The Finals 2-3-2 Format

[picc84]

Whats the consensus on this?

Does everyone agree that it gives even more of an advantage to the homecourt team?

If you win the first two games, it basically guarantees you win the championship, with the exception of a team like the Dallas Mavs.

Its almost impossible to win 3 straight games against a finals caliber opponent. So invariably the lower seed will drop one of the 3 middle home games. Then you've got two home games to close out the series.

I understand why they do it, with the travel between coasts and everything. And I don't have a huge problem with it.

Just wondering if anyone else sees the huge advantage here.

Though I suppose, if the road team takes one of the first two games, the HC team is probably fucked.

Does it even out, or does the HC team have more of an advantage than usual?

[MiamiHeat]

You have it backwards.

It gives the advantage to the lower seed. 3 straight home games is nothing to laugh at.

This format basically means the first 2 games of the series are MUST WIN GAMES for the higher seed. If you drop 1 and go 1-1 with the next 3 games at their home, you are fucked.

The 2-3-2 format is one of the big reasons the Heat took the Mavericks momentum away.

[TampaDude]

You have it backwards.

It gives the advantage to the lower seed. 3 straight home games is nothing to laugh at.

This format basically means the first 2 games of the series are MUST WIN GAMES for the higher seed. If you drop 1 and go 1-1 with the next 3 games at their home, you are fucked.

^ this

[picc84]

Interesting.

So you could argue the first two games decide how the series will go.

If the HC team takes both, they are going to win because its hard to take 3 straight home games.

If the road team takes one, they are going to win because they go back to their house squared up and with 3 straight home games to play.

[Ghazi]

lol picc going out of his way to take a shot at the mavs

lol faggot

<--------

[jacobdrj]

I am not a fan of it. IMHO it gives the advantage to the road team. In the NBA the HCA does have an effect. Not always good, but it is a statistically calculable trend per team per season.

[TheMACHINE]

for it or not, it HAS to be this way.

[baseline bum]

I love the 2-3-2 format. It makes games 1 & 2 critical for the home team.

[picc84]

lol picc going out of his way to take a shot at the mavs

lol faggot

<--------

lol hope

[j.dizzle]

I can care less, the better team will win.

[ChrisRichards]

I love the 2-3-2 format. It makes games 1 & 2 critical for the home team.
This^


2-3-2 Format guarantees 6 games in a series.

[TampaDude]

It's designed to save two cross-country trips for each team.

[Giuseppe]

& was approved by the league rank & file at the time it was implemented.

[J.T.]

Spurs lost Game 2 against the Nets at home in 2003 and still won the series.

If anything the format changes the dynamics of Game 5, since that's usually a home game for the team with home court in the first three rounds.

[The Gemini Method]

It's designed to save two cross-country trips for each team.

C'mon though, seriously? I mean, I could understand this sentiment in the 70's and 80's, but have you seen what these players fly on? Where they stay at? How many hookers they can get in a matter of a text or a tweet? It's really an interesting take on pretty much an archaic reasoning. How long is a flight between, say, Orlando and Los Angeles. The private jets that employed by the team give ample leg room and all the amenities of a 4 star hotel room (I've seen the inside of the Lakers' jet and it is immaculate). Because it does put an unfair (slight) advantage for the home team in games 1 & 2 if they manage to split the first two games. Going on the road for 3 straight games is rough. However, you can also say if you're going to be a championship mettle team, you've got to win at any cost.

[Giuseppe]

Lack of home court ain't the death knell it was before the '85 Finals. There was a purposeful break thru there that has transcended the game in the last generation.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I tend to agree with Barkley. Can you really call it homecourt advantage when there's a point where the lower seed will have played more home games than the higher seed?

[JoeTait75]

Lack of home court ain't the death knell it was before the '85 Finals. There was a purposeful break thru there that has transcended the game in the last generation.

'73 Knicks, '74 Celtics, '75 Warriors, '77 Blazers, '78 Bullets, '79 Sonics, and '82 Lake Show all won without HC in the 2-2-1-1-1 era. I tend to think the better team wins regardless of where the series starts and ends.

My problem with the 2-3-2 is that it's a deviation from the format of the first three rounds, which is asinine. If the NBA is going to go 2-3-2 for the Finals it should go 2-3-2 for the entire postseason.

Or better yet, save 2-3-2 for the cross-continental Finals series like Boston-LA and go 2-2-1-1-1 for, say, Detroit-San Antonio.

[JamStone]

Don't have a problem with it, but see why some people might think there's something unfair about it.

Above anything else, I think it shouldn't matter what kind of format it is. It's the NBA Finals. It's the last series. It determines the champion. Both teams should be up for every single game, home or away. Don't find excuses to offer for when you lose. Just win 4 games.

[Giuseppe]

It's a player's league. If they weren't happy with the format they'd prompt the change.

[SomeCallMeTim]

This^


2-3-2 Format guarantees 6 games in a series.

2001
2002
2004
2007
2009

Except for being wrong half the time, you're right all the time.

[Giuseppe]

The three games in the middle are sucker bait. Have they ever been run? I don't think so.

[Muser]

A championship team should be able to win at least one on the road.

[JamStone]

The three games in the middle are sucker bait. Have they ever been run? I don't think so.

2004 Detroit Pistons over the Los Angeles Lakers.

Pistons took all middle three games.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

The three games in the middle are sucker bait. Have they ever been run? I don't think so.

2004 Pistons.

The 2-3-2 format undoubtedly gives the edge to the road team. You steal one on the road, then you're guaranteed to have a rabid homecrowd behind you for 3 straight games. Hold serve, and it's "We Are The Champions."

[lefty]

You have it backwards.

It gives the advantage to the lower seed. 3 straight home games is nothing to laugh at.

This format basically means the first 2 games of the series are MUST WIN GAMES for the higher seed. If you drop 1 and go 1-1 with the next 3 games at their home, you are fucked.

The 2-3-2 format is one of the big reasons the Heat took the Mavericks momentum away.
Have you actually checked the stats on the 3 middle home games ?

:donkey

[z0sa]

The three games in the middle are sucker bait. Have they ever been run? I don't think so.

Who'da thought Cubby was a post Gasol trade bandwagoner?

[TampaDude]

2004 Detroit Pistons over the Los Angeles Lakers.

Pistons took all middle three games.

Boom! Roasted! :lol

[21_Blessings]

Boom! Roasted! :lol

You guys catching any Salmon?

[kace]

yes, it helps the lower seed.

in the 2-2-1-1-1 format, the lower seed has to win on the road to take the lead.

In the 2-3-2 one, the lower seed can lead 3-2 without winning a road game, putting all the pressure on the better seed in game 6.

The pressure to win on the road should be on the lower seed, that's the main interest of the RS.

[baseline bum]

2004 Detroit Pistons over the Los Angeles Lakers.

Pistons took all middle three games.

:lol

06 Heat too.

[peskypesky]

2004 Pistons.

The 2-3-2 format undoubtedly gives the edge to the road team. You steal one on the road, then you're guaranteed to have a rabid homecrowd behind you for 3 straight games. Hold serve, and it's "We Are The Champions."

but couldn't you just as easily argue the other way? the team with HC holds serve at home, then if they steal one on the road they have TWO chances back home to win it all? and in fact, they could lose all 3 road games and still come back and win the last two at home.

the 2-2-2-1 format would be interesting but i don't know if it's ever been used.

[kace]

the 2-2-2-1 format would be interesting but i don't know if it's ever been used.

i don't agree. the 2-2-1-1-1 format has two advantages :

- the lower seed has to win a road game to take the lead (see my previoust post) and put the pressure back to the better seed.

- the 7th game is on the court of the higher seed

those 2 conditions are essential. You earn your higher seed after a 82 games RS. The advantage for the better seed is yet rather slim considering you have to battle for so many games to earn it but the 2-2-1-1-1 format seems the one who keep it the most IMO.

[peskypesky]

the 2-2-1-1-1 format seems the one who keep it the most IMO.

way too much travel.

[Allanon]

2-3-2 helps the underdogs.

Usually, teams that get to the Finals are pretty damn good and HCA plays a huge part in who wins.

With 3 HCA games in the middle of a series, the underdog can grab the momentum.

The disadvantage is if the underdog loses 1&2, then loses one of the 3 middle ones, they're probably toast cuz the home team has 2 games in a row to close them out.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

IMO it hurts the road team tremendously because it makes it so they have to win 3 in a row to win all their home games but I can't think of an example of it playing a huge role in dictating who won a series.

[ChrisRichards]

:lol

06 Heat too.
Yessir. The choke was inevitable. Afterall, it is the Duh-las Mavericks/

[baseline bum]

IMO it hurts the road team tremendously because it makes it so they have to win 3 in a row to win all their home games but I can't think of an example of it playing a huge role in dictating who won a series.

It was enormous for the 05 Pistons. Horry's three in OT of game 5 is the only thing that kept those three road games from being a death sentence for the 05 Spurs title hopes. The Pistons were a completely different team that series once they returned home.

[Jacob1983]

The NBA should either do away with the 2-3-2 format in the Finals or make every series 2-3-2. It has to be hard for teams to adjust to that format when they advance to the Finals. Personally, I don't get it. Why change the format just for one series? In baseball, the LCS and World Series are both 2-3-2.

[poop]

every series should be best of 3 anyways.

first 2 for top seed...if road team wins one they get to have game 3 at their place.

that would be an awesome setup

[exstatic]

The three games in the middle are sucker bait. Have they ever been run? I don't think so.

Only twice by the home team (DET 2004 MIA 2006), but multiple times by a superior visitor. LA in 2001 and the Pistons in 1990 come to mind. I'm sure there are more.

[Giuseppe]

every series should be best of 3 anyways.

There was a best of 3 at one time. I think in the late '70s, early '80s.

[milkshakeballa]

the advantage is trivial.

both finals teams obviously knows how to win on the road and how to protect home court...thats how they got there.

better team will win the 7 game series in the finals...no matter the format