Printable View
What i mean is that 1-2-3-4 seeds of each conference would have to face 5-6-7-8 seeds of the other.
Each side of the bracket would feature the 1-2-3-4 seeds of each conference. So these teams won´t play each others untill the finals.
Home court advantage given directly to the team with the higher seed no matter the record.
No team would have an advantage on travel distance as all of the teams would have to travel a lot. 2-3-2 format could also help.
Thoughts?
Cavs would lose every first round. NBA can't do that.
Yes...
Top 16 teams get in. Damn the conferences.
1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, and so on.
Best of 16 would be the best though. The finals would be the best teams and not some watered down bullshit.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver&Black
And shorten the season to 70 games and have a tournament to determine the final 2 spots ala Bill Simmons.
It'll never happen, but we can dream.
YES!!!.
LeBron better think twice about staying East, easy-riding to the finals...
Yes, I would agree on a mixed playoof bracket.
top 16 >>>
what happens to eastern/western conference champs idk. who even cares about that shit? for example: "we didn't win it all but we won the east that year!"
Yes. I'm tired of Lebron getting an easy trip to the finals year after year. The quality of the Eastern conference has been shit for decades.
no...i favor mixing up the divisions like in the nfl...national conference and american conference that way you could do a wholesale realignment.....just doing the playoffs still means teams out west play a tougher schedule especially in the southwest
no, though playing the bucks in the 1st round would allow the spurs to rest duncan/aldridge/manu for that series and allow us to start a lineup of Marjanovic/West/Bonner/Anderson/McCallum and still sweep easily tbh
yep, top 16 records is best for NBA, fairest to the fans.
But then he'll just get a couple more HOFs to join his team for peanuts while still adding great role players by the deadline...for peanuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by milkyway21
League still banking on conference competition evening out down the road..The start would be with Durant moving to Washington..
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by dabom
I like ranking them 1-16 and then having them play the first round...
1 v 16
2 v 15
3 v 14
4 v 13
5 v 12
6 v 11
7 v 10
8 v 9
Then in the 2nd round, reseed again with the final 8 teams
Then reseed with the final 4 teams
In the finals, the team with the best record gets the HCA.
What better time to unveil my playoff structure then my first post...
Here it is:
- Eliminate conferences and divisions - every team plays every other team 3 times each season (totals 84 games). I don’t love this part of it but I think it is necessary to be fair.
- The top 16 teams get ranked going in the playoffs based on regular season record.
- The matchups for the first round of the playoffs is done by way of draft.
o The top ranked team get their choice of playing any of the other 15 teams in the playoffs regardless of location or record.
o Second, the next highest ranked team(the second best record assuming they weren’t chosen to play the first ranked team) gets their choice of the remaining 13 teams.
o And so on…until all 8 matchups are finalized
- After the conclusion of the first round there is another draft for the second round matchups. Draft order is still done by way of regular season record.
- For the semis the top ranked team gets to pick their matchup.
The main objection to eliminating conferences is that travel would be unbearable on the teams in the playoffs. But in this Draft process, the teams with the choice of matchup would certainly take travel into consideration. If Golden State had their choice and thought Boston was the easiest matchup, they would have to consider whether the cross country trip for a lesser opponent would be preferable to playing an injury stricken Portland squad which would require a much shorter flight. I think this process will naturally result in shorter trips and the enhancement of regional rivalries more than the current system. The Spurs would always choose Dallas or Houston if they were close to the weakest team available because it would require less travel. It would also add a natural insult ahead of the matchup for the team that is chosen because they would be seen as the easiest out of the bunch.
The draft process would also add a lot of intrigue to the playoff process. The question of who the top teams are going to pick would be fun to contemplate and the draft process would be can’t miss television. One issue is that every matchup has to finish before the draft for the next round can occur, but I think that is a relatively small issue which will just result in a 2-3 day break between rounds. The matchup draft and the analyzing of matchups would consume ESPN for that short break in game action.
I’m sure there are issues with this structure that I am not aware of but I don’t think there is anything that couldn’t be mitigated.
Then LeBron would take his talents to DC. It doesn't solve anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursistan
I'd roll top sixteen seeded regardless of conference. Conferences are important for travel, so I think they stay for the regular season. If they want to award a conference champ, it could be last team standing from either conference. Honestly, looking up at 2013 conference champ banner sucks. A dark time it 'twas indeed that summer...
First round of playoffs would be too boring then..
Why not expand the season to 87 games 3 games against every team. The take the top 8 records from them and have a playoff. This would give every team 5 more games equals to a 1st round playoff series for all teams. Then you have the rest of the playoffs for the top 8 to add to their year.
Ideally it would be as many mentions here, top16 and done. The format i proposed is to at least make the east a little less easy and the west a little less difficult.
Terrible imo.
You'd lose natural rivalries.
More playoff sweeps.
it's ok for the finals but it would suck round after round for team travel and tv schedules.
That shit would be great man.Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
This is useless because it wont happen. Our only hope for improvement is division winners not automatically getting a top4 seed if a team from another division has a better record.
so you like the top teams in the league playing each other in the first round?Quote:
Originally Posted by theMatrix
They should remove divisions.
terrific idea
i like it:bobo
Quote:
Originally Posted by jde_
welcome!
hmmm, interesting first post
#1-4 playing #13-16 would be effectively be a bye, uncompetitive for the 4 or 5 top teams, too uncompetitive for all the first round, actuallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Biggems
for first round, 1-8 bracket as now, and 9-16 bracket as if they were 1-8
then a new bracket for the rest of the rounds.
winners of the first round make a new bracket:
winner of 1 vs 8 playing winner of 9 vs 16, winner 2 vs 7 playing winner of 10 vs 15, 3 vs 6 playing 11 vs 14, etc
Resetting the brackets doesn't work in a sport with playoff series. Sometimes one round is still going on while the next one is starting. It would slow down the schedule too much.
If they add two teams in the future, I could see going into an NFL-like system. Problem is, the NBA really can't stand to grow. But for argument's sake, let's say Seattle (Sonics) and St. Louis (Spirit) get teams.
NBL East North South West Spirit Pistons Hawks Warriors Grizzlies Raptors Magic Kings Wizards Cavs Heat Blazers Hornets Pacers Pelicans Sonics ABL East North South West Nets Bucks Spurs Jazz Knicks Bulls Rockets Suns Sixers Wolves Mavs Lakers Celtics Nuggets Thunder Clippers
Did what I could while still keeping most divisions intact and while keeping as many intraconference rivalries as possible. NBL is the weaker conference with two expansion teams and lack of a stacked division. But they also shouldn't have any horrible division, either.
Much simpler......
Keep divisions, however if the 9,10 and 11 seeds in the west have a better record than the 6,7 and 8 seeds in the west have them play a 1 or 3 game series for the right to move on to the real playoffs.
But don't we get the same shit already in the first round, eat or west? We maybe get one competitive series or two at this present time.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Not really, tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by Ginobilly
In 2014 the first round was epic and last year would have been more competetive if Portland hadn't been injured
Adam Silver said they were going to look into this. Rivalries don't exist in the NBA. It's all about superstar vs superstar. NBA would do just as good if not better if they got rid of conferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
I think your alignment could have been better.
Blazers, Sonics, Kings, Warriors
Lakers, Clippers, Suns, Jazz
Nuggets, Thunder, Spirit, Grizzlies
Spurs, Mavs, Rockets, Pelicans
Milwaukee, Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago
Toronto, Boston, NY, Brooklyn
Cleveland, Indiana, Washington, Philadelphia
Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte
Yes
I tot this is already removed for the coming season?Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%duncan
8 teams with the best record make the playoffs.. 1 vs 8 and so on.. Doesent matter what conference.
Whichever teams that do not make the playoffs pays a fine... Owners, coaches and players... etc.
Money gets divided and givin to the NBa champion..
Irrelevant because OKC will likely be the 4th best team in the West (at worst) this year, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by theMatrix
I would just make sure the top 16 teams get into the playoffs. For example, this past year 45-37 OKC would have been in but 38-44 Brooklyn not. Can't really argue objectively that 39-43 Phoenix should have made it over 40-42 Boston.
The team coming in 9th or worse replaces the team(s) on the bottom of the bracket in the other conference. Then you have to decide if the team playing out of conference deserves to be seeded by record. That would have been #6 for OKC if seeded in East. Result would have been them playing Chicago as a #3 seed or Atlanta as a #8 seed. Most likely scenario is Chicago handles OKC and makes no difference in their series with Cleveland. Atlanta-OKC would have been much better series than Atlanta-Brooklyn. However, now you are penalizing ATL for being the #1 seed.
I would say replace the lowest seeded teams with teams with better records from another conference. Seed the team(s) playing out of conference based on their record, since after all they probably played a tougher schedule to get there.
Don't mix East/West fully across 16 teams, too much travel.
I went ahead and reseeded all the teams combining the East and West into a top 16 format. Results are interesting and I think more favorable for fans at least:
#1 GSW vs. #16 Boston: GS rewarded with a little easier opponent than New Orleans. Boston draw is quite a bit tougher than ATL but who cares they are 40-42.
#2 ATL vs. #15 Milwaukee: ATL gets a slightly tougher first round opponent but not much. Milwaukee plays ATL instead of Cleveland.
#3 Houston vs. #14 New Orleans: NO easier opponent, Houston easier opponent. Reward for being in tougher conference.
#4 LAC vs. #13 OKC: Easier opponent for LAC than Spurs. OKC gets in rather than left out.
#5 Memphis vs. #12 Washington: Easier opponent for MEM than Portland. Harder foe for WAS than Toronto.
#6 Spurs vs. vs. #11 Toronto: Corrects issue of Spurs drawing LAC without HC. Toronto loses home court against WAS and plays at Spurs.
#7 Cleveland vs. #10 Portland: Cleveland gets a much harder foe than Boston in first round. Portland was to play MEM so not a large difference.
#8 Chicago vs. #9 Dallas: or vice versa depending on seeding method. Seems a lot more appropriate than those teams playing MIL and HOU.
Overall this method does seem to be better for fans and balance out conference strength more appropriately. Let's project to round #2 and see where that leaves us.
#1 GSW
#2 ATL
#3 HOU
#4 LAC
#5 MEM
#6 Spurs
#7 Cleveland
#8 Chicago
or
#1 GSW
#2 ATL
#3 HOU
#4 LAC
#5 MEM
#6 Spurs
#7 Cleveland
#8 Dallas
This becomes interesting what to do next. Projection is for 5-6 Western conference teams and 2-3 Eastern. Either way we are looking at ATL-CLE in round #2 which seems a bit premature. So let's reseed by conference and see where that takes us.
Reseed by conference:
Scenario #1, Chicago wins.
Eastern:
#1 ATL
#4 Spurs (as #5 team from West)
#2 Cleveland
#3 Chicago
Meanwhile GSW-HOU-LAC-MEM duke it out in the West. Spurs probably have to beat both ATL and Cleveland to get to finals.
If Dallas beat Chicago you would just replace them against Cleveland.
Summary: a 16 team seeding in the first round is more fair and interesting. It may be a good idea to reseed by conference for round #2 to create even more mayhem and interesting matchups.
Would this carry over well from year to year? Who knows? It seems that each time a new "fix' comes out for playoff seedings, it creates some other problem that was not anticipated.
Actually I need to rethink that as Spurs would have #2 seed in 'East' if playing over there. That penalizes the other Western teams because they have better records while Spurs would get Cleveland in round #2 with home court. So forget the conference reseeding and we have:
#1 GSW vs. #8 Dallas/Chicago
#2 ATL vs. #7 Cleveland (may as well settle this)
#3 HOU vs. #6 Spurs
#4 LAC vs. #5 MEM
Assuming a Cleveland win, we are then looking at:
#1 GSW vs. #4 LAC or #5 MEM
#3/#6 HOU or Spurs vs. #7 Cleveland
Clearly a better outcome.
No, leave it how it is..the lower seeds are virtually always irrelevant in the NBA, re-seeding doesn't change that, and I couldn't care less about teams like the Suns missing the playoffs, tbh..