RealGM

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:47 pm**

I think this should worry Wizards fans - at least for now. Arguably, we have a middle of the pack GM and below middle of the pack coach. Reverting to the mean would put us out of the playoffs 1/2 the time. :nonono:

Fixing the playoff problem is easier said than done, but this dialogue isn't going away. And, somewhat surprisingly, one of the advocates for change is someone who has flourished with the ways of the old world: Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. "I just think it would be more interesting, because you'd have more good teams or teams that performed better, and I think it's more fair," said Popovich, whose Spurs have won five championships since 1999. "If you can take the top 16 teams, you just do it. It's better competition for the fans. It's the best teams. It's fair. … It's a good enough notion that it should definitely be talked about." USA Today Sports

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:01 pm**

dckingsfan wrote:I think this should worry Wizards fans - at least for now. Arguably, we have a middle of the pack GM and below middle of the pack coach. Reverting to the mean would put us out of the playoffs 1/2 the time.

Fixing the playoff problem is easier said than done, but this dialogue isn't going away. And, somewhat surprisingly, one of the advocates for change is someone who has flourished with the ways of the old world: Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. "I just think it would be more interesting, because you'd have more good teams or teams that performed better, and I think it's more fair," said Popovich, whose Spurs have won five championships since 1999. "If you can take the top 16 teams, you just do it. It's better competition for the fans. It's the best teams. It's fair. … It's a good enough notion that it should definitely be talked about." USA Today Sports

I agree with Popovich. It's something I've wanted to see for awhile now. The current system is MUCH better for a pretty average team in a weak conference, of course.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:13 pm**

Hence why a Wizards fan shouldn't want the structure to change - correct?

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:56 pm**

It'd be better to get rid of East and West Conferences

Maybe make it like the NFL with the AFC and NFC?

Perhaps that could correct the balance out?

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:09 pm**

FAH1223 wrote:It'd be better to get rid of East and West Conferences

Maybe make it like the NFL with the AFC and NFC?

Perhaps that could correct the balance out?

Yeah, I like that better. Teams would have to cross the country more for the schedules to be even, but that might actually help their case for less back-to-backs. And the TV networks already stretch out the playoffs forever, so there's already plenty of built-in travel time.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:33 pm**

Dump the conferences and divisions completely. Go to a schedule where everyone plays a home-and-home, AND have a single-elimination tournament at some point in the season (maybe right after the All-Star game) where the players are competing for a BIG pile of money, and a playoff berth. Yeah, so, if Philly somehow went out and won the single-elimination tournament, they'd get the last playoff spot and bump number 16 out. If Golden State (for example) won, maybe just let them pick their first round opponent and seed the rest of the playoffs.

I also think it would be hella fun to have the teams with the best records pick their opponents in the first round.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:02 pm**

I'm not sure how best to handle the conference structure.

In the playoffs, the travel schedule is pretty meaningless so there's no reason not to mix the divisions and just seed them 1-16. But the question is, how to handle the regular season schedule? Having just a home and away against every team would be just a 58-game season. We need more games. 3 games against every team would be 87 games and lead to a discrepancy between home and away games as well as a lot more cross-country travel in the regular season. Any system where teams play more against local teams would be kinder on the travel schedule, but modestly unfair to good conferences.

I think the best possible solution is to have 3 Divisions. You play your 20 non-division opponents 2 times each (home and away), and you play your 9 division opponents 4 times each. That's 76 games with some modest division rivalries, but not so much that it wildly skews the strength of schedule. The 3 division winners each get a playoff bid, and the next 13 best teams get a "wildcard" playoff bid. All playoff seedings are ranked purely by overall record.

It would work even better if the league expanded to 32 teams and go with 4 divisions. That's 48 games against 24 non-division opponents, plus 28 games against 7 division opponents. That makes the divisions a bit smaller with a better chance for rivalries. But the odds of a division winner not being among the top 16 teams is still vanishingly small.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:16 pm**

nate33 wrote:I'm not sure how best to handle the conference structure.

In the playoffs, the travel schedule is pretty meaningless so there's no reason not to mix the divisions and just seed them 1-16. But the question is, how to handle the regular season schedule? Having just a home and away against every team would be just a 58-game season. We need more games. 3 games against every team would be 87 games and lead to a discrepancy between home and away games as well as a lot more cross-country travel in the regular season. Any system where teams play more against local teams would be kinder on the travel schedule, but modestly unfair to good conferences.

I think the best possible solution is to have 3 Divisions. You play your 20 non-division opponents 2 times each (home and away), and you play your 9 division opponents 4 times each. That's 76 games with some modest division rivalries, but not so much that it wildly skews the strength of schedule. The 3 division winners each get a playoff bid, and the next 13 best teams get a "wildcard" playoff bid. All playoff seedings are ranked purely by overall record.

It would work even better if the league expanded to 32 teams and go with 4 divisions. That's 48 games against 24 non-division opponents, plus 28 games against 7 division opponents. That makes the divisions a bit smaller with a better chance for rivalries. But the odds of a division winner not being among the top 16 teams is still vanishingly small.

I like this 76-game plan. Still leaves some room for my single-elimination tournament.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:20 pm**

TheSecretWeapon wrote:I like this 76-game plan. Still leaves some room for my single-elimination tournament.

I'm a little confused by your tournament idea. Would all 30 teams be participating in this tournament that takes place around the All Star game? Would the winner of the tournament effectively get to sit out the rest of the regular season?

Or are you talking about a tournament among non playoff teams, taking place at the end of the season? Wouldn't that actually promote tanking? A team like the Celtics could go ahead and tank games now, figuring the still have a shot at making the playoffs by winning the Losers Tournament, and if they don't win, they end up with a high pick because they tanked all their March and April games.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:45 pm**

nate33 wrote:
TheSecretWeapon wrote:I like this 76-game plan. Still leaves some room for my single-elimination tournament.

I'm a little confused by your tournament idea. Would all 30 teams be participating in this tournament that takes place around the All Star game? Would the winner of the tournament effectively get to sit out the rest of the regular season?

Or are you talking about a tournament among non playoff teams, taking place at the end of the season? Wouldn't that actually promote tanking? A team like the Celtics could go ahead and tank games now, figuring the still have a shot at making the playoffs by winning the Losers Tournament, and if they don't win, they end up with a high pick because they tanked all their March and April games.

Yeah, now that I think about it, the idea of rewarding the winner with a playoff berth is a bad one. Never mind.

I still like the idea of having such a tournament. Maybe the prize would just have to be a buttload of money.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:37 pm**

TheSecretWeapon wrote:
nate33 wrote:
TheSecretWeapon wrote:I like this 76-game plan. Still leaves some room for my single-elimination tournament.

I'm a little confused by your tournament idea. Would all 30 teams be participating in this tournament that takes place around the All Star game? Would the winner of the tournament effectively get to sit out the rest of the regular season?

Or are you talking about a tournament among non playoff teams, taking place at the end of the season? Wouldn't that actually promote tanking? A team like the Celtics could go ahead and tank games now, figuring the still have a shot at making the playoffs by winning the Losers Tournament, and if they don't win, they end up with a high pick because they tanked all their March and April games.

Yeah, now that I think about it, the idea of rewarding the winner with a playoff berth is a bad one. Never mind.

I still like the idea of having such a tournament. Maybe the prize would just have to be a buttload of money.

Posted: **Wed Apr 8, 2015 2:12 pm**

This is probably not a perfect fit for this thread, but I didn't want to start a new one just to lament the fact that the Wizards pre-sale for playoff tickets starts tomorrow at 10:00am for some STHs, and there are still no publicly available prices set for the tickets. Dynamic (a/k/a gouging) pricing is one thing, but the lack of transparency really makes it hard to budget and plan for how much tickets will cost in the various sections. They expect you to log in and make a snap decision on section, location, and price while the stupid ticketmaster clock winds down.

Posted: **Wed Apr 8, 2015 3:18 pm**

Does anybody here know the 1st round playoff schedule? I know that Playoffs start next weekend and if we have homecourt it'll be either Saturday/Sunday for game 1. I'd like to know the dates of the first two home games for us if we don't get homecourt.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:48 pm**

Doubt this happens. It would require every single team to renegotiate their advertising agreements. Beyond the teams, the NBA would have to do so as well. When your odds of making the playoffs decrease that significantly, your advertising rate algorithm no longer works.

Secondly, they want even distribution of their product across the nation. If the Warriors are playing the Trailblazers in the finals they are guaranteed to have the lowest ratings for a finals in modern media history.

Only thing that could convince me otherwise is the ratings for the Yankees/Mets World Series earlier last decade. Just can't find them.

EDIT: The Mets/Yankees series was the lowest WS rating in the previous 20 years prior to 2000. After 2005 baseball apparently has been in complete free fall, nearly a decade of horrific ratings.

Lastly the new 9 year 25 billion dollar TV deal defines markets, ad penetration etc etc. Changing playoff structure won't happen prior to 2025 without renegotiating that sweetheart deal from ESPN/Turner. It's been wildly successful for advertisers and networks.

Unless the NBA suddenly skyrockets in popularity, Silver isn't reopening negotiations on a signed $25 billion contract. TNT just paid for a contract they likely won't have the viewership to justify in 10 years, cable is dying at a increasingly rapid rate. TNT/TBS have made miniscule moves to reinvent themselves via OTT services. ESPN will survive (albeit at much lower revenues), TNT? Not sure.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:01 pm**

Wizards should be more worried about how Leonsis runs this team than the playoff structure.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:09 pm**

Induveca wrote:Doubt this happens. It would require every single team to renegotiate their advertising agreements. Beyond the teams, the NBA would have to do so as well. When your odds of making the playoffs decrease that significantly, your advertising rate algorithm no longer works.

Secondly, they want even distribution of their product across the nation. If the Warriors are playing the Trailblazers in the finals they are guaranteed to have the lowest ratings for a finals in modern media history.

Assume you're talking about Kev's tournament idea. Nate's idea of 32 teams playing 76 games would actually mean more total games, so I think the TV deals would be fine. And having 4 divisions still ensures even distribution of large and small market teams, which addreses your GS/Portland scenario. I'd be a bit worrried about the talent getting too diluted by adding two new teams, but we can figure that out.

Any thoughts on whether having only 4 divisions and 1-16 seeding might make late season races less compelling? Less division races, only 1 race for the top seed, and only 1 final playoff spot to fight over. The jostling for the middle seeds would be constant, but might be too tough for the average fan to follow because of all the complex tie breakers to seed teams on one big list.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:47 pm**

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NBATV/status/587370229526724608[/tweet]

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:59 pm**

LyricalRico wrote:
Induveca wrote:Doubt this happens. It would require every single team to renegotiate their advertising agreements. Beyond the teams, the NBA would have to do so as well. When your odds of making the playoffs decrease that significantly, your advertising rate algorithm no longer works.

Secondly, they want even distribution of their product across the nation. If the Warriors are playing the Trailblazers in the finals they are guaranteed to have the lowest ratings for a finals in modern media history.

Assume you're talking about Kev's tournament idea. Nate's idea of 32 teams playing 76 games would actually mean more total games, so I think the TV deals would be fine. And having 4 divisions still ensures even distribution of large and small market teams, which addreses your GS/Portland scenario. I'd be a bit worrried about the talent getting too diluted by adding two new teams, but we can figure that out.

Any thoughts on whether having only 4 divisions and 1-16 seeding might make late season races less compelling? Less division races, only 1 race for the top seed, and only 1 final playoff spot to fight over. The jostling for the middle seeds would be constant, but might be too tough for the average fan to follow because of all the complex tie breakers to seed teams on one big list.

I don't know the specific metrics teams/networks used to make the financial projections which justified the $25 billion 9 year deal. But rest assured that wasn't just some random offer, its foundation is advertising, based on demographics spread out amongst major markets. Shifting conferences, and even one team playing 2 games less in a certain time zone could change things by a fraction of a percent. That is enough for TNT to have to adjust projections for KIA etc, which reduces ad spend.

Not going to happen unless it creates more eyeballs in the top 10 markets.

The current setup, for now, is making the league a ton of money. Not going to change unless they reopen the TV deal.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:49 pm**

^ I thought re-doing the TV deal was already happening in 2016, which is what will cause the cap to explode. I agree that it has to be lucrative for all parties, but it seems like the money's there.

Posted: **Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:02 am**

I really like the idea of a single elimination tournament in the middle of the season.
It would make the reg season relevant. Teams would be forced to "jell" before the all star break to get a shoot at winning it and to get a good seed.

Instead of giving the winner an automatic playoff birth....add the wins from the tourney to the winning team's record.
That's five wins. That could effect your standing in the playoffs. Also winning the tourney gives you all tie breakers.
There would be only a cash prize for second place and lower.

Some considerations:
A team could just miss the playoffs via record but you add 5 games and they would get in. Or you could be a 4 seed and move up to the second seed.
Finally if you had all tie breakers for winning the tourney, then you could effect your seeding.

Finally you could have a lot of money for the winning.

That would make the tourney relevant and awesome

RealGM

Playoff Structure

Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Playoff Structure

Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure

Re: Playoff Structure