Amid this anti-pop outcry, I have an extremely important question.

[200 miles]

Why are the Spurs seeded at #3?


I mean there is no three-way tie between the Rockets, Blazers and Spurs.

Denver has 2-2 head to head and same record with Portland but has a better division record, which gives the Nuggets the tiebreaker and division le.

Although Portland and the Spurs have the same record, with the Rockets finishing a game behind, Portland has a 3-1 head to head with the Spurs, in which the Blazers should have the tiebreaker and the 3 seed with the Spurs getting the 4 seed.

So, why is this?

[timvp]

You solved the NBA's error. Props. Time to redo the first round.

[SenorSpur]

Spurs get a top 3 seed by virtue of them winning the Southwest Division. All 3 division winners get a top seed, based upon record. So consider the Spurs the 3rd best of the theree division winners.

[ElNono]

Why are the Spurs seeded at #3?

I mean there is no three-way tie between the Rockets, Blazers and Spurs.

So, why is this?

But there was a three-way tie between Nuggets, Blazers and Spurs.

[200 miles]

Spurs get a top 3 seed by virtue of them winning the Southwest Division. All 3 division winners get a top seed, based upon record. So consider the Spurs the 3rd best of the theree division winners.

That "3 division winners being guaranteed top 3 spots" rule was changed after the 2006 Spurs-Mavs debacle.

[SenorSpur]

That "3 division winners being guaranteed top 3 spots" rule was changed after the 2006 Spurs-Mavs debacle.

Thank you.

[braeden0613]

You solved the NBA's error. Props. Time to redo the first round.

Thumbs up for great sarcasm.

[200 miles]

But there was a three-way tie between Nuggets, Blazers and Spurs.

But the Nuggets won the season series with the Spurs 2-1, thus canceling out the Nuggets on account of them having tiebreakers over both the Blazers AND Spurs, thus leaving the 3 seed between those two teams.

[ElNono]

But the Nuggets won the season series with the Spurs 2-1, thus canceling out the Nuggets on account of them having tiebreakers over both the Blazers AND Spurs, thus leaving the 3 seed between those two teams.

That's how you think it works. Now go to nba.com and read how a multi-team tier gets resolved.

[200 miles]

That's how you think it works. Now go to nba.com and read how a multi-team tier gets resolved.

Did you read the entire rulebook?

[ElNono]

Did you read the entire rulebook?

[Spursmania]

[braeden0613]

Search for the 500 threads devoted to this one topic.

[Spursmania]

lol...

[poop]

actually, if it werent for pop's boneheaded rotations during march, we would still have locked up the 2nd seed easily.

[200 miles]

Search for the 500 threads devoted to this one topic.

Please consider this topic finished because I have gotten nothing but subtle insults instead of a simple straight answer and I do not have time to look over 500 threads.

[ElNono]

Please consider this topic finished because I have gotten nothing but subtle insults instead of a simple straight answer and I do not have time to look over 500 threads.

How about you use the search function and stop ing?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...2&postcount=10

from here:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html

[braeden0613]

Please consider this topic finished because I have gotten nothing but subtle insults instead of a simple straight answer and I do not have time to look over 500 threads.

Forgive me if thinking posting this hours after a painful loss where everyone wants to throw things at players and coaches isn't a good idea. Do you really think the NBA would let the series start if there was an error in the seeding? Really?

[200 miles]

How about you use the search function and stop ing?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...2&postcount=10

from here:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html

You sure showed me. Thank you for enlightening me. You must feel relieved now.

[200 miles]

Do you really think the NBA would let the series start if there was an error in the seeding? Really?

I wouldn't bet against it.