Mike Monroe: Compe ion committee should consider changing playoff seeds
Web Posted: 02/15/2006 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/b....12680aea.html
The league's compe ion committee, comprised of coaches, GMs or assistant coaches from each team, meets annually over All-Star weekend to consider ways to improve the game.
It is a coach-driven committee, but it can only recommend rule changes. The Board of Governors, made up of owners or their designated representatives, enacts the changes.
There is nothing revolutionary on the committee's agenda this weekend in Houston. The most interesting change they will be asked to consider is one that will allow a defensive team that rebounds an air-ball or grabs any loose ball after the 24-second shot clock expires to "play on," rather than have to take the ball out of bounds after the violation.
The rules now specify that play always be stopped after a 24-second violation, even if the defensive team has secured the ball and started a fast break of its own. The proposed change would give the referees the la ude to declare a "play on" situation if they determine change of possession would have occurred in the natural progression of play, regardless of the expiration of the shot clock.
It seems like a slam dunk for approval by the coaches, except that it requires another judgment call by the referees. With an influx over the last couple of seasons of young refs whose judgment seems shaky, at best, that's asking for trouble. Nevertheless, it likely will be adopted.
It's not on the committee's agenda, but expect the coaches to discuss changing the playoff format, even if only during committee coffee breaks. The Spurs-Mavericks 1-4 playoff seeding thing has gotten way too much media attention in the run-up to All-Star weekend for the coaches to ignore the issue.
If things stay as they are — after 50-plus games you have to believe they aren't going to change much by season's end — either the Spurs or the Mavs will be the No. 1 seed in the West. The other will have the second-best record in the West, but will be the No. 4 seed, forced to play the No. 5 seed in the first round. Worse, it sets up a potential second-round matchup in the Western semifinals between the Spurs and Mavs.
NBA vice-president of basketball operations Stu Jackson calls this an anomaly.
It isn't.
If the Spurs and Mavs finish with the best records in the West, it will be the eighth time in the past 10 seasons two teams from the same division, in one conference or the other, have had the best records in the conference. To be statistically fair, this was more likely when there were only two divisions per conference. However, on five occasions, the two teams with the best marks would have been in one of the six divisions, as now cons uted.
Every other year, for 10 years, is no statistical anomaly.
What the league really ought to be concerned about under the system in place is the specter of a team having an incentive to dump games in the final week of this season. Check the Pacific Division standings this morning and you can imagine such a scenario for the Clippers or the Suns.
Let's say the Clippers come into the final six or seven games of the season trailing the Suns by three or four games, but leading the Hornets by only one or two. If the Clips finish second in the division they are the No. 5 seed. Not only would they then have to face the Spurs or Mavs in the first round, they would be in the same bracket with both Western powers. Finish sixth, though, and they could slide into a first-round matchup against a shaky Northwest Division champ. They likely would even have home court advantage in the first round. They also would avoid both the Spurs and Mavs until the conference finals.
What makes playoff sense for the Clips in such a hypothetical?
Losing games to drop behind the Hornets.
That is never what Commissioner David Stern and his minions want to see. The draft lottery was implemented for just such a scenario when it became evident teams were dumping games to get to the top of the draft order.
There are several possible solutions, including reseeding after each round to insure the highest seeds always play the lowest.
Here, though, is what makes the most sense, given the league's desire to have the division races count for something:
Make a division le worth one of the top four seeds, plus home court advantage in the first round. The non-division winner with the best record gets the other spot in the top four.
Seed those four teams according to record.
Problem solved.
Were the playoffs to begin today under this system, the Spurs and Mavs would have the top two seeds in the West, the Suns the third seed, Denver the fourth. The Spurs and Mavs would be in opposite brackets, and the Clippers would have no incentive to drop out of the No. 5 spot.
That wasn't so hard now, was it?
That doesn't sound right. Isn't home court advantage in the first round based entirely on seeding?Finish sixth, though, and they could slide into a first-round matchup against a shaky Northwest Division champ. They likely would even have home court advantage in the first round.
http://www.nba.com/spurs/tickets/playoff_info_2005.htmlThe top eight teams in each conference qualify for the playoffs. The team with the best record in each conference is seeded No. 1, the other two division winners is will be seeded No. 2 and No. 3 based on their win-loss record. The remaining five teams are seeded Nos. 4-8 according to their win-loss records. (Home court advantage in all playoff series is determined by better win-loss record, not higher seeding.) In the event two or more teams are tied in the standings, a series of tie-breakers are applied to determine which team receives the higher seeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NBA_PlayoffsHowever, the division champion is not guaranteed home-court advantage; a division-leading team with a poor record could be ranked number three but face a sixth seed with a better record, which would then have the home-court advantage.
I stand corrected.
I thought that in the first round HCA was determined by seeding too. I thought you were right but I looked it up just in case.
I agree. Why not? That would actually make the first round a lot more exciting because the second round matchups could change dramatically depending on the results in the opening round.Seed those four teams according to record.
Problem solved.
Of course, this doesn't reward a heavy underdog very much for upsetting a higher seed as that team will be matched against the best remaining team no matter what.
I found it one more place, just to make sure.
http://www.nba.com/news/realign_031117.htmlThe three regular season divisional winners in each conference will earn a playoff berth and one of the conference's top three playoff seeds based on regular season record. The remaining five playoff berths for each conference will be based on regular season records with no regard to divisional alignment.
Home-court advantage throughout the NBA playoffs will be based solely on regular season record, not playoff seeding, thus a divisional winner that has a higher playoff seed than an opponent will not necessarily have home-court advantage in the playoff series.
if it were up to me the NBA playoffs would be a round robin tournament with the number TWO team at the end becoming the NBA champion so that teams could better strategize how to get the #2 spot when all is said and done. Much like how in 21 you dont wanna go over 21 or else you go back down to 13 (or 15 depending on your rules) so you strategize accordingly!
I never understood why the NBA went to the 3 division format.
Line em up by record.
You won a division, good for you, but you shouldn't be rewarded for being ok, but the divsion being as bad as the NFC west.
Part of it is it theoretically reduces travel costs, since you have to play more games against teams in your division than teams outside of it, and with 3 divisions the geographical packing is tighter.
A bigger part is that it keep more teams in the playoff hunt towards the end. As you pointed out, a team in a weak division that ordinarily would be in the 9 or 10 spot could get a cheapie into the #3 slot.
In similar reasoning, most NCAA conferences have gone to tournaments to determine their champion because it's a chance for teams that don't otherwise deserve to be in (and they're huge cash cows).
The word "duh" comes to mind. I've been ing about this since about 5 minutes after the re-alignments. The NBA needs to re-seed after the first round.
IMO, Re-seeding would be bad for the NBA, It would lead to boring playoffs full of sweeps and 4-1 victories. I think the main reason it works well in the NFL is because the talent gap is not as wide, and its a 1 game format instead of a 7 game series.
You think having a 1st round matchup between two highly-ranked teams followed by a yawner of a championship is a good thing??
In the first round, you may get some sweeps and 4-1 victories, but usually the 4-5 and 3-6 matchups are pretty damn good. The same thing would happen with reseeding.
And a better record SHOULD earn you an easier pathway.
That's a good idea. That makes getting into the 6th seed and higher a good thing to do to avoid the top two teams.
As for the 6 divisions. 6 does divide into 30 evenly, while 4 doesn't. Who knows what might happen if the NBA decides to go to 32 teams.
So if an 8th seed upsets a 1st seed, they get rewarded by playing the 2nd seed in the 2nd round?
If #8 beats #1, why should #4 benefit?
I like that better than two great teams busting their asses all season only to be thrown together in the 2nd round while team gets a cakewalk to the championship.
Actually having a good record at the end of the year should mean something. Having the 8th best record in the conference should afford you 8th best respect.
If it was a single game elimination, I would agree with the re-seeding, or if they gave 1st round Byes. I just think re-seeding would make for a more boring playoffs, HCA is enough of an advantage, no need to re-seed
We talked about this elsewhere, but the NBA is less likely to adjust the system because as things currently stand, they're virtually guaranteed a behemoth matchup in the West playoffs, since it is unlikely that either the Spurs or the Mavericks will drop a first round series. Keep them seeded as is and you get the two best teams playing at some point, even if it's not in the West Finals. Adjust the seeds and you make each go through another round, introducing a greater possibility that one or the other will be eliminated before the matchup comes off. It worked for years with Spurs/Lakers (1999, 2002, 2003, 2004). Bird in the hand being what it is.
I have a question that I haven't been able to find an answer to -- someone suggested in a different context that the NBA quietly changed the tiebreakers last summer. For years, tiebreakers were: (1) head-to-head; (2) conference record; (3) division record. Now, someone has recently reported that #2 and #3 have flipped -- that the tiebreakers are: (1) head-to-head; (2) division record; (3) conference record. If that's true, that's a huge difference in the SA/Dallas endgame. If the 2nd tiebreaker is conference record, the Spurs are comfortably ahead; if its division record, the Spurs are in a virtual dead-heat with the Mavericks (each has 2 division losses). Anyone know the answer to that one?
The regular season shouldn't mean squat besides Home Court Advantage, and initial seedings, the playoffs should be a whole new season
You realize that every league other than the NBA reseeds after the first round, right? (baseball doesn't have to because there are only 2 rounds of league (conference) playoffs). And you'd only be talking about reseeding for the 2nd round.
I'm not sure how protecting the teams that work their tails off in the regular season will make for boring playoffs.
I don't believe in rewarding mediocre teams for having a mediocre season. Make them work for it.
I believe that the NCAA basketball tournament doesnt re-seed. If they did you might as well make the field from 65 to 8, since the first few rounds would be pretty pointless
Guess what? The individual seeds for the NCAA tournament are decided by a bunch of guys in a back room filled with cigar smoke. If that happened in the NBA, I feel confident that SA and Dallas would be placed in opposite brackets.
The two situations are NOT comparable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
