PDA

View Full Version : NBA Playoff Idea - Below .500? You could be out...



tlynch
03-15-2013, 12:21 PM
IDEA: Any teams below .500 in one conference can be replaced by above .500 teams from the other conference.

For example, if the 8th best team in the East is below .500, and the 9th best team in the West is above .500, the Eastern team is replaced by the Western team.

Or, if the 7th and 8th in the east are below .500, and there are two teams in the West at 9 and 10 that are above .500, they would both swap. If there was only 1 team in the West above .500, the 8th team in the East would be knocked out.

Basically, if you are below .500, you can't argue that you belong in the playoffs.

Raps18-19 Champ
03-15-2013, 12:32 PM
Nope.

If you really wanted teams under .500 out of the playoffs, simply get rid of the conference and have 1 big field. Though that's not happening.

raiderposting
03-15-2013, 12:35 PM
So Portland might have a chance to be in the eastern conference finals?

OceanSpray
03-15-2013, 12:35 PM
There would be no East and West all stars and etc. I don't like this idea.. The east vs West is an important concept of any sport.

JerseyPalahniuk
03-15-2013, 12:39 PM
So we could have Clippers vs Lakers NBA Finals haha?

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 12:42 PM
As someone said before you might as well make it one conference and take the best 16

Also, the team in the West may go into the Eastern Conference playoffs as an 8 seed but have a better record than the team with a 3 or 4 seed...so your putting the team at a 1 seed in the east at a disadvantage by playing a team that's probably better than half of the eastern conference playoff teams

Dont liek it

tlynch
03-15-2013, 12:44 PM
In NCAA Championships, there is a concept of regions. It is a bit dirty in the big dance, because a lot of schools play in the wrong region, but in smaller tournaments - like the DIII Hockey, Basketball, etc... teams are selected by their region. And typically you play in your region. So if 8 teams are selected for DIII Hockey, 4 are from the East, and 4 are from the West - but in some circumstances, the will take a 5th team from one region and make them fly out and play with the other schools.

During the regular season, the schedule would remain the same, the playoffs would just be by a loose region rather than a hard set Conference.

tlynch
03-15-2013, 12:46 PM
As someone said before you might as well make it one conference and take the best 16

Also, the team in the West may go into the Eastern Conference playoffs as an 8 seed but have a better record than the team with a 3 or 4 seed...so your putting the team at a 1 seed in the east at a disadvantage by playing a team that's probably better than half of the eastern conference playoff teams

Dont liek it

Well, it is unlikely that the 9th seed in the West would have a better record than the 3rd seed in the East, but I would say you would be ranked by your record, although no transferred team could have home court advantage.

JerseyPalahniuk
03-15-2013, 12:48 PM
As someone said before you might as well make it one conference and take the best 16

Also, the team in the West may go into the Eastern Conference playoffs as an 8 seed but have a better record than the team with a 3 or 4 seed...so your putting the team at a 1 seed in the east at a disadvantage by playing a team that's probably better than half of the eastern conference playoff teams

Dont liek it

Right now the 9 seed in the West (Jazz) have the same record as the 8 seed in the East (Bucks). The 8 seed in the West (Lakers) would still be the 8 seed in the East. You are exaggerating man

tlynch
03-15-2013, 12:49 PM
There would be no East and West all stars and etc. I don't like this idea.. The east vs West is an important concept of any sport.

Why would there not be any East or West All Stars? The regular season would be exactly the same.

Guppyfighter
03-15-2013, 12:55 PM
I remember the year the Warriors missed the playoff with 48 wins and would be the fourth seed in the East.

Raps18-19 Champ
03-15-2013, 01:05 PM
Right now the 9 seed in the West (Jazz) have the same record as the 8 seed in the East (Bucks). The 8 seed in the West (Lakers) would still be the 8 seed in the East. You are exaggerating man

That wasn't the case in previous years where teams in the West missed the playoffs with 45 wins or so.

JerseyPalahniuk
03-15-2013, 01:11 PM
That wasn't the case in previous years where teams in the West missed the playoffs with 45 wins or so.

Yeah but as the OP stated only the Eastern teams BELOW .500 would miss the playoffs. That problem arises if you made it all one conference and picked the top 16. In that case, years in which only 5 teams in the East made the playoffs could happen. Just saying that the idea posted AFTER the OP could lead to those problems.

SoFreshNsoClean
03-15-2013, 01:12 PM
Nah just keep it the way its set up

OceanSpray
03-15-2013, 01:28 PM
Why would there not be any East or West All Stars? The regular season would be exactly the same.

He basically wants to combine the league as one conference because of the difference between West/East record.

Chronz
03-15-2013, 02:07 PM
As someone said before you might as well make it one conference and take the best 16

Also, the team in the West may go into the Eastern Conference playoffs as an 8 seed but have a better record than the team with a 3 or 4 seed...so your putting the team at a 1 seed in the east at a disadvantage by playing a team that's probably better than half of the eastern conference playoff teams

Dont liek it
Good point, I disapprove

Cal827
03-15-2013, 02:14 PM
It would be nice to see the top 16 in, but it's not going to happen. I can see the higher seeds from either conference complaining about travelling time if there was any crossovers in the conference. Here's a hypothetical: I think San Antonio (1st) would be mad that they would have to travel across the States (and time zones) to go see Milwaukee in a situation where the Bucks would be a crossover team (9th seed in East, crosses over in a hypothetical season where they are better than the 8th in the west). They are the 1 seed; they earned the easy schedule.

JerseyPalahniuk
03-15-2013, 02:16 PM
Good point, I disapprove

Not a good point because the OP's suggestion is better. It's less rare for a below .500 team to make the playoffs than for multiple non playoff teams from the West having better records than Eastern ones. The latter suggestion would be chaotic certain years as pointed out by previous posts.

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 02:52 PM
Not a good point because the OP's suggestion is better. It's less rare for a below .500 team to make the playoffs than for multiple non playoff teams from the West having better records than Eastern ones. The latter suggestion would be chaotic certain years as pointed out by previous posts.

Of the last 10 NBA seasons 6 times a team in the East has finished with a record under .500

Of those 6 seasons, in 2 of them (2007-08 and 2003-04) seasons two teams in the East finished under .500

In those 6 seasons the West would replace an East team as...
2010-11= 6 seed
2008-09= 5 seed
2007-08= 4 seed and 8 seed
2006-07= No team replaced (9th seed in West finished with same record)
2005-06= 6 seed
2003-04= 4/5 seed (same record as 4 seed) and 5/6 seed (same record again)

So now for the teams who finish with home court and would normally face a walk through opponent now has to face a much tougher team...In 07-08 now a team who normally have home court advantage is on the road and facing again a tougher team..In 06-07 the team in the West as a 9 and 8th in the East finish with the same record...who gets the spot (head to head??)

This system is way more flawed than the current system

Chronz
03-15-2013, 02:56 PM
Not a good point because the OP's suggestion is better. It's less rare for a below .500 team to make the playoffs than for multiple non playoff teams from the West having better records than Eastern ones. The latter suggestion would be chaotic certain years as pointed out by previous posts.

But your forcing the number 1 seed to play a team that isn't an 8th seed caliber team. There are like 9 teams in the West that are better than most Eastern playoff teams. Your reward for getting the first seed is that you play a weak squad, the Western teams are much stronger than that.

OceanSpray
03-15-2013, 02:59 PM
It's just too complicated. It's perfect the way it is. East is going to be better once Kobe/Duncan/Dirk retire.

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 03:08 PM
But your forcing the number 1 seed to play a team that isn't an 8th seed caliber team. There are like 9 teams in the West that are better than most Eastern playoff teams. Your reward for getting the first seed is that you play a weak squad, the Western teams are much stronger than that.

Exactly, it makes absolutely no sense

Option 1) You make them an 8 seed and the 1 seed plays a much tougher opponent than they would have

Option 2) Reseed the teams, and now not only does that team in the West have an easier road to the finals than they would have if they were in the Western conference playoffs but they also could be taking home court away from a team AND giving teams who normally would be facing weaker opponents, now facing a much tougher team

Bad suggestion , bad idea all around

tlynch
03-15-2013, 03:08 PM
In 06-07 the team in the West as a 9 and 8th in the East finish with the same record...who gets the spot (head to head??)

I am not sure what the records are, but I don't see how it could be an issue. If they both have the same record, then they are either both above or below .500. If they are both above .500, then you can't lose your spot, and if they are both below .500 then a sub .500 team obviously does not get any benefit.

A sub .500 team could only be replaced with an above .500 team.

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 03:13 PM
I am not sure what the records are, but I don't see how it could be an issue. If they both have the same record, then they are either both above or below .500. If they are both above .500, then you can't lose your spot, and if they are both below .500 then a sub .500 team obviously does not get any benefit.

A sub .500 team could only be replaced with an above .500 team.

They both finished under .500 at 40-42...so okay that would your be rule there

What would be your suggestions on all your other flaws

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 03:15 PM
I am not sure what the records are, but I don't see how it could be an issue. If they both have the same record, then they are either both above or below .500. If they are both above .500, then you can't lose your spot, and if they are both below .500 then a sub .500 team obviously does not get any benefit.

A sub .500 team could only be replaced with an above .500 team.

Now what if a team is 41-41 in the west and 40-42 in the East

The team in the West is not above .500 but is better than the sub .500 in the East...so do they get a spot??

sep11ie
03-15-2013, 03:22 PM
Dumb dumb dumb.

tlynch
03-15-2013, 03:26 PM
Now what if a team is 41-41 in the west and 40-42 in the East

The team in the West is not above .500 but is better than the sub .500 in the East...so do they get a spot??

That would be open for debate. I would say yes, because the general consensus is that teams that are BELOW .500 don't belong in the playoffs, not that you should be ABOVE .500.

mightybosstone
03-15-2013, 03:26 PM
Here's the biggest problem with this idea that nobody has mentioned, as far as I can tell. What happens if you only have 15 teams with a .500 record or better? Based on OP's logic, you could not have a 16th team in the postseason. Do you just allow the next best team to take that spot? Because if you do, then the whole idea is pointless to begin with.

The current system is fine. One conference is almost always a little bet deeper than the other conference in most sports. That doesn't mean the playoff system is broken. It's just an inevitable problem every league has to deal with.

tlynch
03-15-2013, 03:30 PM
Here's the biggest problem with this idea that nobody has mentioned, as far as I can tell. What happens if you only have 15 teams with a .500 record or better? Based on OP's logic, you could not have a 16th team in the postseason. Do you just allow the next best team to take that spot? Because if you do, then the whole idea is pointless to begin with.

The current system is fine. One conference is almost always a little bet deeper than the other conference in most sports. That doesn't mean the playoff system is broken. It's just an inevitable problem every league has to deal with.

If you read the OP, you would see that it says:

---
Any teams below .500 in one conference can be replaced by above .500 teams from the other conference.
---

Note the word 'CAN'. It says nothing about not being allowed to play if you are below .500, just that if you are below .500 you would be at risk if a team in the other conference is above .500.

mightybosstone
03-15-2013, 03:33 PM
If you read the OP, you would see that it says:

---
Any teams below .500 in one conference can be replaced by above .500 teams from the other conference.
---

Note the word 'CAN'. It says nothing about not being allowed to play if you are below .500, just that if you are below .500 you would be at risk if a team in the other conference is above .500.

Then what the **** is the point of this horrible idea? Most 8 seeds historically have little to no chance of winning a playoff series in the first place, so why should they completely change rules that have been in place for decades? It makes literally zero sense.

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 03:33 PM
That would be open for debate. I would say yes, because the general consensus is that teams that are BELOW .500 don't belong in the playoffs, not that you should be ABOVE .500.

Ok what about all the seeding issues you still haven't addressed?

tlynch
03-15-2013, 03:37 PM
Then what the **** is the point of this horrible idea? Most 8 seeds historically have little to no chance of winning a playoff series in the first place, so why should they completely change rules that have been in place for decades? It makes literally zero sense.

Because if a team is sub .500, in a ****** conference, is that really a team you want to watch in the playoffs?

If you can't be .500+ in a weaker conference, then if their is a better team out there that would give us better baskerball, let's let them play.

Isn't the whole point of the league to give us the best possible basketball to watch?

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 03:40 PM
Because if a team is sub .500, in a ****** conference, is that really a team you want to watch in the playoffs?

If you can't be .500+ in a weaker conference, then if their is a better team out there that would give us better baskerball, let's let them play.

Isn't the whole point of the league to give us the best possible basketball to watch?

I think that everyone would agree with the general idea that you want the best teams in the playoffs, but it also should be fair and a level playing field for every team

Your idea is a disadvantage to teams in both conferences one way or another

You clearly have not addressed any flaws in your system

tlynch
03-15-2013, 03:40 PM
Ok what about all the seeding issues you still haven't addressed?

I addressed this a couple years ago in another post...

Top 4 teams in each conference get to pick their opponent:

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?608936-First-Round-Playoff-Matchup-Idea

Possibly a team that is switching conferences has to play a 2-2-3 Home / Away schedule, gives them a disadvantage and makes traveling easier.

tlynch
03-15-2013, 03:48 PM
Your idea is a disadvantage to teams in both conferences one way or another


I am not sure how it is a disadvantage to teams in the stronger conference, unless you think that the Western Conference Champions are at a slight disadvantage if the 9th seed in their conference makes it through to the finals.

It is definitely a disadvantage to the mediocre teams in the weaker conference, but hey, if you are mediocre in a weak conference, and can't be .500, you deserve it.

The biggest valid concern is that it is unfair to the top 4 teams in the weaker conference. Valid point. Although they got to play in the weaker conference all season. The Heat fairly deserve a weak first round opponent, and if they got L.A. because of this system, it would not be fair. But if the number 1 seed in the East is really afraid of the #9 seed in the West.... then their might be bigger issues!

mightybosstone
03-15-2013, 03:50 PM
Because if a team is sub .500, in a ****** conference, is that really a team you want to watch in the playoffs?

If you can't be .500+ in a weaker conference, then if their is a better team out there that would give us better baskerball, let's let them play.

Isn't the whole point of the league to give us the best possible basketball to watch?

Yes, but your first mistake is assuming that most 1 vs. 8 matchups are entertaining. The majority of the time, they're always blowouts and it doesn't make a difference which conference they're playing in. Let's suppose for a second that your system were in place and the Bucks were to fall below .500 right before the end of the season. Do you HONESTLY think the Jazz, Dallas or Portland would fare any better against the Miami Heat? Hell no. It would be a huge moral victory if one of those teams managed a single win against the Heat.

The only time your system would make a difference is in the case of a huge matchup advantage (like the Warriors against Dallas a few years ago) or in the case of a major injury (like the Rose injury last year). But I highly doubt you would have more 8 seeds advancing as a result of your system.

tp13baby
03-15-2013, 03:59 PM
I don't mind how it is now. The west is stronger and more competitive. Just got to live with it.

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 04:02 PM
I am not sure how it is a disadvantage to teams in the stronger conference, unless you think that the Western Conference Champions are at a slight disadvantage if the 9th seed in their conference makes it through to the finals.

It is definitely a disadvantage to the mediocre teams in the weaker conference, but hey, if you are mediocre in a weak conference, and can't be .500, you deserve it.

The biggest valid concern is that it is unfair to the top 4 teams in the weaker conference. Valid point. Although they got to play in the weaker conference all season. The Heat fairly deserve a weak first round opponent, and if they got L.A. because of this system, it would not be fair. But if the number 1 seed in the East is really afraid of the #9 seed in the West.... then their might be bigger issues!

I think it's a disadvantage to the stronger conference also...becuase the 9 seed in the west will have an easier road to the finals than most of the teams in the west

knicks=love
03-15-2013, 04:48 PM
this is another stupid idea. what would be the point of even having separate conferences?

HouRealCoach
03-15-2013, 05:35 PM
Say if the Heat were a top seed & Portland were to take the 8 seed in the East... That would be one hell of a travel for both teams and very unfair also