NBA Board of Governors Approves Rule Changes

[kolko]

NEW YORK, August 2, 2006 – The National Basketball Association has enacted several significant rules changes that will go into effect for the upcoming 2006-07 season:



Playoff Seeding:
*The first four seeds in each conference will continue to be given to the three division winners and the team with the next best regular season record, but these four teams will now be seeded in order of their regular season records. Among other things, this change will ensure that the two teams with the best records in the conference will not meet earlier than the Conference Finals.

Shortening Timeouts:
*If a team has two 60 second timeouts left in the last two minutes of regulation or in overtime, one of the two timeouts will be shortened to a 20 second timeout.
*Instead of having three 60 second timeouts in overtime, teams will have two 60's and one 20 second timeout. Teams will no longer be permitted to carry over a 20 second timeout from regulation into overtime.


Increase in Playoff Roster Size:
*Playoff roster size will be expanded from 13 to 15 players, with each team designating 12 active players and up to three inactive players prior to each game.

“Our owners are intent on making the playoff seeding more fair for all teams going forward and in quickening the pace of the end of games,” said Stu Jackson, NBA Executive Vice President, Basketball Operations. “The Board also thought it made sense to allow teams to utilize the same 15-man roster in the playoffs that they use during the regular season.” The rules changes were recommended by the Rules and Competition Committee at its annual meeting in June, and approved this week by a vote of the Board of Governors.

http://www.nba.com/news/rulechanges_060802.html

[ChumpDumper]

Great - it makes sense to carry a full team now.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Justice!

[reydawg]

I love that they're doing something to try to shorten the ends of close games. As it is now, the last 2 minutes can easily stretch to 20.

[boutons_]

You wonder how they, more than one person spending more than 1 minute thinking about it, could have possibly fucked up the playoff seedings last year in the first place, a "what were they thinking?" situation, that it would need, obvious to everybody, to be fixed.

[J.T.]

Nice. Wish we had that seeding last year.

[GrandeDavid]

I agree with all these changes. Especially the playoff seeding format.

[Obstructed_View]

Puzzling that they changed the first round from best of 5 in February, but they waited until the off season to sort the seeds by record. I'm sure the fans of Memphis are happy about that.

[boutons_]

switching from 5 to 7 playoff games was a $$ decision, and they make those as fast at they can, even mid-season. Basketball decisions are secondary! :)

[Buddy Holly]

Great rule changes!

[Obstructed_View]

switching from 5 to 7 playoff games was a $$ decision, and they make those as fast at they can, even mid-season. Basketball decisions are secondary! :)
While I agree it was a financial decision, switching from 5 to 7 playoff games was motivated by the fact that the Lakers were not going to have HCA in the first round. Having the four top teams meeting in the conference finals makes the same kind of financial sense.

[ATX Spur]

Four months too late.

[baseline bum]

So they didn't get rid of our fake-timeout play? :lol

[NBA Junkie]

Puzzling that they changed the first round from best of 5 in February, but they waited until the off season to sort the seeds by record. I'm sure the fans of Memphis are happy about that.

The NBA switched the first round format to best-of-7 in the 2002-03 season.

[exstatic]

The NBA switched the first round format to best-of-7 in the 2002-03 season.
Right, but I think his point was that they did it in February for THAT April's playoffs, and by February of last season, it was painfully apparent that the seeding was broken, yet they did nothing until the offseason.

[baseline bum]

Right, but I think his point was that they did it in February for THAT April's playoffs, and by February of last season, it was painfully apparent that the seeding was broken, yet they did nothing until the offseason.

That's beacuse it wouldn't help out the Lakers like the 7-game first round in 2003 was designed to do.

[ShoogarBear]

Right, but I think his point was that they did it in February for THAT April's playoffs, and by February of last season, it was painfully apparent that the seeding was broken, yet they did nothing until the offseason.And I was bitching about that very same point last year, wondering why they didn't just change the seeding structure during the year.

[NBA Junkie]

Right, but I think his point was that they did it in February for THAT April's playoffs, and by February of last season, it was painfully apparent that the seeding was broken, yet they did nothing until the offseason.

But, Obstructed View also stated that they did it when it looked as though the Lakers might not get HCA in the 1st round. IIRC, the Lakers did not get HC in the 1st round, but it was not decided until the final day of the regular season.

Of course, they wound up drawing the Timberwolves that year which is technically HC in itself considering the Wolves track record in 1st round exits.

Now, getting back to the seeding structure. Not even the league could have foreseen back in February, that a team like the Clippers would intentionally throw games at the end of the year just to better their 1st round playoff match-up odds by getting Denver instead of Dallas. That, to me, is the singlemost reason the NBA changed the policy.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

Now, getting back to the seeding structure. Not even the league could have foreseen back in February, that a team like the Clippers would intentionally throw games at the end of the year just to better their 1st round playoff match-up odds by getting Denver instead of Dallas. That, to me, is the singlemost reason the NBA changed the policy.
The Clippers were 100% right to do what they did, imo. It worked, as they got into the second round, so it's not their fault the NBA's system was completely fucked. If you're playing in a system where it's to your advantage to lose at the end of the season like that, you can't be blamed for actually doing what's best for your team.

[NBA Junkie]

The Clippers were 100% right to do what they did, imo. It worked, as they got into the second round, so it's not their fault the NBA's system was completely fucked. If you're playing in a system where it's to your advantage to lose at the end of the season like that, you can't be blamed for actually doing what's best for your team.

I don't agree or disagree with that statement. I'm just saying that the NBA was wise in changing the procedure so such practices never happen again.

Now, if the league would do something about the number of ridiculous ticky-tack fouls that were called that ultimately decided playoff series it would have been an even more successful summer for the rule changes committee.