Some have talked about just making it the top 16 teams whether east or west to make it more exciting and fair. For example, some argue that who ever missed the playoffs in the west, could very well have a record over 500 and will qualify for the lottery. This would be unfair for the east 9th seed who would much probably deserve it more and so forth. what do you all think? Would it be a good idea just to make it that the division champs get an automatic ticket to the playoffs and then the next 10 best teams there after (no matter east or west)? I would be for it. What would that look like right now anyway? I'm too lazy to tally up the best 16 records.
Sean actually had a good point on the telecast last night. Those horrible 6-8 seeds in the East are actually being penalized by making the playoffs and not getting a lottery pick. Sean's suggestion is that all 6 division winners get in, and then the next 10 best teams, regardless of Conference affiliation.
Duncan's comments on it:
(The article came out right after the All Star break.)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...tes.adv23.1135/
Players don't see a need to change format to allow 16 best teams in the playoffs
Ten teams in the Eastern Conference have losing records. Three of them will still wind up in the playoffs.
Obviously, most of them don't belong in the postseason. And they wouldn't be if the format was altered so the field was truly reserved for the top 16 teams.
If that was the case this season, as many as 11 teams from the loaded Western Conference could get in.
"That'd be great if you're out West,'' Spurs forward Tim Duncan said. "I think the East would be a little (mad) about that, but it'd be great if you were out West.''
Duncan called it an "arguable point,'' but he and other players who talked about it over All-Star weekend doubted it would ever happen. Neither did Stu Jackson, the NBA's executive vice president of operations.
Washington's Caron Butler didn't like the idea, and not just because his Wizards would be in danger of staying home in the changed format. Washington, sixth in the East, would be tied for the final spot with Sacramento, which is 11th out West.
"It'd ruin tradition,'' Butler said. "I feel like tradition is strong in this league, that's why I was a strong supporter of keeping the ball the same and everything, because tradition is everything.
"But if we did, that'd mean teams would have to win more games, because the West is like 50 wins probably won't get you in the playoffs.''
Jackson said he thought the league would always want to preserve the idea of a conference championship, but as Boston's Ray Allen pointed out, travel would likely be the biggest obstacle. His top-seeded Celtics would have to go across the country to Sacramento if the Kings earned the final spot, and No. 2 seed Detroit would have to visit Portland.
Toronto, as a No. 13 seed, would end up in Los Angeles or Phoenix, which are tied for fourth. Still, a change could be appealing for a team such as Denver, which is no sure thing to make the playoffs in the West but would be safely in under the 16-team format.
"It could be a better system, but the Western Conference is real, real tough right now,'' the Nuggets' Carmelo Anthony said. "It's like nine teams are fighting for one spot. That's how it feels in the Western Conference right now. In the East, it's a little bit more leeway over there.''
I am a fan of that system. If those east teams can get into the playoffs now and miss out on the lottery, it is tougher for them to build a compe ive team.
Seattle is doing it right. Draft your stud, cut all the fat, trade for picks and build around that. Yeah you may suck for a couple of years, but its worth it if you can become compe ive.
In a word, no.
The NFL and MLB do it how the NBA does it. Only the NHL goes with the best teams regardless of a conference. Throwing in your lot with the NHL just seems like a bad move.
Yeah, it sucks right now, but hopefully the East gets better and this becomes a non-issue. If in 3-4 years time the East still sucks, then change it. But I say keep the format right now.
It really doesn't bother me that much. Some crappy teams from the East are going to get in - no doubt. But if you can't finish in the top 8 in your own conference, it doesn't really matter how good the west is, you don't deserve to play for a championship.
How does the East get better if 50 win Denver might get a lottery pick that the Wiz could really use, coop?
Good point, I never thought about this but it makes no sense for a team to miss the lotery with a sub .500 record while other 50 wins teams keep getting high draft pick just based on East/West localization.
And why is NOH in the west btw?!
So they lose a few places in the draft, big deal. Are you telling me there's that big of a drop-off between pick number 14 and pick number 17? Please.
The East gets better the same way crappy teams in the West get better. Draft better players, get better coaches, sign better free agents. Nothing magical about it. In the 80's the Eastern Conference was superior, and then the West somehow found a way to catch up. In the NFL the NFC reigned during the 90's, and this decade it's been the AFC.
That's a decent point.
However, unless teams spend money, they are never going to make it to the top. This isn't like football, where you can somehow get lucky and have several players have breakout years.
Marc Cuban, as much as you can hate on him, came in, spent the money, and made Dallas a powerhouse in just a couple of years. If he hadn't, does anyone doubt that there would be MAYBE one or two Mavs fans still posting here?
Teams that don't run up against the salary cap (and do it WISELY, Knicks) are going to suck no matter what.
Teams that give massive contracts to declining, slightly above average players cannot be helped by getting a 12th pick instead of a 20th. The management is so idiotic that they're going to blow any chance they have of improving the team anyway.
How do I know this? I'm a Cubs fan. The epitome of money spent with ill-gotten gains. And we're doing it WITHOUT a salary cap.
The bottom line is that you need to make smart moves, bring in quality players, and appeal to your fan base. That will generate revenue and let you go after the one superstar you need to put yourself on the next level. Of the four best teams in the league (Lakers, Spurs, Celts, Pistons), how many players have real ego problems? Kobe and Sheed. That's probably it. That says a lot, IMO.
I like this system a lot better, half the East shouldn't even come close to the playoffs.
-Mars
There should be no East and West.
I agree. Let's do this.
As far as travel being an obstacle, WTF? Just get on YOUR TEAM'S PRIVATE JET and STFU.
Nothing wrong with NHL playoff scheme.
EC has been broadly weak for many years, excepting the top 1 or 2 teams.
Letting crappy EC teams waste their/everybody's time in the playoffs AND to be denied lottery seems counterproductive.
The traditions of the NBA are in the game and players, not in the playoff scheme. A tradition worth trashing is that of the EC sucking.
Sonics have to be the most on and off again team to me.
It would make so much more sense to drop the conference restrictions, especially if the NBA is serious about expanding into Europe.
At the time they moved to NO, they were an EC team. The conferences were unbalanced, with 15 teams in the EC and 14 teams in the WC. The NBA agreed to expand into Charlotte to replace the Hornets, since the people had supported them until the owner decided to stick his into anything that moved and spend no money on players and demand a new arena. Since the EC was already heavy one team, they moved the most Western team (NOH) to the WC.
No. This would dissolve the significance of the conference finals.
This aint college. Leave it the way it is.
Last edited by SenorSpur; 03-02-2008 at 09:40 PM.
I think the playoffs are way too long. Make it 8 teams total?
The whole Southwest division minus Memphis would be in every year then..lolll
Take top six teams each conference, keep them playing in their conf for seeding and the playoffs, and make last two slots "open", i.e. West 9-10 could beat out East 7 and 8 if better records, would be more fair.
The only change I'd like to see is re-seeding after the first round.
Another thing to consider - the imbalance in the conferences makes it more difficult for a Western team to win because they have to go through 3 knock-down, drawn-out battles just to make the Finals (every round will be tough), as against 2 in the East (the first round will be a joke due to the weak teams).
I like the idea of 6 conference champs and the next 10 on record regardless of conference.
East v West may be tradition, but does it make any sense when evaluating fairness? No.
The reason it won't change - TV rights.
such ideas only surface during weird seasons like we've had the past few years where the West is just so head and shoulders high over the East. it will, however, even out in the long run. Good players in bad West teams wanting to have a better chance of playing in the playoffs and advance will be more than willing to migrate to the East. already, that process is beginning with Garnett and Lewis changing addresses. it will take a while but the East will eventually close the gap.
m33p0 - people have been saying that for 5 years, but the gap has never been wider than it now is. I think that's an old argument that has been shot down.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
