Playoff Format...What's Your Take?

Wont PerDont · Post #1 » by **Wont PerDont** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:12 pm

With the playoffs about to start, there are some interesting scenarios the could/will transpire that always make some question the format/rules. I thought it might be interesting to see how the board feels about it.

For example...

It seems Doc Rivers has a problem with the fact that Portland is guaranteed at least the #4 seed due to them being division winners which ensures that the Clippers will face a team in the #6 slot with a superior record (if the Clippers end up as the #3) to Portland, a higher seed, in the 1st round.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... tem-flawed

The Bulls have found themselves in a similar situation with Toronto. The Raps hold the tiebreaker with us via them winning the HORRIBLE Atlantic Division (w/Toronto having the only winning record in the entire division) even though the Bulls have handled the head to head series against the Raps.

So, my question is: Do you think the current playoff format of awarding the Division winners preference over non-division winners is something the NBA should maintain, or fix?

And while we are at it, do you have any other playoff pet peeves that you would like to see the NBA review in the future? Mine was always switching the format in the Finals to 2-3-2 after every other series was 2-2-1-1-1, but I think they fixed that already. Some hate that teams w/sub .500 records get to play in the post season. Any others?

Post #2 » by **Payt10** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:46 pm

The top 16 teams should be in the post-season regardless of conference. It adds a level of fairness and should rule out any team under .500 from ever getting in.

You can keep the divisions and conferences for travel purposes if need be, but don't make them relevant for the post-season.

NZB2323 · Post #3 » by **NZB2323** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:55 pm

I like Bill Simmons entertaining as hell tournament. The top 7 seeds in both conferences make the playoffs, and only play a 65 game season. The remaining 16 teams have a single elimination tournament. The winner of the tournament gets to chose which conference they're the 8th seed in. The runner up is the 8th seed in the other conference.

Wont PerDont · Post #4 » by **Wont PerDont** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:43 pm

Payt10 wrote:The top 16 teams should be in the post-season regardless of conference. It adds a level of fairness and should rule out any team under .500 from ever getting in.

You can keep the divisions and conferences for travel purposes if need be, but don't make them relevant for the post-season.

Do you advocate balancing the schedule (each team plays every other team the same amount of times)? Because as currently constituted you might still have a problem as most would consider a Western Conference team with the same record as an Eastern Conference team a "better" team due to playing more games vs. the superior conference. Not saying I disagree, just wondering where you draw the line?

D_GoLow · Post #5 » by **D_GoLow** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:48 pm

I miss when the 1st round was only a 5 game series.

They should go back to that format, at least for the 1st round.

7-game series take forever!!! #ForRealzees

DanTown8587 · Post #6 » by **DanTown8587** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:51 pm

72 game regular season (3 times against the other 14 in your conference, 2 times against the other conference)

TOURNAMENT A
Top 8 NBA Teams = Play a 1-8 tourney for seeds 1-8 (winner gets #1, loser #2, best six remaining teams get seeds 3-8)

TOURNAMENT B
Next Best 16 teams = Play a 1-16 tourney for seeds 9-14 (winning team gets #9, losing team #10, two teams who went 2-1 get spots #11/12; fours team who lost round two re-seed based on regular season (1 vs 4, 2 vs 3) and play a game for seeds 13, 14 (lowest seeds get #13)

TOURNAMENT C
Last 16 teams (Bottom 3 teams each conference, ten teams who didn't get a playoff spot from Tournament B) play for final two spots and reseed based on regular season.

LOTTERY REFORM
Worst six teams not in playoffs: Equal Chance #1
Next Eight Teams not in playoffs: Equal Chance #2
Worst Five left: Equal Chance #3
Worst Seven Teams Left: Equal Chance #4
Worst Record Left: 5-14

This would GREATLY improve the league. You don't have teams resting guys as much with only 72 regular season games and each rank in the league meaning a harder and harder playoff path, any team can qualify for the playoffs so teams like Utah aren't "punished" for late starts, there is little to no incentive to tank a season as the worst team only has a 1 in 3 chance of getting a top 3 pick.

How it would look right now:

TOURNEY A
4. LA Clippers vs 5. Houston
1. Golden State vs 8. Portland

3. San Antonio vs 6. Memphis
2. Atlanta vs 7. Cleveland

TOURNEY B
8. Boston vs 9. Phoenix
1. Dallas vs 16. Denver

5. New Orleans vs 12. Brooklyn
4. Washington vs 13. Miami

6. Oklahoma City vs 11. Indiana
3. Toronto vs 14. Charlotte

7. Milwaukee vs 10. Utah
2. Chicago vs 15. Detroit

TOURNEY C
8. vs 9.
1. vs 16. Minnesota

5. vs 12. Orlando
4. vs 13. LA Lakers

6. vs 11. Sacramento
3. vs 14. Philadelphia

7. vs 10.
2. vs 15. New York

Post #7 » by **Payt10** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:53 pm

Wont PerDont wrote:
Payt10 wrote:The top 16 teams should be in the post-season regardless of conference. It adds a level of fairness and should rule out any team under .500 from ever getting in.

You can keep the divisions and conferences for travel purposes if need be, but don't make them relevant for the post-season.

Do you advocate balancing the schedule (each team plays every other team the same amount of times)? Because as currently constituted you might still have a problem as most would consider a Western Conference team with the same record as an Eastern Conference team a "better" team due to playing more games vs. the superior conference. Not saying I disagree, just wondering where you draw the line?

I would. I'd like to see something like that eventually. I think the only way it were to happen is if they decreased the number of regular season games so there aren't as many back to backs to alleviate some of the traveling concerns when you have teams on the East Coast going West more often and vice versa.

But of course then there is the $$ question about how are the owners going to make up the $$ they lose with lesser games. And I'm sure some people wouldn't like because it would affect record-keeping stats and making certain milestones more difficult to achieve.

ADDinChicago · Post #8 » by **ADDinChicago** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:01 pm

Top 8 in each conference. However, no sub .500 teams. If that happens, a winning team from the other conference that missed is inserted. That's how I'd do it.

DanTown8587 · Post #9 » by **DanTown8587** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:06 pm

ADDinChicago wrote:Top 8 in each conference. However, no sub .500 teams. If that happens, a winning team from the other conference that missed is inserted. That's how I'd do it.

So 40-42 isn't good enough but 41-41 is? Don't like the semi arbitrary cut off by record.

ADDinChicago · Post #10 » by **ADDinChicago** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:13 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:
ADDinChicago wrote:Top 8 in each conference. However, no sub .500 teams. If that happens, a winning team from the other conference that missed is inserted. That's how I'd do it.

So 40-42 isn't good enough but 41-41 is? Don't like the semi arbitrary cut off by record.

Sub .500 is sub .500. No losing team in any sport should be allowed into the playoffs.

Mobby · Post #11 » by **Mobby** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:20 pm

I like the idea of scrapping 8-per-conference and taking top 16.

Moreover, I'd like to allow top seed to pick their opponent, then 2nd seed to pick out of the remaining, and so on. I think it isn't fair to risk a matchup issue for a higher seed just because the lower seed did worse against other teams. If the top seed wants to play the 13th seed instead of the 16th seed first round, they should be allowed to make that happen.

dice · Post #12 » by **dice** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:23 pm

2 games interconference, 4 games vs division, 3 games intraconference

top 12 teams regardless of conference, seeding strictly by record (might be problematic due to so much time off for top 4 seeds)

draft lottery open to all teams, "ping pong balls" determined by # of losses regardless of positioning amongst other teams. lottery carried out to all 30 places

chi4lyfe · Post #13 » by **chi4lyfe** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:24 pm

ADDinChicago wrote:
DanTown8587 wrote:
ADDinChicago wrote:Top 8 in each conference. However, no sub .500 teams. If that happens, a winning team from the other conference that missed is inserted. That's how I'd do it.

So 40-42 isn't good enough but 41-41 is? Don't like the semi arbitrary cut off by record.

Sub .500 is sub .500. No losing team in any sport should be allowed into the playoffs.

So under this system, Golden State gets a first round bye? Only 15 over-.500 teams in the league.

I'd leave things be. Too much QQing about the cyclical phenomenon of dominant conferences for my tastes. If Indiana can sneak in with a losing record (because they lost their star) more power to them. And a good team finishing 9th gets to be a good team with a lottery pick.

ADDinChicago · Post #14 » by **ADDinChicago** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:47 pm

chi4lyfe wrote:
ADDinChicago wrote:
DanTown8587 wrote:
So 40-42 isn't good enough but 41-41 is? Don't like the semi arbitrary cut off by record.

Sub .500 is sub .500. No losing team in any sport should be allowed into the playoffs.

So under this system, Golden State gets a first round bye? Only 15 over-.500 teams in the league.

I'd leave things be. Too much QQing about the cyclical phenomenon of dominant conferences for my tastes. If Indiana can sneak in with a losing record (because they lost their star) more power to them. And a good team finishing 9th gets to be a good team with a lottery pick.

Absolutely. Reward the teams that actually win and try. Not ones that can't even win half their games in a terrible conference. If it leaves a team like the W's with no opponent, so be it. That would be their reward for being the top team.

And I'd leave the lottery as is.

Red Larrivee · Post #15 » by **Red Larrivee** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:33 pm

Am I one of the few who thiks the current format is fine? Going to a format of the best 16 teams just seems like a way to appease Western Conference owners and executives.

The only thing that I could see changing is the 82-game format.

ADDinChicago · Post #16 » by **ADDinChicago** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:50 pm

Red Larrivee wrote:Am I one of the few who thiks the current format is fine? Going to a format of the best 16 teams just seems like a way to appease Western Conference owners and executives.

The only thing that I could see changing is the 82-game format.

No, I think the current system is "fine". I too don't like just the top 16 teams. It's been East vs. West for so long. I don't like the idea of not having conferences. But they should consider re-alignment. Especially if an when they go to 32 teams (which is a whole other can of watering down the league worms. They should remove 4-6 clubs, not add 2 more but the owners would never contract). It was asking what we'd do to change it.

I fine with 82. Just shape the schedule better (no 4 in 5 nights, no 3 days off, etc.)

otwok · Post #17 » by **otwok** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:59 pm

I'm okay with the playoffs the way it is. I am okay with them shortening the season (65 games) but keep the playoff format the same. No need to change it. It is still entertaining and the best team usually wins. That's the way it is supposed to be. There is nothing wrong with it.

meekrab · Post #18 » by **meekrab** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:01 pm

ADDinChicago wrote:
DanTown8587 wrote:
ADDinChicago wrote:Top 8 in each conference. However, no sub .500 teams. If that happens, a winning team from the other conference that missed is inserted. That's how I'd do it.

So 40-42 isn't good enough but 41-41 is? Don't like the semi arbitrary cut off by record.

Sub .500 is sub .500. No losing team in any sport should be allowed into the playoffs.

You will always end up with situations where an under .500 team can/will make the playoffs as long as you allow more than half the league into the playoffs.

chi4lyfe · Post #19 » by **chi4lyfe** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:01 pm

ADDinChicago wrote:
chi4lyfe wrote:
ADDinChicago wrote:
Sub .500 is sub .500. No losing team in any sport should be allowed into the playoffs.

So under this system, Golden State gets a first round bye? Only 15 over-.500 teams in the league.

I'd leave things be. Too much QQing about the cyclical phenomenon of dominant conferences for my tastes. If Indiana can sneak in with a losing record (because they lost their star) more power to them. And a good team finishing 9th gets to be a good team with a lottery pick.

Absolutely. Reward the teams that actually win and try. Not ones that can't even win half their games in a terrible conference. If it leaves a team like the W's with no opponent, so be it. That would be their reward for being the top team.

And I'd leave the lottery as is.

Not sure if being idle at the end of the season for a good week plus is a reward or a punishment. Break up that rhythm, rusty for the first game of round 2, lose homecourt. Just to keep a 40-42 out? Not my cuppa, but it's whatever.

ADDinChicago · Post #20 » by **ADDinChicago** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:05 pm

meekrab wrote:
ADDinChicago wrote:
DanTown8587 wrote:
So 40-42 isn't good enough but 41-41 is? Don't like the semi arbitrary cut off by record.

Sub .500 is sub .500. No losing team in any sport should be allowed into the playoffs.

You will always end up with situations where an under .500 team can/will make the playoffs as long as you allow more than half the league into the playoffs.

That doesn't mean it's "right".

What do you think the current playoff format?