Race for 8 seed in NBA is a joke.

[warriorschamps]

Here is the problem with this argument. You have learn to crawl before you walk, before you learn to run. How many teams have gone from winning 10 games to straight to winning the championship. It doesn't happen.

Look at Golden State. They had to gradually build up to that. You can say what you want about changing coaches but even that is part of the process as well. Same with Michael Jordan's bulls. They were a 40 win team before they were a 50 win team before they were a championship team. Even if the Sixers got Durant this offseason which they won't, who is a 1000 times better than anyone they will get in the draft they still wouldn't be competing for a championship next year.

In most things in life, most people have to pay their dues. Nba teams are no different. Being a 40 win team and getting smashed by a great team in the 1st round is all part of the growing process.

[Spicy P]

Great idea. Let's watch 22 teams tanking during the regular season. I'd love to see more D-League teams like the Sixers instead of a bunch of teams competing hard every night.

[NBAfan3024]

Why not just have the best 4 teams make the playoffs with this logic

[bs_and_cs]

No surprise a Philly fan has no clue about sports.

[Rupert Murdoch]

People are making fun of the OP but he is 100% right. Oakland A's GM Billy Beane once made the comment that "Your team either has to be rebuilding for something special or be on the verge of something special.To be in between is foolish." Being an 8th seed in the playoffs with no franchise player in place is completely pointless. A team needs to either have a franchise player in place or draft very high in the lottery to get a franchise player. If they don't, they'll never win a championship. They'll never be on the verge of being something special. Sure, the Spurs were able to land Kawhi Leonard at 15 but that was a once in a blue moon type thing. It'll be a while before another player of that caliber comes along who is available that late in the draft.

[Onus]

Here is the problem with this argument. You have learn to crawl before you walk, before you learn to run. How many teams have gone from winning 10 games to straight to winning the championship. It doesn't happen.

Look at Golden State. They had to gradually build up to that. You can say what you want about changing coaches but even that is part of the process as well. Same with Michael Jordan's bulls. They were a 40 win team before they were a 50 win team before they were a championship team. Even if the Sixers got Durant this offseason which they won't, who is a 1000 times better than anyone they will get in the draft they still wouldn't be competing for a championship next year.

In most things in life, most people have to pay their dues. Nba teams are no different. Being a 40 win team and getting smashed by a great team in the 1st round is all part of the growing process.

This can you imagine how if only the top teams played playoff games with young teams getting no experience in playoff type atmosphere games? The young teams would never stand a chance. It usually takes years of losing in the playoffs before you break the barrier of winning a championship. As everyone says playoff basketball is just different than regular season basketball.

The Warriors were probably only a handful of teams that never made a conference finals that actually won a championship.

[cucad8]

Well, of course I get that.....However, I can honestly say that the Iquodala years in Philly hurt the 76ers as a franchise. Making the playoffs with a team that had no shot to win the title & no prospects of getting a lot better in the future was not ENTERTAINING. It made people really not give 2 **** about the 76ers in Philly. When the Iverson teams made the playoffs for the first time people went nuts in this city about the 76ers because we had a superstar & while we may have lost the first few years in the 2nd round or so people were hyped because they could see the team getting better in the future.

I think hindsight makes people view things pretty differently. 10-11 season for Philly, you can call them "treadmill" because, well, anytime a team is a 7th, 8th seed, people like to say that without giving any thought to it. They made the playoffs at .500, but were able to steal one game against the big 3 in Miami, which is impressive. And there was a TON of reason to be excited about the team. And I imagine if I looked back through threads from 5 years ago, the 76ers would be getting a lot of votes in the ol' "Who has the brightest future" polls that pop up every year.

They had a team that improved by 14 games over the previous season, had a younger vet in Iguodola, a 20 year old Jrue Holiday in his 2nd season, a 22 year old #2 pick in Evan Turner, 22 year old Spencer Hawes, 22 year old Thaddeus Young, 23 year old Jodie Meeks, who looked lilke a good young 3&D player, 24 year old 6th man in Lou Williams. The following season they got past the 1st round, and added Vucevic and Lavoy Allen, who both showed flashes their rookie season.

It's nothing but hindsight to say that a team that featured 6 out of the 9 players in their primary rotation at 24 and under was destined to be nothing but treadmill. There was incredible room for growth. And there was WAY more reason for optimism watching that team grow, and go on to win a playoff series the following year, than to think the 3 centers they have now, coupled with picks is a better spot. Or that you had more fun watching a garbage 10 win team over a .500 team that was the 5th youngest in the whole league that year. Total hindsight, revisionist thinking.

[6ixSideSniper]

Did people forget about the Baron Davis Warriors upsetting the Mavs??

There's a reason why there's a team slotted 1 and 8 (we don't need to get into this), but that's why the 1st seed usually wins, but once in awhile you get an upset, and that's what sports is really made of.

[Rupert Murdoch]

Why not just have the best 4 teams make the playoffs with this logic

What reason is there not to have the best four teams make the playoffs? It works fine for college football and it's worked very well in baseball for many years. There's only been two teams ranked lower than a #3 seed that has won the NBA championship. They are the 1969 Celtics (#4 seed) and the 1995 Rockets (#6 seed). If your team is ranked lower than a #4 seed, it's a virtual impossibility that they'll go on to win the championship. So what's the point of being there? This isn't college where schools are just happy to make the NCAA tournament. These are the pros with the best teams and players in the world. There's no such thing as a moral victory. There's just winners and losers.

[MrBigShot]

Playoff experience is very valuable, for one. And making the 8th seed doesn't necessarily mean you are a treadmill team either. It can mean you are an inexperienced young team on the rise, like the Pistons/Jazz. Maybe neither wins a championship but I'd much rather a team that eventually contends and always comes up short than a team that spends several years putting a really bad product on the floor that nobody wants to watch in hopes of a miracle.

[BNelley24]

People are making fun of the OP but he is 100% right. Oakland A's GM Billy Beane once made the comment that "Your team either has to be rebuilding for something special or be on the verge of something special.To be in between is foolish." Being an 8th seed in the playoffs with no franchise player in place is completely pointless. A team needs to either have a franchise player in place or draft very high in the lottery to get a franchise player. If they don't, they'll never win a championship. They'll never be on the verge of being something special. Sure, the Spurs were able to land Kawhi Leonard at 15 but that was a once in a blue moon type thing. It'll be a while before another player of that caliber comes along who is available that late in the draft.

THANK YOU for clearing up my point. In the NBA you're either a low seed with a superstar on the up & up OR you're a stagnant franchise going no where and just wasting time in the playoffs. No other league really has this dilemma. It is an issue in the NBA and unfortunately really hard to fix. They added the amnesty clause which is great because it allows teams to rid of overpaid players. That is one fix, but many more need to be made.

Listen, I'm not advocating TANKING. I hate it, but the truth is honestly it is better for the franchise as a whole to be in the race for a top 3 pick rather than sit in the middle of the pack, facts are facts.

I truly believe that Hinkie's plan wasn't necessarily to just purposely suck. His goal was to find a superstar along with finding diamonds in the rough. He also was against overpaying for marginal talent. The result? Unloading guys like Jrue Holiday, Turner, etc....giving guys like Grant, Covington room to get minutes, and acquiring as many draft picks as possible. The result was losing games, but in the long run he has set up the 76ers franchise in a great position.

[BNelley24]

Playoff experience is very valuable, for one. And making the 8th seed doesn't necessarily mean you are a treadmill team either. It can mean you are an inexperienced young team on the rise, like the Pistons/Jazz. Maybe neither wins a championship but I'd much rather a team that eventually contends and always comes up short than a team that spends several years putting a really bad product on the floor that nobody wants to watch in hopes of a miracle.

Like I've stated, the exception is when teams who have superstars or are on the up & up make the playoffs. They still have no shot to win the title which kind of sucks, but you can get excited to watch them.

For all the bashers of Hinkie's plan. Which would have been better for the franchise. Signing Jimmy Butler or other average/above average players during last year's off-season. Winning 20 more games and having no shot to get the 1st pick. OR having a great shot at getting Ingram/Simmons who could potentially be franchise altering players?

[Spicy P]

Here is the problem with this argument. You have learn to crawl before you walk, before you learn to run. How many teams have gone from winning 10 games to straight to winning the championship. It doesn't happen.

Look at Golden State. They had to gradually build up to that. You can say what you want about changing coaches but even that is part of the process as well. Same with Michael Jordan's bulls. They were a 40 win team before they were a 50 win team before they were a championship team. Even if the Sixers got Durant this offseason which they won't, who is a 1000 times better than anyone they will get in the draft they still wouldn't be competing for a championship next year.

In most things in life, most people have to pay their dues. Nba teams are no different. Being a 40 win team and getting smashed by a great team in the 1st round is all part of the growing process.

Agreed. You have to build a winning culture. Purposely losing every season does not set the right tone for the organization. I don't know where people have gotten this idea that tanking is the only way to win. Ask the Kings or Timberwolves how well the tanking has been working for them. If you look at the recent champions, the teams all have a winning history (Spurs, Lakers, Celtics, Mavs, Heat). Spurs didn't need to tank and win the lottery to add guys like Ginobili, Parker, Leonard, Aldridge to their core. We have yet to see an all-out tanking strategy lead to a championship, but all of a sudden it's the only formula to success.

[Rupert Murdoch]

This can you imagine how if only the top teams played playoff games with young teams getting no experience in playoff type atmosphere games? The young teams would never stand a chance. It usually takes years of losing in the playoffs before you break the barrier of winning a championship. As everyone says playoff basketball is just different than regular season basketball.

The Warriors were probably only a handful of teams that never made a conference finals that actually won a championship.

The Bad Boy Pistons and Jordan's Bulls were top 4 seeds for years before they were able to break through. So were the Kobe-Shaq Lakers teams for that matter. They would have still gotten plenty of playoff experience if only the top four teams were allowed to make the postseason. So I don't understand the "it helped talented young teams get over the hump" argument.

[mattao313]

Cause people have hope their team gets better whether internal progression or signing players. Just like a fan of a horrid team does. You can't tell the future not every 1st overall pick is a superstar or even a star. IMO it's not fun looking at draft prospects a month into the season.

[Kwakle]

It gives valuable experience to the players on the team. For some players, it might be their first trip to the playoffs. They can build off that experience so that they can perform better next year. It also builds a culture of winning. It sets an achievable goal for a team to strive for. This year it might be 8th seed and next year it might be the 5th seed. If everyone felt the same way the op did, you might as well cut it down to 4 teams from each conference. Fans want to see their teams compete!

[basketball royalty]

Tanking is the same mentality as someone who would rather buy lotto tickets and pray then get a regular job.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Edrees]

To get playoff experience to help your team move in the right direction.

[koogiking]

Did people forget about the Baron Davis Warriors upsetting the Mavs??

There's a reason why there's a team slotted 1 and 8 (we don't need to get into this), but that's why the 1st seed usually wins, but once in awhile you get an upset, and that's what sports is really made of.

And the 8th seed 99 Knicks, And the 8th seed Grizzlies upset the 2011 Spurs, and the 76ers upset the 1 seed Bulls in 2012(Rose ACL injury) and were 10 points and a game 7 away from getting to the ECF over the Big 3 Celtics.

Imagine if those teams just tanked? That Knicks and Warriors team are both going to be remembered throughout history. The Grizzlies playoff upset was the beginning to a 6 year run of being a strong Western Conference team

[baldur]

one solution would be reduce the total games of first round. best of 5 would be more open to surprises. but the thing is what is the point in being favour of a 40 win team against 72 team win?