From the Beginning, NBA Finals Format Flawed

(Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images)

Baseball, basketball, and hockey all follow best-of-seven formats in order to crown their champion at the end of a gruelling season.

Hockey, for all its faults, uses the correct 2-2-1-1-1 format where each team plays two home games and the rest of the series alternates sites with the higher seed (favored team) getting a pivotal Game Seven on its home ice.

Baseball and the NBA do not follow this pattern, instead adopting the more travel conscious 2-3-2 format, where a team gets the first two games followed by the opponent getting three straight home games and the original team getting the final two at home, if necessary.

In a league that features Bud Selig and all his controversy over the years, are we really surprised of this format?

I realize that this system has been around since 1924, but this system continues to stay around and has been in fact "improved" with its winner-take-all "All Star Game, This Time It Counts!" fest where the winning league gets home field and thus, a direct advantage in the World Series.

Not to worry though, a few more years of the American League winning this game, coupled with a likely abundance of American League teams winning the World Series each year as a result, and change will come, but it will take time.

While the NBA correctly uses the more fair 2-2-1-1-1 system in each round prior to the NBA Finals, it incorrectly strays away from a good thing when the sport needs it most.

While I already referenced this in another article, its saddening and shocking statistic still holds true.

Consider that 26 of the past 28 champions have all come from the same six markets. In the past 20 years there basically have been total dynasties and no real upsets, save for the 2006 NBA Finals when party crashers Miami Heat knocked off the Dallas Mavericks on their way to a surprising title and the 1982-83 Philadelphia '76ers.

Other than that, it's basically been six teams to rule the past three decades:

LA Lakers: '81, '85, '86, '88, '00, '01, '02

Boston Celtics: '80, '84, '86, '08

Detroit Pistons: '89, '90, '04

Chicago Bulls: '91, '92, '93, '96, '97, '98

San Antonio Spurs: '99, '03, '05, '07

Houston Rockets: '94, '95

That's it.

Close but not close enough

Sure we've seen a lot of feel good stories: the 1992 Portland Trail Blazers, 1993 Phoenix Suns, 1994 New York Knicks, 1995 Orlando Magic, 1996 Seattle Sonics, 1997 and 1998 Utah Jazz, 2000 Indiana Pacers, 2001 Philadelphia '76ers, the 2002-2003 New Jersey Nets, and 2007 Cleveland Cavilers all tried to bring the Championship home to a new market, but in each case all of them failed.

All of them lost to one of these six markets and the 2009 Orlando Magic will be no different should they follow this trend, this is why they must break the jinx and win the title for the good of the NBA, for the good of variety.

All of these teams were blocked by the success and eventual dynasty of one of the above teams in the six cities. All those good Reggie Miller/Rik Smits/Jalen Rose/Antonio Davis-led Pacers teams were shut out of a title because of either Michael Jordan or the Shaq and Kobe led Lakers (Phil Jackson had a key role in both).

Blocked from a title

Patrick Ewing never got a title because he too ran into either the Michel Jordan/Phil Jackson Chicago buzzsaw or the newest dynasty, the Spurs. Charles Barkey never got a title because he too was blocked by Jordan and the Bulls.

Same for Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, and George Karl in Seattle; same for Karl Malone, John Stockton, and Jerry Sloan in Utah; and the same for Jason Kidd and Lawrence Frank in New Jersey during their mini-run who similarly fell victim to the Lakers and Spurs, respectively.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?