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

[Aragorn]

I prefer the 7. But, the scheduling needs to be condensed, if possible.

[guy1]

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.

That would be horrible.

[TheSecretWeapon]

I've kinda liked the idea of going 2-of-3 in the first round; 3-of-5 in the second round, and 4-of-7 after that. The longer series serves to reduce the likelihood of there being an upset, and I think it would actually add drama in the first round because it would get to the "backs against the wall game" basically immediately.*






* -- I have NO expectation that such a plan would ever actually be used. Best of 7 is just fine.

[KingClutch]

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.

Terrible. The playoffs is like a new season. It's not just x amount of more games.

[Blame Rasho]

I like 7....

[Vindicater]

5 games all the way, the west this year is a anomaly

Most of the time the first round goes to the seeds (barring 4/5 match)

[a-rod]

I like 7....

like wise

[Iggyemu]

5. They shouldn't have changed it.

[carrottop12]

I actually like 7 because it gives the best teams time to rest in between the first and second round if they sweep it quickly. Kind of a little reward for those teams.

It also benefits young teams who haven't been to the playoffs get a little more accustomed to the playoffs with out being completely out of it two games into the series.

For example look at the Jazz last year.

They weren't quite on their game for the first two games against Houston last season, and if it was just a 5 game series in all likely hood the series would have been over. Instead it gave the Jazz a small cushion to adjust and instead of having to win three straight they just had to win 4 of 5. It evens out the playing field a little bit, makes the series more exciting.

Also, I feel it's good for the owners which is important. If I am correct I believe most owners make over a million dollars gross profit every playoff game which really helps considering a lot of teams can't fill the arena during the regular season. It helps teams make their money back

And another thing is it opens up the game to the fans a little bit more. Instead of only 2 or 3 games that are possible to go it, it jumps to 3 or 4 which is nice.

[triplet1984]

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.

I agree, but they really have to tighten up the schedule. Games every other day.

[CanadianKnicksFan]

Seven.

The more games the better.

[YaoisGodsAnswer]

Id say 5, filter out the bad teams faster.

[RobertGlory]

to me 5 is a different challenge.

i used to hear so often that so and so team would be "so dangerous in a short series"

when i was little the best of 5 first round set it apart from hockey, which was best of 7 but seemed more random than the NBA best of 5.

now baseball has a best of 5 first round and it's terrible

what they should do is start the #1 and #2 seeds with a 1 game lead in round 1 and make the #7 and #8 seeds win 4 while #1 and #2 only have to win 3