The beauty of the NBA is that it is unafraid of change. It is a league at the forefront of many of the best things in professional sports – diversity, globalization, charity, teamwork, marketing and technology.
It is a league that evaluates scenarios, studies and usually changes for the better. It moved the three-point line in, saw that was a mistake and changed it back. The league allowed the zone defense and produced a better product. The league experimented with a new composite ball and then returned to leather. The introduction of an age minimum, I believe, was a step forward for more polished players (i.e. Brandon Roy) coming into the league. To fill the gap for players who may not be best suited for college, the Developmental League is a good option that only improves every year.
Unfortunately, the one major gap in this tremendous sport of professional basketball is in defining its champion. When the sport is supposed to be at its zenith in terms of interest, intensity and quality of play, I feel that the NBA shoots an airball.
Now, this is not only an NBA problem. Sports like college football have had questionable methods of determining champions for years. The problem arises primarily from failing to match up the quality teams in an effort to ultimately decide which team is best. The history of college football is littered with teams that feasted on lesser competition, built up a bloated won-loss record and laughably were "voted" a top team – a "mythical" national champion indeed.Fortunately, the NBA has a regular season that could easily determine the quality of a ballclub. Once the various team strengths are ascertained, a championship tournament could be easily implemented. And surprisingly, the methodology doesn't have to be so shockingly different.
There are two incredibly unfortunate aspects of the regular season in the NBA. One is that the visiting team loses 60 percent of all regular season games. This is the biggest disparity in any of the four major sports. The other is that the Western Conference has become so dominant that any type of playoff system that doesn't acknowledge this truism is flawed.
Now, one look at an NBA team's schedule gives you a good idea why road teams rarely win. Tons of travel, back-to-back games, and four games in five nights in multiple time zones all take its toll on the traveling team's play. Having broadcast NBA games for 15 years, I can tell you that I am physically beaten up on these trips, and I am only required to speak to perform my job.
Players endure physical hardship and injury during a season (more than 300 players have missed a total of 4,400 games each of the past two seasons) and this is despite being some of the best conditioned athletes in the world. Having players perform at less than their best is not good for fans, the quality of play, games being broadcast and competition in general.
All of this can be addressed by adjusting the "conference" setup in the NBA. This has happened in the league's history several times and teams like Chicago and Milwaukee were once even in the Western Conference.
Fortunately, the NBA's current regionally-based six-division setup would still work. However, rather than having the six divisions placed within two conferences, it would make more sense to have them broken into three conferences - West, Central and East. To view how the league's two conferences are currently set up, click here. To see how my proposed three-conference setup would look like, click here.
Now, the hypothetical team schedule (let's use the Warriors) is slightly different but much better for travel, television broadcasts, fans attending road games and development of regular season rivalries.
Currently, the Warriors play each Eastern Conference team twice (home and away). They would continue to do exactly the same thing under this suggested format. Ten Eastern Conference teams would result in 20 regular season games for the Warriors.
Currently, the Warriors play teams such as San Antonio, Dallas, Houston and Memphis four times (sometimes three). That is the same number of times they play the Sacramento Kings, Lakers and Clippers, which should be their divisional and geographic rivals. This makes no sense from a travel perspective and the time zone change doesn't work well for local television broadcasts either. Create a Central Conference and play each of the 10 Central teams twice, which would add 20 more regular season games.
Now for the Western Conference opponents, which would require much less travel, far fewer time zone issues and much closer geographic proximity. Again, using the Warriors schedule, they would play the non-division teams in the conference (the Mountain Division) four times each (20 games) and play the four division opponents (the Pacific) five times each (20 games).
This results in an 80-game schedule (once the amount of the league season), much less travel, better rest and health for players, better local TV broadcasting opportunities, the nurturing of geographic rivalries and familiarity with nearby opponents (think Red Sox/ Yankees). The change to three conferences and adjustment of the schedule is quite easy. Even in the event that economics dictated staying with an 82-game schedule, just rotate one non-conference (home and away) opponent randomly on a yearly basis.
So now for the postseason championship tournament, or playoffs. Much of the current format still works very well. Seven-game series truly decide the best teams and 16 playoff qualifiers is exactly the right number. Seeding teams is absolutely necessary. Using regular season records for seeding and home court is appropriate. And charter air travel has made frequency of games much easier. I would also suggest the 2-3-2 format currently used for the Finals to be in place for all series. This minimizes travel.
However, the Eastern/ Western Conference format, selecting eight teams from each conference just absolutely fails in identifying the best 16 teams in the NBA. Over the past eight years, the Western record vs. Eastern teams is as follows:
Season West Record Vs. East
2007-08: 258-192
2006-07: 257-193
2005-06: 252-198
2004-05: 256-194
2003-04: 266-154
2002-03: 250-170
2001-02: 232-188
2000-01: 259-161
1999-2000: 227-193
That totals for a 2,257-1,643 record for the Western Conference, a .579 winning percentage. Additionally, the Western Champion has won the NBA Championship 7 of the past 9 years, with many of the series not very competitive. For the first time in history, all eight Western Conference playoff qualifiers won 50 games, while the Eastern Conference could only field five out of 15 teams that even finished with a winning record. Ten Western teams finished with winning records against the East and only three Eastern teams had winning records against the West. Ten of the best 16 regular season records came from Western Conference teams.
This is all despite the fact that Eastern teams play 52 games against lesser competition and only 30 games against the West. While I don't advocate relying on computer rankings, the Sagarin rankings (using won-loss record and strength of schedule) essentially show that 10 of the top 16 teams in the NBA are from the Western Conference.
The point is not to eliminate Eastern teams from the playoffs, but rather identify the best 16 teams in the league and seed them accordingly in a 16-team bracket to best determine the true NBA champion. The current format is the equivalent of Western teams being required to run a marathon while teams from the East are running a 100-yard dash to win a title.
Understand, there will never and should never be a balanced schedule. There will be year-to-year vagaries in the three-conference setup and certainly divisional strength issues. But a 16-team playoff bracket is a vast improvement over the current system and would be the most equitable way to select and seed postseason qualifiers. Remember, the goal is to have the best teams playing for the NBA title and an equitable seeding process.
Start with all six division winners making the playoffs. And then the next 10 best regular season records, regardless of location. Seed the teams 1-16 based on regular season records, make out an NBA Championship bracket, play seven-game series and use the 2-3-2 format to mitigate travel concerns.
Using this year's regular season records, 10 teams out of the current West would have qualified and 6 from the East (almost eight and eight) but it's the seedings and road to a title that would have looked dramatically different. Remember, the six division winners get the top 6 seeds and then the next 10 best records regardless of location. Also, with the 2-3-2 format, there would actually be LESS travel during the playoffs.
Feel free to fill out your bracket and prognosticate on a potential champion, but for the first time the NBA would actually be allowing the best 16 teams to compete for the title, properly bracketed based on their regular season accomplishments.
Final thought - If I hear one more time that "well they don't play a balanced schedule", I am going to lose it. Think about it - if Eastern teams play 52 games in a much easier conference and STILL can't have one of the best 16 records in the league, WHY do they deserve a postseason slot just based on geography? Answer - They don't.
This article was originally published as part of the Fitz Files blog on Warriors.com. It is reproduced with permission from the author, Bob Fitzgerald, who has spent more than a decade as the television play-by-play voice of the Golden State Warriors.
comments (45) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
I would love to see the NBA lump the top 16 teams in one bracket, seeded in order of best record, regardless of conference.
2 months ago
It's a great solution and makes sense. I would love for something like this to be discussed by the NBA committee. A San Antonio/New Orleans match-up would be much better in a semi-final round, than a conference semi-final round.
Excellent analysis and well put together solution.
2 months ago
Of the points mentioned on the platform, I do like the idea of a team playing its natural geographical rivals as much as possible, like it is done in MLB and NHL. There is no reason why Golden State should play San Antonio just as often as Sacramento.
I differ on the other two points mentioned. A 2-3-2 series gives too much advantage to the lesser opponent. If you split on the road to open a series, you get rewarded with three home games to take the series momentum? That's a bit of a stretch. I know there is a lot of travel involved, but the current 2-2-1-1-1 is the best system to favor the higher seed. It makes a game seven exciting, knowing that it will be won or lost on the home court of the favored team (which earned this distinction in some way) heading into the series. It's what pro sports is all about.
Being a Warriors fan, it was definitely hard to swallow knowing the team went 48-34 only to see its season end prematurely, while the Hawks reached the postseason with a sub-.500 record. However, the Warriors also had plenty of chances to separate from the Nuggets and even Mavericks down the stretch and didn't get it done. The West is the stronger conference right now, the AFC is stronger than the NFC, the Western Conference is stronger than the Eastern top-to-bottom in the NHL, but that's just the way it is. I like the idea in theory though.
from 2 months ago
Respectfully, I don't think the 2-3-2 format provides that great of an advantage for the lesser team. In the first two rounds, it is not uncommon for there to be a number of sweeps each season - which entails the better team to close out with two wins on the road. This scenario is unaffected by the change. If the higher seed loses one at home, the likely event is a 3-2 split after five games (advantage may be in either direction; we assume that each time wins once on the opponents' court) with the higher seed having BOTH of the final games at home. Assuming that the series goes the distance, this provides an advantage to closing out the series at home and increases the demand on the lower seed to perform well. If the lower seed wins both games on the opposing teams' floor... well, for one you have to question whether they were the better team, but more so it rewards the lower seed for excellent performance and would likely result in more upsets in the middle of the pack. And, as we can learn from watching the college process - the big names lock in huge amounts of support, but the underdogs are the big story that can draw attention outside of the typical fanbase. The three divisions remain a little unbalanced, but with seeding instead of taking the top eight from each conference, the worst teams will get the lottery picks - not the winning teams in the West who are already thriving and have the pieces in place.
2 months ago
Why the NBA doesn't seed playoff teams according to their record is beyond me. You don't deserve a top four seed just for winning a weak division. The NHL tried the top-16 format for a while and reverted back within a few years. However, in this new format, we wouldn't see a team that won 35 games take the team with the best record in the NBA to a seventh game.
One thing's for sure, however. If/when the Sonics move to Oklahoma City, the NBA needs to re-align. As a Portland fan, I don't want the Blazers to turn in to the NBA's Seattle Mariners. Seriously, "division" rivals in Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Denver, and Salt Lake City? Makes me long for the Lakers and Suns again.
2 months ago
dont try to change the system cuz the warriors didnt make the playoffs
from 2 months ago
Dude he wrote this last year when the Warriors did make the playoffs it is just that it is now on a more popular fanbase.
2 months ago
I love the idea. My dad and I were just having this type of conversation about 3 weeks ago. I think that the Comish should seriously give this some thought.
from 2 months ago
I think he is seriously giving this some thought. He has to, it's been all over the media for a while now.
I am for this proposed change. It would level the playing field, and give some teams opportunities that they didn't before have, and other teams more trouble than they had before. What could be more perfect? Great thoughts, Bob!
2 months ago
I think it's a pretty good plan.
The east / west discrepancy is getting out of control, as there were 9 teams in the west that were unquestionably better than the 4th best team in the east
Fitz also makes a great point about travel. It really isn't much fun to watch a team on the backend of a road back to back (b/c the odds that they'll lose are so high) unless they're playing one of the league's non-competitive teams (grizzlies, sonics, bucks, knicks, etc).
2 months ago
What is the overall goal here? Is it to find a true champion? Is it to reduce travel? Is it to create a better playoff scheme?
If you're trying to find a true champion, then the closest you'll ever come is a long regular season with a perfectly balanced schedule. Playoffs can create fluke occurrences where the better team loses.
Take Golden State and Dallas last year - GS matched up against Dallas very well, but it did not do as well as Dallas did against the league overall. If you look at the results of the regular season, there's no way you can argue that GS was a better team than Dallas was, but the playoff format allowed the Warriors to move on while the Mavericks went home.
If you're looking to reduce travel, then this plan will do it.
If you're looking to create a better playoff scheme, well, that doesn't require a realignment. Just seed the teams in the system as-is.
Two more things:
1. Why do division winners have to get automatic playoff bids? If we're not rewarding teams based on geography, like you say at the end, then there should not be a provision for division winners to always get it. It could be possible that a division might not have one of the top 16 teams in the league.
2. The point of a balanced schedule is not to help more teams from a weaker division get into a playoffs, but to prevent more teams from the weaker division from getting in the playoffs.
You mentioned the BCS earlier, so let's take last year's BCS as an example. Kansas and Hawaii got in thanks to excellent records despite them playing the 72nd and 111th toughest schedules. Missouri and Arizona State should have gotten in instead since they were also BCS eligible but faced the 19th and 49th toughest schedules.
The unbalanced schedules allowed teams with weaker schedules to rise up and ultimately take postseason spots away from teams with stronger schedules. The point of a balanced schedule is to take that possibility away and put everyone on a level playing field.
from 2 months ago
Quick response to #1: Those six get in as a result of winning their divisions, a justified reward for being the most dominant within a sub-group of the league. However, those spots should not be guaranteed home court advantage - only gain admission. That would be my issue with the bracket provided in the article... based on record, San Antonio should have been the fifth seed, not the seventh; Phoenix would have been 6th based on the higher divisional record, etc. Using this season as an example, all of the divisional leaders would have made the playoffs regardless, and the likelihood that a divisional leader would not be amongst the top 16 overall is very low.
2 months ago
I just replied but got my entire thesis timed-out, and I don't have the time to figure out all that I wrote and retype it. So, I'll put it succinctly. Schedule: the above is totally unfair. See Central Southwest and East South. Schedule so the stronger teams have a tougher schedule and weaker teams, a weaker schedule.
No change in Playoffs. Love the race this year even the bottom rung in the East. And those teams gave their stronger opponents a good run.
2 months ago
I am a fan of the 2-3-2, regardless of sport, because if a superior team is truly superior, they'll win anyway.
I am also a fan of putting the top teams into the playoffs- regardless of location. I would go even further- you win your division, you make the playoffs. But that doesn't guarantee you a top 6 seed- just that you MAKE the playoffs (theoretically, then, you could be a 16 seed).
There's some of this in the NFL- even in the stronger AFC, there's usually one division winner that is a pretty weak team overall, and sometimes one wild-card team that has a better record than a division winner. The NBA doesn't need to duplicate that problem by seeding a crappy Eastern team that won a crappy division ahead of the Nuggets.
As a side note, I would like to see the top 12 teams in the NFL playoffs, as well- 8 division winners, 4 wild cards. No more of these bad 8-8 teams making it into the playoffs.
2 months ago
While I think that this proposed method will make things easier for the players and teams, and while I believe it would rectify some of the anomalies caused by the majority of Western conference teams being better than Eastern Conference teams, I believe the ultimate goal of it is flawed.
Has there ever been a fluke champion over the last decade?
If Dallas deserved to be a champion in 06, then Dirk Nowitzki abuses Udonis Haslem and James Posey and gets his team a title. Unfortunately for the Mavs, when Dwayne Wade turned up the heat, the Mavs wilted away. The Heat deserved to be champions.
As did Detroit when they knocked off the bickering Lakers.
Plus, simply seeding teams based on record eliminates the conference rivalries that culminate in intense playoff basketball.
I'm sorry, but Lakers-Kings, Spurs-Suns, and Pistons-Heat sound a lot better than second round matchups of Spurs-Magic, or Cavs-Hornets, or Lakers-Hawks.
Tradition should count for something.
from 2 months ago
I agree with Erick 100% here. At least 10 teams from the Western Conference would clinch playoff berths.
As Erick said, tradition should count for something. I love the way it is right now.
2 months ago
The Playoff Format should be left exactly the way it is now.
Just how confusing would it be to a newly introduced fan of the game to understand 3 NBA Conferences and the playoff seeding? I'm sure some experienced NBA fans don't even understand this.
But from what I understand there will approximately be about 7 games on a night during the opening round of the playoffs which could throw off advertising and regulary scheduled programming thus affecting the network airing the games.
Also, after each winner of each conference is decided and the season is over, how to do you dish out homecourt advantage?
from 2 months ago
and this is definitely wrong.
OK dude first of all
- If you don't understand this playoff system...well....you are whack.
- If you didn't already realize, a total of 16 teams are already in the playoffs. There would just be different brackets (Bracket #1 and Bracket #2)
-The only problem with this format is the All-Star game lol how are you gonna do that i don't know.
How would you dish out homecourt advantage. Based on standings..... same deal....
2 months ago
great idea but only go with the best 8 teams instead of 16 for the playoffs
2 months ago
Playing against the division rivals five times in a season is just at the edge of what I'd like to see. As a big hockey fan, I can't tell you how infuriating it is that the Sharks play their intra-division rivals so frequently and the Eastern Conference folks on rare occasion. At this rate, I'll see Sid Crosby play twice in my whole life.
You surely have more insight into the point re: travel, as you move around per the Warrior's schedule, but somehow I feel like the convenience/rest of the players just can't be a primary consideration in all this. Heck, I used to travel cross-country several time a month for business, and it wasn't that big of a hardship (and I got paid a lot lot less than these players).
To be honest, if I was living the NBA lifestyle and making those kinds of bucks, I'd journey to the moon and back every week if that's what was required.
As for the 16-team seeding, I'd be all for that, but maybe it would make sense to just move teams around every decade to adjust for asymmetry. The geographic technicalities don't matter... put the Spurs in the East and the Bucs in the West — it's not entirely accurate from a geography standpoint, but one or two moves like that would have a huge impact on strength adjustment.
That's what I'd do. Do you happen to have David Stern's email address, I'll shoot him a note :)
2 months ago
An interesting proposal, I like the realignment into three conferences and the new schedule format. Also, I've felt that re-seeding the playoffs has needed to happen for a long long time. When the best two teams play every year in the Western Conference finals, you know you have a problem.
2 months ago
Fitz is the man. Period.
But Notre Dame still sucks.
2 months ago
As one one who doesn't like change. I never bought on to the idea on 'New Coke'.
I do have an idea to give it some fairness that would appease Golden State Fans.
To qualify for the playoffs, a team MUST be at .500 plus one win.
So if two teams in the East didn't qualify, then there spots could be filled by qualifying teams.
Teams above the standard would become an 'at-large' team, having to travel to the East.
Sort of like what the NCAA did when they invited non-conference winners into the tournament.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Two games between the East and West can never change. Especially now that the Celtics and Lakers are good again. Way too important for NBA marketing. As they say at Lays Potato Chips, "one is not enough." (paraphrased)
I like the idea of only 2-3 games out of your Division, and more within. The Division idea has been kind of silly for awhile. Doesn't really mean a whole lot any more. There is no regional-traditional-historical-rivalry-can't wait to get even-knock there brains out games any more.
2 months ago
I love this idea. The only thing I dislike, as a fan, is playing division teams five teams each in the regular season. In baseball it is frustrating playing four times NINETEEN times each, then seeing other teams for only six games.
But yes, something needs to be done to the system. Try it out for a year or two at least, and if it doesn't work - I'd be surprised if it doesn't - then we can change it back.
2 months ago
I strongly disagree with the 2-3-2 format. The team with the better record should never be in a position where they have fewer home games than their opponent. This may make certain teams indifferent about getting come-court advantage. Towards the end of the season, many teams face the choice of either resting their players for the playoffs or continuing to play hard to get a higher seed and home court advantage.
If the 2-3-2 format becomes standard, many teams may not see it to be a disadvantage to have a lower seed if they believe that they can end the series in five games. This would lead to a lower quality of game play for games at the end of the season.
2 months ago
As a firm believer of shaking things up, I like the idea and the realignment. I would, however, consider switching Seattle and Phoenix due in large part to Phoenix being closer to the mountain and Seattle being the epitome of the Pacific. But otherwise, I like the format. Should make for some pretty good playoff chases. And maybe, just maybe, the Lakers will actually have to work for the NBA Crown instead of getting a golden magic road all the way to the Finals.
from 2 months ago
With Seattle moving to OKC, wouldn't in make more sense for it to break down as follows:
Atlantic - New York, New Jersey, Toronto, Boston, Philadelphia
Gulf - Orlando, Miami, New Orleans, Atlanta, Charlotte
Midwest - Detroit, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland
Central - OKC, Indiana, Washington, Memphis, Houston
Pacific - LA Lakers, LA Clippers, Golden State, Sacramento, Portland
Southwest - Phoenix, Utah, Denver, San Antonio, Dallas
Just a thought... it makes the geography even more concise, although it does create a division in the Southwest that, given the present rosters, is incredibly deep and tough - but such a difference won't last forever. I really like the idea of divisional opponents playing five times, as that eliminates the need for a divisional tie-breaker... something that hasn't been addressed much thus far. Finally, I think that the last two games to complete the 82 game season should be rivalry games from outside the division, in order to preserve the integrity of the divisional results and to promote the historical rivalries (with five games in division, the local ones will take on a larger life of their own.)
from 2 months ago
Eric:
What the heck is up with your Central division: OKC is closer to Dallas (and possibly Denver) than any of those teams in that division. Indiana, Houston, and Washington in the same division?
I think that covers 2/3 of the country. While I agree with your grouping in other divisions (for the most part), that division would be no better, and possibly worse than the current arrangement.
2 months ago
It's too radical a plan for the NBA to approve.
Besides, the playoffs are meant to crown a champion nothing more. And there can only be one champ. If that one potential NBA champion can't finish in the top eight of their conference they don't deserve to be in the finals anyway.
2 months ago
It's too radical a change I meant to say.
2 months ago
This system is clearly biased to have allowed Golden State to make the playoffs. I can't put much stock into it.
I also must point out that author's contradictions. He mentions wanting to develop stronger divisional rivalries, which would be better for fans and television broadcasts, but if you look at the proposed bracket, you would have some teams that would certainly not be rivals playing in the first round, such as:
New Orleans v. Cleveland
Detroit v. Portland
Orlando v. Denver
Lakers v. Washington
What's the point of developing these regular season rivalries if you are playing a team from the other side of the country in the first round? What if Houston met Dallas or San Antonio in the finals? Would anyone outside of Texas care? (Okay, me in NJ b/c I root for San Antonio, but still...)
Furthermore, how does this help television? It's bad enough that the games are on so late. What would happen with a Lakers v. Washington played game in LA. Would they not start until 8 Pacific/11 Eastern because of all of the traffic in LA? Not a good idea to alienate the away TV market...
I also question the usage of the bracket system versus re-seeding after each round. Perhaps the only interesting aspect of this jumbled up proposed playoff system would be trying to conceive the second round match-ups after any first round upsets.
from 2 months ago
dude wow you are getting it all wrong Dan all wrong.
-First of all, he meant rivals during the season, not really during the playoffs. You can't really control what happens in the playoffs, whether rivals come or not.
-Lets say LA and Washington met in the finals. There would be 7:30 PM PT/ 10:30 PM ET for the games in LA. So what? We are trying to get better results anyway (and Washington doesn't even belong in the playoffs anyway so LA supposedly would blow them away.)
-Re-seeding is a good idea. We could do it either way, but reseeding sounds better.
2 months ago
First, I love the article, and just trying to be creative to improve the league. I think far too often these professional sports leagues get bogged down in just doing the same thing year after year, when often times, changes, even small ones, can make major differences.
Second, I will say the one idea you mentioned that I completely disagree with is changing the playoff format to 2-3-2. It may be better in terms of less travel, but with tv and all the off days, it isn't worth it. 2-3-2 almost gives the lower seeded team an advantage. 2-2-1-1-1 is the far superior format in terms of an actual reward to the team with the better record.
Third, I am extremely intrigued by the idea of changing the conference lineup, and going with three conferences - especially considering the statistics you provide dealing with home court success. The amount of travel, and these long road trips I am sure is a major factor. The Celtics this season went on a 6 game road trip, the best team record wise in the league, and all the talk was if they can just go 3-3 the trip will be a success.
However, I understand completely the idea of the top 16 teams make the playoffs regardless of division or conference. Especially a tam like Golden State this season that had to stay home while teams in the East with far worse records got a chance. The problem I have with it is this - playoff format is not just about having the top teams in the postseason, it is in a big picture about what is best for the league as a whole. Right now, with 8 teams in each conference, in March and April, there are a number of teams fighting for those last spots in both conferences, which creates more meaningful regular season games. in each conference, in addition to the teams fighting for position, there are also usually 2, 3, 4 teams fighting over the last few spots. Obviously that would continue in a 1-16 format, but it would essentially be cut in half, which would essentially cut in half the number of meaningful regular season games.
The question then becomes is the benefit of having the top 16 teams record wise, instead of two conferences, worth the cost of losing a number of meaningful games in the final months of the season. And not just meaningful games, but potentially turning entire cities off from their team. This year, Atlanta and Indiana played meaningful games down the stretch, but in a 1-16 format, their season would have been over essentially in March. So what is the benefit - obviously having the best teams in the postseason is not a bad thing. But would it really make a difference? Is it worth losing so many important games during the regular season so that the 9th and 10th best teams in the West could make the playoffs instead of the 7th and 8th best teams in the East? In actuality, these teams that miss the postseason in the West, even if they were in the postseason, would it really make much of an impact on who wins the championship? I dont really think so, and it is because of that, I would favor some split for the postseason in order to keep as many teams as possible fighting for playoff spots the longest. The other downside too is the problem of tanking - a team like Indiana or Atlanta this season might not have played hard down the stretch if it was a 1-16 format, and instead opted to try to lose knowing they had no shot at the playoffs.
The one other benefit to your playoff system though is not only would the top 16 teams make the playoffs, but maybe a better chance at getting the top 2 teams in the finals. This to me is the larger problem than a team with a better record missing the playoffs. At the very least, you could say 3 of the last six years, the finals have been completely anti-climatic with NJ in '02 and '03 and Cleveland last year making the finals - the best two teams had already met. I wouldn't mind seeing that rectified - i'm not sure exactly how, we would need some creative thinking. Like I wrote above, I like keeping two separate conferences for playoff format, just to keep as many teams as possible fighting for a playoff spot. But then could we just take the top 8 teams from each conference, and then seed 1-16? Or maybe keep the first round broke up, and then starting in the second round, re-seed based on who survived the first round?
I'm not sure either of those are the best idea. But I love the idea of making some changes, but my top criteria would be trying to keep as many teams as possible with a legit chance of getting to the playoffs, and then setting up some system that comes as close as we can to ensuring the playoffs build, with each round better than the previous leading to the top 2 teams in the finals.
2 months ago
I don't think the league is concerned about having losing teams in the playoffs. After all, why did they make the decision to move from a 5-game series in the first round to a 7-game series? Was it not at least partly because they wanted to give fans more of a chance to root for their underdog team?
Even with these changes, there still leaves open the possibility for problems. Suppose, for instance, that the 4 top teams in the league were all in the same division? Their schedules would be even tougher than most Western Conference teams' schedules are currently.
You say that it makes no sense for teams to play so many back-to-back games during the regular season, but I would like to argue otherwise. Those are often the games that separate the great teams from the mediocre ones. Only the really good teams can win when they play a back-to-back game on the road. It would be better if the league could find a way to make sure that there was not so much discrepancy of back-to-back games from team to team, but it's often these back-to-back games that give weaker teams a better chance at beating the tougher ones.
I am very opposed to going to a 2-3-2 series format. Having game 5 at home is a big part of having home court advantage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that, more often than not, the series is decided in that game.
from 2 months ago
I would have to do some research into how pivotal Game 5 is; I would suggest that games two and four are more meaningful, because they will establish whether the team is even up, or one team has a two game advantage on the other. As for the length of series... my personal belief is that the number one reason was for television revenue, the second being for consistency at all levels of the playoffs. Given my example in response earlier in the thread, there exists a possibility of a weighted division on occasion; however, by putting the best records in the playoffs over the best-in-conference, the teams who need the infusion of talent will have the better opportunity in the draft to do so. Having three playoff teams in the draft lottery boggles my mind.
2 months ago
How about not taking 1/2 of the total teams into the playoffs? If you can't distinguish yourself from the middle of the pack in the long regular season, then maybe you shouldn't be in a tournament/playoff that is going to determine a champion. I believe this is the biggest problem with the NBA playoffs. It is not the climax of a meaningful regular season, it is a whole new season unto itself.
2 months ago
I actually agree with the idea of making three conferences, but in doing this, you will make the regular season records LESS meaningful than they are now. Such a change would make the CURRENT playoff system more suitable, since difficult division teams would have artificially depressed win totals and crummy divisions would get inflated from racking up wins against pathetic teams.
It's also really important to maintain division rivalries IN THE PLAYOFFS, rather than intensifying them during the regular season at the expense of seeing them later on.
I'd be interested to know if in-division road games tended to go better for away teams in comparison to ones involving more distant travel. If such were not the case, then increasing the amount of interdivision play could not be argued to do anything about the drastic home-away disparity. After all, it's not like the team would somehow end up playing more than half of their games at home.
I can also see the teams in crummy conferences disliking the increased regionality - they would not get as many boosts in ticket sales from really popular players from other conferences coming over.
2 months ago
This idea has a lot of potential; while I know I've been rampant in the comments already, there are a few things I'd like to add now that I've had a little while to check out a few scenarios. First, I appreciate the fact that, using the 2007-2008 standings, all of the teams who makes the playoffs are at .500 or higher. (Admittedly, I am biased - Atlanta, despite their great home efforts, did not deserve to be in the playoffs... and Phoenix should have a lottery pick this year.) If not clear already, I do not subscribe to the theory that the Division winners should be given home court advantage automatically. In theory and in a tournament seeding format, a Divisional winner would be inclined to have home court, but if they do not place in the top 25% of team records (top 8) then they aren't deserving of the advantage. That is a personal belief, and one that is not entirely popular within the league from my understanding. However, given that scenario, these would have been the 1st round match-ups:
1 Boston (.805) -vs- 16 Toronto (.500)
4 New Orleans (.683) -vs- 13 Cleveland (.549)
5 San Antonio (.683) -vs- 12 Golden State (.585)
8 Utah (.659) -vs- 9 Orlando (.634)
2 Detroit (.720) -vs- 15 Portland (.500)
3 LA Lakers (.695) -vs- 14 Washington (.524)
6 Phoenix (.671) -vs- 11 Denver (.610)
7 Houston (.671) -vs- 10 Dallas (.622)
(All Tiebreakers based on current Divisional/Conference Records)
Making some assumptions based on the ongoing playoffs (dangerous, but a necessary evil for the sake of a hypothetical), the second round would likely appear as follows:
Boston vs New Orleans
San Antonio vs Orlando
Detroit vs Lakers
Phoenix vs Dallas
Looked at under the current system, there is one EC/EC matchup, three WC/WC contests, and four mixed-conference situations in the first round. This situation rewards the teams who perform best in the regular season, and creates some intriguing match-ups throughout. The greatest potential issue I see would be if Dallas and San Antonio made it to the Finals; an all-Texas finale, however exciting, will lose some audience interest. However, given that the preceding rounds have been more interesting, and in some cases a bigger draw, than the Finals... this may be an acceptable risk. Given that the NBA is a more star-driven sport than any of the other major American sports, there is less inherent risk than in a Dallas Cowboys/Houston Texans Super Bowl, for example.
While the 2/3/2 format does have arguments in both directions, I think the pros outweigh the cons. Savings in terms of time, physical abuse, cost and environmental factors are measurable, and I do not feel home court in Game 5 is a considerable advantage over having the last two close-out games at home if the lower seed does make a series of it. Lastly, I can not overstate the attraction that having the opportunity for an underdog, a Cinderella team, to advance in the playoffs can have for drawing interest.
The shift to three Conferences is an interesting one; I've already written earlier regarding my thoughts about further adjusting the Divisions. With 80 games, the in/out-of-conference split is 40/40... the remaining two could be rivalry games... originally, I had thought both should be out of the Division, but on further thinking, one of each would provide an essential balance. One drawback, as mentioned, are fewer opportunities to see some stars each season, but it opens new pairings in the playoffs each year.
The NBA should consider the possibility; it's not perfect, but it has the potential to be a substantial improvement without significant risk.
2 months ago
Nice article.
I'm not sure realigning the divisions is the answer. I think the system needs to be fixed so that bad teams can rebuild and get better quicker. Similar to the system the NFL runs.
Rebuilding is an extremely long process. Unless you get lucky in the draft and land a LeBron James, you're going to be bad for a long, long time.
Fix the system and there will be no need for realignment.
2 months ago
Excellent Article.
Obviously a lot of thought was put into this plan, it makes sense and would work. It would provide the fans with the best teams playing and really level the playing field. This would lessen the travel and wear and tear, as stated, on players and broadcasters as well. 10 Western Conference teams would earn playoff berths. On the other hand, I'm in agreement with Erick & Michael I like things the way they are right now tradition has to count for something.
2 months ago
I love this idea! i think this is the only solution to finding a true champion. Have it similar to the NCAA March Madness tournament!
2 months ago
The idea of this realignment sounds good on the surface, but there are some fundamental problems with it from where I sit. First off, it would solve some of the travel issues, but the last thing we need is to take away some of the natural rivalries that arise come playoff time. I haven't heard of anyone complaining that the NBA Champion was unworthy of the crown because of the playoff format, or the strength of the East versus the West. The only thing people are complaining about is the fact that teams in the West that didn't make the playoffs would have been if they were in the East. That may be the case, but the real question is whether or not they are championship worthy, and we can safely say the Warriors were not.
Consider the NFL. For years now the AFC has been better than the NFC, and the records bear that out, but we are not going to realign the league because one is stronger than the other.
The natural playoff rivalries need to be preserved and should not be changed. Eventually the East will catch up to the funning and gunning West. Their style of play doesn't win championships anyway. See the San Antonio Spurs. We can't keep changing league to accomodate the latest moanings and groanings of fans, and just to promote the league all over the world. The players and management need to adjust to the way things are now, and the world needs to adjust to our great game instead of the other way around. Players like Dirk and other international players (not all) would not have done as well a couple of decades ago when the league was not as soft as it is now.
Improve travel schedules, yes. Change playoff format, definitely no.
2 months ago
The idea of this realignment sounds good on the surface, but there are some fundamental problems with it from where I sit. First off, it would solve some of the travel issues, but the last thing we need is to take away some of the natural rivalries that arise come playoff time. I haven't heard of anyone complaining that the NBA Champion was unworthy of the crown because of the playoff format, or the strength of the East versus the West. The only thing people are complaining about is the fact that teams in the West that didn't make the playoffs would have been if they were in the East. That may be the case, but the real question is whether or not they are championship worthy, and we can safely say the Warriors were not. Consider the NFL. For years now the AFC has been better than the NFC, and the records bear that out, but we are not going to realign the league because one is stronger than the other. The natural playoff rivalries need to be preserved and should not be changed. Eventually the East will catch up to the funning and gunning West. Their style of play doesn't win championships anyway. See the San Antonio Spurs. We can't keep changing league to accomodate the latest moanings and groanings of fans, and just to promote the league all over the world. The players and management need to adjust to the way things are now, and the world needs to adjust to our great game instead of the other way around. Players like Dirk and other international players (not all) would not have done as well a couple of decades ago when the league was not as soft as it is now. Improve travel schedules, yes. Change playoff format, definitely no.
2 months ago
Quite honestly, I think that the NBA should do away with the playoff system currently in place. Playing as many games as they do for the playoff series is too lengthy. I also don't see a point to it.
2 months ago
i completely disagree with this.
the playoffs this year are some of the best series that i have seen in a long time, and its because teams like the atlanta hawks are getting that chance to develop their players further by giving them a chance to gain playoff experience.
the idea of moving to a three conference set, i think, is rediculous. you basically said that the eastern teams are not good enough to compete with the west, and then you put what many would consider the best eastern division (midwest) in with the toughest western division (southwest). this would, in my opinion, make teams like cleveland (you know, the one with lebron james) likely unable to make the playoffs. you want to talk about an nba travesty? im not a cavaliers fan, but they need to be in the playoffs.
2-3-2 is a solid idea, but it does move some of the momentum over to the underdog. the playoffs are set up so that a team is supposed to win their home games, and if they are the underdog, they need to win a game on the road to advance. to give a team like the hawks for instance 3 consecutive games at home in the middle of a series could have put an end to the celtics hope for a championship.
the point was made that the west has won title in something like 7 out of the last 9 years, but the east had won 8 out of the previous 10. it is natural that there will be a shift of power throughout time.
it is sad that a 48 win team didnt make the playoffs, but calling for change because of this is completely unnecesary.
write a new comment