The NBA should change the rule on who gets in the playoffs.

slamdunk · Post #1 » by **slamdunk** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:08 am

Am I the only one who think the current playoff format is stupid? Lets say the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference finish with a record of 37-45, while the 9th seed in the Western Conference finish with a record of 49-33. It does not make sense for a 37 win team to make the playoffs, while the 49 win team does not.

What I suggest the NBA should do is give the 8th seed playoff spot in the Eastern Conference to the 9th seed team in the Western Conference. A 37 win team have no business being in the playoffs. The NBA should not award failure.

Anyone agree with my idea?

dunleavyjr · Post #2 » by **dunleavyjr** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:10 am

Rich is getting richer.
Poor is getting poorer.

Fire David Stern!

Diaper Dandy · Post #3 » by **Diaper Dandy** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:12 am

slamdunk wrote:Am I the only one who think the current playoff format is stupid? Lets say the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference finish with a record of 37-45, while the 9th seed in the Western Conference finish with a record of 49-33. It does not make sense for a 37 win team to make the playoffs, while the 49 win team does not.

What I suggest the NBA should do is give the 8th seed playoff spot in the Eastern Conference to the 9th seed team in the Western Conference. A 37 win team have no business being in the playoffs. The NBA should not award failure.

Anyone agree with my idea?

Kinda defeats the purpose of conferences for something that happens once in a blue moon. So no.

crzy · Post #4 » by **crzy** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:14 am

This has to be the 100,000th thread on this. But I agree. It should be a top 16 format. It's not fair if the Warriors, who would currently be the 3rd seed in the East, miss the playoffs.

Nate505 · Post #5 » by **Nate505** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:19 am

slamdunk wrote:Am I the only one who think the current playoff format is stupid? Lets say the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference finish with a record of 37-45, while the 9th seed in the Western Conference finish with a record of 49-33. It does not make sense for a 37 win team to make the playoffs, while the 49 win team does not.

What I suggest the NBA should do is give the 8th seed playoff spot in the Eastern Conference to the 9th seed team in the Western Conference. A 37 win team have no business being in the playoffs. The NBA should not award failure.

Anyone agree with my idea?

Agree in general, but it needs tweaking. The 9th team in the west shouldn't get to play in the significantly weaker Eastern Conference playoff bracket (although I do agree that Boston or Detroit is just as good as any elite western conference team) while the 8th/7th seeds get to play in the Western Conference bracket.

Someone on the Jazz board posted this solution, which I'm going off by memory so I don't have some of the details (like which 4/5 matchup would go in which bracket)...but here's the general idea. I agree and think it's very well done.

1. Give the teams with the best records in the West/East #1 seeds in their conference playoffs.

2. Give the other two division winners the #2 and #3 seeds in each bracket.

3. Seed the #4-8 seeds completely by record in each conference.

I believe the playoffs would look like this if started.

1. Boston
8. Washington/Sacramento (both have the same record)

4. Phoenix
5. Denver

3. Orlando
6. Houston

2. Detroit
7. Cleveland

1. New Orleans
8. Portland

4. San Antonio
5. Dallas

3. Utah
6. Golden State

2. LA Lakers
7. Toronto

That would seem to be a fun playoffs to watch.

Diaper Dandy · Post #6 » by **Diaper Dandy** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:26 am

crzyyafrican wrote:This has to be the 100,000th thread on this. But I agree. It should be a top 16 format. It's not fair if the Warriors, who would currently be the 3rd seed in the East, miss the playoffs.

Not fair to who? The Warriors aren't doing anything in the playoffs anyway and they'd get a free chance at a top 3 draft pick, while the Hawks (for example), who aren't doing anything in the playoffs either are stuck with the 14 or 15 pick no matter what. Yeah, unfair, but not to the team missing the playoffs.

Again, it's a weak argument. Destroys the whole concept of conferences.

DariusRickyMilesDavis · Post #7 » by **DariusRickyMilesDavis** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:28 am

dunleavyjr wrote:Rich is getting richer.
Poor is getting poorer.

Fire David Stern!

And George Bush while you're at it. :pray:

-bob- · Post #8 » by **-bob-** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:36 am

Diaper Dandy wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Not fair to who? The Warriors aren't doing anything in the playoffs anyway and they'd get a free chance at a top 3 draft pick, while the Hawks (for example), who aren't doing anything in the playoffs either are stuck with the 14 or 15 pick no matter what. Yeah, unfair, but not to the team missing the playoffs.

Again, it's a weak argument. Destroys the whole concept of conferences.

You just gave another reason. A 50 win team in the West will be getting a better draft pick than a 37 win team in the East, that isn't another good reason to tweak this thing??

edfmx86 · Post #9 » by **edfmx86** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:59 am

certainly defeats the purpose of conferences, i say keep em the way they are and thnk of them as two serparate leagues, top 8 in east, top 8 in west. should be all based on records, i really dont like the top division leaders geting seeds 1-4. just a shame that the western conference has 9 dominant team but you gotta let the 8 eastern conference teams play for their conference championships

Diaper Dandy · Post #10 » by **Diaper Dandy** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:59 am

No, because it doesn't happen often enough to matter. Didn't the Giants miss the playoffs a couple years ago with almost 100 wins (or maybe they got it)? Should they have done away with divisional winners in baseball and just went with the two best records in the league?

That would've ruined the idea of divisions as this would conferences. Not worth it for like one year.

-SDU- · Post #11 » by **-SDU-** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:59 am

should be changed without a shadow of a doubt IMO

i dont care how, it just MUST be changed

also, even if they dont change it, they need to be more like the NHL and re-seed after the first round.

durden_tyler · Post #12 » by **durden_tyler** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:24 am

One vs. Sixteen.

Duiz · Post #13 » by **Duiz** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:01 am

I like what Nate505 said.. I saw that proposal and I thought it was very very interesting. The only problem is showcased with a Toronto vs Lakers matchup. They are hundreds if not thousands of miles away from each other in different time zones. It would be grueling for players.

Post #14 » by **floppymoose** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:09 am

This may turn out like the Gilbert Arenas rule: a rule made just in time to prevent someone other than the Warriors from getting screwed. :evil:

Play_Smart! · Post #15 » by **Play_Smart!** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:30 am

I have to say this whole conference and division thing is stupid. It may have made sense in the past because of the difficulty to travel. Now it doesn't make any sense anymore. It just makes things complicated and stupid. Imagine one day one division with no team winning more than 30 games is guaranteed a top 4 seed in the playoffs.

It should be no divisions, no conferences bullshxx. Every teams play other teams 3 times a year. Top 16 teams advance into the playoffs. Simple as that.

Muzzleshot · Post #16 » by **Muzzleshot** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:28 am

Every league has a disparity between the two leagues/conferences.
In the NFL the AFC is far superior to the NFC and in MLB the American league is superior to the National league. In baseball the AL central and the AL east have 4 powerhouse teams (Cleveland, Detroit, NY, and Boston). One of those teams won't make the playoffs. Tough rocks, that's the way it goes.

I almost never hear/see NFL and MLB fans complaining about the disparity between the two leagues/conferences. Whining about this seems to be the exclusive domain of NBA fans.