Reply With Quote
It definitely benefits the team with the lesser record which is a bit unfair. Why work hard during the regular season when it's going to you over if you make it to the finals?
What are your thoughts on it? I think it really helps the team without HCA because at one point in the series they will have played more home games. The momentum from the 3 home games in a row really helps.
Heat in 06 got all the momentum in the series because of the 3 home games in a row. I don't think the Mavs would have won the 2011 finals if they had to go to Miami for 3 straight.
It definitely benefits the team with the lesser record which is a bit unfair. Why work hard during the regular season when it's going to you over if you make it to the finals?
Regardless of what's happened this year, it's damn near impossible for a finals participant to beat another finals participant three straight times (if they are evenly matched, that is). That in itself makes it tougher for the team without HCA to win a series since you essentially have to count on losing one of your home games, meaning you have to win two games on the road to win the series.
This discussion comes up every year around this time, but since there ain't much else to talk about....
I, personally, agree that it really nullifies HCA for the team that has it. If the home team wins every game, that means that the team with HCA is still going to have to face going down 2-3 and being on the short side, having to win two elimination games (albeit at home) in order to ring. So really, the only way to have HCA and NOT be at a disadvantage, is if you take one of the 3-straight on the road (and win your home games).
Now look at this year's situation, where OKC dropped one of their first 2 home games. Suddenly, they are behind a huge eight ball, and very possibly won't even get a chance to see their home court again. They pretty much had to go to Miami and win two there to put themselves back in a good position, and obviously, that chance has already passed.
Getting games 6 and 7 on your home court is nice...but considering that if it gets to that point, you are going to be in a tough position already, I agree that the 2-3-2 format doesn't make much sense. You spent all year working for HCA, and don't even really get it when you need it most (the Finals). Who cares if they have to travel a lot; these guys spent 8 months out of the year flying around the country, a couple more plane rides aren't going to kill them.
Last edited by Dex; 06-20-2012 at 04:10 PM.
I think as much as it might help the team without HCA for reasons mentioned above, it helps the team with HCA because the team without HCA needs to win 3 games in a row in order to win all of their home games, when winning 3 games against a team good enough to make the finals is hard regardless. In the 2005 finals for example the 2-3-2 format probably hurt Detroit
This. Look at the finals this year for example, in a regular 2-2-1-1-1 format Miami could have an off game after winning the last 3 games and still close it out at home. If Miami can't win 4 games in a row against the Thunder, then they'll have to close it out in OKC.
I think its bogus
If you can win a series in 5 games, you have enough of an advantage that home court isn't that relevant.
For any close series, having both game 6 and game 7 at home is a huge advantage. 2-3-2 magnifies home court in close series, even if it maybe weakens it in series that aren't close.
I see the merit of the argument as stated. But if you have HCA and you lose one of the first two games and can't win at least one of the next 3 on the road, you probably don't deserve to win the le anyway.
You said it better than I did right here. The only time a series can get swung by HCA is a 6 or 7 game series against two evenly matched teams.
Either way, it ought to be consistent. It's stupid to have 22111 all through the playoffs then switch it up for the Finals. Just pick a format and use it the whole time. Same goes for baseball.
I think it's a huge advantage for the team with HCA. In any reasonably matched series, it ensures the clinching games are played on the home floor of the team with HCA. I can't imagine the Lakers winning the 2010 le, for example, without having games 6 and 7 on their home court. I personally like the 2-3-2 since it makes the regular season record mean something of critical importance.
Yeah its bogus and ought to be change to the regular series format.
I dont agree that if you cant win on the road you dont deserve a championship arguement.
There is alot of things that goes into these scenarios. Home crowd, refs favoritism etc.
The team with supposed HCA is the one getting ed the most.
Exactly. Make it all one or all the other.
I think it comes that to the league trying to figure out a way to extend the finals to as many games as possible. As mentioned already, the HCA can seem to be an illusion because the 3 straight games at home for the team with the lesser record can be a big momentum shifter. In those games, the role players can feed off the crowd and are generally more productive. That momentum can translate over to road games. All you really need are those 3 games and you are in solid position to win it all.
The rationale is that the home team would win their 2 home games and then 2 more at home provided that the team without HCA wins their 3 home games. I don't even know if the statistics bare out the fact that the finals series are longer with the 2-3-2 format. In fact, it might be the opposite.
Having said all that, I really don't mind the format because I think the best team still wins it all. I also wouldn't mind if the league switches to the 2-2-1-1-1 format though.
Your a wild one for that one.
I made this same thread last season....
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180587
And I did some stat searching on it. Since 1985, when the 2-3-2 format started, the team with HCA has won 20 out of 27 championships. So the team with HCA statistically has the advantage.
I agree that it's completely stupid to have the 2-2-1-1-1 format for the entire playoffs and then change it for the Finals. Stay consistent.
It's just dumb to make it different. The original reasoning doesn't apply anymore.
If it's going to end that way, then the entire playoffs should be that way. No reason to change it in the end. Either all or nothing.
Yeah but you're an idiot and no one gives a about your threads.
I'm sensing bitterness and anger. Why u mad old man?
Just toeing the company line tbh.
imo it should be 2-2-1-1-1 for the entire postseason, 2-3-2 just for the finals makes no sense.
it doesn't matter how great a team is, if team B has 3 straight games at home- team A regardless of who they are, will have a hard time.
This.
For example with the playoff format this year game 5 would be a less important game for Miami. They could play without pressure and that's a big advantage in these games.But with 2-3-2 format they can't relax or they would have to win one of two in OKC
It's not easy to win 3 straight.
Detroit in 2004 was the last team to win those 3 games.
No one concentrates on winning 3 straight. They win one at a time and that's easier at home than on the road.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
