Should the Top 3 Seeds Get to Choose Their First Round Opponent?

[Liam_Gallagher]

Should the top 3 seeds get to pick their first round opponent? Here's how it would work:

1st seed gets to pick first (can be any of the other 7 teams)
2nd seed picks second (any of the 5 remaining)
3rd seed picks third (any of the 3 remaining)
4th seed plays the remaining team

This would add more fun, drama, and excitement. Rivalries would shoot up to all-time high and teams would feel so disrespected if a team picks them first.

The UFC would do something like this - I can't picture the NBA ever touching it.

2nd round be be something similar - the top seed would get to pick their opponent.

[Tor_Raps]

I have always wanted this. Not only would this make getting the top seed more appealing but it would create more of a rivalry. Baseball actually does this when there are ties and it's amazing.

The nba could create a quick playoff show right after the last game is completed to reveal who each team has picked lol

[MarcusBrody]

I don't like it. I can see it being used by top seeds to jump to playing their biggest rivals right away if they aren't healthy. The 2 seed has a star turn an ankle at the end of the regular season that's going to keep them out a week or two? The 1 seed suddenly can choose to play them right away rather than risk playing them at full strength later.

Now obviously anyone can get injured at any time, but this would let top seeds use their picks strategically to pick off rivals specifically based on them not being healthy.

I do think it would be fun for rivalry/drama/"they're disrespecting us!" narrative purposes.

[leolozon]

You took an idea that had no negative and created something negative by saying that the 1st can choose the 2nd seed. The 2nd seed doesn't deserve to be punished if a player is hurt and can't play in the 1st round.

The top 3 picks an opponent among 5-8 (maybe 6-8, but I prefer 5-8), that's the way to do it.

So yes, but not like you said.

[Edrees]

They should choose between 6-8. Then it's a great idea. Also, 1st seed choosing anyone invalidates the "benefit" the other top 3 seeds can get so you didn't account for that. Not much incentive to do well enough to choose any opponent if you the top 1 seed can just decide to invalidate that for you....

[Saints14]

Yeah I would say they'd have to pick from teams 5-8. 4th seed doesn't get to pick but they do get home court against whoever is left. Would be a fun idea

[spanishninja]

Yeah I would say they'd have to pick from teams 5-8. 4th seed doesn't get to pick but they do get home court against whoever is left. Would be a fun idea

yeah, and in this case, I don't think things change a whole lot in the west at least. OKC still picks the fodder from Kings/Pels, Denver still picks Lakers, Minny is maybe a toss up but between facing the Suns and Mavs I don't know if there is a clear better choice. Facing Luka in the playoffs should be a huge "nope" for anybody, even if the alternative is KD/Booker/Beal.

[RalphWiggum]

Not the way you want to do it, that's ridiculous.

1st seed can pick from 5-8 seed
2nd seed picks from who's remaining
3rd seed the same
4th seed plays whoever didn't get chosen.

[KnicksGadfly]

Teams are gonna try as hard as they can to get the matchup they want in the current system so might as well have them compete for it.

[Liam_Gallagher]

You took an idea that had no negative and created something negative by saying that the 1st can choose the 2nd seed. The 2nd seed doesn't deserve to be punished if a player is hurt and can't play in the 1st round.

The top 3 picks an opponent among 5-8 (maybe 6-8, but I prefer 5-8), that's the way to do it.

So yes, but not like you said.

So you'd rather the 7th seed get to take advantage of the 2nd seed instead of the 1 seed, who fought all year to get the best record?

[ChipotleWest]

If the Mavs could have done that in 2007 they likely would have won the championship. There was no great teams that year except them. They just happened to run into the one team that had their number because it was their ex-coach.

Think about how Boston is looked at right now. They won 64 games, those Mavs won 67 games.

[Residual-Heat]

this would make the 1st round of the play offs less competitive and more boring.

[pipfan]

You took an idea that had no negative and created something negative by saying that the 1st can choose the 2nd seed. The 2nd seed doesn't deserve to be punished if a player is hurt and can't play in the 1st round.

The top 3 picks an opponent among 5-8 (maybe 6-8, but I prefer 5-8), that's the way to do it.

So yes, but not like you said.

This is the answer-and it would make the playoffs a bit more fun

[Vampirate]

Should the top 3 seeds get to pick their first round opponent? Here's how it would work:

1st seed gets to pick first (can be any of the other 7 teams)
2nd seed picks second (any of the 5 remaining)
3rd seed picks third (any of the 3 remaining)
4th seed plays the remaining team

This would add more fun, drama, and excitement. Rivalries would shoot up to all-time high and teams would feel so disrespected if a team picks them first.

The UFC would do something like this - I can't picture the NBA ever touching it.

2nd round be be something similar - the top seed would get to pick their opponent.

Playing devils advocate.

What happens if the first seed picks the 2nd seed, wouldn't that cancel out the 2nd seed getting a choice in the matter?

[jkvonny]

Nah.

They'll just end up picking the injured, younger/inexperienced teams all of the time.

[phanman]

I like the idea of choosing between 5-8, but I can understand how why the NBA would be against it with it becoming a scheduling nightmare when combined with the play-ins. Just using this season's dates as an example: The RS ended on Sunday but we don't get to figure out who is the 8th seed until Friday. The playoffs officially begin the following day.

You'd have to broadcast the draft process and also give teams time to actually prepare for their opponents which most likely delays that playoffs by another week.

[leolozon]

You took an idea that had no negative and created something negative by saying that the 1st can choose the 2nd seed. The 2nd seed doesn't deserve to be punished if a player is hurt and can't play in the 1st round.

The top 3 picks an opponent among 5-8 (maybe 6-8, but I prefer 5-8), that's the way to do it.

So yes, but not like you said.

So you'd rather the 7th seed get to take advantage of the 2nd seed instead of the 1 seed, who fought all year to get the best record?

Yes, because the 2nd seed also fought all year and deserve their 2nd place. 2nd place shouldn’t become 8th place.

[OxAndFox]

The only change to POs should be going to no conferences. #1 v #16 and so on.

[zero rings]

Give the top two seeds an extra home game in the first round.

[HomoSapien]

I voted no, but upon thinking about it it would inject a lot of extra motivation into a series and make upsets even more fun.