LeBron James on the play-in tournament:"Whoever came up with that needs to be fired"

[Rapcity_11]

you're sacrificing the integrity of the entire RS for a couple of one-game cool match ups, it doesn't make any sense, the more chances teams have to make the POs, the less they give a **** about the RS because it's just that much easier to make the postseason...it's ridiculous.

and again, why stop at 20/30 teams making the playoffs? where is your threshold where it's enough?

Except that teams have to give more of a **** about the RS in order to get a top 6 seed. That's why Cuban/LeBron etc. are whining about it. They actually need to prioritize winning RS games. Also, if you lose in the play-in you didn't make the playoffs. 16 teams make the playoffs.

I'd be ok with less teams making the playoffs. 12 would be ideal, but not sure byes are a good idea. 8 seems too low. Bottom line is the play-in for 7/8 is way, way, way better than the old system. Adds importance to the RS without changing the # of playoff teams. Oh, and we get to watch 6 bonus high stakes games. Wins all around.

Answer this....

Why not just have the top 2 in each conference make the playoffs? Or just go straight to a finals, 1 vs 1?

you could do that actually, plenty of leagues worldwide just take the top 2 teams in the rankings and put them in the championship game, so not sure what your point is.

and what you are not realizing is that while single game play-in games can be exciting, creating MORE opportunities for teams to make the POs does 2 things...1) devalued the RS even more because it's even EASIER to make the PS now and 2) devalues the POs themselves...all the arguments you are making for a 20 team POs can be made for a 24 team PO or 26 team PO...again, why should it end here?

in what other league in the world do 66% of the teams make the postseason?

What league takes the top 2 teams and puts them in the championship? And it was a question, not a point. Would you support that?

How can you keep repeating that it devalues the RS, when teams are scratching and clawing (and whining) trying to get to the 6 seed?

16 teams make the playoffs in the NBA (which is not 66%...). 16 teams make the playoffs in the NHL. Football and baseball recently added playoff teams. Soccer overseas is completely different, can't really compare. Although the MLS seems to have 14/27 make it.

[Rapcity_11]

what would've been MUCH better is making the 7/8th seeds the play-ins instead of 9/10. THAT would have been much more exciting.

How the **** would that work?

[clyde21]

Except that teams have to give more of a **** about the RS in order to get a top 6 seed. That's why Cuban/LeBron etc. are whining about it. They actually need to prioritize winning RS games. Also, if you lose in the play-in you didn't make the playoffs. 16 teams make the playoffs.

I'd be ok with less teams making the playoffs. 12 would be ideal, but not sure byes are a good idea. 8 seems too low. Bottom line is the play-in for 7/8 is way, way, way better than the old system. Adds importance to the RS without changing the # of playoff teams. Oh, and we get to watch 6 bonus high stakes games. Wins all around.

Answer this....

Why not just have the top 2 in each conference make the playoffs? Or just go straight to a finals, 1 vs 1?

you could do that actually, plenty of leagues worldwide just take the top 2 teams in the rankings and put them in the championship game, so not sure what your point is.

and what you are not realizing is that while single game play-in games can be exciting, creating MORE opportunities for teams to make the POs does 2 things...1) devalued the RS even more because it's even EASIER to make the PS now and 2) devalues the POs themselves...all the arguments you are making for a 20 team POs can be made for a 24 team PO or 26 team PO...again, why should it end here?

in what other league in the world do 66% of the teams make the postseason?

What league takes the top 2 teams and puts them in the championship? And it was a question, not a point. Would you support that?

How can you keep repeating that it devalues the RS, when teams are scratching and clawing (and whining) trying to get to the 6 seed?

16 teams make the playoffs in the NBA. 16 teams make the playoffs in the NHL. Football and baseball recently added playoff teams. Soccer overseas is completely different, can't really compare. Although the MLS seems to have 14/27 make it.

i would support that more than supporting the vast majority of the league making the POs, yes, absolutely.

and it devalues the regular season because it's easier to make the POs...it's pretty straight forward. the more chances teams have to make the POs it makes the RS more and more irrelevant the vast majority of time. and teams would have been scratching to grab the 6th seed regardless, like it happened every year BEFORE the play-in. acting like that's only happening because now because likely **** 9/10th seed can make the POs now only to get blown out in the 2nd round makes any difference on the competitiveness of the RS is, imo, wayyyyyy off.

and no, now 20 teams make the POs in the NBA. we've had this conversation before. the play-in is a the postseason regardless of the semantics you're gonna throw out now.

[clyde21]

what would've been MUCH better is making the 7/8th seeds the play-ins instead of 9/10. THAT would have been much more exciting.

How the **** would that work?

the top 4 seeds get byes, which means teams will actually have a reason more than seeding to grab a top 4 seed? pretty straightforward.

[Rapcity_11]

you could do that actually, plenty of leagues worldwide just take the top 2 teams in the rankings and put them in the championship game, so not sure what your point is.

and what you are not realizing is that while single game play-in games can be exciting, creating MORE opportunities for teams to make the POs does 2 things...1) devalued the RS even more because it's even EASIER to make the PS now and 2) devalues the POs themselves...all the arguments you are making for a 20 team POs can be made for a 24 team PO or 26 team PO...again, why should it end here?

in what other league in the world do 66% of the teams make the postseason?

What league takes the top 2 teams and puts them in the championship? And it was a question, not a point. Would you support that?

How can you keep repeating that it devalues the RS, when teams are scratching and clawing (and whining) trying to get to the 6 seed?

16 teams make the playoffs in the NBA. 16 teams make the playoffs in the NHL. Football and baseball recently added playoff teams. Soccer overseas is completely different, can't really compare. Although the MLS seems to have 14/27 make it.

i would support that more than supporting the vast majority of the league making the POs, yes, absolutely.

and it devalues the regular season because it's easier to make the POs...it's pretty straight forward. the more chances teams have to make the POs it makes the RS more and more irrelevant the vast majority of time. and teams would have been scratching to grab the 6th seed regardless, like it happened every year BEFORE the play-in. acting like that's only happening because now because likely **** 9/10th seed can make the POs now only to get blown out in the 2nd round makes any difference on the competitiveness of the RS is, imo, wayyyyyy off.

and no, now 20 teams make the POs in the NBA. we've had this conversation before. the play-in is a the postseason regardless of the semantics you're gonna throw out now.

I repeat, what league takes the top 2 teams and puts them in the finals? ​

You seriously don't think teams care about getting a top 6 seed? Because if they do care, then obviously they are gonna try harder meaning they are valuing the RS more than before. I mean, are you even paying attention to the league right now?

It's literally the play-in FOR THE PLAYOFFS. That's not semantics, it's a literal fact. If you lose, you don't make the playoffs

[Rapcity_11]

what would've been MUCH better is making the 7/8th seeds the play-ins instead of 9/10. THAT would have been much more exciting.

How the **** would that work?

the top 4 seeds get byes, which means teams will actually have a reason more than seeding to grab a top 4 seed? pretty straightforward.

So 5-8 compete for seeds 5&6? So the top 2 would get a bye, not top 4. And you really think teams want 2 weeks off? I don't see it.

[clyde21]

What league takes the top 2 teams and puts them in the championship? And it was a question, not a point. Would you support that?

How can you keep repeating that it devalues the RS, when teams are scratching and clawing (and whining) trying to get to the 6 seed?

16 teams make the playoffs in the NBA. 16 teams make the playoffs in the NHL. Football and baseball recently added playoff teams. Soccer overseas is completely different, can't really compare. Although the MLS seems to have 14/27 make it.

i would support that more than supporting the vast majority of the league making the POs, yes, absolutely.

and it devalues the regular season because it's easier to make the POs...it's pretty straight forward. the more chances teams have to make the POs it makes the RS more and more irrelevant the vast majority of time. and teams would have been scratching to grab the 6th seed regardless, like it happened every year BEFORE the play-in. acting like that's only happening because now because likely **** 9/10th seed can make the POs now only to get blown out in the 2nd round makes any difference on the competitiveness of the RS is, imo, wayyyyyy off.

and no, now 20 teams make the POs in the NBA. we've had this conversation before. the play-in is a the postseason regardless of the semantics you're gonna throw out now.

I repeat, what league takes the top 2 teams and puts them in the finals? ​

You seriously don't think teams care about getting a top 6 seed? Because if they do care, then obviously they are gonna try harder meaning they are valuing the RS more than before. I mean, are you even paying attention to the league right now?

It's literally the play-in FOR THE PLAYOFFS. That's not semantics, it's a literal fact. If you lose, you don't make the playoffs

it's still part of the postseason, it's win or go home, it's the playoffs no matter what you call it. we've had this convo before and I'm not gonna have it again, if you don't think the play-in is part of the postseason, well, more power to you.

[clyde21]

How the **** would that work?

the top 4 seeds get byes, which means teams will actually have a reason more than seeding to grab a top 4 seed? pretty straightforward.

So 5-8 compete for seeds 5&6? So the top 2 would get a bye, not top 4. And you really think teams want 2 weeks off? I don't see it.

2 weeks? would be more like 10 days and yes, this would be a much better set up instead of having almost 70% of the league make the POs for **** and giggles.

[KyRo23]

Is it 7 vs 8 and 9 vs 10? How is this even fair. So a team that earned a spot during the regular season (7 and 8) will for sure be out and a team who fell out of playoffs (9 and 10) for sure will get in? It should be 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9. Correct me if I'm wrong though as I may be. I'm not entirely sure how the play-in works.

I think you have another game if you lose between 7-8 vs the 9-10 winner.

Yup. I think a lot of people might be missing that. The 7/8 seeds have massive advantages.

If a 7 seed loses 2 home games to lower seeds, I really don't feel bad that they missed the playoffs.

Wait so say 7 plays 8 and 9 plays 10, say 7 and 9 win their matchups. They're in? Or is there another round? If there isn't another round, it's so much worse on the 7 and 8 as they are typically the tougher match up for each other. Again, sorry for the ignorance on the play-in.

[Rapcity_11]

I think you have another game if you lose between 7-8 vs the 9-10 winner.

Yup. I think a lot of people might be missing that. The 7/8 seeds have massive advantages.

If a 7 seed loses 2 home games to lower seeds, I really don't feel bad that they missed the playoffs.

Wait so say 7 plays 8 and 9 plays 10, say 7 and 9 win their matchups. They're in? Or is there another round? If there isn't another round, it's so much worse on the 7 and 8 as they are typically the tougher match up for each other. Again, sorry for the ignorance on the play-in.

Loser of 7/8 plays winner of 9/10 game.

[Rapcity_11]

i would support that more than supporting the vast majority of the league making the POs, yes, absolutely.

and it devalues the regular season because it's easier to make the POs...it's pretty straight forward. the more chances teams have to make the POs it makes the RS more and more irrelevant the vast majority of time. and teams would have been scratching to grab the 6th seed regardless, like it happened every year BEFORE the play-in. acting like that's only happening because now because likely **** 9/10th seed can make the POs now only to get blown out in the 2nd round makes any difference on the competitiveness of the RS is, imo, wayyyyyy off.

and no, now 20 teams make the POs in the NBA. we've had this conversation before. the play-in is a the postseason regardless of the semantics you're gonna throw out now.

I repeat, what league takes the top 2 teams and puts them in the finals? ​

You seriously don't think teams care about getting a top 6 seed? Because if they do care, then obviously they are gonna try harder meaning they are valuing the RS more than before. I mean, are you even paying attention to the league right now?

It's literally the play-in FOR THE PLAYOFFS. That's not semantics, it's a literal fact. If you lose, you don't make the playoffs

it's still part of the postseason, it's win or go home, it's the playoffs no matter what you call it. we've had this convo before and I'm not gonna have it again, if you don't think the play-in is part of the postseason, well, more power to you.

For the 3rd time, what league takes the top 2 teams and puts them in the finals?

[HEKTOR]

Lebron has spoken. Expect this to be the last year of the play-in format.

[Rapcity_11]

the top 4 seeds get byes, which means teams will actually have a reason more than seeding to grab a top 4 seed? pretty straightforward.

So 5-8 compete for seeds 5&6? So the top 2 would get a bye, not top 4. And you really think teams want 2 weeks off? I don't see it.

2 weeks? would be more like 10 days and yes, this would be a much better set up instead of having almost 70% of the league make the POs for **** and giggles.

How would a play-in tourney + first round only take 10 days?

And do you really think teams want 10+ day byes?

[KyRo23]

Yup. I think a lot of people might be missing that. The 7/8 seeds have massive advantages.

If a 7 seed loses 2 home games to lower seeds, I really don't feel bad that they missed the playoffs.

Wait so say 7 plays 8 and 9 plays 10, say 7 and 9 win their matchups. They're in? Or is there another round? If there isn't another round, it's so much worse on the 7 and 8 as they are typically the tougher match up for each other. Again, sorry for the ignorance on the play-in.

Loser of 7/8 plays winner of 9/10 game.

And 7 is in if they win vs 8 off the start? That's actually not THAT bad.

[JonFromVA]

Viewership should be crazy if the Lakers land in the tourney and their playoff hopes come down to one game.

[clyde21]

So 5-8 compete for seeds 5&6? So the top 2 would get a bye, not top 4. And you really think teams want 2 weeks off? I don't see it.

2 weeks? would be more like 10 days and yes, this would be a much better set up instead of having almost 70% of the league make the POs for **** and giggles.

How would a play-in tourney + first round only take 10 days?

And do you really think teams want 10+ day byes?

yes, they would gladly take it to get healthy any day of the week. Superbowl teams get TWO weeks off and they only play 1 game, not 7 like the NBA.

look, we ain't gonna agree on this. we fundementally disagree. you want more teams in the POs, I want less teams in the playoffs. we're not gonna be on the same page on this.

[Rapcity_11]

Wait so say 7 plays 8 and 9 plays 10, say 7 and 9 win their matchups. They're in? Or is there another round? If there isn't another round, it's so much worse on the 7 and 8 as they are typically the tougher match up for each other. Again, sorry for the ignorance on the play-in.

Loser of 7/8 plays winner of 9/10 game.

And 7 is in if they win vs 8 off the start? That's actually not THAT bad.

Yup. Like I said, 7/8 have a massive advantage.

[Marrrcuss]

One day into this controversy, AD plays like AD and makes it seem like the whole topic is pointless as it relates to the lakers.

[Rapcity_11]

2 weeks? would be more like 10 days and yes, this would be a much better set up instead of having almost 70% of the league make the POs for **** and giggles.

How would a play-in tourney + first round only take 10 days?

And do you really think teams want 10+ day byes?

yes, they would gladly take it to get healthy any day of the week. Superbowl teams get TWO weeks off and they only play 1 game, not 7 like the NBA.

look, we ain't gonna agree on this. we fundementally disagree. you want more teams in the POs, I want less teams in the playoffs. we're not gonna be on the same page on this.

Football is incredibly different sport, which rest and recovery being super, super important. You really can't compare the 2. NBA teams complain about getting rusty after like 3 days all the time.

My whole stance is that the play-in is way better than the old system. There's no option of a 12 team playoff. I'd actually support that, but we both know that's never going to happen. The choice is play-in vs straight top 8. And the choice is very clear which is better.

And for the 4th time, what leagues have their top 2 teams immediately play in the finals?

[pilkoids]

Funny he only bitches about this as soon as they drop to 7th

There’s the 5th seed right now

They were 7th when he made the comment.