Printable View
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2enbznt.jpg
How would this end up playing out? Miami would definitely have a much tougher road to go through... Clippers, then OKC before even getting to the finals :lol. Should divisions/conferences be scrapped completely for a system like this because the East sucks so bad? I could see the final 4 being spurs vs rockets and heat vs okc.
In this day and age, I think it's a worthy idea. I don't necessarily buy the argument that the league shouldn't consider this just because the East/West disparity was so big this year -- it seems to me that going to a global tournament rather than a conference-based tournament would ensure that when there are disparate years, you get the 16 best teams in the playoffs and when there's more balance, you likely get something closer to an 8-8 split in participation.
The other part of this that I like is that you introduce the possibility for playoff matchups (and perhaps rivalries) that are highly unlikely in the current structure. Over the course of the Duncan era, the Spurs (an extreme example, given the sheer number of playoff series they've participated in over that span) have played Phoenix and the Lakers 7 times and have played Dallas 6 times. Certainly, the familiarity breeds contempt, but one wonders if a mini-rivalry might have been born if the Spurs had to play the Pacers, the Bulls, or the Celtics (for example) at some point during that run. Rivalries often need a playoff series to gain some traction and in cross-conference matchups, that currently requires each team to reach the Finals, which means that the chances of getting too many of those rivalries is really small.
Still, I think the fundamental problem with the idea is that you either have to live with the fact that the schedules will be imbalanced or you have to re-work the schedule to try to balance it and ignore the conference distinctions, likely without reducing the number of regular season games.
The other thing about this is that the Heat got to play the majority of their games against the East. Imagine if they played in the Western Conference? That 54 wins might look more like 49 wins while the Mavericks 50 wins might look more like 55 wins. Now obviously the Heat would have probably stepped it up more in the regular season.
Early in this season, I had figured that the elite teams in the West would just have no chance to get HCA for the Finals because even if they steamrolled Miami and Indiana during the regular season, the soft schedules Miami and Indiana had would allow them to build up big win totals and put them out of reach as the West teams played each other and slugged it out down the stretch. I'm still kind of amazed that it didn't turn out that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by soxxx
If you adjust for the weak ass east, its even more plain to see that EC team records are greatly inflated, and it would put phoenix among several others in the PO as well.
I think eliminating geographic conferences would truly filter the best teams to the top. For the regular season as well, so a stacked team in the east cant coast.
People keep saying it will eventually swing back to even out or to a dominant east, but its been like 20 years.
Edit: wow after actually reading everyone's posts looks like everyone agrees the best thing to do basketball wise is eliminate conferences and divisions. Instead of division titel banners, they cam give top 6 teams an optional "we got somewhat close" banner
It is the same reason why Worldcup invites teams from Asia and Africa, even if they have no chance of winning a title. Why don't they just invite by seed and none of these teams would make it?
NBA is a business and it is trying to create rivalries by getting the same teams to play each other often, not to mention participation from all regions will attract more fans in the long run.
Yes Miami has an unfair advantage of being able to coast but I don't see the league changing this ever.
I love this idea. The playoffs would be more entertaining, since marginal East teams like Atlanta wouldn't be in (although this year's first round was amazing overall, that was unusual). Not only do I like the interesting playoff matchups that result (Indiana vs. Phoenix, OKC vs. Nets!), but it would also actually help the EC get better faster. That is, since more EC teams would fail to make the playoffs with this system, then more of them would be in the draft lottery, and could pick higher. Assuming they're not making dumb picks, they should theoretically get more high quality players than the WC teams, and close the gap in a shorter amount of time. It's win-win.
Of course it won't happen because no owner would give up the revenue that comes from being in the playoffs, even an 8-seed that gets flushed quickly.
I think the league should definitely do this... it'd be a great, fair way to judge teams and have the proper competition level for the higher seeds.
It would be more entertaining for fans, but I'd be surprised if the league ditched the conference model. MLS has had a similar issue with people wanting the league to ditch its geographically inept conference alignment and go single table, a la European leagues, to ensure the best clubs each season qualify for the playoffs. MLS refuses because they're trying to cultivate regional and conference rivalries and the conferences allow them to do so. I feel like the NBA might view it the same way. As someone mentioned, the current system prevents a lot of East-West rivalries from developing, but would those heated Dallas, Phoenix, and LA series have happened if we'd been under a true seeding system?
If you keep the divisions (maintaining the geographical rivalries) but get rid of the conferences, you can build a schedule wherein each team:
1. always plays each team in its division 3 times (12 games)
2. plays each team in 4 of the remaining 5 divisions 3 times (15 games x4)
3. plays each team in the leftover division 2 times (10 games)
4. the "short" division rotates year-to-year (5 year rotation)
While this is not exactly equal, it's pretty close.
Not sure how it affect the standing but West teams play East teams once or twice and vice versa, so I don't think that seeding is completely accurate.
The only reason, I think, explanation why the NBA hasnt done this yet are the travels. That is usually the factor that dominates this issue.
Miami - Toronto is a good example.
At this point it shouldnt be a big issue, teams have their planes. Maybe a PO format change to potentially reduce travels. 2-3-1-1
The other point is what FromWayDownTown says, the imbalance in shedules. Balancing this will aslo generate more travel.
One solution could be to reduce the RS games. More travel but less games. Sounds good. The problem is that there are 30 teams, so playing each teams twice (home and away) means 58 games, thats a lot less than 82. We need more games!
We could add 8 more games by adding division games, that dont affect the PO seeding....teams would probably not care...right? Maybe they do, at this time the conference championship doesnt exists, so the division could be of value.IDK...
Not easy to have a 30 team seeding and keeping the schedule balanced (hard thing to do without having fewer games)
Another way to do it would be for teams to play their corresponding opponent in the opposite division. For instance, (1) San Antonio vs. (8) Atlanta, (2) Oklahoma City vs. (7) Charlotte etc. This would ensure that eight teams still play from each region, but it would enable the best teams in the West to still be there during the latter stages. Plus, it would make Miami's path a lot harder. It would also generate an East vs. West rivalry, meaning fans of eliminated teams still have a vested interest in the playoffs.
I think I prefer the OP's idea though, tbh. And even if they DID go for that, then it still heavily favors the East sides, because they have such weaker schedules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud786
This might have been a rougher road to Finals for Spurs. Houston probably would have been in WCFs, and Spurs did not match uo well with them. Miami would have dispatched Raptors, Clippers and OKC anyway. More than likely, we would still have had these two teams making it anyway.
I think they should just keep it the way they have it. In the 90s, the East was dominant, now the West is. There are some up and coming teams in the East(Toronto, Washington, Atlanta), so in two or so years, I expect the east to come back.
The Spurs wouldn't have had any problem with the Rockets this postseason.
And no, the East was not dominant in the 90s. They had by far the best team in the Bulls, but the drop-off was severe, while the West had teams like the Suns, Sonics, Rockets, Jazz, Lakers (early on), and Spurs, all of which could have won championships if not for Jordan.
The East has fielded one or two great teams on occasion but otherwise they've had mostly terrible franchises dragging the thing down.
8 of the top 10 seeds are Western conference seeds, but things are actually more impressive than that stat alone because the Western conference teams play more games against each other, so their strength of opponent is also higher.
One argument against it would be the travel time tbh. The Clippers could be potentially flying cross country for the first two rounds of the playoffs.
The NBA won't do it because they wouldn't have eastern conference teams in the Finals each year. Miami likely would have been fortunate to make it two of the last four years. They sure as hell would not have made all four.
Then again MLB and NFL have same time zone teams playing for championships sometimes and it doesn't hurt them at all.
3 1/2 hour trips 1-4 times a series instead of 2 hour trips. Does that really matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugen
Cross country trips are like 5-6 hours. I'm just saying that would be the argument against it and I'm sure there'd be plenty of Spurfans that would be upset about the Spurs flying to Toronto while the Mavs/Rockets played in hypothetical matchups tbh......Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidd K
It is not 6 hours even if you're talking about the maximum possible travel like Portland to Miami.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugen
The average time on trips would be like 3 1/2 hours. There's always a full rest day or two in between anyway.. I don't see it as a big deal. It's only an extra hour or two per trip, and only 1-4 trips per series which last up to two weeks long. That equates to only about one extra hour a day travel time at max.
3 and 1/2 hours across country? Where do I sign up for that shit. I just flew from Seattle to JFK nonstop and it took a little over 5 hours.
Yeah because every team in both conferences live on opposite coasts, and nowhere in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by SanAntonioSpurs23
Chicago to Seattle is 3 1/2 hours for example.
teams have own plane and no stops so flying would not be an issue
You'd have the same champion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
great points! love your posting style
Same finals tbh. But it would be great so that Miami would stop coasting in the RS and the Pacers wouldn't be considered as "contenders".
I'm against it as I like rivalrys beeing built and titles like "Western Conference Champion" having some history that should be continued.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud786
Furthermore I think there will be a time, when things finally even out (yeah, a lot of people said the same thing 5 years ago, but looking at this years top 6 draft picks, there is reason to believe in a change).
Just for fun, I' like to predict the outcomes of the series.
SA over CHA in 4
MEM over GS in 7
PHO over IND in 6
HOU over CHI in 7
LAC over WAS in 6
MIA over TOR in 5
OKC over BKN in 5
DAL over POR in 7
SA over MEM in 6
HOU over PHO in 5
MIA over LAC in 7
OKC over DAL in 6
SA over HOU in 5
MIA over OKC in 6
The road might be easier for the Spurs, but after inhaling Charlotte, Memphis may have very well also killed us. Rockets are not a great test run if you face Miami a round later. Our road was one of the hardest, but Dallas got us prepared for Portland, while OKC does the same regarding Miami.
As for Miami, it would have been a rocky road playing TOR, Clips and OKC. Might as well not have made it through. But right now I rather play a Miami team that needs to figure out its on/off-switch, than a team that went through tough rounds like that. If OKC makes it to the finals and Ibaka isn't sitting out games, it's probably not easier than our current Miami scenario.
The chance two teams are meeting in an open seeting process is about half as hight than with 8 teams. That said, we would have meat PHO, LAK, DAL about only 3-4 times in the span of 16 years. A real rivalry isn't built on a playoff meeting between teams every 5 years!Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Yeah, there might have been 3 other teams (lets say DET, MIA, ORL) with such "mini-rivalrys" but don't we have such a thing with MIA anyway (and had it with DET)?
In this format, Spurs are in the finals vs the Mavs for a classic 7-game series highlighted by a DeJuan Blair kick and a game 7 blowout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud786