Reply With Quote
The Eastern Conference would die
We do this every year, but this tweet gives it extra legitimacy. When the commissioner himself openly talks about this, it just might happen.
If this had been in place this season, teams would have played things differently due to potential tiebreakers. For a three-team tie, the first tiebreaker is win % in games between those three teams. We have two of those:
Miami, Houston, Portland: Miami went 1-1 against Houston and 2-0 against Portland. Houston went 3-1 against Portland. So Miami gets the 5 seed (3-1 combined, .750), Houston gets the 6 seed (4-2 combined, .667) and Portland gets the 7 seed (1-5 combined, .167).
Chicago, Phoenix, Toronto: Toronto went 2-2 against Chicago and 0-2 against Phoenix. Chicago went 2-0 against Phoenix. So Chicago gets the 11 seed (4-2 combined, .667), Phoenix gets the 12 seed (2-2 combined, .500) and Toronto gets the 13 seed (2-4 combined, .333)
The last tie to break is a simple two-teamer between Washington and Brooklyn. Washington gets the 14 seed because they beat Brooklyn in the season series 3-0.
The final bracket looks like this:
(1) Spurs vs (16) Bobcats
(8) Warriors vs (9) Grizzlies
(5) Heat vs (12) Suns
(4) Pacers vs (13) Raptors
(3) Clippers vs (14) Wizards
(6) Rockets vs (11) Bulls
(7) Blazers vs (10) Mavericks
(2) Thunder vs (15) Nets
That's pretty compelling. Only two first-round series are pushovers (Spurs/Bobcats and Clippers/Wizards), and we still get that juicy Heat/Pacers matchup, only this time it's in round 2. Thunder vs Nets and Rockets vs Bulls have some upset potential. Oh yeah, and the Suns actually get to make the playoffs when they would be the 5th seed in the East thsi year.
The Eastern Conference would die
If the NBA change the PO format, do we have to assume they will ALSO change the draft order? So that PO teams don't get lottery picks.
Certain teams will have an advantage from a traveling perspective. A Spurs vs. Rockets series requires a lot less travel than a Portland to Orlando series. While it's still true to a degree now (GS vs. Sacramento vs. Dallas vs. Portland, for example), the difference is not as huge.
Also, from a seeding perspective, teams do not play against the same set of opponents (2 games vs. cross conference vs. 4 games vs. in conference). It would be tough to pull it off from a fairness perspective, but then again, it's not fair to have crap teams like the Bobcats in the playoffs while teams like the Suns are out.
Your supposed travel advantage already exists. This top-16 thing actually makes it less likely that a team doesn't have to travel very far. If the Spurs beat the Mavs in round 1, they might get the Rockets in round 2 and not even have to leave the state until the WCF.
You're right about the schedule imbalance, though. To take the top 16 only, the league would have to eliminate the conferences altogether. One idea is to keep the current six divisions and break down the schedule like this:
4 games against in-division opponents (16 games)
3 games against three of the other divisions (45 games)
2 games against the other two divisions (20 games)
That's 81 total. Add in one more game somewhere (pair the divisions up and match teams from the previous season, 1st place vs 1st place, 2nd vs 2nd, etc) and you get to 82. Rotate which divisions you play 2 and 3 games against with a 10-year rotating schedule and it's about as balanced as you're going to see while maintaining some geographic rivalries due to the continued existence of divisions.
This year it would be the same result, the east is terrible.
For the travel advantage, I meant to say that the SA situation you mentioned would provide more of an advantage for them. Imagine Spurs vs. Mavs in the first round, and instead of having Houston vs. Portland, we have Portland vs. Orlando. Even though Portland would win the 1st round vs. Orlando, they would be spent on the travel (more so vs. traveling to Portland), while the Spurs would be well rested. Of course, that disparity still exist today, but it's just less so.
I personally think top 16 playoff bracket would be a good thing, because there is less of an incentive to tank for the mid-tier teams. The bad teams will tank regardless, but at the least the mid tier teams will have something to fight for. Teams like the Wolves will have the opportunity to fight for a playoff spot all year, instead of realizing that they won't get in the playoffs and start tanking around Feb/March.
The only problem I have with this is that the current East-West playoff seeding fosters a culture of rivalry. When you see the same few teams matched up against each other each year, the matchups become more intense, the rivalries become deeper.
But I wouldn't argue against this at all. It's hard to argue against allowing the 16 best teams in. It's hard to stomach having the Hawks in the playoffs but not the Suns.
East teams would have inflated records based on playing tier compe ion teams will still get screwed. Just move the divisions around so not all of them are in the East. Travel ain't for these teams anyway. Use a conference system like the nfl has that's not separated by geographic location
Give them some incentive to field some actual teams, tbh.
I'd rather Silver takes away 10 small market teams. Talent becomes more concentrated, players have to demand a little less and teams have a better chance to be relevant.
There really isn't a point to conferences these days, tbh.
i wanna do you in the mouth
ing bas I almost spit out my water
oh don't spit. please don't spit.
In the last year two ty teams have sold for 550 million apiece there's no incentive to be compe ive
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
