Reply With Quote
Am I the only one who doesn't want it to change?
League set to discuss playoff format
Commissioner Stern doesn't foresee a change, but all proposals will be presented to committee.
Chris McCosky / The Detroit News
PHILADELPHIA -- If coaches and team officials truly want to change the current NBA playoff format, they are going to get their opportunity this summer.
"Though I think it is unlikely anything will happen, we will explore it fully," commissioner David Stern said in an informal press briefing before the game Friday.
Several different proposals have been discussed the last couple of years. One is to re-seed teams in each conference after each round. Another is for the playoffs to include the 16 top teams in the league, regardless of conference affiliation and simply seed them one through 16.
Stern also said that, barring any unforeseen block from the court system, the Seattle Sonics franchise was definitely moving to Oklahoma City. He said the move could take place next season, or in the next two or three.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...102/804260350/
Am I the only one who doesn't want it to change?
I think they should follow a format where there are two brackets. Top 16 teams in the top bracket go to the playoffs. The worst team in the top bracket moves to the bottom bracket next season. Best team of the bottom bracket moves up to the top bracket in the next season.
Club football style? The owners would never go for it.
They need to change the 1st rd seies the best of 5 instead of 7
Its gonna take almost 2 weeks for the 1st rd of the P/Os to come and go
Thats waaaaaaaaaaaay too long
Unfortunately my opinion doesnt stand a chance against the ESPN, ABC, TNT cash flow
I like how the format is now. The teams want to get into the playoffs need to play better. Why should the League change the format? If the West was not so compe ive this year this would not be an issue.
2 brackets... one for contenders one for pretenders
or
one for entertainment purposes only
one for NBA ball ?
just a suggestion...
It's just not fair that 37-45 Atlanta gets a playoff berth when 48-34 Golden State doesn't. I don't think anybody would disagree.
Is not like Atlanta will be in the postseason past Monday.
That's precisely my point. Golden State on the other hand could have passed the first round. See last year.
IDK I am always alarmed when Stern starts talking about changes.
Yeah well they probably won't change anything anyways.
Reseeding would be dumb.
I'd have no problems with the top 16 teams getting in.
I think they need to change the top four rule for division champs to a guaranteed berth period, placement dependent on record. It's stupid to have a 4 seed without homecourt.
Other than that, I don't know what they should do. But it is pretty sucky that teams with better records don't make the playoffs. Maybe guarantee division winners a playoff seeding, and then otherwise eliminate conferences. But then it would require a 2-3-2 format because of potential cross country first round matchups, and then there are no conference finals, per se. Yeah, I don't know. But the seeding thing above should change.
Giving extra playoff positions to western conference teams means those rotten eastern conference teams get extra lottery picks that they don't ing deserve.
They should just do it College BCS Style, and the writers and coaches select the top 20.
I'm in favor of reseeding. I can take or leave the top 16 idea... if you do that, you should just eliminate conferences and make all schedules as equal as possible. But I don't see any dire need to do that... who really cares if the ninth best team in the West is better than some of the Eastern Playoff teams? It's not like any of those teams are Championship contenders, and if I had my way none of them would get in.
reseed by record after the first round is fine with me.
Not necessarily
I'm pretty indifferent on it. GSW definitely had a better year than Atlanta, but I have a tough time feeling sorry for them when they finished 9th in their own conference. Hard to finish that low and complain about not getting a chance to compete for a championship.
Here's one issue. Seeding 1-16 regardless of conference would be a huge advantage to the teams that play in the weaker conference.
Putting the sixteen best teams in the playoffs but awarding seven lottery spots to each conference regardless? Might work.
You can not re-seedwith all 16 teams together. They do not play the same schedules. You can change the seeding in each conference where the division winner does not seeded higher than a team with better record(Houston and Utah), but that isall. If they want to make it fair, then rearrange the conferences, and balance them by moving 2 Western teams to the East and vice versa......but I think the system is just fine now that they changed the 1-2 seed problem like what happened 2 years ago with Dallas and SA MEETING IN SEMIS,instead on Conf Finals as the 2 best teams
Last edited by Jimcs50; 04-26-2008 at 12:24 PM.
Leave it the same. Chance, bad matchups, good matchups, unfair matchups, etc. have been part of the playoffs forever. It's part of the fun.
Unless you're going to change to a round-robin format like the College World Series.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
