The 2-3-2 Format

[Kid Vicious]

First of all, I have always felt like this was a silly format. At any point in the series, how does it make sense for the underdog to have had more home games than the favorite?? Just goes against logic...

In a series such as this, it is especially stupid. If Game 5 was in Miami, ALL the pressure would be on Miami. Even if Dallas lost, they would know they still had a home Game 6 in their back pocket, so they would still have a realistic chance at a Game 7.

As it stands now in a tightly contested series such as this, there's just way too much pressure to win consecutive games, especially consecutive games at home.

Dallas is basically in a MUST WIN situation...if they go to Miami down 3-2, they lose in 6. Here's one situation where a 2-2-1-1-1 format would really add to the drama of the series.

Edit: I know why Stern went with this format...it maximizes the chances of having a series go at least Game 6. More games = more $$$.

[Base]

I know why Stern went with this format...it maximizes the chances of having a series go at least Game 6. More games = more $$$.

NBA Finals From 1947-1984 (2-2-1-1-1 Format)
1947-1984 (38 Seasons)
Series Length
4 Games - 4 (10.53%)
5 Games - 9 (23.68%)
6 Games - 12 (31.58%)
7 Games - 13 (34.21%)

Before the 3-2-3 format, 34.21% of the NBA finals series were 5 games or shorter, while 66.79% of the series' went 6 games or more. A big amount of games were already going 6 games or more, why would Stern change the format if most of the series' were already going 6+ games if he made that move for money?

Since the format changed, you now have 61.54% (62.96% including 2011) of games going 6 or more, less than the percentage before. Stern did it for travel reasons. When an east team meets a west team, they have to fly far and it takes up a whole day to travel, that's why stern chose to do the 2-3-2 format.

1985-2010 (26 Seasons)
Series Length:
4 Games - 4 (15.38%)
5 Games - 6 (23.08%)
6 Games - 12 (46.16%)
7 Games - 4 (15.38%)

[orangeparka]

I know why Stern went with this format...it maximizes the chances of having a series go at least Game 6. More games = more $$$.

NBA Finals From 1947-1984 (2-2-1-1-1 Format)
1947-1984 (38 Seasons)
Series Length
4 Games - 4 (10.53%)
5 Games - 9 (23.68%)
6 Games - 12 (31.58%)
7 Games - 13 (34.21%)

Before the 3-2-3 format, 34.21% of the NBA finals series were 5 games or shorter, while 66.79% of the series' went 6 games or more. A big amount of games were already going 6 games or more, why would Stern change the format if most of the series' were already going 6+ games if he made that move for money?

Since the format changed, you now have 61.54% (62.96% including 2011) of games going 6 or more, less than the percentage before. Stern did it for travel reasons. When an east team meets a west team, they have to fly far and it takes up a whole day to travel, that's why stern chose to do the 2-3-2 format.

1985-2010 (26 Seasons)
Series Length:
4 Games - 4 (15.38%)
5 Games - 6 (23.08%)
6 Games - 12 (46.16%)
7 Games - 4 (15.38%)

/thread

[JoseRizal]

I know why Stern went with this format...it maximizes the chances of having a series go at least Game 6. More games = more $$$.

NBA Finals From 1947-1984 (2-2-1-1-1 Format)
1947-1984 (38 Seasons)
Series Length
4 Games - 4 (10.53%)
5 Games - 9 (23.68%)
6 Games - 12 (31.58%)
7 Games - 13 (34.21%)

Before the 3-2-3 format, 34.21% of the NBA finals series were 5 games or shorter, while 66.79% of the series' went 6 games or more. A big amount of games were already going 6 games or more, why would Stern change the format if most of the series' were already going 6+ games if he made that move for money?

Since the format changed, you now have 61.54% (62.96% including 2011) of games going 6 or more, less than the percentage before. Stern did it for travel reasons. When an east team meets a west team, they have to fly far and it takes up a whole day to travel, that's why stern chose to do the 2-3-2 format.

1985-2010 (26 Seasons)
Series Length:
4 Games - 4 (15.38%)
5 Games - 6 (23.08%)
6 Games - 12 (46.16%)
7 Games - 4 (15.38%)

Very good post...

[Froob]

A lot less game 7's though. I hate giving the home team both 6&7 at home.

[Stunnaboy2K11]

A lot less game 7's though. I hate giving the home team both 6&7 at home.

+1, takes away the importance of game 6 somewhat

[Luigi]

Stern would love more game 7s. It means more viewership and revenue in the most important series of the league.

[Kid Vicious]

So if in fact this format leads to less games and therefore less revenue, the overwhelming question remains...

WHY DO THEY HAVE THIS FORMAT THEN? Especially when 14/15 of the playoff series have the 2-2-1-1-1 format?

I heard sometime ago that it was due to cutting costs, and the fact they don't want 4 cross country flights in the same series. But how does cutting down travel costs for 2 teams make a difference? Aren't there like 1000's of cross country flights each season?? Makes no sense at all to me...just looking for some kind of logical argument FOR the format.

[Froob]

:o Stern would love more game 7s. It means more viewership and revenue in the most important series of the league.

Yea, that's why I don't understand why he doesn't just change it back. NHL does 2-2-1-1-1 bruins are traveling to vancouver with no problem.

[JasonDaPsycho]

I understand concerns regarding travels but the problem can easily be solved by having games farther apart.

[9th Wonder]

I always assumed that it was to create more of a "Superbowl week" type atmosphere in each city. I.e. the media has a longer time to camp out and make an event out of the finals, rather than having to fly back and forth between cities.

[Moshi]

There are no underdogs in the finals.

[macksunny]

I dont even think the travel issue is in terms of teams. I remember reading somewhere that its more for the media outlets covering the event, since its EAST vs WEST, it makes it more difficult to travel back and forth so they try to minimize.

Its complete nonsense imo. Even its with team rest in mind. The current format gives a very unfair advantage to the favorite team. Maybe at the end of the day, thats what its all about.

[NYKBaller]

Base pretty much nailed it on the head, lol. I didnt even know that right there

[Luigi]

There are no underdogs in the finals.

I thought I heard that the home team wins the finals more than the conference finals (and by a good margin).

Maybe this way, the home team gets to win on their home court more often, generating more excitement among the winning city. I would much rather win it at home where you get to celebrate with everyone on the spot.

[JordansBulls]

Dallas wins game 5 so that more people tune in to game 6 and possibly game 7. If Miami wins game 5 then the people who want to see Miami lose will not watch game 6.

[Sedale Threatt]

There are no underdogs in the finals.

Yeah there are. It's not a coincidence the home team has won such a large majority of series in this format, I think 20 out of 26. Yeah, a lot of that is because the home team is the better team. But the 2-3-2 format basically forces the road team to win twice on the road, against a superior team, because of how difficult it is to sweep those middle three games at home. Winning without home court is tough enough in the playoffs, but this format makes it even tougher.

[RagingSage10]

I actually think it favors the Higher seed. It puts both game 6 and 7 in their court, and in the finals, it is difficult for any team to win 3 games in a row. But then if you look at the 2006 series it went against the Mavs. I just don't like it. I think it puts an unnecessary twist on the normal format. Keep it consistent.

[Sedale Threatt]

I heard sometime ago that it was due to cutting costs, and the fact they don't want 4 cross country flights in the same series. But how does cutting down travel costs for 2 teams make a difference? Aren't there like 1000's of cross country flights each season?? Makes no sense at all to me...just looking for some kind of logical argument FOR the format.

It's not about cutting costs as much as the fatigue/wear of cross-country travel. Now, in an era where teams have had private charters for a couple of decades, that doesn't seem like a big deal. But when the new format was introduced, teams were still taking standard flights.

I don't know about anybody else, but I find flying to be an extremely uncomfortable experience. So imagine back in the mid 80s, you're a 6-9 guy about to play your 100th-something games at the end of a nine-month season, and you might have to fly cross country, three or four hours each way, jammed into a public flight, potentially five times in two weeks, all while playing a bunch of intense, draining basketball games.

So at the time, it made total sense. But now, with the way travel and communication has changed, the advantages do not outweigh the impact on the quality of the product. If I were the commissioner, this would be the first thing I'd change.

[Froob]

Dallas wins game 5 so that more people tune in to game 6 and possibly game 7. If Miami wins game 5 then the people who want to see Miami lose will not watch game 6.

I doubt it. People are going to watch either way. As KG said "Anything is possible".