Dan
Years ago

Change the NBA Playoffs

This is just my opinion, but i think that the NBA should change it's playoff format. Playing 82 games and then letting 16 of the 30 teams into the playoffs is ridiculous.

I think they should abolish the conferences and just take the six division champions plus six wildcards into the playoffs. They would be seeded 1-12, with the six division champs plus two best wildcards seeded in the top eight according to their win-loss record. the other four wildcards would be 9-12.

The first round would be 5v12, 6v11, 7v10 and 8v9. It would be best-of-three with the first two games played at the team with the most win's court, the third if necessary at the other team's court.

Round two (quarter-finals) would be best-of-five with the top four seeds hosting the winners of round one, matchups done according to seeding. All series would be played using a 2-2-1 format.

Round three (semi-finals) plus the NBA Finals would be best-of-7 played using the 2-3-2 format.

I think this format would make the regular season more interesting and it would also make the playoffs more exciting. With the shorter series to start with every game would be of vital importance.

Looking at last season's standings the 12 seeds would have been:

1. Dallas 67-15
2. Phoenix 61-21
3. San Antonio 58-24 (wc)
4. Detroit 53-29

5. Houston 52-30 (wc)
6. Utah 51-31
7. Toronto 47-35
8. Miami 44-38

9. Cleveland 50-32 (wc)
10. Chicago 49-33 (wc)
11. Denver 45-37 (wc)
12. LA Lakers 42-40 (wc)

The first round matchups would be:

#12 LA Lakers @ #5 Houston
#11 Denver @ #6 Utah
#7 Toronto @ #10 Chicago
#8 Miami @ #9 Cleveland

If Houston, Utah, Chicago and Cleveland were to win you'd have these quarter-final matchups:

#5 Houston @ #4 Detroit
#6 Utah @ #3 San Antonio
#9 Cleveland @ #2 Phoenix
#10 Chicago @ #1 Dallas

One other thing I would also change is the schedule. To increase the chances of each division champ having a good record, I'd schedule six matchups against each division opponent (a total of 24) three each against the other ten teams from your conference (30) and two each against the teams from the other conference (30), a total of 84 games.

What do you think?

Topic #13621 | Report this topic


Dr Bullshit  
Years ago

Id rather have more teams in the playoffs but they should be seeded overall and not by conference. Thus allowing the possibility of an All west or all east finals series. Thus preventing an unworthy team of making the big stage (eg Cleveland)

Reply #158883 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

The conferences are definitely the biggest problem with their format - right now, you have a tonne of dominant teams in one conference and the best in the other batch are currently Orlando and New Orleans: hardly big ticket teams. They obviously have a right to post-season action based on results, but shouldn't have an automatic right to the final series by virtue of their location alone.

Reply #158885 | Report this post


correction  
Years ago

To be honest i got bored half way through reading that....

I like 16 teams in the play-offs... i like 7 games series for every round...

However, i do like your idea of the way teams are seeded.... I hate the fact that the best team from the West HAS to play the best team from the East in the finals.... In previous years we have seen that the 2nd or even 3rd ranked Western Conf team would be more deserving of a spot in 'the finals' than the first ranked eastern team.

Dalls v Pheonix
San Antonio v Dallas
Pheonix Vs San Antonio

i think you get the drift


Reply #158889 | Report this post


Run TMC  
Years ago

Why don't they go:

A: 1 East vs 8 West
B: 2E v 7W
C: 3E v 6W
D: 4E v 5W
E: 5E v 4W
F: 6E v 3W
G: 7E v 2W
H: 8E v 1W

Then:

I: Winner A v Winner E (1E vs 4W if higher seed wins)
J: Winner B v Winner F (2E vs 3W)
K: Winner C v Winner G (3E vs 2W)
L: Winner D v Winner H (4E vs 1W)

Then:

M: Winner I vs Winner K (1E vs 2W)
N: Winner J v Winner L (2E vs 1W)

Then:

Winner M v Winner N (1E vs 1W)

Hope that makes sense. That way having one conference stringer than the other would not be such an issue. The problem would be the huge travelling committments for everyone. Maybe you could only cross over after the first round?

Reply #158906 | Report this post


Dan  
Years ago

You got bored halfway through reading it? What are you, in year three or something?

Reply #158907 | Report this post


correction  
Years ago

year 4.. but thats neither here nor there

Reply #158911 | Report this post


speedy  
Years ago

not going to happen ... Revenue $$$$$ is a BIG reason !! also why have 82 games when you're only in for 3 games or less first round !!!?? shorten the playoff format and you need to also shorten regular season !!!! Personally have no problems with the format as it is ... I just WANT proper coverage iof it in AUS !!!!!

Reply #159026 | Report this post


afroman jnr  
Years ago

i have to agree with run tmc, it shouldnt be confernce it should just be everyone, everyknows west is alot stronger then east, so why ruin half the playoffs? let them play both conferences who ever deserves it gets there not just who ever is lucky to finish in the 8 in the east

Reply #159057 | Report this post


XztatiK  
Years ago

not feelin ya there dan, just abolish the conferences.

Reply #159127 | Report this post




You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.



Close ads
Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.
Serio: Tourism photography and videography

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 3:18 am, Thu 25 Apr 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754