Printable View
My questions is why? Why does the NBA do the 2-3-2 format during the Finals? Is it to give the higher seeded team more pressure to win, and give the lower seeded team an optimistic view of hopefully winning the championship?
I've always said, homecourt is overrated, but still ask as to why this format when the rest of the playoff season is 2-2-1-1-1.
:sombrero:
I've heard a lot of it has to do with media travel - don't know how much truth there is to that.
I think it is a blatant "give the lesser seed a chance" thing, edged to making it more interesting.
God knows what the Spurs would have done if they didn't Horry themselves out of that fuckin format.
That's odd. If the media didn't complain about the travel during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round of the playoffs with multiple games being played. I don't see why they'd be bitter about traveling back and forward during the NBA Finals. Just odd if you ask me, but thank you for your reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by King
Don't like it too much but hopefully the Spurs are a good road team!
MUCH more media for the Finals than any other round, and worldwide at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by twincam
Good. Maybe we can get rid of the asterisks then. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/s...mirolleyes.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/donkey.gif lame http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/donkey.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
OH yeah, I forgot about the international media coverage. Screw them. They're in our country and they need to adapt to our original format. Screw the NBA Commissioner. I don't want the Spurs to win the Championship on the road. I want them to win at home.
Hey, go here to find info about NBA Finals details.
http://www.nba.com/finals2003/index.html
The NBA system differs from other sports playoffs in the fact that division champions are not guaranteed home-court advantage at any time in the playoffs, as home-court advantage is decided strictly on regular-season record, without regard to seeding.
Here's what Wikipedia's provided:
The present organization known as the National Basketball Association, then called the BAA (Basketball Association of America), had its inaugural season in 1946-1947.
In the current system, eight clubs from each of the league's two conferences qualify for the playoffs, with separate playoff brackets for each conference. In the 2002-03 season, the first-round series were expanded from best-of-5 to best-of-7; all other series have always been best-of-7. In all series, home games alternate between the two teams in a 2-2-1-1-1 format, except for the NBA Finals, in which the format is 2-3-2.
The 2-3-2 finals format was adopted for the 1985 finals, copying the format that was then in effect in the National Hockey League. Prior to 1985, almost all finals were played in the 2-2-1-1-1 format (although the 1971 finals between Milwaukee and Baltimore were on an alternate-home basis, some 1950s finals used the 2-3-2 format, and the 1975 Golden State-Washington and 1978 and 1979 Seattle-Washington finals were on a 1-2-2-1-1 basis). Also, prior to the 1980s, East and West playoffs were on an alternate-home basis except for those series when distance made the 2-2-1-1-1 format more practical.
Teams are seeded according to their regular-season record. The three division champions and best division runner-up receive the top four seeds, with their ranking based on regular-season record. The remaining teams are seeded strictly by regular-season record.
However, the NBA system differs from other sports playoffs in the fact that division champions are not guaranteed home-court advantage at any time in the playoffs, as home-court advantage is decided strictly on regular-season record, without regard to seeding.
See NBA Playoffs and 2007 NBA Playoffs for more information and the current NBA postseason.
Here's a copy/paste of how the 2-3-2 format has fared since 1985:
Home Team Wins First Two Games
2002: L.A. Lakers def. New Jersey; L.A. Lakers win series, 4-0
2000: L.A. Lakers def. Indiana; L.A. Lakers win series, 4-2
1999: San Antonio def. New York; San Antonio wins series, 4-1
1997: Chicago def. Utah; Chicago wins series, 4-2
1996: Chicago def. Seattle; Chicago wins series, 4-2
1989: Detroit def. L.A. Lakers; Detroit wins series, 4-0
1987: L.A. Lakers def. Boston; L.A. Lakers win series, 4-2
1986: Boston def. Houston; Boston wins series, 4-2
Road Team Wins First Two Games
1995: Houston def. Orlando; Houston wins series, 4-0
1993: Chicago def. Phoenix; Chicago wins series, 4-2
Teams Split First Two Games
2003: New Jersey at San Antonio; San Antonio wins series, 4-2
2001: Philadelphia at L.A. Lakers; L.A. wins series, 4-1
1998: Chicago at Utah; Chicago wins series, 4-2
1994: New York at Houston; Houston wins series, 4-3
1992: Portland at Chicago; Chicago wins series, 4-2
1991: L.A. Lakers at Chicago; Chicago wins series, 4-1
1990: Portland at Detroit; Detroit wins series, 4-1
1988: Detroit at L.A. Lakers; L.A. Lakers win series, 4-3
1985: L.A. Lakers at Boston; L.A. Lakers win series, 4-2
Home Team Wins Middle Three Games
None
Road Team Wins Middle Three Games
2001: L.A. Lakers def. Philadelphia; L.A. wins series, 4-1
1991: Chicago def. L.A. Lakers; Chicago wins series, 4-1
1990: Detroit def. Portland; Detroit wins series, 4-1
Home Team Wins Last Two Games
1994: Houston def. New York; Houston wins series, 4-3
1988: L.A. Lakers def. Detroit; L.A. Lakers win series, 4-3
Road Team Wins Last Two Games
None
The Pistons are the only team to ever win all 3 home games as a lower seed in the 2-3-2 format. Partly because any team that makes it to the final will be hard to beat 3 times in a row, AND that the lower seed is supposedly the underdog.
Did anyone see the article in the newspaper (SA Express) detailing what happens when the Home team wins 1st 2 games of series ? They chronicled it back for years.
Unfortunately, they made a mistake by saying we beat the Nets twice at home in the 1st 2 games of the series in 2003. That was glaring...it was only a few years ago. We lost home court against everyone that year except the Lakers.
Read it and saw the stats. I'm still against that format. I'd prefer the 2-2-1-1-1 formatQuote:
Originally Posted by Clutch20
It was put in for the media back when every NBA Finals was Boston vs LA. 2-3-2 is a stupid format: I think it screws over the lower-seeded team, ensuring the only way they can get a close-out game at home is to completely dominate and sweep or win in 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by twincam
See also: The 2005-2006 Miami HeatQuote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
it was changed because of the travel times... during the eastern and western conferance finals you are in the east or west respectively... the finals however you have to travel between east and west.... it sucks but imagine if it was La vs Miami, thats alot of traveling doing a 2-2-1-1-1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twincam
Then stop calling the NBA Champs "World Champions"
Great, another crybaby thread. :rolleyes
People have cried because LeBron is a great player and now they cry because Spurs will play game 5 on the road and game 6 at home instead of the opposite.
Maybe Spurs should play against a crappy team with all games at home ?
Quote:
Home Team Wins Middle Three Games
None
They need to update that...
Detroit won the middle three as the home team in 2004. And they almost did it against us the next year.
2-3-3 is pointless these days...
It sure would've been nice to come back to Dallas 2-2 last year instead of staying in Miami...
2-2-1-1-1 is the only way it should be in all rounds...
Quote:
Road Team Wins Last Two Games
None
There's the biggest key with this format....put the Cavs in that situation and they just won't have the juice to pull that off.
The heat just did that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
Aren't the '90 Pistons the only team to win all 3 on the road? Or were they just the first to do it?
Hear them talking about this a couple of days back.
Said it is because of all the international media that covers the finals. Entails too many bookings on airlines, hotels, etc.......
Believe they mentioned something like 1650 press passes for the finals.
Gawd, is Spurfan ever spoiled. Now we're bitching about winning the NBA Championship on the road? GMAFB....Quote:
Originally Posted by twincam
Go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by twincam
Be gone... :dramaqueeQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Is that your default argument? Go away? Begone?Quote:
Originally Posted by twincam
Not much of a challenge...
This question comes like clockwork every two years.
Actually, it was only in 1975 and 1978.Quote:
1975 Golden State-Washington and 1978 and 1979 Seattle-Washington finals were on a 1-2-2-1-1 basis
Now that sucks. The home team could drop the first game, then have to face the next two on the road (which is what did happen to Washington in 1975). Or even if it won the first game, it could be down 1-2 after three games.
And posters think if they're incensed enough about it that the NBA will change this decades old policy for their convenience or preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
Look man, why are you pushing it? I've never intended this to be an arguement/debate. It was a simple post. Yet, I get a :donkey such as yourself just itching to start a debate. Get over it. Grow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
It's just a battle for momentum, and in this format the team with a better record gets a head start. Theoretically, the "Better" team (Spurs) would win the first two games because they are played at home. This momentum can then be parlayed into a possible win on the road in game three. To counteract this advantage, the worse team is given an extra game at home. The final two games are a wash because if they are played, they will be played on emotion moreso than skill. Both teams have a relatively fair shot in game 6 and especially 7.
I still think the format provides an advantage to the better team, but it is a small one and largely negated by the simple difference in talent level between the conferences. If both teams were identical, the 2-3-2 format would benefit the team with the better record, slightly. But teams are not equal. The champion will be the better team, regardless of the format. 2-2-1-1-1 is the same as 2-3-2 if team A is decidedly better than team B.
The Spurs' banners say "NBA Champions".Quote:
Originally Posted by romain.star
There...fixed it for ya... :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Clutch20
It's a message board. When you express your opinion, people are going to push back. If you don't want that, start a blog.Quote:
Originally Posted by twincam
Whatever you say, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
they're world champs bcuz the best players in the world play here in the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by romain.star
and on this format topic. only gripe i have about it will be if the spurs dont win the series @ home. like in 99. but other than that i dont give a flip
I know the 01 Lakers did it also.Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledLionFan#54,927
2-3-2 was originally about the teams and the media not wanting to travel so much from East/West coast during the Finals.
I think it's a horrible format and it sucks that after five games, the team with homecourt has played more on the road than at home.
Thanks TampaDude, sometimes I'm a lazy SOB :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by TampaDude
so what? in soccer, when a european team wins the Champions League (the main european tournament), nobody's gonna claim we're the world champions (whereas the best players play in Europe)Quote:
Originally Posted by jaespur21
that's just arrogance dude
arrogance is good... builds strong character. the best players in the world play in the nba... look how many different countries are represented on the spurs alone.... the best the world has.Quote:
Originally Posted by romain.star
The NBA is the place to be for any good basketball player, and I love it man...Quote:
Originally Posted by conversekid
But let me tell this: the world champs are spanish...
And if they had to play the NBA champions to become the world champs, then they probably wouldn't be the world champs.Quote:
Originally Posted by romain.star
OK, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by twincam
for sure kori... It's 1000 times harder to be the NBA Champs... no doubt about that.. but the World Champs are still from Spain...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kori Ellis
You can call them the World Champs if you want - but unless they played the NBA Champions, then you can't dub them the best team in the World.Quote:
Originally Posted by romain.star
And, I know someone told you in this thread, but the Spurs don't call their previous championship teams "World Champions", they call them "NBA Champions".
Different story here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kori Ellis
the spurs are NBA champions, world champions, texas champions, european champions, american champions....
I looked into this with an old ESPN Almanac.
There have been 22 NBA Finals since the NBA switched to 2-3-2 for the '85 Finals. The team with home court won 16 of those series. The 6 non HCA teams to win are:
'85 Lakers over Celtics
'93 Bulls over Suns
'95 Rockets over Magic
'98 Bulls over Jazz
'04 Pistons over Lakers
'06 Heat over Mavs
The only one of those 6 teams to not at least split one of the first two on the road was the Heat last year. The '93 Bulls and '95 Rockets took both of the first 2 games on the road.
Since the '85 switch the HCA team wins 73% of the time. I wonder how that compares to the 2-2-1-1-1 format.
I think they should go back to the normal format, but the different format kinda gives the Finals a "Finals feel", IMO. It separates it from different rounds. Plus, the better team will win no matter what format is used.
correctQuote:
Originally Posted by phyzik