Wark has an idea to shake up the playoffs

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

Mark Warkentien has an idea.

Consider three seasons ago, when the valiant Hornets won 39 games despite injured starters missing an astounding 133 contests. Meanwhile, in other cities, there were whispers of teams tanking in efforts to improve chances at drafting Greg Oden or Kevin Durant. But if Warkentien had his way, the Hornets, despite the West's 10th-best record, still could have made the playoffs. The tankers too.

See, the Nuggets' vice president of basketball operations has penned a plan, which he is sharing with members of the NBA's competition committee.

Here it is: In each conference, the top seven teams will make the playoffs, per usual. But after the regular season ends, the remaining teams will all vie for the eighth and final spot in each conference's postseason. There will be a single-elimination tournament, and the winner has the honor, if you will, of playing the No. 1 seed.

This plan gives postseason hope to all fans. It rewards players who fought back from injuries. It gives the NBA a chance to televise these innovative single-elimination games, which means more revenue. And it makes for better basketball in April.

"Everybody wins — fans win, players win, owners win and hopefully the game of basketball wins," Warkentien said. "It's not that this is the answer — it's a suggestion to spur conversation."

NBA commissioner David Stern challenged the competition committee to come up with ideas to improve the final month of the NBA season, and this could do just that.

Understandably, there could be consternation. Take the 2007-08 Nuggets. They won 50 games — the first time an eighth seed did so. But with this new system, 50 wins wouldn't have guaranteed a postseason bid; Denver would have had to first win the single-elimination tournament.

Also, there's a fear that the tournament winner would be, if you will, the hottest team heading into the playoffs (it's apples and oranges, but think back to the 2007 Rockies). A hot team could scorch into the first round and knock off the No. 1 seed. If a team is good enough to be No. 1, it should be able to beat any eighth-seeded challenger, right?

But as Warkentien said, this idea is a dialogue-starter. His plan is to make this an agenda item for the competition committee, which tackles potential rule changes and format changes, and then the committee could ultimately make a recommendation to the board of governors (a.k.a. the owners).

"So this is my idea," Warkentien said. "It's not end all, be all. But let's start talking about this in advance for the next collective bargaining agreement. If there's more revenue, the basketball-related income, midlevels and all that, there's more money for the players."

http://www.denverpost.com/nuggets/ci_13686183

[Chieflion]

Stupid idea in my opinion. All the teams who think they are not good enough can just tank and still have a chance to make the playoffs. And mostly, we all know who the winner of the tourney will be.

[pauls931]

Rips off the eighth seed. They may be better than all the other teams and then have a bad night, or a crappy team have a good night.

I admit it's exciting, but any team can tank, then rest its players at the end of the season for a monster push at the 8th seed. So you could theoretically still make the playoffs and get ticket sales and then get a high draft pick.

[Biggems]

Keep it the way it is.....with with a few exceptions

1. stop giving so much time off between games
If your game starts on Saturday, you play Saturday, Monday, Wed, Fri, Sun, Tue, Thur

If your game starts on Sunday, you play Sunday, Tue, Thur, Sat, Mon, Wed, Fri.

Keep each round lasting no more than 2 weeks.

2. Fix the Finals
I hate the 2-3-2 format. I think the Finals should be 2-2-1-1-1, like the rest of the rounds

3. Shorten First Round
Reduce it from 7 games to 5 games

This makes it more exciting, faster paced, and more apt for first round upsets.

[pauls931]

Why reward a crappy team that just may have a good night.

There would have to be some setback as in dropping in the draft to compensate I suppose. Still unfair, you might have a season where the 8th seed may have 5+ games on the next team clearly being better than the rest and as you say get knocked out by some crap team having a good night.

Also how does homecourt work? Not that I read his post that closely...

[pauls931]

Keep it the way it is.....with with a few exceptions

1. stop giving so much time off between games
If your game starts on Saturday, you play Saturday, Monday, Wed, Fri, Sun, Tue, Thur

If your game starts on Sunday, you play Sunday, Tue, Thur, Sat, Mon, Wed, Fri.

Keep each round lasting no more than 2 weeks.

2. Fix the Finals
I hate the 2-3-2 format. I think the Finals should be 2-2-1-1-1, like the rest of the rounds

3. Shorten First Round
Reduce it from 7 games to 5 games

This makes it more exciting, faster paced, and more apt for first round upsets.

This one gave me a few chuckles... I imagine item 2 has to do with cost and item 3 used to be that way...

I think item 1 is there just to provide more rest for players, also gives older teams a break.

[Biggems]

This one gave me a few chuckles... I imagine item 2 has to do with cost and item 3 used to be that way...

I think item 1 is there just to provide more rest for players, also gives older teams a break.

All 3 are for money....to drag it out as long as possible and make Stern richer. We know Stern only cares about green......and not the true integrity of the game.

If integrity mattered, there would be no home cookin, no superstar calls, or anything like that. A foul would be a foul no matter if you were Air Jordan or Fennis Dembo. Traveling would be traveling no matter if you were Dwayne Wade or Andrew Gage. They wouldnt screw over teams with how they do scheduling, especially back to backs.

Stern is all about the money...so that is why the playoffs are the way they are now.

[pauls931]

True, but I think the 7 game 1st round also helps ensure that the better more marketable teams don't get knocked out early on (Dallas somehow screwed this up) due some crap team that's hot. (this saved Pho twice, 93 and I think 2006?).

I'm not sure what the time off between games has to do with money. Guess he wants to make sure a good show is put on? I figured getting the series over ASAP would save money since time off does not mean more games. Or do you mean the rest increases the chance of series going longer?

edit: Sorry I figured it, time off enables them putting more games on TV and more ad revenue...

This is a good thread, pretty much emphasizes the fact that the NBA is a business like any other existing to make money.

[DPG21920]

I think they should just do away with conferences and divisions. Top 16 teams get into the playoffs and works the same way. 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15...

You change the scheduling to play each team twice, once home, once away. Shorten the regular season, everyone plays an even amount of times.

[pauls931]

^^^
Definitely would have helped in the years when the West was infinitely better than the east such as the Spurs vs Suns finals a few years back.

[boston.balla]

i consider it a very correct method. pairing up 1-16,2-15 etc would do wonders for the meaning of finals, not east vs west but the two best teams in the nba which could be from anywhere, even conference foes.

Imagine a spurs mavs finals ... this forum would be going crazy =))

[Donkeybong]

I think the 9th seed should have more ping pong balls in the lottery than the team in last place. It gives teams more of an incentive to play hard all the way to the end of the season and rewards teams that almost make the playoffs. When a really bad team gets a good player, that player usually can't do shit on that team, so why not put him on a team that is on the cusp of getting a playoff spot. I think you would see a lot more shuffling in playoff teams that way.

The only potential drawback I see is that really shitty teams stay shitty. However, they would still get some high picks.

[Donkeybong]

I think they should just do away with conferences and divisions. Top 16 teams get into the playoffs and works the same way. 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15...

You change the scheduling to play each team twice, once home, once away. Shorten the regular season, everyone plays an even amount of times.

They will never shorten the regular season. Lose too much money.

[DPG21920]

I think the 9th seed should have more ping pong balls in the lottery than the team in last place. It gives teams more of an incentive to play hard all the way to the end of the season and rewards teams that almost make the playoffs. When a really bad team gets a good player, that player usually can't do shit on that team, so why not put him on a team that is on the cusp of getting a playoff spot. I think you would see a lot more shuffling in playoff teams that way.

The only potential drawback I see is that really shitty teams stay shitty. However, they would still get some high picks.

I agree with that entirely. Reward the teams that were trying to win games. Would eliminate tanking. Plus, getting more balls does not guarantee them the highest pick, but certainly a reward for putting forth effort.

[DPG21920]

They will never shorten the regular season. Lose too much money.

I know, just saying what they should do. Maybe just play each team 3 times? Does not extend the regular season by that much and you can alternate which years teams get 2 home games in a series. Plus, it would give you a tie breaker for overall records if two teams are tied.

[pauls931]

I agree with that entirely. Reward the teams that were trying to win games. Would eliminate tanking. Plus, getting more balls does not guarantee them the highest pick, but certainly a reward for putting forth effort.

I take it he's referring to the Clipper revolving door policy...

1. Get high pick if not first.
2. Draw crowds.
3. Don't pay pick watch him leave.
4. Continue to suck and get more high picks.
5. Bonus - leech off lakers.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

This is a non-starter. The bottom 8 teams all playoff for the last seed? That would be 3 extra game days, with travel in between, which would take at least an extra week to play, probably more like 10 days, while the top 7 teams all sit idle (and generating zero revenue).

Why would the NBA ever agree to this obvious revenue-reducer and schedule-wrecker?

[Stump]

What would you guys think if the lottery system was extended to the top five picks and the percentage difference between teams were less heavily weighted (so rather than ranging from 25% to 0.5%, it would range from something like 15% to 4%)?

It would ensure a lot more chaos, discouraging tanking, yet still guarantee the worst teams a top 10 pick.