RealGM

If we are to beat Detroit, we switch to the 2 home games, 3 road games, 2 home game format.

If you take the 1st 2 at home, you take big control of the series as it's extremely difficult to take 3 games in a row against the same team. Chances are you go back home for 6-7 with a 3 games to 2 advantage and 2 shots on your homecourt at closing it out.

OTOH, if you split, the other team has the potential to close it out in 5 on their home court. And if you split, you probably go back for games 6-7 down 3-2 needing to win 2 in a row.

Which format do you prefer for the Celtics/the team with homecourt: 2-3-2 or 2-2-1-1-1?

I kind of prefer the 2-2-1-1-1 myself.

FWIW, the Lakers also haven't lost a home game this post-season.

obviously the 2-2-1-1-1 is better for the HCA team... they tried to make it more even for the finals since it is essentially 1st seed vs. 1st seed

Forgot that they changed the format. Obviously, if we get the 2-3-2 format, we can take an early lead but we have to win both games at home. Especially against a good home team like the Lakers. If we split one game here with them, then they will have the opportunity to close it out in 5 games. Either way, someone has to win on the road to have an advantage in the series.

the better team

I dont think the 2-3-2 particularly helps a certain team more then the 2-2-1-1-1, but I feel the 2-2-1-1-1 is overall more balanced and fair to both teams. Like you stated in the 2-3-2, those first 2 games play a HUGE role in the series, as opposed to in the 2-2-1-1-1, where if the home team takes the first 2, then the other team gets 2 more right back to home. I just think gives more balance to the series and doesnt put such emphasis on the first 2 games.

they made it a 2-3-2 series b/c of the long-aaass travel for both teams goin coast to coast. it wouldnt be smart to go 2-2-1-1-1 and hella tired/exhausting, more travel costs, etc. that's my guess ... lol

The Rondo Show wrote:

If you take the 1st 2 at home, you take big control of the series as it's extremely difficult to take 3 games in a row against the same team. Chances are you go back home for 6-7 with a 3 games to 2 advantage and 2 shots on your homecourt at closing it out.

The Rondo Show wrote:

OTOH, if you split, the other team has the potential to close it out in 5 on their home court.

Have you two met?

The home team if they can win game 1 and 2, the away team if they can steal 1 of the first 2, its ridiculous though

I don't think it's a huge difference, but I think it benefits the team with HCA, and rightfully so, because what it forces the other team (Lakers) to do is close the series out in 5 games, otherwise they will have to close it out on the road, which is no easy task either.

2-3-2 vastly favors the team without homecourt since they get the pivotal game 5 on their home floor...which makes no sense. Games 5 and 7 should be rewarded to the team with HCA, plain and simple.

SmoothLikeButta wrote:obviously the 2-2-1-1-1 is better for the HCA team... they tried to make it more even for the finals since it is essentially 1st seed vs. 1st seed

Exactly. There is no HCA in the Finals. They are leveling the playing field with the 2-3-2 format.

Oh wow. This is awful. It helps out the opposite team very much. All they need is a split in the first two and the hca team is in trouble.

SmoothLikeButta wrote:obviously the 2-2-1-1-1 is better for the HCA team... they tried to make it more even for the finals since it is essentially 1st seed vs. 1st seed

I was under the impression that the rationale was more travel related. For same conference, 1-1-1 not a big deal, but for LA-Bos for example, it is a bigger deal. Of course, with the networks controlling the scheduling it is a moot point (how about the gap between game 6 and 7 of the SA/NO series- disgusting.

Just win the first 4 games and you won't be able to tell the difference.

Fencer reregistered wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Have you two met?

MyInsatiableOne wrote:2-3-2 vastly favors the team without homecourt since they get the pivotal game 5 on their home floor...which makes no sense. Games 5 and 7 should be rewarded to the team with HCA, plain and simple.

Bro what are you talking about? I don't care if it's 3-4. One team still gets 4 home games vs. 3. Every team will take 4 home games vs. 3 every time.

It's not easy to win 3 games in a row in the playoffs, even if you have all 3 of those games at home. And the road team still HAS to win one on the road. And if the series goes that far, wouldn't you rather have games 6 and 7 at home?

I think it favors the homecourt team.

If your are the better team you get your usually momentum in games 1 & 2.

And the better team should be able to win both homes games plus one at the road.

If not you get game 6 at home instead of 5. ANY advantage the opposing team has for 4 & 5 thanks to momentum is gone for game 7. They have to win 2 in a row away for 6 and 7. And the hometeam should be good enough to force a game 6.

edit: Basically, win 2 games at of 5 against a supposive weaker team, and in order for you to loss the Finals the opposing team has to close you out on YOUR COURT.

I'd rather have 6 & 7 at home then 5 & 7. Game 5 was ONLY critical because game 6 is in the opponents home.

tombattor wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


Bro what are you talking about? I don't care if it's 3-4. One team still gets 4 home games vs. 3. Every team will take 4 home games vs. 3 every time.

It's not easy to win 3 games in a row in the playoffs, even if you have all 3 of those games at home. And the road team still HAS to win one on the road. And if the series goes that far, wouldn't you rather have games 6 and 7 at home?

But if teams hold serve on homecourt, then the HCA team comes back home for game 6 DOWN 3-2 with no momentum...game 5 is too important to not have at home if you earned HCA.

tombattor wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


Bro what are you talking about? I don't care if it's 3-4. One team still gets 4 home games vs. 3. Every team will take 4 home games vs. 3 every time.

It's not easy to win 3 games in a row in the playoffs, even if you have all 3 of those games at home. And the road team still HAS to win one on the road. And if the series goes that far, wouldn't you rather have games 6 and 7 at home?

I think quite a few posters are sleeping on this issue.

In the 37 years with a 2-2-1-1-1 format the finals went 7 games 13 times (35.1%).

In the 22 years since the format was changed the finals have gone to 7 games only 3 times (13.6%)

It is very likely there will be no 7th game thus no home court advantage for either Boston or Detroit.

Your point about 3 in a row is well taken but in a 2-2 series game 5 is usually the decision maker and that game will be in LA.

If the home team stumbles in game 1 or 2 (like in the Celtic-Piston series) the team with the best record is in deep trouble right away as there is an extended stretch of away games coming up.

Not only is it crazy to change the format for the finals, then NBA is stupid too because it cost them money (less games).

I don't like the 2-3-2 format because some teams like Cleveland and Washington could have gotten away with it after the easy regular season.