the higher seed would have the deserved home-advantage.

That's giving too much of an advantage to the higher seed. No one's ever come back from 0-3 in the Finals, even with three straight games at home I don't think the odds would greatly be improved. The 2-3-2 format has worked out well with only a couple of teams winning the middle three games at home and if the NBA really wants to eliminate that "advantage" (only three teams have come back from 0-2 so it's not as though the home team is greatly disadvantaged by the 2-3-2 format), 2-2-1-1-1 would be a better choice.

It's not like I think it would be better that way. It was just another suggestion, because everyone was just discussing 2-3-2 and 2-2-1-1-1.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:01 pm

Absolutely, I was just giving my take on the suggestion.

Why its better to be the lower seed in the finals.

Why its better to be the lower seed in the finals.

Who is online