Yeah for GF. Semi-finals are traditionally poorly attended so they only deserve to be 3 games.

Yep agree!

3 for Semis
5 for GF

Agreed- 3 games for semis, and 5 for GF.

The grand final should be 48 five minute games.

That's clearly ridiculous.



You need an odd number of games to ensure a winner.

Winner is determined by a jumpball.

Nice, Prather and Perth it is.

Should be 5x 48min quarters with a 12sec shot clock or first to 500 with a 10sec shot clock and 4 players 3 of whom are imports and have to have played at least 12 games in the d-league with no assists (consecutive) or have played 1 game in the NBA. Coaches must wear animal costumes and the assistants wear suits of armour.

Should be the first to team to get a technical foul.

That would be the real everest.

Players couldn't do it if they tried.

Like.

Well that went to a weird place quickly.

Always thought it should be best of 5, bring it...

Will consider all options guys, thanks for the response.

I personally like best of 69.

Jeremy LOLiger!

No.
Paying to go to finals games is too expensive as it is already.
We used to have A-H-H series which made sense in terms of travelling, but everyone bitched about losing the advantage up front, so we moved to H-A-H.
In a 5 game series what would we have?
Keep in mind that this is a Continental league. We have teams from WA, SA, FNQ, and NZ.
Imagine (yet another) Cats & Breakers series, but over 5 games, the players would knackered by travel.

2-2-1 has the same travel has a 1-1-1 three-game series.

What would be the case for change to a 5-game semi final series? Some disadvantages have been covered above. Are there any advantages? I can't think of any.

One could argue more money for clubs, unless fans dont come. I think just the Finals is a fair shot for 5.

I seriously dont know how the NBA can do 7 for all playoffs.. but it works for them..

Definitely 5 for the finals. I would be happy with 5 for the semis, but 5 for the finals is a nice start. Season is too long to have it all over in 2 games.

This would only work if the finals were spread out over 15-20 days. Not big enough market or attendances to be talking 5 games in anything less.

personally, should be best of 11 games. NBL wanted to become like most international leagues so best of 3 is piss weak. 5 at the very minimum

2-2-1 has the same travel has a 1-1-1 three-game series.

And?
2-2-1 would never work,

first time the home team takes it 3-0, the away team will scream blue murder.

The ONLY reason they have 7 games series in the NBA is MONEY, every final is worth squillions so they milk it for every last cent.

A best of 5 would be great to see, and I think the higher interest levels in the NBL at the moment would warrant it. Perth, Melbourne, NZ, Cairns and Adelaide would pack out all 3 maximum home games. Illawarra in a grand final should also get sell outs to their games for a GF.

With the league improving, this should be on the agenda for discussion. The money generated from an extra sold out home game would make a big difference to the clubs bottom line too.

I think the first time they tried this it didn't work out because the league was very weak then. Melbourne and Sydney could only get 4-5000 for some of the games. That wouldn't happen now.

Semi finals should stay best of 3 though. No one attends those.

Crowds weren't really the issue when they did best of five, they were pretty good for the most part.

I think they got rid of it because of TV. If Fox wants it I'm sure the NBL would do it, it's about finding the balance between not having too small a gap between the games to affect crowds, but not running into footy season.

Agree about TV demands, and not running into the footy seasons would be the main reasons. But if a grand final isn't sold out - no matter what the capacity of the arena is - then it reduces the appeal and doesn't have that big game feel about it.

I remember when Sydney played Melbourne in the final game when it was a best of 5 in the GF and only 5500 attended at the SEC. For me, that was one of the leagues low points and to me suggested that they shouldn't have done a best of 5 then.

Fans always prefer to see a decider so crowds are usually lower in the first game & sometimes the 3rd game can suffer in a best of 5 too.

That Kings vs Melbourne Series had the following crowds at the SEC:
Game 1

Game 1 3208
Game 3 6009
Game 5 10244

Thanks D4444 - I thought game 5 was poorly attended but maybe I was thinking of another game or maybe a different series. Thanks for clarifying that.

Agree, a possible downside to an extra 2 games would be a longer build up to the decider as far as interest goes if people are only concerned about the decider. If its promoted well this shouldn't be a problem. The NBL is doing pretty well with that so far.

2005/06 Grand Final won by Melbourne had 5,500 for Game 3 (won 3-0 in a best of 5) - I must have been thinking of that one.

2007/08 Grand Final won by Mebourne in 5 games had the crowds that you mentioned D4444.

Yes, 2005/2006 was a very poor series for crowds. Even Game 1 at the SEC had <6,000 & of course the Melbourne home games were sellouts only because of the pathetic capacity of the venue.

I think first final home team advantage, then next two away, then return for final two to the top team as home games would work best and provide the most chance for a four or five game series...

Also, in the 1-2-2 format the crowds would likely be better, because the first final is crucial for both teams, if the second placed team gets up, they could go on and win at home in the next two, also this gives additional meaning and spice to those games.

If games go according to seeding, you have the top team coming back down 1-2 and having to win game 4 or they are out.

Just seems to me that a 1-2-2 GF series would be a block buster on TV and live, IMHO that is...

That has the same problem as A-H-H three-game series, and the 2-3-2 format the NBA Finals used to use.

Not really, if promoted well I can see game 1 being huge and setting up the remaining games as must see events.

I am presuming the league will continue doing well as it has been this season and the coverage building up to the finals like never before.

Travel is unavoidable so I am not even considering this as an issue, no problems that I can see, what is your issue?

The away team having more home games than the home team at some point in the series.

If each of the first three is won by the team playing at home, there's suddenly a huge amount of pressure on the home team to win games four and five.

Yup, exactly the point, it makes for an exciting and interesting series. So what, if they are good enough they could win away, you can't be scheduling according to what might happen or it will never eventuate.

Also, a five game series gives teams more chance to adjust and possibly make it a tighter contest, or an upset at the end?

I'm not saying it is perfect, what I am saying is it would be, or could be an awesome five game series for the NBL to end the season on...

Worth a try IMO!