Whats the consensus on this?
Does everyone agree that it gives even more of an advantage to the homecourt team?
If you win the first two games, it basically guarantees you win the championship, with the exception of a team like the Dallas Mavs.
Its almost impossible to win 3 straight games against a finals caliber opponent. So invariably the lower seed will drop one of the 3 middle home games. Then you've got two home games to close out the series.
I understand why they do it, with the travel between coasts and everything. And I don't have a huge problem with it.
Just wondering if anyone else sees the huge advantage here.
Though I suppose, if the road team takes one of the first two games, the HC team is probably ed.
Does it even out, or does the HC team have more of an advantage than usual?
You have it backwards.
It gives the advantage to the lower seed. 3 straight home games is nothing to laugh at.
This format basically means the first 2 games of the series are MUST WIN GAMES for the higher seed. If you drop 1 and go 1-1 with the next 3 games at their home, you are ed.
The 2-3-2 format is one of the big reasons the Heat took the Mavericks momentum away.
Interesting.
So you could argue the first two games decide how the series will go.
If the HC team takes both, they are going to win because its hard to take 3 straight home games.
If the road team takes one, they are going to win because they go back to their house squared up and with 3 straight home games to play.
lol picc going out of his way to take a shot at the mavs
lol got
<--------
I am not a fan of it. IMHO it gives the advantage to the road team. In the NBA the HCA does have an effect. Not always good, but it is a statistically calculable trend per team per season.
for it or not, it HAS to be this way.
I love the 2-3-2 format. It makes games 1 & 2 critical for the home team.
lol hope
I can care less, the better team will win.
This^
2-3-2 Format guarantees 6 games in a series.
It's designed to save two cross-country trips for each team.
& was approved by the league rank & file at the time it was implemented.
Spurs lost Game 2 against the Nets at home in 2003 and still won the series.
If anything the format changes the dynamics of Game 5, since that's usually a home game for the team with home court in the first three rounds.
C'mon though, seriously? I mean, I could understand this sentiment in the 70's and 80's, but have you seen what these players fly on? Where they stay at? How many hookers they can get in a matter of a text or a tweet? It's really an interesting take on pretty much an archaic reasoning. How long is a flight between, say, Orlando and Los Angeles. The private jets that employed by the team give ample leg room and all the amenities of a 4 star hotel room (I've seen the inside of the Lakers' jet and it is immaculate). Because it does put an unfair (slight) advantage for the home team in games 1 & 2 if they manage to split the first two games. Going on the road for 3 straight games is rough. However, you can also say if you're going to be a championship mettle team, you've got to win at any cost.
Lack of home court ain't the death knell it was before the '85 Finals. There was a purposeful break thru there that has transcended the game in the last generation.
I tend to agree with Barkley. Can you really call it homecourt advantage when there's a point where the lower seed will have played more home games than the higher seed?
'73 Knicks, '74 Celtics, '75 Warriors, '77 Blazers, '78 Bullets, '79 Sonics, and '82 Lake Show all won without HC in the 2-2-1-1-1 era. I tend to think the better team wins regardless of where the series starts and ends.
My problem with the 2-3-2 is that it's a deviation from the format of the first three rounds, which is asinine. If the NBA is going to go 2-3-2 for the Finals it should go 2-3-2 for the entire postseason.
Or better yet, save 2-3-2 for the cross-continental Finals series like Boston-LA and go 2-2-1-1-1 for, say, Detroit-San Antonio.
Don't have a problem with it, but see why some people might think there's something unfair about it.
Above anything else, I think it shouldn't matter what kind of format it is. It's the NBA Finals. It's the last series. It determines the champion. Both teams should be up for every single game, home or away. Don't find excuses to offer for when you lose. Just win 4 games.
It's a player's league. If they weren't happy with the format they'd prompt the change.
2001
2002
2004
2007
2009
Except for being wrong half the time, you're right all the time.
The three games in the middle are sucker bait. Have they ever been run? I don't think so.
A championship team should be able to win at least one on the road.
2004 Detroit Pistons over the Los Angeles Lakers.
Pistons took all middle three games.
2004 Pistons.
The 2-3-2 format undoubtedly gives the edge to the road team. You steal one on the road, then you're guaranteed to have a rabid homecrowd behind you for 3 straight games. Hold serve, and it's "We Are The Champions."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
