OT- possible change to NBA seedings
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 2:10 pm
Kevin Ding wrote:When NBA commissioner David Stern was at Staples Center last month, he opened the door to changing the league's postseason format by taking down the geographic boundaries that dictate the NBA Finals being East vs. West. This is an issue that Stern has previously swatted away with a waggling finger a la Dikembe Mutombo, who plays in the West for Houston. Now, though, Stern is backing down. He still said the league doesn't want to change its regular-season format because of the current unbalanced schedule and the regular-season rivalries. But he brought up the notion of seeding the teams 1-16
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 2:34 pm
It doesn't make any sense.
Some years ago when the East was dominant, people complained. Now when the West is strong, people are complaining.
It's a stage of cycles, we can't change it every time. -- I don't get the issue many are having with it....
Some years ago when the East was dominant, people complained. Now when the West is strong, people are complaining.
It's a stage of cycles, we can't change it every time. -- I don't get the issue many are having with it....
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 2:41 pm
you just made one of my points for me. the current system does not work because it keeps the conferences unbalanced. read again what you just wrote- people complained when it was baised toward the East and now people complain when it is baised toward the West. in a 16 umbrella system it would not matter which conference is stronger because only the best teams would compete in the playoffs and all the bad teams would have a chance at getting better in the lottery.Flash3 wrote:It doesn't make any sense.
Some years ago when the East was dominant, people complained. Now when the West is strong, people are complaining.
It's a stage of cycles, we can't change it every time. -- I don't get the issue many are having with it....
what exactly does not make sense?
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 3:24 pm
Yeah that is true that the East was more dominant but if they did it this way there would be less phases of West being a Joke and East being a joke it would just be the best teams. It's not fair a team like the Hawks will make the playoffs yet a team like the Nuggets won't.
I think they should take it 1 step further and make the season 70 games but it's not west vs west it's all teams play each other evenly.
I think they should take it 1 step further and make the season 70 games but it's not west vs west it's all teams play each other evenly.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 4:01 pm
I suggested this exact format on this very board about two years ago. Obviously, I'm 100% for it. It's the only fair solution. Not only is the most fair solution for the top 16 teams of the league but it'll also help to balance the east versus the west over the years via the draft.
The arguments I received against it back then was the time differences of east and west being detrimental to the business aspect of NBA. Obviously, Stern thinks that could be overcome.
Just do it!
The arguments I received against it back then was the time differences of east and west being detrimental to the business aspect of NBA. Obviously, Stern thinks that could be overcome.
Just do it!
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 4:27 pm
I don't know how it would mess up the buisness end at all. It would surely make the game more fair. It takes really good teams out of the lotto and puts them in the playoffs and takes the lotto teams out o the playoffs and puts them rightfully in the lotto.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 4:43 pm
Dexmor wrote:I don't know how it would mess up the buisness end at all. It would surely make the game more fair. It takes really good teams out of the lotto and puts them in the playoffs and takes the lotto teams out o the playoffs and puts them rightfully in the lotto.
Exactly my point back then. I don't see anything negative with this at all. If anything, it'll draw a bigger viewing audience by virtue of the top 16 being in the playoffs.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 5:03 pm
This is about 10 years overdue. And good call, EE.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 5:48 pm
Then, the first eight seed goes to the west and the second eight to the east. so most of teams of west would have the home advantage.
Then, if they are going to play together in the playoffs, why we have to play 4times with teams of the west and just 2for example with these cavs we could find in first round?
would it be right if we play less times with the "soft" east conference? Because now, if boston, detroit and orlando plays four times with all the west teams, Its clear they wouldnt have the same record.
Then, if they are going to play together in the playoffs, why we have to play 4times with teams of the west and just 2for example with these cavs we could find in first round?
would it be right if we play less times with the "soft" east conference? Because now, if boston, detroit and orlando plays four times with all the west teams, Its clear they wouldnt have the same record.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 5:55 pm
The business side would mean... for example: 10 teams in the west playing the rest of the teams in the East. Since the east coast is more dense in population then the only way to truly generate those ad dollars to the fullest would be change the game times so the East coast can get it prime time. Having games / playoff games tip @ 10:30 will detract more than attract.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:13 pm
The time sensitivity will be less and less an issue as more and more people will soon have DVRs and TiVo. Starting a game at 5:30 PM EST won't cause that big a problem for either coast.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:42 pm
Erik Eleven wrote:The time sensitivity will be less and less an issue as more and more people will soon have DVRs and TiVo. Starting a game at 5:30 PM EST won't cause that big a problem for either coast.
You lose out on Ad / media revenue that is already impacted by Tivo's and DVRs...regardless of if its Basketball or the 700 club.
I also disagree that starting a game @ 5:30 wont cause a big problem on either coast. If you cant sell primetime ads then you are not fully getting the monies you can get.
I see your point and for the love of the game it makes sense. However, this is about the Love of Money and that big businesss, the NBA and franchises wont just let go.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:47 pm
Erik Eleven wrote:The time sensitivity will be less and less an issue as more and more people will soon have DVRs and TiVo. Starting a game at 5:30 PM EST won't cause that big a problem for either coast.
I don't necessarily agree... I'm less likely to watch a game knowing that the Lakers lost, I don't know what that does for Ad money but I don't think it'd be a selling point
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:49 pm
Flash3 wrote:It doesn't make any sense.
Some years ago when the East was dominant, people complained. Now when the West is strong, people are complaining.
It's a stage of cycles, we can't change it every time. -- I don't get the issue many are having with it....
When was the East so dominant?
Check out this statistic.
Over the last 20 years 5 teams have made it to playoff's with a losing record in Western conference.
In the same span 11 teams have made it to the playoff's with a losing record in the Eastern conference.
That's not counting the possible 2 or 3 teams this year that might make the playoff's with a losing record.
20 years. That is not a cycle.....
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 9:25 pm
Ill believe it when i see it.
Posted: Tue Apr 1, 2008 9:29 pm
Phil_2.0 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
You lose out on Ad / media revenue that is already impacted by Tivo's and DVRs...regardless of if its Basketball or the 700 club.
I also disagree that starting a game @ 5:30 wont cause a big problem on either coast. If you cant sell primetime ads then you are not fully getting the monies you can get.
I see your point and for the love of the game it makes sense. However, this is about the Love of Money and that big businesss, the NBA and franchises wont just let go.
what's kobe saying in ur av
Posted: Wed Apr 2, 2008 3:17 pm
my point was basically that when 1 conference is greater than the other conference, you'll have the issues we're going through now.snaquille oatmeal wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
you just made one of my points for me. the current system does not work because it keeps the conferences unbalanced. read again what you just wrote- people complained when it was baised toward the East and now people complain when it is baised toward the West. in a 16 umbrella system it would not matter which conference is stronger because only the best teams would compete in the playoffs and all the bad teams would have a chance at getting better in the lottery.
what exactly does not make sense?
i didn't read the article, because granted, all of the people who are having issues with this (east<west) are the ones who are doing the complaining, and want a change, but probably weren't the ones who were lobby for changes when (east>west)
Posted: Thu Apr 3, 2008 1:13 am
Flash3 wrote:It doesn't make any sense.
Some years ago when the East was dominant, people complained. Now when the West is strong, people are complaining.
It's a stage of cycles, we can't change it every time. -- I don't get the issue many are having with it....
thats the point it shouldnt be like that, if a team in the west that doesnt make the playoffs but has a better record then the 4th seed in the east y shouldnt that team make the playoffs,it shouldbe the best teams in the NBA not a conference
Posted: Thu Apr 3, 2008 1:19 am
Well, any seeding change would have to be a complete overhaul of conferences.
You cant have the top 16 teams in the playoffs.. and have the West play eachother 4 times and then play the East twice a year.
It would be a complete overhaul. I personally think it would be a bad move.
You cant have the top 16 teams in the playoffs.. and have the West play eachother 4 times and then play the East twice a year.
It would be a complete overhaul. I personally think it would be a bad move.