What is worse for the league?

Wigginstime · Post #1 » by **Wigginstime** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:50 am

Two of the things posters seem to complain about the most is the leagues playoff system and draft system.

Two years ago, poster were furious when Denver got the 3rd seed as a result of winning their conference record despite the fact that they only had the 7th best record in the west.

Last year posters were furious about Portland and Seattle getting the top draft picks despite the fact that teams in the East had worst records.

This year it appears both of these issues could be a major concern. I was just curious what posters feel is a bigger concern.

Post #2 » by **5DOM** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:02 am

A 50 win team not getting in the playoffs.

not getting or getting a draft pick is a result of a bad or good management respectively.

but 50 win team not getting in the playoffs is just sad.

GJense4181 · Post #3 » by **GJense4181** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:04 am

A bad team not getting a high draft pick, IMO.
The front office's job is to assemble a team that can compete in THEIR conference. If it appears that the current roster isn't enough to make the playoffs/advance in the playoffs/win a championship, you can change up the rotation, make a trade, or sign a free agent or two.
It doesn't matter if the 8th seed is a 35 win team or a 42 win team, or 50 win team. They likely will not advance past the first round, most likely would get eliminated in the second round, and is nearly impossible for them to make the finals. Most 7th or 8th seeds simply don't have enough in them to pull off *that* many upsets, regardless of the standings.
A 50 win team NOT making the playoffs is good, because that makes the closing games of the regular season that much more important. Teams can't coast and rest players or throw games, and we enjoy that playoff atmosphere on a nightly basis. I personally enjoy witnessing the 9 Western conference playoff contenders slug it out.
A 50 win team getting a high pick isn't guaranteed to pan out. Look at Darko Milicic. There was no ROOM for him on the Pistons, for they were contending for ECFs and championships. A 50 win team likely has very few holes for a rookie to fill.

Bad teams need the draft to supplement them with the best available incoming talent. They will likely offer playing time for said players and are willing to withstand the growing pains that accompany a rookie logging major minutes. If Miami/Minnesota/New York/Seattle don't get a crack at a top-flight young talent that will, at the very least, put fans in the seat and bring some positive attention to the franchise, the season is over before it started.

jefe · Post #4 » by **jefe** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:29 am

I'll go with a 35 win team making the playoffs. IMO, the playoffs are the flagship "product" of the NBA and watering it down with lesser quality competition/basketball is the worst for the NBA.

Hood President · Post #5 » by **Hood President** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:02 am

i think a player drafted going to the west does bad for the nba. im gonna say option number 4. a team under .500 doesnt bother me since im a hawks fan. and in a 3-4 years the west will be the east and vice versa.

The_Believer · Post #6 » by **The_Believer** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:08 am

A 50 win team not making the playoffs is just sad, especially when a team that has 30-35 wins makes it. Getting high or low draft picks doesn't mean anything, just look at Darko and Manu and their draft positions.

A.J. · Post #7 » by **A.J.** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:14 am

a 35 win team making the playoffs

Post #8 » by **Young_Star11** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:15 am

50 wins and missing out on the playoffs or 35 and making them.

Would mean everyone would push for a change in playoff brackets.

L-Burna89 · Post #9 » by **L-Burna89** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:50 am

Definitely a 35 win team making the playoffs. Draft positioning really isn't that big of a deal, because like was already said, it doesn't really guarantee that you're going to get a better player anyway.

A 50 win team potentially missing the playoffs does suck(especially being a fan of the Nuggets, one of the teams who could be the odd one out), but at least it is breeding great competition and exciting games down the stretch(and then some amazing playoff match ups all throughout the Western Conference), which is what this league is supposed to be about.....competition and entertainment for the fans.

But a 35 win team making the playoffs is just horrible for the NBA....for exactly the reason I mentioned above. Half the first round series' in the East aren't even going to be bearable to watch. Boston or Detroit versus New Jersey, Atlanta, Indiana, Chicago, or Charlotte? No one is going to get any enjoyment out of watching that kind of butt raping.

I mean ****....just looking at the standings right now, there is actually more of a difference record wise between 1st and 2nd place in the East(6 games) than that between 1st and 9th in the West(5.5 games).

GJense4181 · Post #10 » by **GJense4181** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:06 am

I simply don't see how a 35 win team making the playoffs is THAT bad for the NBA. Those teams are less likely to lose their own talent via free agency or trade demands if they at least have an extended season. It's easy to make a free agency pitch and/or renegotiate with your own if you're a playoff team, period.
Players from GSW, Denver, or other teams that narrowly miss the playoffs in the top-heavy West could defect to the Eastern conference and, in turn, later balance out the league.
Not that it's going to happen, but say Allen Iverson soon leaves Denver and heads to Atlanta. He still makes the playoffs, the Hawks immediately improve, yet Denver isn't *screwed* because San Antonio and Phoenix are aging rapidly, meaning they could sneak into the playoffs yet.

I am all for increased parity. A good team acquiring a high draft pick in theory decreases parity, but the likely result would be rotted talent. Players could flock to the Eastern conference if it means a chance at the post-season, and likewise could leave the West if it means missing out a post-season appearance despite 50+ wins.
However, bottom-feeders have few opportunities to acquire top talent besides lucking out and receiving a high draft pick. Then they can draft a Lebron, Bosh, Howard, Wade, Oden, Durant, etc type player that will attract talent later in the future. They cannot sign free agents without overpaying (which will later put them in another bind) and some players can refuse to play for/be traded to awful teams.

HarlemHeat37 · Post #11 » by **HarlemHeat37** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:11 am

none of the above..

I don't have a problem with the NBA's playoff system..if you don't make the playoffs, then you should have played better..you should have been as good as those other teams that did make it..if you were tied for 8th? well you should have won those tiebreakers..if your team can't even get the 8th seed, then you probably weren't going to win a championship anyways..the NBA is doing you a favor by giving you a chance at the lottery..

I don't feel bad at all for bad teams that don't get better picks..if your team needs a good pick that badly, your management must have **** up somewhere down the line..and if it's due to a great player retiring?(like MJ) then I'm not going to feel bad for you, since you already had your success..

our generation is too soft..we have WAY too much sympathy for people that don't deserve it..let's feel bad for the people that actually deserve it..not NBA teams that weren't good enough to make the playoffs, or teams with bad management..

mistatwo mayn · Post #12 » by **mistatwo mayn** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:18 am

how about a B.S. divisional top spots guarantee for the playoffs? Now that's BS.

GJense4181 · Post #13 » by **GJense4181** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:27 am

^What's wrong with that? You'd have to scrap divisions entirely in order to change that rule.

aikgtd · Post #14 » by **aikgtd** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:40 am

A 50 win team not making the playoffs

CoachPop · Post #15 » by **CoachPop** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:49 pm

The answer is obviously a 35 win team making the playoffs. The playoffs are what it's all about, so for a team that only managed to win 35 games during the regular season to make it in, it majorly dilutes the whole affair, and kills the interest level for that series, and even to a certain extent that conference. A 50 win team not making the playoffs on the other hand just shows how great the level of play was in the regular season. So there's no way that that is a bad thing, not sure how anybody could vote for that one..

Dtown84 · Post #16 » by **Dtown84** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:10 pm

GJense4181 wrote:^What's wrong with that? You'd have to scrap divisions entirely in order to change that rule.

Not really all you have to do is say division winners make the playoffs.

The way they have it now is silly, Utah would be the 4th seed, with the 6th best record, but would effectively be a fifth seed because they wouldn't have home court.

Really I don't have a problem with any of them.

A 50 win team missing the playoffs has been great for basketball as it's led to one of the best playoff races in NBA history.

A 35 win team making it is meh, they wouldn't be the first abysmal team to make the playoffs and they won't be the last.

The 50 win team getting a lottery pick would lead to crazy off season buzz, so that's good for the NBA too.

A 35 team not getting a high pick? Unless it's a big market, or has a superstar on it (read, New York, Miami) I doubt the league cares.

Post #17 » by **Icness** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:45 pm

No way should a 50-win team get a high draft pick. Let's say the Nuggets win the lottery after going 51-31 and missing the playoffs...is that fair to the Heat and TWolves, who weren't competitive at all and need loads of help to get to 31-51? If I were a fan of a truly crappy team and we lost out on a high draft pick to a 50-win team, I'd be real tempted to just throw in my towel of fandom. I'll go back to when my Cavs won the lottery and got Lebron; had Memphis or Denver won that lottery I would have been upset but not felt like it was unfair. But had the Rockets won that lottery after going above .500 and missing the playoffs, I would still be crying foul.

The playoff format is that you have to be one of the 8 best teams in your conference. If that takes 52 wins or just 35 wins, doesn't matter. Look at it this way--if you aren't one of the 8 best teams in your own conference, do you really feel cheated out of a title run? Maybe if you beat up on the weaker conference you wouldn't be in 9th place...

chrbal · Post #18 » by **chrbal** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:52 pm

I voted the 35 win playoff team. It really can't be seen as bad, to me, to have a 50 win non-playoff team because that means all 8 that got in really had to earn it.

To me, no sub .500 team should ever be in the playoffs. I don't know what I would do to change it, but i really don't like it.

Its pretty much "you suck, but so do a lot of the other teams in your conference"

Scalabrine · Post #19 » by **Scalabrine** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:41 pm

The_Believer wrote:A 50 win team not making the playoffs is just sad, especially when a team that has 30-35 wins makes it. Getting high or low draft picks doesn't mean anything, just look at Darko and Manu and their draft positions.

your incorrect, the lower the pick the bigger the pool of players there is for the team to choose from, there is a much higher chance (and stats would easily support this) that more talent has been drafted with the 10th pick then even the 31st pick, some teams have good scouting and some teams get lucky with the way some players games translate positively to the NBA. Its assinine to say that getting the 14th pick isnt more beneficial than getting the 20th pick because even then the players picks at 14 have most likely been more successful than players picked at 20.

KB20 · Post #20 » by **KB20** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:29 pm

jefe wrote:I'll go with a 35 win team making the playoffs. IMO, the playoffs are the flagship "product" of the NBA and watering it down with lesser quality competition/basketball is the worst for the NBA.

QFT