Can the NBA change the playoffs for only one year?

[Tuche]

The Eastern Conference is playing such terrible basketball (except the top 2 teams). I think David Stern should consider for 1 year only, and his last year as commissioner, to change the playoff format to mix both conference records. I think by doing so, the NBA can avoid the embarrassment of an Eastern Conference of subpar teams invited into this year's playoffs. It seems like the East is playing to be in the lottery rather then the playoffs so their owners probably wouldn't mind.
It already bothers me to know, after only 1 month into the season, that the heat will play pacers in the eastern conf finals. It also bothers me that we can figure the winner of the two will host the Finals as well (how can they not build a big regular season record playing the East teams so often during the year).

[Embedded]

Interesting, I saw a similar discussion on TV, it is a shame that if the playoffs started today, only 2 of the 8 eastern playoff teams would even have a winning record! Compare that to all 8 seeds of the Western conference. 8 and 11 makes the playoffs in the east. 11 and 8 means you miss the playoffs in the west.

In the eastern conference, you know how they separate the men from the boys?

With crowbars.

[Seventyniner]

I think changing the rules for one year is terrible. Changing the rules after a season has started is even worse.

This has been a long-standing problem though, with occasional 48-win teams in the West missing the playoffs while the 8 seed in the East seems like it is always barely over .500 at best. I liked an idea I heard where the top 4 records in each conference are guaranteed a playoff berth, and the other 8 playoff slots go by record regardless of conference.

Even better, imo, is to keep the current division format, but have each team play every other team in the NBA 3 times except only 2 games against each team in one of the divisions. The division you only play twice each would rotate every other season; the seasons would be paired so if you play 2 on the road and 1 at home against a given team one year, you get 2 at home and 1 on the road against that same team the next year.

With charter jets and computerized schedule-making, I don't think it would be a problem at all. You get to keep the 82-game schedule and teams already travel so often that having somewhat fewer games close to home wouldn't be a problem. It might lead to longer homestands and longer road trips for all teams, but they can get over it.

Then you could have a (mostly) egalitrian league with no conferences. Top 16 records make the playoffs with a guaranteed playoff berth for each of the 6 division winners (but no guaranteed seeding).

If the league were used to that kind of travel, it wouldn't seem wierd at all to have series like Wizards/Blazers and Clippers/Hawks in the first round. Just allow for 2 days of rest when traveling between far-away cities.

[cd021]

Zach Lowe mentioned eliminated divisions (on a count that they're pointless)

I've had the same though

A few years ago the entire Central division made the post season. Thats 5 teams out of the 8 playoff teams.

The Spurs won 63 games and the division, Dallas finished in 2nd place but ranked forth because they were a non division winner behind Denver who won alot fewer games. We lost in the semi finals despite us not supposed to face that team to the WCF.

I'd be in favor of the 16 best teams in the league making the playoffs...


1.Indiana
2. Portland
3. San Antonio
4. Miami
5. Oklahoma City
6. LA Clippers
7. Houston
8. Denver

Bottom Half
9. Dallas
10. Golden State
11. Phoenix
12. Atlanta
13. Washington
14. New Orleans
15. Memphis
16. L.A Lakers

Lakers Vs. Pacers
Memphis Vs. Portland
New Orleans Vs. San Antonio
Washington Vs. Miami
Altanta Vs. Oklahoma City
Phoenix Vs. LA Clippers
Golden State Vs Houston
Denver Vs. Dallas

Dallas Vs. Pacers
Houston Vs. Portland
Clippers Vs. San Antonio
Oklahoma City Vs. Miami

Miami Vs. Pacers
San Antonio Vs. Portland

Just for example of how things would look as of today (I used the top seeded teams to illustrate this)

[gospursgojas]

You still need the people on the East coast to tune in and make NBA that ratings money...DUH

[cd021]

Another option would be to change the mix and match conferences and not go by geography. The East hasn't been consistently great for years leaving them to fight amongst themselves. Having 8 teams from the west in the "Eastern conference" would help pull up the conference.

Or adding a 1st round bye similar to the NFL.

12 teams make it in

6 from each conference

Detroit Vs. Atlanta
Boston Vs. Washington


Washington Vs. Indiana
Atlanta Vs. Miami

Denver Vs. Oklahoma City
Houston Vs. La Clippers

Conference Finals


Washington Vs. Indiana
Atlanta Vs. Miami
La Clippers Vs. Portland
Oklahoma City Vs. San Antonio

While it would eliminate 4 first round series (a total of at least 16 games) something the league, teams and networks would be hesitant to do so.

On the other hand most of the 1 Vs 8 seed and 2 Vs 7 seed series are one sided (sweeps, or 5 games) it would improve the quality of the post season worthy teams getting to play on the national stage (instead of being relegated to NBA TV.

The best teams would have incentive to play for seeding in order to get the 1st round bye.

[TheGoldStandard]

Re-alignment would probably help.. take some of the bottom dwellers and put them in the east, western teams that are on the cusp.

[moisaenz]

Geographically wouldn't minny and memphis be candidates to be in the east??

[will_spurs]

I'd be in favor of the 16 best teams in the league making the playoffs...

There's an issue with that, though, because all the teams don't play against the same opponents.

Let's say the Eastern conference is the weakest (like now), then because teams play more games against their own conference, a team from the East could have a better record than a team from the West solely based on strength of schedule.

The solution would be to copy the way soccer leagues work (in Europe at least) with everything perfectly symmetrical.

Make each team play exactly 58 games (that would also make the season shorter, which would be good), 2 games against each team, 1 at home, 1 on the road. Top 16 goes to the playoffs with usual seeding. Better seed = HCA.

Something I'd like to see: the top seeded team CHOSES against which of the remaining team they want to play, and it goes down until 8 teams have chosen. Repeat each round. Top seed = possibility to choose your bracket all the way to the Finals. A good seed would still give a team a lot of control.

[KaiRMD1]

I've been asking for this to happen since 08, when the problem began ol' sport

[Spursfanfromafar]

There's an issue with that, though, because all the teams don't play against the same opponents.

Let's say the Eastern conference is the weakest (like now), then because teams play more games against their own conference, a team from the East could have a better record than a team from the West solely based on strength of schedule.

The solution would be to copy the way soccer leagues work (in Europe at least) with everything perfectly symmetrical.

Make each team play exactly 58 games (that would also make the season shorter, which would be good), 2 games against each team, 1 at home, 1 on the road. Top 16 goes to the playoffs with usual seeding. Better seed = HCA.

Something I'd like to see: the top seeded team CHOSES against which of the remaining team they want to play, and it goes down until 8 teams have chosen. Repeat each round. Top seed = possibility to choose your bracket all the way to the Finals. A good seed would still give a team a lot of control.

Trouble is.. no owner would accept a 29 game season in his/her arena. And no player would volunteer a drop in salaries following a drop in the number of games in the season. Not going to happen unfortunately even if it is the best solution.

[will_spurs]

Trouble is.. no owner would accept a 29 game season in his/her arena. And no player would volunteer a drop in salaries following a drop in the number of games in the season. Not going to happen unfortunately even if it is the best solution.

True. The real solution would be to go back to 24 franchises, 4 games per season, 96 games total and only top 8 make the playoffs (or top 6 + 2 from wildcard round). And a superior product with less dilution of the quality of players.

BTW more than half of the teams make the playoffs. It stands to reason that either the playoff team with the worse record is around .500, or the whole league is lopsided, with some dreadful teams at the bottom and a great divide between the playoff and non-playoff teams (and therefore little competition for the last playoff spot). That's by construction.

[Spursfanfromafar]

True. The real solution would be to go back to 24 franchises, 4 games per season, 96 games total and only top 8 make the playoffs (or top 6 + 2 from wildcard round). And a superior product with less dilution of the quality of players.

BTW more than half of the teams make the playoffs. It stands to reason that either the playoff team with the worse record is around .500, or the whole league is lopsided, with some dreadful teams at the bottom and a great divide between the playoff and non-playoff teams (and therefore little competition for the last playoff spot). That's by construction.

Wise solution but again not feasible considering the NBA is looking to expand rather than contract.

Any solution has to be considering the need of the hour rather than best case.

I think the only feasible thing to do now immediately as Zach Lowe points out is to eliminate the "division" thing. Keep it as conferences.

Then, possibly, keep it 6 automatic qualifiers and 2 wild cards... and then.. mix up both the conferences and make it 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15 and so on.

[JR3]

The west gets even deeper when better teams in the west are getting lottery picks over crappy eastern conference teams. That is okay with me.

[Arcadian]

...why one season? This problem has existed for many years and will continue to exist for many more. You think it's just going to magically correct itself next year? :lol

[will_spurs]

Any solution has to be considering the need of the hour rather than best case.

We're just goofing around, the system isn't going to change, not this year and not in the foreseeable future.

[Mikeanaro]

Fans of shitty teams should take over the stadiums keeping the GM and coaches as hostages till their teams have decent season records.

[TheGoldStandard]

Let's just make it if you're not above .500 or at .500 you automatically start down 3-0 and get it over with.

[cd021]

We're just goofing around, the system isn't going to change, not this year and not in the foreseeable future.

Cash rules. The 7-7-7-7 format is living proof. The 1st round is almost always a mediocre,save for the 4-5 or 3-6 series.

[Kidd K]

I thought the same thing when I first noticed the trend in the standings this year OP. It's incredibly embarrassing when you think that about 4 of the best 5 teams in the west who don't make the playoffs this year could literally make the playoffs in the east if they played there. That's how awful the east is.

Every year I notice it. You have teams floating around or are slightly below .500 like the Wolves, and they seem WAY better than their record actually indicates. Meanwhile you play a just below .500 from the east and they seem maybe slightly better than the Kings. You could almost drop about .075 points off every east record and add .075 to every west record and it more accurately reflects how good they are. The elite teams are the only ones who are about as good as their records indicate.



I've been asking for this to happen since 08, when the problem began ol' sport

The east has actually been very shitty for at least a decade. Check out the NBA standings each year. The "top record" in the east was frequently barely cracking 50 games. In fact their total number of 50 game winners since Jordan retired really, has been far, far lower than the west's.

For whatever reason, the east has pretty much always sucked despite getting so many high draft picks every year due to suckage.

[ManuTastic]

Bill Simmons suggests just having the top 16 teams overall in the playoffs--no regard for conference. It works because if, say, there are 11 Western Conf teams in the playoffs and only 5 Eastern teams (just to grab some numbers), then more top lottery picks will go to the East come draft time. So theoretically over time the weaker conference gets more help.

However...

I also like Simmons's point that there are some teams that just suck no matter how many high draft picks they get. They have bad owners, bad GMs, whatever. Teams that take high lottery picks year after year and fail to develop them into star players, because they are shitty teams and shitty organizations. So why should they be rewarded with high draft picks all the time? I agree with Simmons that ALL teams should be in the lottery. (This would also mostly eliminate the tanking problem.) Make it a weighted lottery, sure, but give the good teams SOME chance at a pick higher than #14.

[Mikeanaro]

Bill Simmons suggests just having the top 16 teams overall in the playoffs--no regard for conference. It works because if, say, there are 11 Western Conf teams in the playoffs and only 5 Eastern teams (just to grab some numbers), then more top lottery picks will go to the East come draft time. So theoretically over time the weaker conference gets more help.

However...

I also like Simmons's point that there are some teams that just suck no matter how many high draft picks they get. They have bad owners, bad GMs, whatever. Teams that take high lottery picks year after year and fail to develop them into star players, because they are shitty teams and shitty organizations. So why should they be rewarded with high draft picks all the time? I agree with Simmons that ALL teams should be in the lottery. (This would also mostly eliminate the tanking problem.) Make it a weighted lottery, sure, but give the good teams SOME chance at a pick higher than #14.
Agree, shit will always be shit, weighted lottery so every team play his best and if they stink it is because they are real shit, the whole tanking issue is lazy and bad for sports.

[KaiRMD1]

Bill Simmons suggests just having the top 16 teams overall in the playoffs--no regard for conference. It works because if, say, there are 11 Western Conf teams in the playoffs and only 5 Eastern teams (just to grab some numbers), then more top lottery picks will go to the East come draft time. So theoretically over time the weaker conference gets more help.

However...

I also like Simmons's point that there are some teams that just suck no matter how many high draft picks they get. They have bad owners, bad GMs, whatever. Teams that take high lottery picks year after year and fail to develop them into star players, because they are shitty teams and shitty organizations. So why should they be rewarded with high draft picks all the time? I agree with Simmons that ALL teams should be in the lottery. (This would also mostly eliminate the tanking problem.) Make it a weighted lottery, sure, but give the good teams SOME chance at a pick higher than #14.

That is another thing that is never taken into account, the organization of a team. Some owners just want their team to suck it seems. I feel like the NBA should take a step in removing some of those owners or GMs who just aren't cutting it.