League Standings and the Playoffs

[Bensational]

I'm not one for research, so i'm sure the answers out there that someone knows of, but i wonder if the league's ever thought about rearranging the whole seeding situation.

right now i find it really quite sad, and kind of offensive, that there's 2 teams in the West that have winning records and stand to miss out on the playoffs. Actually, of those teams, Denver has a very comparable record to ours. and they can't even crack the top 8 of the West. PLUS, there's a 3rd team in the West that has a better record than our 7th and 8th seeds in the East.

it just seems that even though the East has been proven to be the weaker conference, and despite the fact that teams in the East play the majority of their games against East Coast teams, they STILL can't put together 8 teams with winning conferences.

and there's the argument that maybe this will lead free agents to consider coming to the East so they have an easier run to the playoffs/conference finals/finals whatever - but there's no indication of that being a trend whatsoever.

i'd be really interested to see the league try a finals set up that garuntees the top the 4 in each conference get a spot in their respective brackets, but the 4-8 spots are up for grabs for the rest of the league.

i'm not even sure what effect it would have on the overall outcome. you'd have West Coast teams that are arguably stronger, but have lower records because they play in the West all season, filling out one of the 4-8 seeds in the East Coast bracket, and they'd be a potential upset nearly every time.

but if that were the case then there'd be absolutely no desire for players to go to the East Coast beyond personal preference to play there.

thoughts?

P.S. i'm aware that the league goes in cycles between conference strengths. i'm just wondering if the league has ever made adjustments, thought of making adjustments, or plan to make adjustments to the playoff brackets?

[locomagicfan]

There was an interesting article about this in ESPN the other day...

Its sorta been talked about to death. David Stern said at his ASG conference that there wont be any changes any time soon.

ESPN made a GREAT point that a team like Denver who might not make the postseason would end up in the lottery, with potential to get the first round pick, and then become even stronger. Meanwhile a team like NJ that is just stinking it up gets a later pick and less likely to improve.

[lovehoops01]

I can see why a lot of people -- especially in the West -- might want to see that happen because of the competitive nature of the playoffs.

But I don't see the owners of East Coast teams voting for that because you would be taking money out of their pockets. The postseason money is pretty much 100 percent profit for them and helps many teams in both conferences break even.

Plus, fans on the East Coast (where there is a larger concentration of viewers normally because the population is bigger there) could be totally taken out of the playoffs, with no interest at all if all the teams in the playoffs were Western Conference teams, and that would hurt the nationwide TV ratings.

And then -- especially in the first round -- travel logistically could be a big problem because if you would have, say, Miami, playing Golden State in the first round, the extra distance would make the travel time longer and would really have the players dragging because they would be going from one coast to the other every three days or so. And you really can't make the playoffs longer than they already are to compensate.

In my view, it only would serve to widen the disparity between the two conferences also because if only the West teams were making the playoffs, why would anyone ever want to play for an East team? I'm not quite sure what the reason is now (other than East teams keep shipping their disgruntled star players to the West), but guys seem to prefer playing in the West anyway. It's probably at least partly because there are fewer cold-weather cities there, and I don't think the fans in the West are as critical on the players as the ones in the East. (Houston fans might be the exception.)

[aleZ]

The current system sucks big time and yeah, it's sad that some good WestCoast teams are left out of the postseason.

IMO, a solution would be to pick the best records regardless of conferences and divisions: if you have the best % you go ahead and get your playoff spot, from top to bottom. This would jumpstart some eastern conference teams who clearly play decent only half the season every year, cuz getting there is easier on this side of the state.

Again in my opinion, it doesn't matter how many west or east teams are in the playoffs as long as (only) the best squads get there. But I see that today's NBA is more about marketing and money than sports, so it won't happen anytime soon.

[KingRobb02]

Basically, David Stern wants to keep the divisions and conferences relevant. Right now 7 of the best 16 teams are in the east. If he were to let the West have 9 and tell 1 of the bad east teams to stay home he feels like that wouldn't be fair. He has also said that the only way to be fair would be to have a schedule where every team plays every other team an equal number of times (maybe play 3 games each making for a 87 game season) and then take the top 16. Though this is a bit extreme, at least he is thinking of ways to change things.

In my opinion, the fact that Denver may miss the playoffs when they have such a good record isn't really that bad since they knew the situation coming into the season. It's wrong for a lot of reaons, but i don't think anyone should lose sleep over it.

[cwas2882]

If/when Miami has a resergence next year, I don't see thins really being a problem. Maybe I'm being naive.

An idea posted on the general board, was that the worst 14 teams are entered into the draft lottery and then draft order is seeded strictly by record.

[Just Plain Mark]

I'm not sure I think there is a problem. Generally the West has a better record in head to head match up's against the east, but I'm not so sure that if the schedules were changed so as to eliminate conferences and divisions and everyone played each team the same number of times, that the "West" teams would have records equal to what they have now.

I'd say the bottom of the West is much worse than the bottom of the East and that has to count for something.

[aleZ]

They can't make all teams play each other an equal number of times per season, it's a logistics nightmare as Lhoops said in his post. A team like Orlando playing LA would have to go back and forth between East and West 8-10 times a year with most games being unwatchable because of fatigue, injuries etc.

They just need to look at the better records and give credit where it's due: under .500 teams stay home no matter divisions, conferences and all of that. At the same time, they could increase the available spots and decrease the series' length from 7 back to 5 games as it's become a joke "waiting" for game three-four cuz the first games don't mean crap anymore.

[mhectorgato]

It would difficult to re-arrange the playoff system.

Someone mentioned taking division leaders and then the best records after that, but that could lead to odd number of teams in a conference.

16 total teams, with 6 guaranteed spots, leaving 10 spots based on record. So what happens if there are 7 West teams and 3 East? You'd have 6 teams in in the East and 10 teams in the West. Would the West have an additional round? Would additional teams get a bye?

Or if there are 8 West and 2 record based teams in the playoffs. Then you'd have 13 teams in the West and 5 in the East. How do you handle the odd-number?

The only way would be to remove the Conferences come playoff time. But then you could have a 1st round game between Boston and LAL. That would wear out them, whereas a Dallas/Houston team would not.

It's a real tough situation to fairly and equally balance out.

The only way to attempt to even things out would to be adjust the lottery system. As Bensational mentioned, Denver >> NJ but NJ's pick <<< Denver's. But how do you logically and fairly balance that out?

[KingRobb02]

The thing is, who cares if Denver ends up winning the lottery? They missed the playoffs, so they should be entitled to all the benefits that come from that. Was the league destroyed when the Pistons got the #2 pick in 2003? Would it be bad for the NBA if Beasley were a Nugget and there was suddenly 1 more good team to watch on TNT? I have always said that the only way to stop teams from tanking would be to stop giving preferential treatment to losers. If the league gave every team a 1 in 30 and put every team into the lottery, then there would be no incentive to lose. History shows us that there are always gems to be found in the high teens and 20s. If teams want to rebuild, losing should not be a way to do that. I would rather see Denver keep playing hard down the stretch rather than to start seeing them jockying with Portland for lottery position.

About the travel situation. If the NBA did decide to scrap the conferences, we would just move to a situation where the games are 2-3-2. This minimizes travel and makes fatigue less of an issue.

[surflawyer]

Was the league destroyed when the Pistons got the #2 pick in 2003?

No (withthe exception of how it screwed the MAGIC see Darko trade) but had they drafted properly they would have had Melo Anthony, Chris Bosh or D. Wade which IMHO would have created a dynasty which would have effectively precluded us from the finals for years.

[KingRobb02]

-= original quote snipped =-
No (withthe exception of how it screwed the MAGIC see Darko trade) but had they drafted properly they would have had Melo Anthony, Chris Bosh or D. Wade which IMHO would have created a dynasty which would have effectively precluded us from the finals for years.

But that is a big IF. Who says that Chris Bosh doesn't get benched just like Darko did. Who says that Carmelo isn't discouraged because he has to sit on the bench behind a guy he thinks he is better than. Who says Darko wouldn't be an all-star today if his spirit wasn't crushed for 2 years? IF the Magic had drafted Ginobli, Parker, Arenas, and Boozer when they had the chance, we might be a dynasty right now, but that doesn't make things unfair. Great teams are good for the game. I would not be mad one bit if the Blazers won the lottery again.

[mhectorgato]

But that is a big IF. Who says that Chris Bosh doesn't get benched just like Darko did. Who says that Carmelo isn't discouraged because he has to sit on the bench behind a guy he thinks he is better than. Who says Darko wouldn't be an all-star today if his spirit wasn't crushed for 2 years? IF the Magic had drafted Ginobli, Parker, Arenas, and Boozer when they had the chance, we might be a dynasty right now, but that doesn't make things unfair. Great teams are good for the game. I would not be mad one bit if the Blazers won the lottery again.

Bosh >>>>>> Darko.

Darko <<<<<< all-star

[KingRobb02]

-= original quote snipped =-
Bosh >>>>>> Darko.

Darko <<<<<< all-star

Right now, yes. But since we were playing the what if game, I thought I would postulate about what might have happened if things went differently.

[mhectorgato]

Right now, yes. But since we were playing the what if game, I thought I would postulate about what might have happened if things went differently.

Playing what ifs like this is avoiding the legit issue that surflawyer brought up.

What if Penny and Shaq got along and stayed here? What if Shaq was happy being a big fish in a small pond? What if TMac stuck it out with Dwight? What if we got Duncan and T-Mac? What if we drafted better?

What's the point of going down those roads if they are meaningless?

If Darko wasn't mentally strong enough to handle the situation than he's too fragile to handle the NBA and be a star. Look at JJ - despite being held down by the man, whenever he gets into the game, he's goes at it 100%.

Raw physical talent is only 1 part of the equation.

[KingRobb02]

-= original quote snipped =-

Playing what ifs like this is avoiding the legit issue that surflawyer brought up.

What if Penny and Shaq got along and stayed here? What if Shaq was happy being a big fish in a small pond? What if TMac stuck it out with Dwight? What if we got Duncan and T-Mac? What if we drafted better?

What's the point of going down those roads if they are meaningless?

If Darko wasn't mentally strong enough to handle the situation than he's too fragile to handle the NBA and be a star. Look at JJ - despite being held down by the man, whenever he gets into the game, he's goes at it 100%.

Raw physical talent is only 1 part of the equation.

But the original issue was about whether or not it's bad if a good team gets a good draft pick. I was trying to point out that Detroit picking at number 2 didn't hurt anyone, and that even if they had picked up Bosh, there was no guarantee that he would be the player that he is today.

[mhectorgato]

But the original issue was about whether or not it's bad if a good team gets a good draft pick. I was trying to point out that Detroit picking at number 2 didn't hurt anyone, and that even if they had picked up Bosh, there was no guarantee that he would be the player that he is today.

You don't think that Bosh could get playing time?

Seriously?

Had they picked Bosh, they could potentially have had 5 starting AS players.

[KingRobb02]

-= original quote snipped =-

You don't think that Bosh could get playing time?

Seriously?

Had they picked Bosh, they could potentially have had 5 starting AS players.

Come on Hec. You are missing the point. There are no sure things in the draft. The Nuggets being in the lottery while a team 10 games worse picks at #18 will not be a travesty. I wouldn't even mind if the Nuggets got the top pick.

[Bensational]

It would difficult to re-arrange the playoff system.

Someone mentioned taking division leaders and then the best records after that, but that could lead to odd number of teams in a conference.

16 total teams, with 6 guaranteed spots, leaving 10 spots based on record. So what happens if there are 7 West teams and 3 East? You'd have 6 teams in in the East and 10 teams in the West. Would the West have an additional round? Would additional teams get a bye?

Or if there are 8 West and 2 record based teams in the playoffs. Then you'd have 13 teams in the West and 5 in the East. How do you handle the odd-number?

The only way would be to remove the Conferences come playoff time. But then you could have a 1st round game between Boston and LAL. That would wear out them, whereas a Dallas/Houston team would not.

It's a real tough situation to fairly and equally balance out.

The only way to attempt to even things out would to be adjust the lottery system. As Bensational mentioned, Denver >> NJ but NJ's pick <<< Denver's. But how do you logically and fairly balance that out?

i can't think of a way. the only way to balance it out would be to get some East teams to seriously start to balance out the talent level. we've got Atlanta - all youth with top 5 picks from the past 5-6 drafts or something absurd like that. and look where they are still! then you've got Portland, who've had lottery picks for the last few years and they're stacked with youth and talent and they're already competing for a playoff spot.

the only way i could think of making interconference finals work would be to really make home court advantage count. where you play the majority of games at the higher seeded home court. such as 5@ top seeded and 2@ lower seeded. which is fair to me. there needs to be more incentive for slogging it out ALL season long to compile the best record, and getting more benefit than just playing the worst team in the conference in the first round and getting "an easier run" in the playoffs.

by the quarter finals i'd imagine it'd all balance itself out conference wise anyway.

[drsd]

I just noticed that Memphis is 24 games back of forth place in their division.




NBA Standings

San Antonio 41 17
New Orleans 40 19
Houston 39 20
Dallas 39 22
Memphis 14 45




..