Reply With Quote
Go to the NFL-style of 12 playoff teams, top 2 in each conference get first-round byes. You still might have the occasional under-.500 team make it in the East, but it would be rare.
Then again a West team would almost have to win 50 just to get in.
Saying Miami and Indiana have the worst strength of schedule in the league is a tautology this late in the season. It's just saying that Indiana and Miami have two of the top records in the league and play in the weaker conference. Strength of schedule makes sense to discuss early in the season when two teams in the same conference can have wildly different qualities of opponents on average, but this late in the season most of that noise has been smoothed out.
Go to the NFL-style of 12 playoff teams, top 2 in each conference get first-round byes. You still might have the occasional under-.500 team make it in the East, but it would be rare.
Then again a West team would almost have to win 50 just to get in.
It wouldn't be by today's seeding, but rather who receives welfare checks provided by the luxury tax spenders.If you have to boot the bottom 6, who do you boot?
1. Bobcats
2. Bucks
3. Kings
4. Magic
5. Raptors
6..........Lakers?
they should just seed in 1-16 for the playoffs, fck the conferences man
look at the playoff format, how many game day breaks are in between games,
thats enough time for rest and travel to ur destination
I like the current system and think it will even out over time...its not like the wests 9th seed could win the le or the easts 7th seed gets more than a first round out.
This is just a hypothetical, never said they would, I thought an NBA discussion that isn't based on slander and name calling would be interesting. My apologizes if this has been discussed before.
You are arguing semantics and using hyperbole. This gist of the question was about making the schedule fair and it was quite evident in the original post. I am sorry if the le was misleading
The point was to compare the SOS of teams from different conferences to show the disparity. Part of the reason Indiana had the best record for most of the year was because they play bad teams within their conference twice as much as the teams in the west, so they would rake up wins.
The current system has been lopsided for a decade and a half, and it doesn't show signs of getting better any time soon. , this year's Leastern Conference is one of the crappiest in the bunch. The Eastern Conference does nothing but produce one or two teams that are capable of contending for a le, and gives those two teams a cakewalk to their Conference Finals. Meanwhile, the West typically produces three to four teams capable of ringing (SAS, OKC, HOU, LAC this season) with a number of dark horses. And all of those teams have to grind against each other to make it to the Finals.
If the playoffs were to start today in the East, Indiana would go up against Atlanta who is sitting at 9 games below .500. The Heat would play the ing Bobcats in the first round, for Christ's sake. We might as well give them a bye-round; at least we could hope that would affect their rhythm more than those glorified practices will.
Compare that to the West, where the Spurs would be faced up against a dangerous Memphis team who is 10 games OVER .500, and won over 70% of their games since January 1st. , even the West's 9th and 10th seeds, Phoenix and Minnesota, are probably better than every team in the East minus Indiana and Miami.
The West had one team capable of ringing last year, and they made the Finals. Same thing in 2010. Same thing in 2009. Same thing in 2005.
Conferences we created for travel purposes. Can't have Miami playing a seven game series against Portland, then a seven game series against LA, and so forth. That's why you only play the other conference twice in the regular season. I know there are rare exceptions in locations, but I'm referring to the majority. The NFL only plays one game a week, including playoffs, so travel is not much of an issue with teams in conferences cross country.
Also, can't have 1st round byes when a series could take two weeks.
my bad, i meant to reply to "angrydude's" post where they disregard conferences in playoff seeding
The Finals finally going to 2-2-1-1-1 might be the start of a shift towards the league being okay with frequent, long trips. The 2-3-2 format was from an age where teams flew commercial and you only had a couple of reporters for each team.
With charter jets and nationwide TV coverage being the norm, a Miami-Portland (worst-case scenario next to maybe Clippers-Raptors) second round series isn't as daunting as it might seem. We had a Lakers-Wolves WCF in 2004, which is more distance than there is between many East and West teams.
As long as teams get an extra day off between games 1-2 and 3-4 (with game 5 and/or 6 in the afternoon on a weekend to permit a flight that same day), you should be able to get a 2-2-1-1-1 series between any two teams in the league into 15 days. If the Lakers can fly to Minneapolis, it's only a few extra hours in a plane for the Heat to get to Portland. Not enough to materially affect the schedule.
Even more incentive for a team to bust their asses in the regular season and get a top 2 seed. The byes will never happen, though, just not for the reason you said. There's too much money made by the four teams involved, and the league exists primarily to make money.
What? No. Take away the top two teams from each conference last year. The West has 5+ teams capable of winning hardware. The East has 0. Nada. Nyet.
Not understanding the logic. So the West had 3 teams that could have won the le if the Spurs & Thunder team planes crashed into each other and the Heat & Pacers planes did too?
I agree with the new charter flights changing things, but it still seems like too much potential travel. It would wear down the players, and still cost too much money for cross country flights every round...just my opinion.
As far as the second point, I was actually referring to the same thing. For the same reason, money, two weeks is too long for the top seed being out from the playoffs picture. Its why they went to the 7 game opening rd in the first place.
Yeah, and again, when is the last time a Western Conference Champion has struggled to make it out of the conference? The worst record of a Western Conference Champion in the past 15 years was the 2003 Spurs (12-6). the ing 2008 Celtics went 12-8 (two 7 game series)
The elite Western Conference teams (especially the Spurs, Lakers) have historically handled their compeition without problem. A West 8th seed isn't as good as people think they are.
As far as the lottery and tanking, here's my rough idea....
two conferences, three divisions each with 5 teams:
The lottery would consist of 10 teams, two divisions from each conference, rotated every year, so you would be in the lottery once every 3 years. You are rewarded with an extra "ping pong ball" for making the playoffs with a max of 2 "ping pong balls". The count resets the season after you are in the lottery. If you don't make the playoffs, you only get one ball on your lottery rotation.
The remaining teams pick in this order: non-playoff teams pick in order of best to worst record, while playoff teams pick in worst to best record.
This gives every team a chance to be in the lottery with an incentive to make the playoffs, and it also rewards non playoff teams for winning.
for the first lottery under these rules, you would have to let the first two divisions know 3 years in advance, then start everyone else from the first lottery forward.
Just a rough idea...
How about phrasing it like this: put the 1-8 seeds up against each other from each conference. The East MIGHT win two of those match-ups. The West goes 7-1 or 6-2. It speaks to the caliber of playoff ball (or lack thereof) in the east.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
