Change the Seeding Format for Playoffs?

[raspsa]

The first 2 games of illustrate that there's nothing more sad than having an apparent mismatch in the finals, everybody loses - the fans, the TV networks but specially the overmatched team. Now the Cavs may still prove me wrong but I think this is unlikely.

I really think the NBA should rethink the way it comes up with its seedings. I read a suggestion w/c I though would work, as follows:

Round 1 - no change from present system
Round 2 - reseed the remaining 8 teams regardless of their respective conferences

I think we'll have more exciting games. The only possible drawback would be longer flight times for some teams but these guys travel 1st class so is it really an impediment?

[baseline bum]

I don't like re-seeding. It places too much importance on the regular season record.

[gaKNOW!blee]

does that mean a WC team could play an EC team in the second round?

[Kori Ellis]

I think we'll have more exciting games. The only possible drawback would be longer flight times for some teams but these guys travel 1st class so is it really an impediment?

Flight time issues have to do with the thousands of media that go back and forth, not as much about the actual teams.

Anyway, I wouldn't want them to re-seed that way. But I think they should move some teams to give a little more balance to the conferences.

[td4mvp3]

The first 2 games of illustrate that there's nothing more sad than having an apparent mismatch in the finals, everybody loses - the fans, the TV networks but specially the overmatched team. Now the Cavs may still prove me wrong but I think this is unlikely.

I really think the NBA should rethink the way it comes up with its seedings. I read a suggestion w/c I though would work, as follows:

Round 1 - no change from present system
Round 2 - reseed the remaining 8 teams regardless of their respective conferences

I think we'll have more exciting games. The only possible drawback would be longer flight times for some teams but these guys travel 1st class so is it really an impediment?
just seems like a cop out. there's no guarantee that this provides a better product for the fans and really only ensures that the good matchups take that much longer to get to. the better teams should win out and if they don't in the current system, why changes things to benefit them. dallas should have beaten gs; houston should have beaten utah; the pistons shouldd have beaten cleveland. since they didn't, what would reseeding have really accomplished?

[Darkwaters]

I like the idea of eliminating the conferences altogether and simply seeding the teams 1 through 16. Obviously the regular season schedule would have to be reworked since Eastern teams only play Western teams twice (and vice versa) while teams within the same conference play each other four times. But that would eliminate problems in the present and the future. Moving teams to balance the conferences is only a short term solution and may need to be reworked in a few years.

[raspsa]

I still think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages:
1. The media get no sympathy from me. If it means more travel time and expense for them, too bad. Maybe adopt the 2-3-2 format for the entire playoffs to reduce travel time from the 2-2-1-1-1 format.
2. Reseeding doesn't mean there won't be upsets like GS beating Dallas. But it does minimize the possibility of a repeat of last Season when 2 top teams like Dallas and SA meet inthe semis. (To their credit, the NBA took corrective action but more drastic reforms are called for).
3. Reseeding should significantly increase the chances that the last 2 teams standing are more evenly matched (taking account the possibility of upsets mentioned in No.2 above)
4. I think the change has to be structural. So it won't hurt as well to move teams around, reform the NBA draft, etc. to help ensure some balance in the league. But players come and go, managers make dumb choices so these may only provide a short-term benefit.
5. the big picture is the NBA is going global in a big way and I think this is a necessary step to help provide a better product to the consumer. Eventually, the NBA will evolve to have international teams, transforming into the World Basketball Association or something like it. This may be many years in the future but I think its inevitable.. Now that will pose some interesting scheduling challenges. :dizzy :dizzy

[td4mvp3]

I still think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages:
1. The media get no sympathy from me. If it means more travel time and expense for them, too bad. Maybe adopt the 2-3-2 format for the entire playoffs to reduce travel time from the 2-2-1-1-1 format.
2. Reseeding doesn't mean there won't be upsets like GS beating Dallas. But it does minimize the possibility of a repeat of last Season when 2 top teams like Dallas and SA meet inthe semis. (To their credit, the NBA took corrective action but more drastic reforms are called for).
3. Reseeding should significantly increase the chances that the last 2 teams standing are more evenly matched (taking account the possibility of upsets mentioned in No.2 above)
4. I think the change has to be structural. So it won't hurt as well to move teams around, reform the NBA draft, etc. to help ensure some balance in the league. But players come and go, managers make dumb choices so these may only provide a short-term benefit.
5. the big picture is the NBA is going global in a big way and I think this is a necessary step to help provide a better product to the consumer. Eventually, the NBA will evolve to have international teams, transforming into the World Basketball Association or something like it. This may be many years in the future but I think its inevitable.. Now that will pose some interesting scheduling challenges. :dizzy :dizzy

but the problem isn't the seedings or any of that stuff, it's the fact that so many teams suck, and that the disparity between east and west is so big. seedings change none of that but would give a good chance that few teams on the east coast have a reason to watch the playoffs. improve the teams and the seeding question becomes moot. shaq's lakers, hakeem's rockets and others have shown that good teams aren't necessarily ranked no 1, so the notion of reseeding gets bumped.

[Jimcs50]

Can someone who has Insider post the rest of this article which is along these lines:

How to avoid a lopsided Finals? A whole new playoff format
By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider

Updated: June 11, 2007, 7:18 PM ET
Email
SAN ANTONIO -- For those of you who don't think the NBA's playoff system needs tweaking, let Game 2 be your wake-up call. The NBA's playoff system needs tweaking.

Thanks to the incomprehensible mediocrity of the Eastern Conference, the NBA's marquee event is becoming a joke. The Spurs are so obviously better than the Cavaliers that, LeBron factor or not, this is sure to end up as a total ratings disaster for the league. Forget Tony Parker versus Tony Soprano; how about Tony Parker versus Eva Longoria? One wonders whether ABC would have been better off airing a rerun of "Desperate Housewives" rather than Sunday night's one-sided affair.


So while the Cavs spent the aftermath of Game 2 talking about improving their effort and their execution, we all know there's only thing that could give them a real chance: switching opponents and playing somebody from the East.

Not that they'll admit it publicly.

"It's just an upgrade from series to series," LeBron James said when I asked him about going from Detroit to San Antonio. "From the first round to the second round, conference finals, and then to the Finals, it's an upgrade. It doesn't matter who it is, the intensity level automatically picks up."

Well, that's half true. For the Cavs, it's definitely an upgrade. For the Spurs ... not so much. This is going to upset some Cavs fans, but Cleveland is the weakest team San Antonio


To continue reading this article you must be an Insider.