RealGM

NBA Playoffs - 1st Round, how many games do you prefer?


NBA Playoffs - 1st Round, how many games do you prefer? (3, 5, or 7)

1) Best of 3
2) Best of 5
3) Best of 7 (currently) - Began in 2003

abadubadaba kapa lasmokesomedope

which in helium prime means take peace at what you have not what you can give.

best of 5

Best of 5.

But again, it's a business, and they'll stay with 7.

I refer to the Best of 7 Series as the Laker rule. It was created for money of course, but it was also a way to make sure the best team would always win in a Playoff Series. Unfortunately that did not work out so well for Dallas last season.

I prefer 5 , although if they could set up 7 game series that went every other day as opposed drawing them out over 2-3 weeks I would prefer 7.

5.

7 games. Its more exciting then a 5 game series. I don't get how people think less is better.

Take a look at the Western Conference playoff standings and then try and convince me that it's good to have only 5 games to decide which teams move on. We play an 82 game schedule to decide standings, so why cut the playoffs short? Series that go 7 games are worth watching and series that arn't worth watching wont go 7 games. It works perfectly fine with the system we have in place.

best of 15

RoyceDa59 wrote:Take a look at the Western Conference playoff standings and then try and convince me that it's good to have only 5 games to decide which teams move on. We play an 82 game schedule to decide standings, so why cut the playoffs short? Series that go 7 games are worth watching and series that arn't worth watching wont go 7 games. It works perfectly fine with the system we have in place.

Very well put.

I would prefer 5 games for the first round.

Best of 5, though yeah I wouldn't mind a best of 7 with better spacing.

7

Best of seven adds dollars and drama. Best of 5 means less wear on players. Fans of teams with good starters but a weak bench should be calling for shorter rounds. If you got a a durable starting 5 and a hardcore bench mob you want 7 to continue to beat on your opponent.

This year in west is well deserbed 7 games series.
For example Boston vs Hawks don't deserve 7 games. There's no way Hawks will win 4 vs Celtics.
But who can say Denver can't vs NO?

what if they forgot about the Playoffs altogether.

Have everyone play the same schedule for 100 games. The team with the best record wins the championship. If there is a tie they play a 1 game tiebreaker.

RoyceDa59 wrote:Take a look at the Western Conference playoff standings and then try and convince me that it's good to have only 5 games to decide which teams move on. We play an 82 game schedule to decide standings, so why cut the playoffs short? Series that go 7 games are worth watching and series that arn't worth watching wont go 7 games. It works perfectly fine with the system we have in place.

This year is almost the exception to the rule. Does Boston & Detroit really need to play a best of 7? They will just sweep in 4. Was it two years ago in the East when just about all 4 match-up's were 4 and done with half the games as 20 point blow outs?

Keep it 7, or go to 1. I think both have their perks and negatives.

I'd love to see a single-elimination tournament involving NBA teams. Every game like a Game 7.

In general, I'd prefer a shorter series, it adds considerably to the intensity of game. However, clearly doing that would make it so the better team loses more frequently (which I could live with) and far less playoff revenue (which the NBA would never accept).