Should the NBA change its playoffs system?
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:31 am
I'm exasperated, seriously. For every good playoffs game, there are the drawn-out 48 minutes of half court sets, and I'm wondering, really? Do we need this many teams playing this many games?
I think the first 4 games of most first round matchups are duds about 80% of the time. The better teams tend to slack off against weak opponents, and the competition really ain't playoff level. I love the West, which makes it even worse that GST, a dangerous team even if they deteriorated down the stretch, couldn't qualify with 48 wins while a bunch of 41 or less win teams made it. I really think the best 16 (or even 12, seriously, and seed them 1-12) teams should make it to make for intense first round matchups and the best quality of basketball possible.
The timing may not be right, but I'm tired of watching 40 minutes of half-court nothingness out East to await hopefully a wire-to-wire finish. I think it's overdone and I think the NBA should look at quality, not quantity. I think that would do ratings a favor.
And yeah, I recognize Kobe and Paul's teams could be meeting up in the WCF, and that's awesome, but does the road there have to consist of a month of boring basketball? 16 teams get a crack at 7 game series? That's a bit much.
I outlined this in my blog much more articulately along with what my plan for playoff basketball should be. I'm not sure if I can link it, so if I can't, just take it down: http://focusbalancedtrapoften.blogspot. ... eally.html
I'd love to hear what you guys think because as much as enjoy the NBA, I think the system could be A LOT more intense. It could actually live up to the advertisements if teams had five games to win three games in the first round AND they were playing against great competition (so yeah, I'm one of those people who attribute Atlanta and Philly's victories to the apathy of Boston/Detroit).
I think the first 4 games of most first round matchups are duds about 80% of the time. The better teams tend to slack off against weak opponents, and the competition really ain't playoff level. I love the West, which makes it even worse that GST, a dangerous team even if they deteriorated down the stretch, couldn't qualify with 48 wins while a bunch of 41 or less win teams made it. I really think the best 16 (or even 12, seriously, and seed them 1-12) teams should make it to make for intense first round matchups and the best quality of basketball possible.
The timing may not be right, but I'm tired of watching 40 minutes of half-court nothingness out East to await hopefully a wire-to-wire finish. I think it's overdone and I think the NBA should look at quality, not quantity. I think that would do ratings a favor.
And yeah, I recognize Kobe and Paul's teams could be meeting up in the WCF, and that's awesome, but does the road there have to consist of a month of boring basketball? 16 teams get a crack at 7 game series? That's a bit much.
I outlined this in my blog much more articulately along with what my plan for playoff basketball should be. I'm not sure if I can link it, so if I can't, just take it down: http://focusbalancedtrapoften.blogspot. ... eally.html
I'd love to hear what you guys think because as much as enjoy the NBA, I think the system could be A LOT more intense. It could actually live up to the advertisements if teams had five games to win three games in the first round AND they were playing against great competition (so yeah, I'm one of those people who attribute Atlanta and Philly's victories to the apathy of Boston/Detroit).