Why playoff seedings shouldn't change

magicmerl · Post #1 » by **magicmerl** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:19 pm

So much has been made of how much stronger the west is than the east, and how crappy it is that Portland is locked into the 4th seed when they don't deserve it. It means that teams like the Thunder miss the playoffs while a team like Brooklyn not only exists, but makes the playoffs.

But here's the thing. A truly fair seeding of the 16 best team would mean that the first round of the playoffs would be a yawnfest, with the only competitive matchups being between teams who are doomed to be eliminated in the second round anyway.

This year? The Spurs and Clippers (probably two of the three best teams in the conference) meet in the first round. You won't get that when the playoff seedings are fair, and it makes the first round so much more interesting.

Your thoughts?

harold lewis · Post #2 » by **harold lewis** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:25 pm

Yawnfest Hardly.

1-16 would give us the same match ups competitive wise.

This isn't college basketball. The '16th seed' Celtics wouldn't get steamrolled by 20 point for four games by Golden State.

There's been plenty of 8 seeds who have won as well - 2012, 2011, 2007, 1999, 1994.

Hell even the worst NBA team could put up a fight in a four game stretch vs Atlanta or GS.

The 13-16th best teams even more so.

magicmerl · Post #3 » by **magicmerl** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:00 pm

Hey, I'm not saying that that wouldn't be the best way of determining who the champion is.

I'm saying that from a Fan Excitement/TV ratings perspective Clips/Spurs is a better, more competitive and more compelling matchup than any in your idealised bracket.

basketballbeans · Post #4 » by **basketballbeans** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:32 am

magicmerl wrote:Hey, I'm not saying that that wouldn't be the best way of determining who the champion is.

I'm saying that from a Fan Excitement/TV ratings perspective Clips/Spurs is a better, more competitive and more compelling matchup than any in your idealised bracket.

I disagree honestly. I think his bracket is more exciting then the current one. With that said, all the West match ups are exciting... it's the East match ups that aren't. Add in Oklahoma for a spot and take away Brooklyn and you're telling me the playoffs would be less exciting? I don't think I agree with that. But in this case it's subjective so it's cool.

With that being said, the best idea I've heard was the top 16 teams get it... but the kicker is, instead of seeding teams 1-16, the top 8 teams get to pick there first-round match-ups. Best record picks first, second best record picks, second, etc, keep going down the list until it's done. I like that idea, but truthfully in terms of "excitement" there is definitely a flaw, and that flaw is teams will pick the easiest match up for them. So although I like that idea, in practice I don't think it's the best solution.

HangTime · Post #5 » by **HangTime** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:59 am

If we went by record for the standings for both conferences, It would look like this:

East would stay the same.

West would be:
GS/NO
MEM/SA
LAC/POR
HOU/DAL
-------------------------------------
One thing I would like to see is re-seeding. It adds to excitement of whom you might see in the next round.

For example in the West, using the, actual standings, If GS, HOU, MEM,and SA make it to the next round,

In actuality, the matchup would be GS/MEM and HOU/SA

In a re-seed, it would be GS/SA and HOU/MEM

If GS, DAL, MEM, and SA make it to the next round

In a re-seed, it would be GS/DAL and MEM/SA

If NO, DAL, MEM, and SA make it to the next round

In a re-seed, it would be MEM/NO and SA/DAL

In a re-seed, it would be GS/SA and HOU/MEM

I get that scheduling would have to be done on the fly, but that's what makes it interesting. Teams would have to prepare for more than 2 scenarios.

iVC15 · Post #6 » by **iVC15** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:21 am

plus it would ruin a 70 year tradition of east vs west in the finals. the point of the playoffs is to see the best of the east face the best of the west

Hedda Gambler · Post #7 » by **Hedda Gambler** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:26 am

David Locke, the Utah Jazz-insider, has talked about what he has heard around the league as the main reason to why a change like this will not happen - and it`s about tv. If you do this and reach the 2nd round with 6 teams from the West, the double headers will be screwed up as one of the games would have to start either way too early for people in the West or way too late for folks in the East. Ratings would go down and there would be less money for the tv companies who just signed a gigantic new deal.

magicmerl · Post #8 » by **magicmerl** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:51 am

Hedda Gambler wrote:David Locke, the Utah Jazz-insider, has talked about what he has heard around the league as the main reason to why a change like this will not happen - and it`s about tv. If you do this and reach the 2nd round with 6 teams from the West, the double headers will be screwed up as one of the games would have to start either way too early for people in the West or way too late for folks in the East. Ratings would go down and there would be less money for the tv companies who just signed a gigantic new deal.

Or, just by being all werstern teams there would be less interest, because isn't most of the population in the US concentrated on the east coast? 'Midwest' and 'central' divisions sure look pretty funny to me on a map.

KayDee35 · Post #9 » by **KayDee35** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:20 am

magicmerl wrote:
Hedda Gambler wrote:David Locke, the Utah Jazz-insider, has talked about what he has heard around the league as the main reason to why a change like this will not happen - and it`s about tv. If you do this and reach the 2nd round with 6 teams from the West, the double headers will be screwed up as one of the games would have to start either way too early for people in the West or way too late for folks in the East. Ratings would go down and there would be less money for the tv companies who just signed a gigantic new deal.

Or, just by being all werstern teams there would be less interest, because isn't most of the population in the US concentrated on the east coast? 'Midwest' and 'central' divisions sure look pretty funny to me on a map.

The US population was concentrated on the east coast when George Washington was president. Things have changed a little since then with California and Texas leading the way on population. The Midwest is quite populous as is the South with the great plains states remaining sparsely populated.

Viewership is affected less by geography than by popularity and name recognition these days. The Red Sox-Yankees games draw many more viewers than most MLB games, for example.

Hedda Gambler · Post #10 » by **Hedda Gambler** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:28 am

KayDee35 wrote:Viewership is affected less by geography than by popularity and name recognition these days. The Red Sox-Yankees games draw many more viewers than most MLB games, for example.

Ok, but when did the game start? If a game starts too early in the west or too late in the east, ratings are bound to suffer.

KayDee35 · Post #11 » by **KayDee35** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:42 am

Hedda Gambler wrote:
KayDee35 wrote:Viewership is affected less by geography than by popularity and name recognition these days. The Red Sox-Yankees games draw many more viewers than most MLB games, for example.

Ok, but when did the game start? If a game starts too early in the west or too late in the east, ratings are bound to suffer.

I agree that start times would affect ratings and ticket sales especially when there are multiple games in a day, as in the earlier rounds. I don't think we'll see a change for that reason.