People hated the fact that Adam Silver pushed to add a play-in tournament

[mateos]

82 RS games for everyone to eliminate 10 of 30 teams is pretty damn stupid

So you are ok with 14 teams being eliminated.

Than i have a better idea, why don't we eliminate 28 teams and go to the finals right away.

I love the play-in format. It is very entertaining.

[Jcity08]

I get the issue where the 9/10 seed in the West in the normal system would have been statistically iced out of the playoffs now but now they have an extra life-line to still make the playoffs should they win 2 games.

I understand the frustration for the 7/8 Seed in the West.

The East is way too close that it wouldnt make a difference, play-in or not, the standings can still shift.

[Chuck Everett]

Get rid of it.

[nomansland]

A few years ago when the Nuggets were just barely out of the playoffs but still pretty good, I'd have loved the play-in.

And if I were a fan of, let's say the Pelicans or Hawks, I'd be really glad they're still competing and not tanking. Or for a team like the Clippers, that could easily be eliminated under the old system but now have a chance to make some noise in the playoffs because one of their key guys is back, it's awesome.

It discourages tanking (which I don't think is that bad of a problem as some, but a lot of people think it is), it mitigates the injury penalty a lot of teams suffer, adds a bit of drama to the end of the season, and gives younger players a bit of playoff experience.

It's hard to see the downside. Maybe you think the games are meaningless, and they probably are, but what harm does it do?

[Swish1906]

82 RS games for everyone to eliminate 10 of 30 teams is pretty damn stupid

So you are ok with 14 teams being eliminated.

Than i have a better idea, why don't we eliminate 28 teams and go to the finals right away.

I love the play-in format. It is very entertaining.

Im even okay with 14 teams out in a 60-70 games RS. More quality, less quantity

[Phreak50]

There needs to be a 'within 5 games' clause.

Looking at the West, the difference between 10th and 7th is 12 games. That's bull.

There's no way that 10th team (currently the Spurs) deserve a shot at the playoffs.

[AbeVigodaLive]

It's a ridiculous idea, and I still think it should go away.

Let's play 82 games, work hard to make playoffs, then make it all possibly get thrown out cause of one or two bad games at the end.

Get rid of it.

Get the 6th seed if you’re so worried about being eliminated in the play in.

"Ha... you suck for only winning 48 games instead of 49. Do better!"

At the same time...

"Meh, 33 wins is basically the same thing as 48 wins."

[maxpower8888]

We have roughly 5 games left in the season and the top 10 in the East is locked in. If we didn't have the play-in tournament, we would still be watching who gets into the 8th spot between Brooklyn, Charlotte and Atlanta.

[NZB2323]

It's a ridiculous idea, and I still think it should go away.

Let's play 82 games, work hard to make playoffs, then make it all possibly get thrown out cause of one or two bad games at the end.

Get rid of it.

Get the 6th seed if you’re so worried about being eliminated in the play in.

"Ha... you suck for only winning 48 games instead of 49. Do better!"

At the same time...

"Meh, 33 wins is basically the same thing as 48 wins."

There’s a huge difference between the 7th seed and the 10th seed in the tournament. One of them has to go 2-0 on the road. The other one just can’t go 0-2 at home.

Also, look at the East. The 8th, 9th, and 10th seeds all have the same record. Isn’t a tournament better than a tiebreaker?

[Minnamaker]

I was literally have a discussion about this with a friend this morning.

I was wrong. My original thoughts of a silly gimmick have gone complete 180.

I am entertained.



Sent from my Mi 9T Pro using RealGM mobile app

Same here

It's still a frustrating thought that you start as a 7 seed in the playin and fall out of the playoffs because of two bad games after a 82 game-season.

But that beeing said, the playin make many more games count and positioning in the playoffs is way more important IMO.
1-4 = Home court
5 = well, is 5
6 = locked playoff spot
7 = 1 win + homecourt
8 = 1 win
9-10 = still have a shot

Way more fun to watch the end of the season imo

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app

[DarkAzcura]

82 RS games for everyone to eliminate 10 of 30 teams is pretty damn stupid

So you are ok with 14 teams being eliminated.

Than i have a better idea, why don't we eliminate 28 teams and go to the finals right away.

I love the play-in format. It is very entertaining.

I mean, yes? Not to the two team idea, but generally the point of having a long regular season should be to have less playoff teams. In the end, that’s what would actually make the regular season intense all season long. I would actually want to eliminate 20 teams. 5 teams from each conference. The battles between the actual good teams would be fun to watch. Right now y’all are having fun watching a 9 and 10 seed battle for seeding. Imagine if it was that intense for the 4-6 seeds. Better quality teams fighting it out.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Get the 6th seed if you’re so worried about being eliminated in the play in.

"Ha... you suck for only winning 48 games instead of 49. Do better!"

At the same time...

"Meh, 33 wins is basically the same thing as 48 wins."

There’s a huge difference between the 7th seed and the 10th seed in the tournament. One of them has to go 2-0 on the road. The other one just can’t go 0-2 at home.

Also, look at the East. The 8th, 9th, and 10th seeds all have the same record. Isn’t a tournament better than a tiebreaker?

Won't dispute any of that... was simply responding to your "go get the 6th seed then" reply.

I see the entertainment value for the play-in tournament, while acknowledging it makes the regular season even more irrelevant for some teams sometimes.

[duppyy]

I'm enjoying it but can understand why some people hate it. tbh it adds more excitement towards the end of the season instead of teams just resting players and everyone is just waiting for playoffs to start.

[sp6r=underrated]

It's a ridiculous idea, and I still think it should go away.

Let's play 82 games, work hard to make playoffs, then make it all possibly get thrown out cause of one or two bad games at the end.

Get rid of it.

Get the 6th seed if you’re so worried about being eliminated in the play in.

"Ha... you suck for only winning 48 games instead of 49. Do better!"

At the same time...

"Meh, 33 wins is basically the same thing as 48 wins."

The Suns in 2015 won 48 games and missed the playoffs while the Hawks made it with 38 wins. Was that fair?

YES!!

The league for very sensible business reasons wants geographic balance between the playoff teams to maximize fan interest. The league has decided, IMO* incorrectly, that 8 teams per conference should make it.

Being that we have 8 teams per conference making it the NBA added a play-in to play hard at end of season. It works. Teams are trying harder to get the 6th seed than in the past. If you want a guaranteed 6 seed the NBA told you what you needed to do at the beginning of the season, be top 6 in your conference.

*It should only be the top 6.

The NBA expanded to 8 teams per conference in 1984. There have been 152 1-8/2-7 series during that time. The lower seed has won 6.5% of the time. Only 2 times has a 7 or 8 seed made the Conference Finals. It should just be 6 teams per conference.

[sp6r=underrated]

82 RS games for everyone to eliminate 10 of 30 teams is pretty damn stupid

So you are ok with 14 teams being eliminated.

Than i have a better idea, why don't we eliminate 28 teams and go to the finals right away.

I love the play-in format. It is very entertaining.

I mean, yes? Not to the two team idea, but generally the point of having a long regular season should be to have less playoff teams. In the end, that’s what would actually make the regular season intense all season long. I would actually want to eliminate 20 teams. 5 teams from each conference. The battles between the actual good teams would be fun to watch. Right now y’all are having fun watching a 9 and 10 seed battle for seeding. Imagine if it was that intense for the 4-6 seeds. Better quality teams fighting it out.

If we wanted to make division titles cool again, the NBA could go back to 4 divisions and just have the 4 division winners meet in the playoffs.

It would make being in the playoffs a real accomplishment rather than what it is. But the flipside, and why the NBA would never do it, a lot of fans only follow the NBA for their team.

Once they're eliminated in December you'll have a ton of empty seats.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Get the 6th seed if you’re so worried about being eliminated in the play in.

"Ha... you suck for only winning 48 games instead of 49. Do better!"

At the same time...

"Meh, 33 wins is basically the same thing as 48 wins."

The Suns in 2015 won 48 games and missed the playoffs while the Hawks made it with 38 wins. Was that fair?

YES!!

The league for very sensible business reasons wants geographic balance between the playoff teams to maximize fan interest. The league has decided, IMO* incorrectly, that 8 teams per conference should make it.

Being that we have 8 teams per conference making it the NBA added a play-in to play hard at end of season. It works. Teams are trying harder to get the 6th seed than in the past. If you want a guaranteed 6 seed the NBA told you what you needed to do at the beginning of the season, be top 6 in your conference.

*It should only be the top 6.

The NBA expanded to 8 teams per conference in 1984. There have been 152 1-8/2-7 series during that time. The lower seed has won 6.5% of the time. Only 2 times has a 7 or 8 seed made the Conference Finals. It should just be 6 teams per conference.

A couple of things...

1. Atlanta and Phoenix were in different conferences. That's a HUGE difference here.

2. The NBA had 23 teams in 1983, it's added 7 teams since. And I see it less about who will win the title, (obviously, the #7 and #8 seeds are longshots), than rewarding teams for their work over an 82-game schedule.

3. Again, I'm not against the entertainment factor of the play-in. Nor, the extra money and attention it brings. Only, that while it optimizes the value of trying to win during the season sometimes... it also de-values it for others sometimes. As with anything, there's a trade-off. In the end, money and entertainment will win out and the play-in is gonna stick around.

[maxpower8888]

Even before the play-in, there was at least a 90% chance that the 7th and 8th seeded teams would lose in the first round to the 1st and 2nd seeds. The play-in just makes this percentage rise when you have teams that may finish below 8th place getting into the first round just to get trampled.

What is the point of playing 82 games just to eliminate 10 teams??? What I like about the NFL and MLB is that the teams that have shown themselves to be above the pack get into the playoffs, and you get truly competitive playoffs. For example, if the playoffs were only the top 6 in each conference, the chance that a 6th seed knocks off a 1st seed is still low, but much higher than an 8th seed doing it.

[Elnegron]

82 RS games for everyone to eliminate 10 of 30 teams is pretty damn stupid

So you are ok with 14 teams being eliminated.

Than i have a better idea, why don't we eliminate 28 teams and go to the finals right away.

I love the play-in format. It is very entertaining.

it's stupid and unfair for the 7 and 8 seed. U have 82 games to qualify period

[Elnegron]

Would rather eliminate the play in. Would rather see a mini series of the 1r teams to missed the playoffs fight for lottery order. This way u kill tanking

[Quattro]

There needs to be a 'within 5 games' clause.

Looking at the West, the difference between 10th and 7th is 12 games. That's bull.

There's no way that 10th team (currently the Spurs) deserve a shot at the playoffs.

Agreed. The twolves are the big losers here. They shouldn’t have to risk their entire season against teams that far behind them.