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

[Woodsanity]

Not a fan of it honestly. RS games are already barely relevant as it is. HCA doesn't help all that much considering how hard it is to get.

Why reward treadmill teams that suck? They might get lucky or the other team gets hurt so they can make it when its not deserved.

[Schiltzenberger]

I will never like the play in, it's garbage.

The narrative of it stopping tanking is nonsense, because tanking is not as common as the people that whinge about it. Every year people cry over tanking, but it's only the Sixers that truely tanked and abused it. For some reason every team in the bottom 5 or so are apparently tanking, what a load of garbage.

Every guy on the court is playing for a contract, you really think they are going to deliberately play bad and lose future earning potential, so the team can get a slightly better pick chance???? you guys are insane.

The Sixers showed that to properly tank you need to trade away anyone productive, because the guys that are on the court are going to try to win. Tanking happens off the court, not on it.

[LivingLegend]

I will not apologize. I think it is stupid to give the #10 seed a chance at making the playoffs which is the same chance that other teams who scrapped and clawed all season to get to the #7-#8 seed get.

Its like there is no reward for the #7-#8 seeds besides getting the chance to get bounced from the playoffs entirely if you play a bad game.

The only teams the play-in benefits are teams that underachieved the entire year and are thrown a lifeline at the end of the season in the #9-#10 seeds. Why are we rewarding those teams again????

It is literally like the NBA is saying the 1 play-in game matters more than the 3-4-5-6-7 wins in the regular season that separate the 7-8 and 9-10

[aboveAverage]

It’s not fair to eliminate a decent 7th or 8th seed team based on one elimination game. Basketball can be largely luck-based for a single game. The point of a seven game series is to make sure that the best team truly wins. Single elimination is not for the NBA unless you want gimmick teams lucking their way into getting destroyed by the 1 or 2 seed in the first round. Really dumb.

[Mickey8]

This tournament still suck and its not fair, it gives the lifeline to the trash teams such as Lakers this season. They should eliminate this crap, or they should have NBA April Madness instead, then the final 4 tournament.

[GusFring]

Why not just shorten playoff series? Would make things so much more interesting. first and second round series should be shortened to 5.

[LivingLegend]

Oh also, in the WC right now--there are 12 GAMES that separate the 7 and 10 seeds. Your telling me the 10 seed should have the same reward/chance at the playoffs as the 7 seed who won t-w-e-l-v-e more games than they did during the regular season??

For what? Because they didnt decide to tank? Are you kidding me.

Their reward for not tanking is a 12 game makeup?????

[sp6r=underrated]

Oh also, in the WC right now--there are 12 GAMES that separate the 7 and 10 seeds. Your telling me the 10 seed should have the same reward/chance at the playoffs as the 7 seed who won t-w-e-l-v-e more games than they did during the regular season??

For what? Because they didnt decide to tank? Are you kidding me.

Their reward for not tanking is a 12 game makeup?????

You're right that the 9-10 seeds are generally poor. But guess what so are the 7-8 seeds. As I said before no team without a top 7 record has won a title in nearly 30 years.

Why not get rid of the 7-8 seeds alltogether?

The only reason people consider this absurd is status quo bias.

The major reason people get upset about a play-in tournament for first round cannon fodder is status quo bias towards a seven game series

[Anticon]

My main suggested change to the play in is that it should only be triggered when a playoff team is under 500 or a non playoff team is at 500. So it would only apply to the Clippers spot in the West and would likely cover all of 7-10 in the east, since Atlanta and Charlotte look to be around 500.

It's crazy to me that a 45+ win team has to compete against teams way below 500. It keeps teams that should be long out of it around with the illusion of competitiveness.

That said, it has reduced tanking, made the end of the season much better and created a class of separation between top 6 teams and the rest, which has merit. So overall it's been good.

[LivingLegend]

Oh also, in the WC right now--there are 12 GAMES that separate the 7 and 10 seeds. Your telling me the 10 seed should have the same reward/chance at the playoffs as the 7 seed who won t-w-e-l-v-e more games than they did during the regular season??

For what? Because they didnt decide to tank? Are you kidding me.

Their reward for not tanking is a 12 game makeup?????

You're right that the 9-10 seeds are generally poor. But guess what so are the 7-8 seeds. As I said before no team without a top 7 record has won a title in nearly 30 years.

Why not get rid of the 7-8 seeds alltogether?

The only reason people consider this absurd is status quo bias.

The major reason people get upset about a play-in tournament for first round cannon fodder is status quo bias towards a seven game series

Because 7-8 seeds are typically younger teams looking to make the leap and giving them valuable playoff experience even for 1 series is great for their growth and moral going into the following season.

Just because you dont win the championship doesnt mean there isnt a lot of positives to take from a playoff experience.

[Rapcity_11]

Oh also, in the WC right now--there are 12 GAMES that separate the 7 and 10 seeds. Your telling me the 10 seed should have the same reward/chance at the playoffs as the 7 seed who won t-w-e-l-v-e more games than they did during the regular season??

For what? Because they didnt decide to tank? Are you kidding me.

Their reward for not tanking is a 12 game makeup?????

The 10 seed has to win two roads games to make the playoffs. The 7 seed has to win one home game. That's not even close to the same chance at the playoffs. And that's before considering the 7 seed is most likely the better team to begin with.

[Rapcity_11]

The play in was stupid before, and remains so. In the West, a team that is 9 games over .500 will have to play a team currently 2 games under .500 just to get the 7th seed, and then we see the riveting matchup of two teams that are 10+ games under .500 battling it out for 8th.

In the East, the race for the 8th seed in a normal playoff format would have meant that Brooklyn was holding on to the 8th with Charlotte (0.5 games back) and Atlanta (1 game back) right behind them. Would have been a pressure filled final week. Instead, none of those teams have to worry because they'll all make the play-in.

I understand why it was implemented ($$$$$$$$) but let's not try to pretend that any of this is great theatre. I hope the big market loving NBA enjoys having Cleveland, Charlotte, Atlanta, Minnesota, New Orleans, and possibly San Antonio all involved in this.

Getting a higher seeding in the play-in is a SIGNIFICANT advantage.

[SkyBill40]

Oh also, in the WC right now--there are 12 GAMES that separate the 7 and 10 seeds. Your telling me the 10 seed should have the same reward/chance at the playoffs as the 7 seed who won t-w-e-l-v-e more games than they did during the regular season??

For what? Because they didnt decide to tank? Are you kidding me.

Their reward for not tanking is a 12 game makeup?????

You're right that the 9-10 seeds are generally poor. But guess what so are the 7-8 seeds. As I said before no team without a top 7 record has won a title in nearly 30 years.

Why not get rid of the 7-8 seeds alltogether?

The only reason people consider this absurd is status quo bias.

The major reason people get upset about a play-in tournament for first round cannon fodder is status quo bias towards a seven game series

That's not necessarily accurate. A 7-8 seed may have lost their star or key players for an extended period of time which causes them to drop off dramatically. While it's true that they're just sneaking into the hunt, that doesn't immediately mean they're hot garbage. And to the point of winning the title, ALL of the teams are looking for that promised land. They all start off at the same point. Where they ultimately end up is just part of the struggle.

Personally speaking, I don't like the idea of the play in as it rewards teams which don't honestly deserve to be there at that point with a chance to move on. All of the regular season should count and if you want to make the playoffs, you'd damned well better win games and earn it.

[Shock Defeat]

Yep reward them wolves for being much better than the 8th seed. They should not need to be in the play in. Make it so that if a team not in the playoffs is behind by 3 or less games, then trigger the play in format.

[AbeVigodaLive]

People on this forum like to complain about the "meaningless" NBA regular season.

Meanwhile, even though the play-in has more teams jockeying for position, thus making games more "meaningful"... as noted, a 7th place team might have as many as 15 more wins over the first 82 games which will mean nothing as they're still relegated to the play-in tournament.

[sp6r=underrated]

Oh also, in the WC right now--there are 12 GAMES that separate the 7 and 10 seeds. Your telling me the 10 seed should have the same reward/chance at the playoffs as the 7 seed who won t-w-e-l-v-e more games than they did during the regular season??

For what? Because they didnt decide to tank? Are you kidding me.

Their reward for not tanking is a 12 game makeup?????

You're right that the 9-10 seeds are generally poor. But guess what so are the 7-8 seeds. As I said before no team without a top 7 record has won a title in nearly 30 years.

Why not get rid of the 7-8 seeds alltogether?

The only reason people consider this absurd is status quo bias.

The major reason people get upset about a play-in tournament for first round cannon fodder is status quo bias towards a seven game series

That's not necessarily accurate. A 7-8 seed may have lost their star or key players for an extended period of time which causes them to drop off dramatically. While it's true that they're just sneaking into the hunt, that doesn't immediately mean they're hot garbage. And to the point of winning the title, ALL of the teams are looking for that promised land. They all start off at the same point. Where they ultimately end up is just part of the struggle.

Personally speaking, I don't like the idea of the play in as it rewards teams which don't honestly deserve to be there at that point with a chance to move on. All of the regular season should count and if you want to make the playoffs, you'd damned well better win games and earn it.

It is pretty much accurate. Only 2 7/8 seeds all time have ever made the conference finals.

If the goals is to make the RS count we have way too many teams in the post-season. Can't stay healthy enough to win 44 games, you should miss the playoff if the regular season is to mean anything.

If we're gonna have so many teams making the post-season there is no harm in having a little play-in tournament. These clubs are almost always.

[alienpick]

Its almost as stupid a NASCAR trying to force a "playoff" format in. smh

[Jables]

Basketball fans are never allowed to make fun of professional wrestling fans again.

It's all about the sports entertainment.

[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.

[CS707]

I lean towards thinking it’s unnecessary but don’t really care much one way or the other. Given the choice I’d probably like expanding the tournament at the expense of regular season games.l though. More games where teams actually have to play to win.