i agree shaqdiidy. i would rather c a top 6 then have all best of 3 games. with a top 6 then the teams do have to work harder to get to the finals in the first place

Yeah, the fianls aren't meant to be short sharp and shiny, they are a gruelling test of character, fitness, and destiny. That game tonight didn't feel like a finals game, just because it was over for one team so quickly.

Don't get me wrong, the crowd was loud, like playoff game should be, and the ergency was there from both teams, but it lacked something, that you get from a series as apposed to a 'glorified' regular season game!

What have we really achieved this season that we didn't achieve last season? We put together a much better team this season that kept in the top 4 all season. Last season, we barely scraped in the top 8. After all this good work throughout the season, we ended in the same position as last season and this an immediate exit after the first elimination game. One could very well argue, what the hell for.

The current format is a disgrace. It needs to reward teams for the work they do throughout the season and not knock them out on 1 off game.

Five game series in a Quarterfinal? That is ridculous( sarcatic tone) a 3 game series would be fine. I can only speak for myself, but if we lost in two, then I'd say we need to change things in the offseason as far as the team goes.

I say get a 3 game series for all Quarterfinals!

No sour grapes on this one, just common sense and a bit more excitement and interest for fans!

Common sense would have it as a top 5 out of 11 teams rather than the ridiculous top 8!
Then play best of 3 all the way through

Anonymous, what tonight showed is that we played badly on the night. All teams have bad nights and good nights. The fact that throughout the season we've had more good nights than bad ones, entitled us to a better chance at the finals. Its just unfortunate that tonight was one of those bad nights which brought a complete end to our chances.

Well put EC, unfortunately if you know what I mean ;)

I agree EC (the above anonymous was me) we all have our ups and downs but we should have been good enough to beat Brisbane. Our record earned us the right to play Brisbane after they had to play Wednesday night. Im all for rewarding the higher finish I just believed if we were as good as we all hoped that we would have beaten Brissy. Oh well it wasnt to be - it will be interesting to see the moves made this off season

There is no way that a team that finishes 3rd in the regular season should be able to be knocked out in a single game. The 36ERS could have finished equal top in the competition, fallen to third on season-series tie-breakers, and then been dumped by a freak shooting display from an opponent. That is bullshit. Absolute bullshit.

The league wants to involve as many teams as possible in the finals (as finals games are good money earners) to boost the stability of as many teams as possible, but is it worth it if this is the result? Claims of sour grapes are irrelevant -- people (myself included) have been saying this for a while now.

8 of 11 teams make the finals, beautiful. But how many get to host a final? Not the Wildcats. Not the Pirates. The Sixers got a single game. Melbourne might have had their single game. And the Crocs may only get one too.

So, given that two teams out of the six didn't even get a home final, why not make it a 5 or 6 team series, and if you're going to have a knockout game, make it the absolute bottom rung teams of the finals and/or possibly reintroduce something like the highest-placed-loser or some form of second-chance.

Bullets have won two straight, so they're pumped, but they could've been out in one game like all but two teams in the competition. That's not right. A class of children could devise a better system.

Rick Burton was at the game tonight (nice of him to visit), so I hope someone told him this!

Interesting that you mention bringing back the "lucky loser" system Isaac.

I recall the huge outcry there was when the Magic used this to their advantage, and made the Grand Final.

I guess whatever system is used, there will be a downside. I agree though, that top 4 should be given a second chance option to get back in. They have played hard all season to make it in, only to lose it all. Until the league can make it a 12-14 comp team again, iut needs to be a top 6.

Quarter Finals should be
3 rd vs 6th H-A-H
4th vs 5th H-A-H
Semis
1st vs winner QF 1
2nd vs winner QF2
also a H-A-H format

Grand Final
best of 5 with either the HAHAH or HHAAH format.

How much simpler can it be?

For all those making comments like "Sour grapes", remember this is a term that's come about only after the end of the game last night. The problem with the finals format has been debated for weeks if not months. As for Rick Burton, why didn't he come upstairs after the game. I'm sure there would have been many questions thrown at him. Postsie would have had a field day with him if planned earlier. It's nice to see his commitment by attendance at important games, but why does he duck for cover when the going gets rough and questions need to be answered.

Whilst the format isnt ideal, it is the one in place and each team knew what they were in for. The guys NEEDED to step up last night and they failed to do so.

I agree a top 8 is stupid, but I like the idea of a top 6 with the bottom two (5 vs 6) or even bottom three (5 vs 6 - winner vs 4) playing a one off elimination game. then bring on three game semis!

Yogee -- agreed (again, that's twice this morning! ;p). The current format is abysmal and your suggestion would be a big (and obvious) improvement. With the 36ERS getting a weak finals crowd last night, and apparently the Tigers getting under 2500(!) to their first final, surely the supposed financial benefits of this system aren't really that fantastic?

DJ, sure the teams knew the format before they entered the season. What was their other option if they didn't like the format? Not put a team together until the problem is corrected? Just because you know about it, it doesn't mean you accept it.

I think its pretty unfair that a team can finish 3rd after the regular season and then can be knocked out after 1 game, especially if there are 8 finals teams. If there were only 4 finals teams(WNBL) fair enough but 8....just stupid. You wouldn't see that in footy!

How would 1 vs 8, 2vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5. the top seeds all host the finals game with your reward being to host a final and play a lower seed? if the higher seed win then lower seed is eliminated if lower seed win, they have to beat their opponent again. Just trying to come up some ideas? or with 6 teams, 3v6 and 4v5 higher seed host game loser out then 1st seed v 4v5 winner and 2nd seed v 3v6 winner both in a 3 game series. grandfinal a 5 games series?

what about with 4 teams? 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 both in 5 game sets and then a 7 game series in the grand final?

I posted this message under another heading but found this one to be the more appropriate as it confirms that people's opinion on the current format is not as suggested by the NBL:

After much discussion about finals format and the consensus being that it is not a fair system to have instant knockout for 3rd or 4th placed teams, I was curious to know how the NBL came about this format and if there was likely to be any changes to it. I sent an email to Marc Howard and this is his reply;

"Finals formats are always contentious. Some people like their team having a week off to rest up, whilst others think they get rusty. Some like single game series, some like best-of formats. However the current system was originally approved by a vote of all teams and then reaffirmed prior to this season. The teams that finish third and fourth still have a significant advantage over the teams below them. They need to win just one game, playing at home against a team that has played just a few days before, to advance to the Semi Finals."

This has led to more questions being asked as to who was the representative of each team that approved it. From listening to Phil Smyth after Friday's game, he seemed much against this format and even mentioned comments from Lindsay Gaze who did not seem to think highly of the format. A particular Sixers player also stated his disagreement to this format. I have not come across a single person who likes this current format, so I'm still curious to know who would approve it. There was no mention in the reply as to whether the format would change, but I guess they will follow the same procedure before the next season starts to get clubs approval.

Once again, while some of my questions were answered, even more questions were raised.

"affirmed by a vote" doesn't necessarily mean that all were in favour. I wonder what the chances are of finding out who voted for the Sixers, what their vote was, and why.

As I said elsewhere, I could beat someone like Brett Maher in a single shot elimination three point shoot-out with a fluke scenario of making mine and him missing his, but it wouldn't be a very accurate reflection on our skill level. Make it best of three and he'd make the next two while I missed mine -- much more realistic.

i agree with most of the posts....a top 6 is an absolute must....under the current format, the 3rd team (who could finish with a record of say 22-10), could play the 7th team (say 13-19) in a one off game, and if the 7th team wins, they are through and the 3rd team is out. THAT IS TOTAL RUBBISH!!...the meaning of the regular season is hugely dimisnished by placing such little reward on finishing in the top 4. i think the afl has it right with the big reward for a top 4 finish....and the nbl needs to head to a format exactly like yogee suggested. someone once said either less than or equal to 50% of the teams in a competition should make the finals. 6 is plenty....even 5 would be ok with me. all series best of 3. best of 5 for the grand final if you like, but 3 is plenty.