New Playoff Format Idea (Long Post - reader's beware)

TaylorJ · Post #1 » by **TaylorJ** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:31 am

So I was sitting here thinking about how much I hate the fact that there are already ten teams in the NBA right now who have absolutely no shot of making the playoffs (the race to win the lottery has already started). This hurts the NBA more than anyone is willing to admit (who wants to see a matchup between the T-wolves and the Grizzlies). As I was thinking about it I thought of an idea that I think could help make the regular season games more meaningful between the lesser teams and also add a legitimate chance for every team to win a title. Here's my idea

Change the current format and change to include all 30 teams in the playoffs. The #1 seed from each conference would have an automatic bye while the #2 seed would match up against #15 (you could also change the format of the regular season and then rank the teams from #1-30, thus avoiding the current problem of 10 good teams out west with 3-4 good teams in the east).
The first 3 rounds would each be best-of-3. This would keep the number of games for a team at a manageable level while making each of these rounds more exciting (much more realistic to beat a great team in a 3 game series than in a 7 game series).
The conference finals and then the finals would each be best-of-5.

I like this format for the following reasons
1) Every team will be focused on winning as many games as they can and fans will know their teams will reach the playoffs where anything can happen.
2) While each series is shorter, you have more rounds of the playoffs, essentially bringing in more revenue for the NBA and each team.
3) The format is a merging between the current playoff format and the more popular March Maddness. I think it will add to the popularity of the NBA.

If this were the format right now the Jazz would be the #9 seed playing Golden State in the first round. If we won the series we would then be facing the Lakers or Suns (I haven't looked to see how they match-up head to head).

I'd love to hear comments about why people think this would be a good or bad idea.

isrred · Post #2 » by **isrred** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:36 am

This would render the season completely meaningless

CAE15 · Post #3 » by **CAE15** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:41 am

no... No reason for the regular season, free agency helps and hurts teams, everyone will eventually get a chance, is there really one team you can look at and say they have never ever been good?

jazzdude · Post #4 » by **jazzdude** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:12 am

Letting all the teams in the playoffs is a bad idea. However, I do think the current playoff system could use some tweaking. What I think should be done is to seed all 16 playoff teams accordingly:

1. The top 2 seeds go to the teams with the best records in the eastern/western conferences.
2. Seeds 3-6 will go to the other division winners according to record.
3. Seeds 7-16 go to the remainder of the eligible team based on record.

Using this formula would reward all the worthy teams of a playoff spot regardless of conference. Teams would still have a reason to try to win their conferences/divisions since it would assure them of a top 6 seed. I'm sick of teams from the eastern conference with sub .500 records getting in the playoffs while teams above .500 from the west get snubbed. Adopting this format would change all that.

Six_Fore · Post #5 » by **Six_Fore** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:24 am

I would have to strongly disagree with this. It really does make the regular season meaningless. The only aspect that would make it similar to March Madness would be the fact that there are more teams in the playoffs. The NCAA does not grant playoff berths to any and every team that wants one, each team has to earn it.

In your system a team does not have to earn the right to the playoffs, they are automatically granted it, thus defeating the purpose of the regular season. Your playoff system magnifies my main issue with the current playoff, that teams with a losing record get in the playoffs. Answer me this. Why should a team with a LOSING record be allowed to compete in the playoffs? What have they done in the regular season to prove thier worth? Nothing, they are losers, thus not deserving of the right to a playoff.

I would be more realistic to find a way to exclude teams with a losing record rather than give everyone of them the chance at a trophy they most definitely do not deserve.

edfmx86 · Post #6 » by **edfmx86** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:01 am

I'd keep it the way it is tho would consider Re-seeding every team after every round, so the best team will always get the weaker team. alot of people would disagree with it tho.

HouseofBoozer · Post #7 » by **HouseofBoozer** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:28 am

Interesting but meaningless.

Post #8 » by **FJS** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:03 pm

I would rather the best 16 teams (doesn't matter if you are in the east or west) of the league in the playoff.
It's a shame teams with more than 50% are out in the west and teams under 50% in the east are in.
So we

idajazz · Post #9 » by **idajazz** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:24 pm

FJS wrote:I would rather the best 16 teams (doesn't matter if you are in the east or west) of the league in the playoff.
It's a shame teams with more than 50% are out in the west and teams under 50% in the east are in.
So we