PDA

View Full Version : How Should the NBA Rearrange Their Playoffs?



ko8e24
05-24-2010, 05:40 PM
I know the ratings and interest level in the 2010 playoffs have been lower than previous seasons, mainly due to majority of the fans looking towards the summer of 2010 free agency.


I think it's a good idea to have the top 16 records in the NBA to go to the playoffs.

Then, I think this is how the matchups should be...


1st rd (Best of 5 series)

1st seed vs 8th seed

9th seed vs 16th seed



2nd seed vs 7th seed

10th seed vs 15th seed



3rd seed vs 6th seed

11th seed vs 14th seed



4th seed vs 5th seed

12th seed vs 13th seed




2nd rd (Best of 5 series)




3rd rd (Best of 7 series)



NBA Finals (Best of 7 series, 2-2-1-1-1 format)




What are some of your suggestions?

Niro
05-24-2010, 06:06 PM
dude good idea but why 1 vs 8 and 9 vs 16?? nobody would like to be the 8th then and will tank to get the 9,10 etc seed so gotta change that... beside that good idea its just messed up how much worse the east ist compared to the west

and best of 5 = more upsets

Akshay
05-24-2010, 06:08 PM
Top 16 records would be a good idea, but 12 of those teams would be from the West though.

DerekRE_3
05-24-2010, 06:13 PM
Too many teams make the playoffs to begin with. Over half of the team making it is ridiculous.

ko8e24
05-24-2010, 06:22 PM
dude good idea but why 1 vs 8 and 9 vs 16?? nobody would like to be the 8th then and will tank to get the 9,10 etc seed so gotta change that... beside that good idea its just messed up how much worse the east ist compared to the west

and best of 5 = more upsets



Well, 1 vs 16 would just be flat out unfair, although it would make a great NBA story if the lowest seed in the playoffs ousted the top seed in the playoffs, which could very well happen in a best of 5.

But you don't want to create such an overwhelming start of the playoffs for the 16th seed. So it's better to have the top seed go up against a middle of the pack team like an 8th seed team, and then have another middle of the pack team like a 9th seeded team go up against the lowest seed team.

And then you work your way from there.

bahama0811
05-24-2010, 06:25 PM
I think a good start would be keeping the games closer together. These teams don't need so many days off. I've lost interest with all the days off.

KaganRS
05-24-2010, 06:26 PM
well , top sixteen records make it is a great idea.

but the first round pairings ?!?!

rethink these.

GSW Hoops
05-24-2010, 06:28 PM
I like the Finals 2-2-1-1-1 idea, though travel would get a bit extended.

RaiderLakersA's
05-24-2010, 06:39 PM
Even with the top 16, there are just some teams that the average NBA fan could care less about. But the league wants to milk the cow for all it's worth, and oh, by the way, incidentally make more fans feel like their teams have a shot -- even if those low seeded teams don't really have a shot at all.

If it were up to me, it would be the top 4 teams. Period. I don't need to see 3 and 4 rounds of 7 game series with 8-16 seeds to figure out who the best team is.

A Final Four would force the Bostons of the world to play the normal season like it matters, not treat it like it was an aperitif.

And it would also hold front offices accountable early on to make deals to improve their team's chances from the start. I feel terribly for fans who get fleeced by ownership and management year in and year out.

Bishnoff
05-24-2010, 06:43 PM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I like the current format.

td0tsfinest
05-24-2010, 06:43 PM
This years playoffs have been really boring so far. Hockey has been 10 times better but there still more people watching the nba than the nhl.

tredigs
05-24-2010, 06:53 PM
Well, 1 vs 16 would just be flat out unfair, although it would make a great NBA story if the lowest seed in the playoffs ousted the top seed in the playoffs, which could very well happen in a best of 5.

But you don't want to create such an overwhelming start of the playoffs for the 16th seed. So it's better to have the top seed go up against a middle of the pack team like an 8th seed team, and then have another middle of the pack team like a 9th seeded team go up against the lowest seed team.

And then you work your way from there.

No it wouldn't. As it is now it is often 1 vs 16, and 2 or 3 vs 13 or 14 at worse. Top 16 overall seeds is a better format, though.

And I agree that the first round should go back to best of 5. Those were MUCH more exciting playoff series, and there were still rarely upsets. Also does some to shorten the ridiculous length that the playoffs currently are.

RaiderLakersA's
05-24-2010, 06:56 PM
This years playoffs have been really boring so far. Hockey has been 10 times better but there still more people watching the nba than the nhl.

I've tried to watch hockey. I really have. Back in my college days, I had a roommate who played for the school. I went to a few of his games...loved some of the girls in the stands, let me tell you!...but outside of the occasional dust up, I just couldn't get into the sport.

Niro
05-24-2010, 07:02 PM
Well, 1 vs 16 would just be flat out unfair, although it would make a great NBA story if the lowest seed in the playoffs ousted the top seed in the playoffs, which could very well happen in a best of 5.

But you don't want to create such an overwhelming start of the playoffs for the 16th seed. So it's better to have the top seed go up against a middle of the pack team like an 8th seed team, and then have another middle of the pack team like a 9th seeded team go up against the lowest seed team.

And then you work your way from there.

but the 1 vs 16th game did happen this year it was cavs vs bulls :p

i think it would be more unfair to have the 9th going against the 16th and first vs 8th, there should be an advantage if you have a better record

macc
05-24-2010, 07:05 PM
I would like the idea of the #1 seed getting to pick who they want to play in the first round, #2 seed picks after that, and so on and so forth. I think you could get some good story lines with that. Then you could pick the team you match up well best.


The only thing I would change is the playoff schedule. Nomore then 1 day break between games. Why does there have to be a 3 game gap between games?

ko8e24
05-24-2010, 07:11 PM
All very good suggestions.

Oh, and I think every NBA game should either be on TNT or NBC (the peacock network :))


And plz, no more games on ABC or BSPN, and not trying to be sexist, but plz plz plz no more female color commentators!!!! :mad:

heathonater
05-24-2010, 07:13 PM
make the first round a 5 game series again. it will make things more interesting, and also reduce the off days greatly. a 2 month long playoffs results in many people forgetting who the first round matchups were when the finals come around.

Sadds The Gr8
05-24-2010, 07:49 PM
Well, 1 vs 16 would just be flat out unfair, although it would make a great NBA story if the lowest seed in the playoffs ousted the top seed in the playoffs, which could very well happen in a best of 5.

But you don't want to create such an overwhelming start of the playoffs for the 16th seed. So it's better to have the top seed go up against a middle of the pack team like an 8th seed team, and then have another middle of the pack team like a 9th seeded team go up against the lowest seed team.

And then you work your way from there.

not really. Think about it... 1 vs 16 happened this year with Chicago and Cleveland, and Chicago put up a pretty decent fight. Hell, a couple years ago 16 beat 1 (Warriors beat Mavs) in the first round. I like your idea except the 1 vs 8 and 9 vs 16. Why should the 9 seed get the benefit of facing the worst team in the playoffs while the 1 seed gets a tougher opponent? The whole point of being a 1 seed is to have the "easiest" road to the finals. And plus, having 5 game series' gives the lower seed a better chance at an upset, so 1 vs 16 isn't as bad as it looks. Other than that, I like this idea and always thought it should've been seeded as top 16 teams.

cypherthor
05-24-2010, 08:22 PM
I like the format the champions League uses in Europe.. you have a miny league for the best teams at the end of the season, and then there is a 5 game series playoffs. I personally miss the 5 game series, they where always very exiting... there is so little cindirella factor in todays format.

dtmagnet
05-24-2010, 08:23 PM
@OP I don't like your idea at all.

Kakaroach
05-24-2010, 10:41 PM
I think the current playoff format is fine. No reason to change it.

ko8e24
05-24-2010, 10:44 PM
@OP I don't like your idea at all.

That's okay, that's why we have PSD, to agree and disagree. :)

If you had the opportunity to change up the playoffs, how would you go about doing it?

MacFitz92
05-24-2010, 10:45 PM
I think the way it is set up is perfectly sufficient. Any team good enough to win a championship makes it. This isn't college basketball.

Kakaroach
05-24-2010, 10:46 PM
That's okay, that's why we have PSD, to agree and disagree. :)

If you had the opportunity to change up the playoffs, how would you go about doing it? Haha yep thas why PSD is here. :)

I personally don't think we should change it up at all. The current system is great, both conferences send in 8 teams and the regular season record determines the seeding.

ko8e24
05-24-2010, 10:51 PM
Haha yep thas why PSD is here. :)

I personally don't think we should change it up at all. The current system is great, both conferences send in 8 teams and the regular season record determines the seeding.

I just dont want teams like 41-41 Bulls or 44-38 Bobcats to make it when a Rockets team or a very good Grizzlies team could have made it if they were in the East.

maddBat
05-24-2010, 10:53 PM
I think a good start would be keeping the games closer together. These teams don't need so many days off. I've lost interest with all the days off.

this:clap:

THINKBLUE15
05-24-2010, 11:02 PM
Only 8 teams make the playoffs. 4 from each conference. Less days between games.

97NYer
05-24-2010, 11:04 PM
16 teams but a traditional 1-16 2-15 and so on

round 1 best of 5
round 2 best of 7
round 3 best of 7
Finals:Best of 7 in a neutral location

ko8e24
05-24-2010, 11:07 PM
16 teams but a traditional 1-16 2-15 and so on

round 1 best of 5
round 2 best of 7
round 3 best of 7
Finals:Best of 7 in a neutral location


Aah, now that one is very interesting. Do you think they should make the NBA All-Star game it like the MLB All-Star game, where the winning conference will have homecourt in the finals? (instead of that neutral idea you had)

duce5858
05-24-2010, 11:26 PM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I like the current format.

The playoffs started in April and will go until June! Thats way to damn long. Ive lost interest at this point. They need make it the top 6 teams in each conference, with the the first series being 5 games then the rest 7 games. The amount of teams that get in the playoffs and the length of the current format really make the NBA regular season pretty meaningless imo.

PHX2daDEATH
05-24-2010, 11:30 PM
Leave it alone but go back to the best of 5 first round... The NFL needs a change to their playoff system, not the NBA just like College football needs a playoff

todu82
05-25-2010, 11:41 AM
Keep it the way it is

Lakerfrk
05-25-2010, 12:00 PM
The first round is extended to 7 games because of MONEY. There are 16 teams in the playoffs because of MONEY. If the playoffs would be shortened, the owners would have a caniption.

PrettyBoyJ
05-25-2010, 12:16 PM
Top 16 records would be a good idea, but 12 of those teams would be from the West though.

yeah the west is way too strong... wen you have teams with winning records missing the playoffs from the west and teams with losing records making the east then you kno things arent gonna be fair

king4day
05-25-2010, 12:20 PM
It would almost guarantee that the two best remaining teams would be in the finals. Whether it be from the same conference or otherwise.

The only thing to change is the 1 v 8. Why punish the top seed. The Celtics would have been the 9th seed and played Chicago in round 1.

NBAfan4life
05-25-2010, 12:51 PM
I just think they need to do something about how many days off. I really think it should be every other day they play and at the very worst 2 days off, but not that often.

AsfanSince99
05-26-2010, 08:49 AM
I just dont want teams like 41-41 Bulls or 44-38 Bobcats to make it when a Rockets team or a very good Grizzlies team could have made it if they were in the East.

Exactly.

The Warriors got bouncd one year while winning 50 games. If they were in the east, they would have the #4 or 5th seed.

AsfanSince99
05-26-2010, 08:52 AM
16 teams but a traditional 1-16 2-15 and so on

round 1 best of 5
round 2 best of 7
round 3 best of 7
Finals:Best of 7 in a neutral location
that idea was proposed by the old suns owner and got shot down by david stern. If I'm a small market team, I wouldn't like this idea.

GrumpyOldMan
05-26-2010, 09:58 AM
If you were to go to a top 16 scenario you would have to do away with conferences and balance the schedule. I would be okay with that, but the owners might not like paying for the all the extra travel.
I also dont mind the current format, just fewer days off between games.

RipVW
05-26-2010, 10:46 AM
I know the ratings and interest level in the 2010 playoffs have been lower than previous seasons, mainly due to majority of the fans looking towards the summer of 2010 free agency.


I think it's a good idea to have the top 16 records in the NBA to go to the playoffs.

Then, I think this is how the matchups should be...


1st rd (Best of 5 series)

1st seed vs 8th seed

9th seed vs 16th seed



2nd seed vs 7th seed

10th seed vs 15th seed



3rd seed vs 6th seed

11th seed vs 14th seed



4th seed vs 5th seed

12th seed vs 13th seed




2nd rd (Best of 5 series)




3rd rd (Best of 7 series)



NBA Finals (Best of 7 series, 2-2-1-1-1 format)




What are some of your suggestions?

Who says they should change it at all?

whitemamba33
05-26-2010, 11:34 AM
Some of the complaints and suggestions are really strange. I think people just want change for the sake of change. There is nothing wrong with the playoffs the way it is now. Ratings are strong, quality of play is good, and we are most likely headed for one hell of an NBA Finals.

GSW Hoops
05-26-2010, 11:36 AM
Exactly.

The Warriors got bouncd one year while winning 50 games. If they were in the east, they would have the #4 or 5th seed.

The W's didn't quite make it to 50. It was 48 wins--most ever by a non-playoff team.


I just think they need to do something about how many days off. I really think it should be every other day they play and at the very worst 2 days off, but not that often.

Totally agree with you here. It's hard to get into a series when there's 3-4 days between games.

In the first round, time off is understandable because so many teams are playing, but after that it's ridiculous to stretch it out to get as many weekend games as possible, like a team playing Sunday/Wednesday/Saturday.