PDA

View Full Version : Hey, NBA Commissioner; How About Putting The Best 16 Teams In The Playoffs?



Pablonovi
07-22-2013, 03:51 PM
I'm about as new as can be here; so I'm not exactly betting that I'm doing this "Post New Thread" thing the right way. If NOT; mods, go ahead and fix it or hatchet it.

So, as most of us are well aware, historically AND recently, in the regular season, one conference is (often decidedly) better than the other. Of course, this switches back and forth, sometimes from one year to the next; and other times it doesn't switch for a decade or more (like now in the case of the far-superior Western Conf.)

So, to repeat: The NBA Play-Off Qualifying Rules are strict: the 8 teams with the best record IN EACH CONFERENCE qualify for the playoffs. This very often results in weak team(s) (from the weaker conference) qualifying INSTEAD of team(s) that are stronger than they are (but from the stronger conference).

imo This is TOTALLY UNFAIR TO:
1) The teams in the stronger conference who ranked lower than 8th there (but DON'T qualify);
2) The teams in the weaker conference who ranked higher than 9th there (but DO qualify);
3) The fans of the unfortunate non-qualifying teams;
4) All NBA fans who don't get to see ALL 16 BEST teams participate in the play-offs (because under the current system, some decent ("more-deserved" teams don't qualify; and if they did qualify they'd have a better chance to win the Chip than do some of the weak teams that do qualify).
AND
5) GIVEN AN IMPROVED SYSTEM, less teams would attempt to tank resulting in more fans watching better quality games.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:
1a) TOP 16 TEAMS, BASED ON THEIR 82-GAME REGULAR SEASON RECORD, QUALIFY FOR THE PLAYOFFS: (w/ the usual or, if needed, slightly-modified, tie-breakers); teams ranked lower than #8 in their own conference get moved into the other conference's play-off bracket as THE lowest ranked teams there.

1b) same as above BUT, with a "minor" adjustment: once teams are shifted to the other play-off bracket, THEN those 8 teams are re-ranked by regular season record.

1c) same as either of the above BUT only TEAMS WITH WINNING RECORDS that otherwise would not qualify, can yes be qualified and shifted. (In other words, in this case, "1c", ONLY teams with both a winning record and a non-top 8 rank would qualify and be shifted to the weaker conference's playoff-bracket).

2) Of course, a much more radical solution would be to take the 16 qualifying teams (regardless of which of the above criteria was used) and split them up like the NCAA does; but even more evenly (the NCAA DOES often have pretty uneven brackets); which would tend to get better results in terms of having the two best teams face off in the championships (remember the fiasco of the Lakers facing New Jersey in the finals; when San Antonio, who the Lakers had just beaten in the Western Conf. Finals; was way, way better than N.J.?)

NOTE: Even if the two conferences, in a given year, ARE relatively evenly-matched; this is not the main point. The main point is in regards to the fact that teams with better records often don't qualify while teams with worse ones do. That's what I'd like to fix. For example, it sucks for someone like Dirk (a former Finals MVP on the winning team) to have a above-.500 team and yet not get into the play-offs (worse: for two years in a row.)

MODS, CAN WE DO A VOTE POLL ON THIS?
for example; based on just the most basic question, more or less as stated above in "1a)"
(so that we and the NBA can see where people standing generally on this overall question):

1) YES; the best 16 teams, record-wise, should qualify (regardless of Conf. rank & win %);
2) NO; leave it as it is.

For more "fairness", I vote, "YES".

- - - - - - - - -

P.S. At this date, 20130803 (Aug. 3rd), I'd guess that at least 2/3rds of the "NO" voters; have voted that way NOT because they think the OP suggested-change is NOT more fair; but instead, because they think it will either the NBA will simply NOT make the change or , even if the NBA would consider making the change, it should not make that change because it would be too inconvenient (travel-wise) for the teams involved.

imo These are NOT good enough reasons to vote "NO".

1) "The NBA will simply NOT make the change": "Where there's a will, there's a way"; i.e. the NBA League Office would make the change IF:
a) It's a WORTHWHILE CHANGE to make (i.e., that the increased fairness and competitiveness merits it); and
b) There is ENOUGH SUPPORT for it. I don't believe the technical inconveniences are that great/frequent * to overwhelm the "fairness" argument; and because of that, there very well could develop enough support.

* OP-induced inconveniences due to the increased travel time (especially in the case of West-Coast vs East-Coast match-ups.) In my opinion, the combination of the: infrequency of such match-ups PLUS their lop-sidedness means that that type of series will occur infrequently and/or NOT last long. So, the real inconveniences will be infrequent and relatively minor. Additionally, all NBA teams and their players experience these quite frequently during the regular season - so, it is not something unfamiliar.

Hawkeye15
07-22-2013, 04:09 PM
It will never happer (at least I don't believe it will), but I am all for the top 16 teams making it, instead of routinely marching a sub .500 team into the playoffs over simply better teams in the other conference.

This type of discussion is usually broken down like this: Fans of an eastern conference team likes it how it is, because at some point, there team made it in, with there being at least 1 west team with a better record that did not make the playoffs. Fans of a western conference team prefers a 16 team, best record tournament, because at some point, there team was left out, even though they had a better record than the bottom seed(s) in the east.

Cal827
07-22-2013, 04:12 PM
Pretty much what Hawkeye said. It should be top 16....

Not gonna happen due to time-zones/transportation. I can see the team that has to play the crossover team complain because of the heavy shift in time-zones. (E.g. LA-Boston in the first round could annoy).

Oefarmy2005
07-22-2013, 04:12 PM
It will never happer (at least I don't believe it will), but I am all for the top 16 teams making it, instead of routinely marching a sub .500 team into the playoffs over simply better teams in the other conference.

This type of discussion is usually broken down like this: Fans of an eastern conference team likes it how it is, because at some point, there team made it in, with there being at least 1 west team with a better record that did not make the playoffs. Fans of a western conference team prefers a 16 team, best record tournament, because at some point, there team was left out, even though they had a better record than the bottom seed(s) in the east.

Are you misusing "there" for "their" just to piss me off? :)

Pablonovi
07-22-2013, 04:29 PM
It will never happer (at least I don't believe it will), but I am all for the top 16 teams making it, instead of routinely marching a sub .500 team into the playoffs over simply better teams in the other conference.

This type of discussion is usually broken down like this: Fans of an eastern conference team likes it how it is, because at some point, there team made it in, with there being at least 1 west team with a better record that did not make the playoffs. Fans of a western conference team prefers a 16 team, best record tournament, because at some point, there team was left out, even though they had a better record than the bottom seed(s) in the east.

First, I'm assuming that because you posted first that it was you Hawkeye who both approved my new thread and posted the poll. IF SO, thanx for your attentiveness. IF NOT, then nevermind to you; and thanx to the other mod that did this heheh.

Second, Of course, fans fight for their teams to get into the play-offs, even if they know they are just relying on the rules ("mistaken" as those rules may be); to get what they don't really deserve it (based on a greater fairness). But this can, and often does come back to BITE. In some past decades, the roles were reversed, the Eastern Conference was (clearly) the superior one. So, those western-conference team-homers who qualified but didn't really deserve it; might be crying now because they do deserve it but don't qualify. And those Eastern Conf. team-homers who are happy now; may be crying in the future when their team should qualify but doesn't because of these unfair rules.

slaker619
07-22-2013, 04:36 PM
It would be to many teams and take away the late season crunch time!

Gibby23
07-22-2013, 04:42 PM
It would be to many teams and take away the late season crunch time!

How?

JerseyPalahniuk
07-22-2013, 05:01 PM
This thread has been done before. I was completely for it but major logistical drawbacks were pointed out that made my reconsider my position.

Let's say (hypothetically speaking) that the Knicks or Nets got the 1 seed in the East one year and the Lakers/Clippers were 10th seed in the West BUT 16th best overall. The LA team would become the "8th" seed in the East and have to play the NY team in the first round. They would have to travel back and forth across the country every other day to play games. Changing it to a 2-3-2 format would fix things but there plenty of players/fans who already complain about this system for the Finals. It would take a lot of convincing for that to happen. Again, just a hypothetical situation that can easily apply to other teams (Warriors/Heat, etc etc).

This situation could also bring about a potential Knicks/Nets or Clippers/Lakers NBA Finals. While many fans would love either scenario (myself included) there would be quite a few fans/players/teams that would heavily oppose that format.

I also believe that it would lead to a slipper slope in tanking. You would have teams that would normally be playoff teams in the current format tanking much earlier in the season. I believe this could lead to an even bigger gap between the conferences with some years having only 4-5 (or less) East teams in the playoffs and vice versa decades from now. I wouldn't be a fan of that. This is not me arguing more so logistically than as a fan of an Eastern team.

macc
07-22-2013, 05:02 PM
The way they have it is fine. You can't just do the top records because you don't play every team the same amount of times. That makes the difference. If every team played each other the exact same amount THEN the top 16 best records would make sense, but that is not the case

tkshy
07-22-2013, 05:11 PM
I see what you are saying. I have sometimes thought top 16 and forget about the conferences and have 1 play 16 2 vs 15 etc etc but having the possibility of a Clipper Laker final would cause problems for some. I do however think if a sub .500 team is going to be the 8th seed and there is above .500 in the conference they should get switched. It could get complicated but there must be a way I could work. I really not think a sub .500 team should make it.

NYCkid12
07-22-2013, 05:30 PM
I'm about as new as can be here; so I'm not exactly betting that I'm doing this "Post New Thread" thing the right way. If NOT; mods, go ahead and fix it or hatchet it.

So, as most of us are well aware, historically AND recently, in the regular season, one conference is (often decidedly) better than the other. Of course, this switches back and forth, sometimes from one year to the next; and other times it doesn't switch for a decade or more (like now in the case of the far-superior Western Conf.)

So, to repeat: The NBA Play-Off Qualifying Rules are strict: the 8 teams with the best record IN EACH CONFERENCE qualify for the playoffs. This very often results in weak team(s) (from the weaker conference) qualifying INSTEAD of team(s) that are stronger than they are (but from the stronger conference).

imo This is TOTALLY UNFAIR TO:
1) The teams in the stronger conference who ranked lower than 8th there (but DON'T qualify);
2) The teams in the weaker conference who ranked higher than 9th there (but DO qualify);
3) The fans of the unfortunate non-qualifying teams;
4) All NBA fans who don't get to see ALL 16 BEST teams participate in the play-offs (because under the current system, some decent ("more-deserved" teams don't qualify; and if they did qualify they'd have a better chance to win the Chip than do some of the weak teams that do qualify).
AND
5) GIVEN AN IMPROVED SYSTEM, less teams would attempt to tank resulting in more fans watching better quality games.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:
1a) TOP 16 TEAMS, BASED ON THEIR 82-GAME REGULAR SEASON RECORD, QUALIFY FOR THE PLAYOFFS: (w/ the usual or, if needed, slightly-modified, tie-breakers); teams ranked lower than #8 in their own conference get moved into the other conference's play-off bracket as THE lowest ranked teams there.

1b) same as above BUT, with a "minor" adjustment: once teams are shifted to the other play-off bracket, THEN those 8 teams are re-ranked by regular season record.

1c) same as either of the above BUT only TEAMS WITH WINNING RECORDS that otherwise would not qualify, can yes be qualified and shifted. (In other words, in this case, "1c", ONLY teams with both a winning record and a non-top 8 rank would qualify and be shifted to the weaker conference's playoff-bracket).

2) Of course, a much more radical solution would be to take the 16 qualifying teams (regardless of which of the above criteria was used) and split them up like the NCAA does; but even more evenly (the NCAA DOES often have pretty uneven brackets); which would tend to get better results in terms of having the two best teams face off in the championships (remember the fiasco of the Lakers facing New Jersey in the finals; when San Antonio, who the Lakers had just beaten in the Western Conf. Finals; was way, way better than N.J.?)

NOTE: Even if the two conferences, in a given year, ARE relatively evenly-matched; this is not the main point. The main point is in regards to the fact that teams with better records often don't qualify while teams with worse ones do. That's what I'd like to fix. For example, it sucks for someone like Dirk (a former Finals MVP on the winning team) to have a above-.500 team and yet not get into the play-offs (worse: for two years in a row.)

MODS, CAN WE DO A VOTE POLL ON THIS?
for example; based on just the most basic question, more or less as stated above in "1a)"
(so that we and the NBA can see where people standing generally on this overall question):

1) YES; the best 16 teams, record-wise, should qualify (regardless of Conf. rank & win %);
2) NO; leave it as it is.

For more "fairness", I vote, "YES".

P.S. Regarding "Tags" I don't know what "Tags" are for; so I have NO idea whether I should use one or more. I wouldn't object to any mod(s) adding them if they feel it is appropriate. Thanx

Don't get this point, why would less teams attempt to tank? Under your assumption the lesser deserving team who would ordinarily go into the playoffs as a low seed is now going to miss the playoffs. So now instead of having a shot at being around .500 and getting a playoff berth, they will now have a slim outlook at a playoff berth and might go with a younger rotation earlier or trade off a veteran.

I see the same amount of teams "tanking" if not more.....

For a quick example, this year with the Bucks....you think they would go out and trade for JJ Reddick if they weren't in a conference that was weak and allowed them to squeek in the playoffs??

abe_froman
07-22-2013, 05:41 PM
doesnt work,you basically destroy the idea of conferences.a much better solution is to have less seeds...but again,wont happen.

is it unfair that the bucks make the playoffs with a losing record ,while a winning western team is in the lotto? sure.but unfairness abounds both in the league,in sports in general and in life.its just something you have to live with.

...as for your point on tanking,no it wouldnt lessen the teams tanking,nothing will(nor is it such a bad thing as many fans want to act like it is)

Tony_Starks
07-22-2013, 05:48 PM
For the sake of the eastern conference they'll never do it. There's been seasons in recent history that if it was the top 16 teams literally only like 4-5 teams from the east would've even made the playoffs.

The tradition of East vs West is just too big a deal, even if half the teams in the east have absolutely NO business in the playoffs.....

smith&wesson
07-22-2013, 06:05 PM
so basically 4 teams make it from the east and 12 from the west lol... sure.

Tony_Starks
07-22-2013, 06:31 PM
so basically 4 teams make it from the east and 12 from the west lol... sure.

Number 8 seed in the west had 37 losses last year. Number 5 team in the east had 37. And that was a bad year for the west.....

Facts.

bholly
07-22-2013, 08:01 PM
OP, your proposals still aren't fair (and may even be less fair) as long as teams play teams within their conference twice as often as those in the other conference. What you want is the best 16 teams in the playoffs, but the best 16 records isn't the same thing - when one conference is stronger than the other, as it usually is, then a particular record in the stronger conference is better than the same record in the weaker conference.

But most of all, what it comes down to is the transportation and travel costs, as mentioned. It isn't worth all the extra costs just to make sure the right 8th seed is getting swept in the first round. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter who those last teams into the playoffs are, and the extra costs of allowing it, and extra marketing opportunities from not allowing it, mean they'll never do it.

Pablonovi
07-22-2013, 08:19 PM
A number of very good points from most of the responders imo.
4 points:
1) what if only,, at most 2 teams from the stronger conference could replace the two weakest (at most) from the weaker conference?
2) travel time: in the 2-2-2-1; that's not an average of more time than teams do travel during the regular season is it?
3) I wouldn't have any trouble with any Finals match-up even if the two teams were physical neighbors. How much different is that than similar teams meeting in the Conf. Finals (like the Lakers and Clips might do some day).


and lastly, because it's the only sentence I've read that completely flabbergasted me. It's from JerseyPal....
Hey Jersey... (please take everything I say next in the spirit of fun and friendliness, because a that's how I feel towards you; I appreciate lots that you say.) In your post #8 above, you make a lot of interesting points, some I agree with, some not. I thought your post overall was quite good. But then you "undid all that goodwill" hehe with your last sentence:
4) "This is not me arguing more so logistically than as a fan of an Eastern team. "

I've read this sentence a number of times; and don't seem to be able to make any progress at all. What are you trying to say here?

JerseyPalahniuk
07-22-2013, 08:26 PM
and lastly, because it's the only sentence I've read that completely flabbergasted me. It's from JerseyPal....
Hey Jersey... (please take everything I say next in the spirit of fun and friendliness, because a that's how I feel towards you; I appreciate lots that you say.) In your post #8 above, you make a lot of interesting points, some I agree with, some not. I thought your post overall was quite good. But then you "undid all that goodwill" hehe with your last sentence:
4) "This is not me arguing more so logistically than as a fan of an Eastern team. "

I've read this sentence a number of times; and don't seem to be able to make any progress at all. What are you trying to say here?

Thanks for the compliments man, but I think I just worded it the OPPOSITE of what I mean to say with my poor grammar haha. Whoops.

I was justifying my argument in response to Hawkeye's comment:


Fans of an eastern conference team likes it how it is, because at some point, there team made it in, with there being at least 1 west team with a better record that did not make the playoffs.

I didn't write out my comment with my bias towards being a fan of an Eastern conference team, I was thinking more of the logistics of how this would work out.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-22-2013, 08:41 PM
A number of very good points from most of the responders imo.
4 points:
1) what if only,, at most 2 teams from the stronger conference could replace the two weakest (at most) from the weaker conference?


I guess that would alleviate the whole "12 teams from one conference" problem that could occur if the polarity of the league remains intact. But that number seems a bit arbitrary doesn't it? Let's say the policy is installed and the West's 9th-10th seed replace the 7th-8th seed in the East. What if the 11th seed in the West is still much better than the 6th seed in the West? I agree that this solves some of the slippery slope tanking I presented but there would have to be a lot of discussion on what exact number to set as the maximum. Two does seem reasonable but maybe not the perfect solution.



2) travel time: in the 2-2-2-1; that's not an average of more time than teams do travel during the regular season is it?


When teams play huge road trips they usually occur in a the same region (i.e. knocking out all the Texas teams at once). Usually teams play multiple (3+) games in a row at home or at home. When teams do alternate between games, most of the time it still occurs on the same side of the country. The 2-2-2-1 rule was first disbanded in the 80s when the Celtics and Lakers used to meet up all the time. Stern realized how much hassle it took for all the media members/family/officials (hundreds) to travel back and forth under tight deadlines and budgets. Especially, when no one could possibly know how many games the series would last. The CEO's and marketing team would have a mere 24 hours to organize a home PLAYOFF game. It's much easier when the teams play in the same conference. While the 2-3-2 rule is unpopular among certain players and fans who are on the "2" end, it makes sense for the hundreds of other media/league officials who are just as part of the final product as the players themselves.



3) I wouldn't have any trouble with any Finals match-up even if the two teams were physical neighbors. How much different is that than similar teams meeting in the Conf. Finals (like the Lakers and Clips might do some day).


While WE wouldn't have a problem with those matchups, I'm sure there would be an enormous amount of debate. It's tradition to have the best East team play against the best West team just as in the NFL and MLB, it's traditional to have the best American team play the best National team. That's just the way it's been forever. While a Lakers/Clippers or Knicks/Nets would be incredibly entertaining, it just wouldn't feel right for that series to decide the championship. But hey, that's just me.

Hawkeye15
07-22-2013, 08:49 PM
First, I'm assuming that because you posted first that it was you Hawkeye who both approved my new thread and posted the poll. IF SO, thanx for your attentiveness. IF NOT, then nevermind to you; and thanx to the other mod that did this heheh.

Second, Of course, fans fight for their teams to get into the play-offs, even if they know they are just relying on the rules ("mistaken" as those rules may be); to get what they don't really deserve it (based on a greater fairness). But this can, and often does come back to BITE. In some past decades, the roles were reversed, the Eastern Conference was (clearly) the superior one. So, those western-conference team-homers who qualified but didn't really deserve it; might be crying now because they do deserve it but don't qualify. And those Eastern Conf. team-homers who are happy now; may be crying in the future when their team should qualify but doesn't because of these unfair rules.

A majority of the fans on this site weren't born when the east was the stronger conference.

I really don't care if they change it, I was simply giving my perspective. It's not like being middle of the pack is even better than being bad in the NBA.

Hawkeye15
07-22-2013, 08:51 PM
it would cause way more tanking btw.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-22-2013, 08:54 PM
it would cause way more tanking btw.

Yup, as I mentioned in my first post. If the Eastern (or whatever conference is weaker at the time) teams aren't going to make the playoffs as even a 6 or 7 seed, then what's the point?

Pablonovi
07-22-2013, 09:59 PM
I see your points about tanking being either equal or maybe even worse. I was mostly thinking about late-season tanking; but still there'd be some problems. I had thought, for example, the Western Conf. #9 etc, would still have a chance to make the playoffs even if they couldn't move up in the west. They'd be fighting East Conf. teams. The lowest ranked "qualifying" teams East Conf. teams couldn't take as many games off because of the increase of competition due to the West teams capable of taking their spots. All of this assumes that most near-.500 teams would rather make the play-offs than not (seeing as they'd not have a shot at the top 3 or so College Picks coming out for the next year anyway.

Pablonovi
07-22-2013, 10:07 PM
About two N.Y. or two L.A. teams meeting in the Finals. There'd be very little chance of that in this, "my", scheme. The one that shifts Conference (just) for the play-offs is gonna be a low, low seed; so will have to beat a series of higher-seeds; pretty slim chances. Meanwhile, the one that stays in its own Conference still has to win 3 series there to get to the finals as well.

For reference, how do people here feel about a Yankees-Mets World Series, all Chicago or similar "regional" World Series (leaving out the hate-that-team factor.) Wouldn't bother me; rather an occasional one of these I'd like. Of course, I grew up in New Jersey, so the Yankees were "my" team. I tried to love the Mets when they were first born; but I was younger then; and I just couldn't handle all that losing! Truthfully. I got so damned miserable "I had to cut them lose". hehe

Pablonovi
07-22-2013, 10:37 PM
How come the NBA Conference-wise has been so terribly unbalanced for so long? Does the League itself NOT care; is it just that supposedly nothing can be done about it? How much longer do people here think this is going to continue with the West so far ahead of the East?

Somewhat related: How DO fans of "perpetually" losing teams handle it?
One thing that seems generally (but certainly NOT always) true: the more your team loses, the humbler you tend to be; the more your team wins, the more arrogant you tend to be. Maybe that's why, speaking about my favorite team, there seems to be a higher percent of arrogant Mo-Fo Laker fans than of any other NBA team.

I remember when "my" San Diego Chargers went to the Super Bowl. I was at this humongous party; unlimited alcohol, "smoke" and pills. (I was a designated driver btw). I knew the same thing was going on all over town. There was going to be utter chaos IF the Chargers won. And I thought to myself, "I guess, for safety's sake, I hope the Chargers lose". We got smashed, creamed, obliterated - I hated it. But it WAS pretty safe to drive that night; especially for someone like myself on a motorcycle (with a loved-one passenger). While over in S.F., all hell did break loose.

If I'm rambling off-topic and I'm the OP, does this mean this thread has already run its course?

4milesperday
07-22-2013, 10:46 PM
well, some of you guys don't seem to be critical thinkers. If best 16 makes it then either the conferences will have to be eliminated or the NBA will have to increase or reduce number of games so every team will face each-other equal amount of games. Imagine the Warriors and other bottom western conference teams playing the Heat, Bulls, Indiana, Knicks, Nets, and celtics 4 times like East teams do, they will also have a sub .500 record.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-22-2013, 11:20 PM
well, some of you guys don't seem to be critical thinkers. If best 16 makes it then either the conferences will have to be eliminated or the NBA will have to increase or reduce number of games so every team will face each-other equal amount of games. Imagine the Warriors and other bottom western conference teams playing the Heat, Bulls, Indiana, Knicks, Nets, and celtics 4 times like East teams do, they will also have a sub .500 record.

There is no lapse in critical thinking by us man. The OP was saying re-rank ALL the teams 1-16 at all. It was more keep the current system in tact, THEN when one conference is weaker, bump those bottom teams out and replace them with the 9-whatever seeds of the stronger conference. The regular season matchups wouldn't be affected.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-22-2013, 11:35 PM
About two N.Y. or two L.A. teams meeting in the Finals. There'd be very little chance of that in this, "my", scheme. The one that shifts Conference (just) for the play-offs is gonna be a low, low seed; so will have to beat a series of higher-seeds; pretty slim chances. Meanwhile, the one that stays in its own Conference still has to win 3 series there to get to the finals as well.

For reference, how do people here feel about a Yankees-Mets World Series, all Chicago or similar "regional" World Series (leaving out the hate-that-team factor.) Wouldn't bother me; rather an occasional one of these I'd like. Of course, I grew up in New Jersey, so the Yankees were "my" team. I tried to love the Mets when they were first born; but I was younger then; and I just couldn't handle all that losing! Truthfully. I got so damned miserable "I had to cut them lose". hehe

I understand the chances aren't that high of that happening but lower seeds have beaten higher seeds plenty of times. It's a risk that I doubt the league would be willing to take.

And that Mets/Yankees example isn't a problem at all since they are in DIFFERENT leagues. It would be a dream come true for many New Yorkers (myself included) for that to be the World Series matchup. Same with Jets/Giants. That's not how the NBA is set up though - it's East vs West. In the NFL, there is only one game a week and in MLB they play 3 games in a row against the same team. Completely different story in terms of transportation and logistics.


How come the NBA Conference-wise has been so terribly unbalanced for so long? Does the League itself NOT care; is it just that supposedly nothing can be done about it? How much longer do people here think this is going to continue with the West so far ahead of the East?

Somewhat related: How DO fans of "perpetually" losing teams handle it?
One thing that seems generally (but certainly NOT always) true: the more your team loses, the humbler you tend to be; the more your team wins, the more arrogant you tend to be. Maybe that's why, speaking about my favorite team, there seems to be a higher percent of arrogant Mo-Fo Laker fans than of any other NBA team.

I remember when "my" San Diego Chargers went to the Super Bowl. I was at this humongous party; unlimited alcohol, "smoke" and pills. (I was a designated driver btw). I knew the same thing was going on all over town. There was going to be utter chaos IF the Chargers won. And I thought to myself, "I guess, for safety's sake, I hope the Chargers lose". We got smashed, creamed, obliterated - I hated it. But it WAS pretty safe to drive that night; especially for someone like myself on a motorcycle (with a loved-one passenger). While over in S.F., all hell did break loose.

If I'm rambling off-topic and I'm the OP, does this mean this thread has already run its course?

There have been times when the East was much better than the West. There exists such trends in any major league sport when a region (or league) dominates. It's not that the league doesn't care, sports just play out that way. It only takes a couple superstars to switch sides to have a major paradigm shift. In a few years Duncan, Dirk, and Kobe will all retire and Durant (although unlikely) and Love could move to the East. Wiggins and the other top talent of this year's draft could end up on Eastern teams. That could shift the powers. I would much rather how these things play out than the league take ANY sort of measures to force this change.

Although it is indeed of topic, I like your questions. You seem to be a great fan of the sport and not some homer fan of a specific player or team. My nets were a miserable franchise ever since Jason Kidd was traded to Dallas. How did I handle it? I started following (not becoming fans of) other teams more intently. I rooted for Kidd to win the title. I learned much more about the league while my team lost game after game. 3 years ago we were 12-70 and started the season 0-18 when I first entered college. I watched a third of those games, hoping for glimpses of potential from Brook Lopez and Devin Harris. Then I prayed for the #1 pick but we got the 3rd. Then Mikhail Prokhorov bought the team and everything changed (although no one expected it to with a random foreign rich guy taking over). I waited patiently through a few dumb trades and free agent/player nightmares (Melo/Dwight). And now we are back in contention. My advice would be to be patient. Things will eventually work out. The Nets and Clippers were the laughingstocks of the NBA and now some might say the are legitimate contenders.

And yes with success (or potential of success) comes a lot of arrogance. I remember the countless threads the Lakers fans made after getting Dwight and Nash last summer. A whole lot of dancing and dreaming about another three-peat. Just stay true to whatever type of fan you are, man. People think I would be disappointed if we don't win the championship. I would be damn happy just getting to the ECF. Every fan has different expectations of what would make them happy. For me this PROCESS has been just as incredible and exciting as whatever outcome this season may bring.

LegendsNvrDie23
07-23-2013, 12:06 AM
It will never happer (at least I don't believe it will), but I am all for the top 16 teams making it, instead of routinely marching a sub .500 team into the playoffs over simply better teams in the other conference.

This type of discussion is usually broken down like this: Fans of an eastern conference team likes it how it is, because at some point, there team made it in, with there being at least 1 west team with a better record that did not make the playoffs. Fans of a western conference team prefers a 16 team, best record tournament, because at some point, there team was left out, even though they had a better record than the bottom seed(s) in the east.

This about covers it.

TheMightyHumph
07-23-2013, 12:16 AM
Because NBA wants two competitive races for the playoffs, not one.

It's about fan interest, which creates more revenue.

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 01:25 AM
I understand the chances aren't that high of that happening but lower seeds have beaten higher seeds plenty of times. It's a risk that I doubt the league would be willing to take.

And that Mets/Yankees example isn't a problem at all since they are in DIFFERENT leagues. It would be a dream come true for many New Yorkers (myself included) for that to be the World Series matchup. Same with Jets/Giants. That's not how the NBA is set up though - it's East vs West. In the NFL, there is only one game a week and in MLB they play 3 games in a row against the same team. Completely different story in terms of transportation and logistics.



There have been times when the East was much better than the West. There exists such trends in any major league sport when a region (or league) dominates. It's not that the league doesn't care, sports just play out that way. It only takes a couple superstars to switch sides to have a major paradigm shift. In a few years Duncan, Dirk, and Kobe will all retire and Durant (although unlikely) and Love could move to the East. Wiggins and the other top talent of this year's draft could end up on Eastern teams. That could shift the powers. I would much rather how these things play out than the league take ANY sort of measures to force this change.

Although it is indeed of topic, I like your questions. You seem to be a great fan of the sport and not some homer fan of a specific player or team. My nets were a miserable franchise ever since Jason Kidd was traded to Dallas. How did I handle it? I started following (not becoming fans of) other teams more intently. I rooted for Kidd to win the title. I learned much more about the league while my team lost game after game. 3 years ago we were 12-70 and started the season 0-18 when I first entered college. I watched a third of those games, hoping for glimpses of potential from Brook Lopez and Devin Harris. Then I prayed for the #1 pick but we got the 3rd. Then Mikhail Prokhorov bought the team and everything changed (although no one expected it to with a random foreign rich guy taking over). I waited patiently through a few dumb trades and free agent/player nightmares (Melo/Dwight). And now we are back in contention. My advice would be to be patient. Things will eventually work out. The Nets and Clippers were the laughingstocks of the NBA and now some might say the are legitimate contenders.

And yes with success (or potential of success) comes a lot of arrogance. I remember the countless threads the Lakers fans made after getting Dwight and Nash last summer. A whole lot of dancing and dreaming about another three-peat. Just stay true to whatever type of fan you are, man. People think I would be disappointed if we don't win the championship. I would be damn happy just getting to the ECF. Every fan has different expectations of what would make them happy. For me this PROCESS has been just as incredible and exciting as whatever outcome this season may bring.

WARNING: SKIP THIS POST IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE WHY "I LOVE MANY NBA PLAYERS"
Maybe my basic problem with you Jersey is that I was born and raised in (New) Jersey, so you have an unfair advantage from the get go. hehe. I really appreciate your thinking and considerate responses.

My dad was super-tolerant in an age of super-intolerance; and it rubbed off on me big-time. It is true what you say that I am generally more a fan of the NBA than of one team; and outside of the Lakers; I enjoy and root for anybody who plays beautifully. I couldn't force myself to take a side in: Miami vs Spurs (because I respect Duncan and pop too much; just as I do: LeBron, Wade, Spo and Riles).

I can't help my love for the Lakers - this started when I was still an East-Coaster so I wasn't a homer physically. Then I moved to San Diego (never lived in L.A.) but stayed hooked.

One advantage of age is that, IF you can learn, you tend to learn all kinds of sh__ even if you sometimes try to fight it. NBA-wise for me. I started off with three loves: West-Baylor, O-Lucas, and Wilt. So I was never a one-teamer. At first I was sure that there'd never be anyone as great as those 50s-60s guys. Then along came KAJ. I loved him at UCLA so it wasn't a big thing to "stick with him"; especially with his incredible first NBA year. He joins up with the Big O; all the sweeter. I found I got over "hating" i.e. not wanting anyone to equal or even surpass my first all time favorites.

Same thing happened with MJ. I loved his play from the get-go; but resisted a bit the idea of his rising to the all-time top spots. With Magic, his team-work first mentality conquered me.

Bird was virtually his equal team-work wise, but it was harder for me to "love" him. It wasn't his fault at all. First it was that Russell's Celtics had thwarted the West-Baylor Lakers some 8 times! But then I spent 4 years of high school very near Boston. I went to all our varsity b-ball games; played "intra-mural", two seasons a year; and, seeing as I boarded at the school, when I wasn't in classes (and seldom studying) I "lived" in the gym between the two baskets. All of this would seem to naturally lead to me being a Celtics homer.

But it was what I saw at some 120 high school basket ball games; that killed such a possibility. What I saw/heard with my very own eyes and ears was so much nasty racism. Our school was very mixed socially; half my friends were black, half white, and one was a Mexican. But almost every other school we faced was the polar opposite. On those "teams" they really had two separate teams (the white one and the black one). Separate player-loyalties, cheerleader-loyalties, fan-loyalties; squad after squad after squad.

It revolted me. But still Bird was so team-oriented, I eventually succumbed to his greatness too.
So, after all this time; after all these newer generations "replacing" the older ones; I don't find myself needing to defend the past against the future; nor getting too jazzed by the newcomers.

The upshot is that I pretty much treat every block of ten years as essentially equal to all the others (50s=60s=70s ...). Virtually every good argument for one decade has a counter-argument for another. So I revere the old-time greats; am thrilled by the current ones; and can't wait for the "Wiggins" to dazzle us tomorrow. I just love basketball and the NBA is its greatest theater.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-23-2013, 01:54 AM
Wow Pablo. I am jealous of all the greats you've been able to watch. That is incredible to go through all these HUGE changes in the way the game has been played and the passing of legends of the game. Maybe a personal question you don't have to answer but what country would you identify your culture with?

While I wasn't born in jersey, I spent my entire youth there until moving south later on. Now I'm back in jersey to work and couldn't be happier beig close to the nets franchise. I'm not sure what the "problem" you had was but I would love to address it.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the placing of the current superstars amongst the all-time greats. How would compare the complete games of Kobe/Lebron/Durant against the legends of past? What about big men like Garnett and Duncan? I like to believe that Wilt would have dominated in this era and that Russel would still have an incredible impact on the defensive end. Are those assumptions valid?

Jtirado16
07-23-2013, 01:56 AM
It would make the playoffs so interesting if they did this!

sunsfan88
07-23-2013, 02:45 AM
The East is so bad that they should do this.

I think the crapiness of the Eastern teams makes even the top East looks bad cause it must be embarrassing to say that the Cavs, Wizards, Bobcats, Pistons are from the same conference as the Heat, Knicks, Nets, Pacers etc.

The Suns were the worst team in the West and we were t even a top 5 worst team in the NBA...

cdnsportsfan
07-23-2013, 12:06 PM
This sounds a lot like the CFL, where if one team knocked out of the playoffs is stronger than the last playoff team in the other division they get to crossover and take their spot. The NBA kind of already works this way with the idea that if the weakest division winner has a worse record than the top team outside of division winners, that weak division winning team gets knocked back to the fourth seed. For that reason I could see something this happening, though I wouldn't want it to displace more than one team at most. Put this in play for the eighth seed and I think that would be a pretty interesting way to mix things up a little.

I say don't scrap the conferences and make it a top 16 overall, but I believe there are ways to tweak the playoff system to make it better. And if the Eastern Conference keeps getting a team knocked out, theoretically that means more East teams in the lottery which should help them in the long run, right? (yeah there's no guarantee that would happen but it would likely be better than getting swept and blown out in four games as a weak 8 seed anyways).

todu82
07-23-2013, 12:44 PM
I agree, it should be top 16 teams regardless of conference who make the playoffs.

Under that system, here would have been the 1st round matches last year:

Miami vs. Boston
Oklahoma City vs. Utah
San Antonio vs. Atlanta
Denver vs. Houston
LA Clippers vs. Chicago
Memphis vs. LA Lakers
New York vs. Golden State
Indiana vs. Brooklyn

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 12:58 PM
Wow Pablo. I am jealous of all the greats you've been able to watch. That is incredible to go through all these HUGE changes in the way the game has been played and the passing of legends of the game. Maybe a personal question you don't have to answer but what country would you identify your culture with?

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the placing of the current superstars amongst the all-time greats. How would compare the complete games of Kobe/Lebron/Durant against the legends of past? What about big men like Garnett and Duncan? I like to believe that Wilt would have dominated in this era and that Russel would still have an incredible impact on the defensive end. Are those assumptions valid?

You've also said, "While I wasn't born in jersey, I spent my entire youth there until moving south later on. Now I'm back in jersey to work and couldn't be happier beig close to the nets franchise. I'm not sure what the "problem" you had was but I would love to address it."

PABLO SAYS: Country-identification: Born and raised: Gringo; decades-long cultural-affinity: Mexican/Mexican-American (for the last 50 years, exactly, my "main man" friends have been: Mexicans, then Blacks, then Whites (with a sprinking of other races/nationalities). Soul-mate -wise: I've had a long-term relationship with: a white woman, then a black woman, now a Mexican). So what does that make me? You tell me!


Hey Jersey (hope you don't mind me calling you that?),
N.B. I had a great friend from Poland named Jersey and used to call him "JerseyJoePolack" out of pure friendship and respect (funniest, sweetest guy I've ever met; boy do I miss him). We used to hang out at a nude beach ("clothing optional" technically) with 10,000 other people each weekend (and many weekdays too).

People there did all the typical things one might imagine: sunbathing, swimming, drinking cold brewsky (not me - I never got to like the taste or the dizzy after-affect - and, being unofficial "mayor", I had to 100% of the time be at my best to help prevent the great joy from descending into utter chaos ... which was always a real danger one stupid insult from happening); jogging, frisbeeing, horshoeing, volleyballing (I played 5,000 games myself there; 25 games in one day once! = 12+ hours, sunrise to past sunset; imagine "trying" to play volleyball in the dark! - just crazy!); and, of course, ENJOYING THE SPECTACULAR VIEWS! And, PLEASE my friend, don't doubt the quality of the views. My oh my.

But, at that beach, of all the pastimes the favorite one, by far, was sticking funny nick-names on each other. After a few years, I was "proclaimed" the champion amongst the hundreds of skilled nick-naming "players". Thus, why I call you Jersey; it's fun, isn't it? If it bothers you, immediately I'll call you whatever you'd prefer.


Anyway, you're too cool in my opinion, with that opinion rising with each new post of yours. It feels like we're just two half-adult/half-kids getting to know each other surrounded by the sweetest respect vibe all while chatting mostly about NBA Greats. Few things in life could be much sweeter, imho.

JEALOUS OF MY LUCK FOR HAVING SEEM VIRTUALLY ALL THE NBA GREATS IN ACTION? I dig ya.
Truly, I have been lucky. My dad was exceptionally marvelous: a complete man, skilled at seemingly almost everything important; but especially WITH UNLIMITED RESPECT TOWARDS MY MOM - what a role model. And, as my luck seemed to have no limit under his guidance, he was a total NBA FAN. There was "no hope" for me; I'm sure I began watching (and hearing about) the NBA (even NBL - cause of Mikan) while still in diapers with a baby bottle in its proper place. Blame it on dad.

First experiences: The utter individual dominance of Wilt, the completeness of the big "O" (with his quality side-kick Jerry Lucas), the thrilling duo-brilliance of West-Baylor (to this day I just can't rank one over the other; they were that good and that closely equal) ... all of them taking turns against the decade-long Celtics All-Star Team. Red Aurbach was indisputably THE greatest coach of that time. The Celtics, as Hawk often points out, had "not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, but maybe 7 HOFers. Their 6TH MAN, Hondo might have been the MVP of the league he was that good; and he, rightfully didn't even start - that's how machine-like un-stoppable were the C's. With THAT coach, with THAT much talent AND with BIG BILL in the middle PERFECTLY complimenting everyone - they basically could not be beat.

I remember all those series than went down to games 7; all those game 7s that went down to the final minute, even overtime. If you didn't LIVE it; how could you know. Every year, all these great, great players thrilled the sh__ out of me; and every year, almost, that damn Celtic All-Star Machine BARELY, BUT FINALLY, crushed my favorite players and teams. If you were "there" AND were not a Celtic-homer (and, believe me, in those days they were worse than even the Laker-homers of today; how could they not be, they won everything almost every year?!) ... anyway, if you were "there", you would NEVER, for an instant, doubt Wilt's heart or his greatness. This gentle giant (who was literally as strong as any other two guys put together) NEVER fought; but instead broke up many would-be fights. He treated his "arch-enemy and nemesis" with more respect that Big Bill ever received from anybody else; they were life-long best friends. He, personally, by himself, integrated, first entire cities, then entire regions. But, it was on the court, of course, where he was just astonishing.

It was said repeatedly that he was all of the following simultaneously, THE: fastest, strongest and longest-lasting (in both sense of the word) guy in the NBA. This was not because the center position in those days was weak. Other posters here at PSD have listed a whole number of (near-) 7-footers that he went up against AND dominated. He averaged some 27 ppg and 20+ rpg against THE greatest defensive center of all time. This was no much below what he averaged against everybody else (30 ppg, 22 rpg). I know this: Russell NEVER stopped Wilt; never. When people think, or try to imply that Wilt was a loser; this just means they don't know their history. Wilt had decent teammates; but never an all-star team. He had decent coaches; but never RED. Red was NOT a little bit better than Hannum and the rest; he was ahead of them by an NBA-epoch.

When you take all this into consideration, when Wilt's teams lost series to the Celtics; it was almost NEVER a rout; instead, virtually every series was a WAR; fought down to the last second. Imagine Wilt have teams equal to Russell's: those series would have been ROUTS. If they had such a thing as play-off series MVP, Wilt should have been declared unanimously the MVP of every single one of those series. He was WAY better than Big Bill.
Also, because Wilt was mostly in the East, he didn't even get to the finals - this hurts hugely his All-Time ranking.

Jersey, you ask, "Could Wilt have done well, even dominate, in today's NBA?" This is a super-interesting question. Let me answer this by starting with a logically-similar question: "Could West, Baylor and the big "O" have competed in other, later, epochs, even today?"

JERRY ("ALL-TIME 3 POINT SHOOTER") WEST
Picture Jerry (CLUTCH) West with a 3-point line!!! He literally had unlimited range. He'd be personally unstoppable; and his teams would space out perfectly to take advantage of that. His defense was excellent - he'd be, at least a top 5 2-Guard every year for 10 straight years in any epoch, including today.

THE BIG "O" (Magic and MJ in one body)
Same for the big "O". I remember reading, back then, about one particular moment, before he even turned pro. He went one-on-one with one of the best NBA players of the time: Jack Twyman. Now, O was a gracious dude; it was NOT his style to show-off just for the sake of it. But, the "rules" were "don't hold back anything; let's see if you're as good as everybody things you'll be". And, basketball-wise, he just humiliated Twyman. Most people know about 1962 when O did his triple-double thing. But he was WAY better than that. Over his first 5 years, some 400 games, he just barely missed a triple-double (9.8 rebounds); while scoring at a non-Wilt phenomenal rate. Take away Wilt's 1962, and O's 1962 might be the greatest single season ever. Could he play today: what current point guard could slow him, much less stop him. True, he was not the defender that West was; but, today, he'd fit perfectly, defense for point guards today is near the bottom of the list of their requirements.

ELGIN
Baylor WAS Connie Hawkins FIRST. Baylor WAS Dr. J. FIRST. Baylor WAS MJ FIRST. He was sheer BEAUTY on the court. Only 6'5"; but HE INVENTED HANG-TIME. ALL my most-favorite moments, from that epoch, are Elgin Baylor moves. He had an unlimited repertoire around the rim. He could hit the mid-range jumper. Rebounds? He was Barkley and Rodman FIRST. Guts and humility: THE GOAT. Could he play today? No doubt about it: 10 years as a top-5 Small Small Forward.

WILT
In my fewest words; WILT WAS WAY, WAY BETTER than West and Baylor and the big "O". How would he have done in other epochs? Top-2 Center every year, in any epoch, 10+ years straight. KAJ? Bill
Walton (theoretically un-injured): the "A-Train", Artist f___in' Gilmour? Shaq? Hakeem? In every case, I have not the shadow of doubt in my mind; Wilt, would have been, "at worst" a 1b to all of them. TODAY? Are you kidding? Wilt would still be faster than every non-PG in the league; he'd still be stronger than everyone. You wanna argue that athletes today are better-conditioned? Sure, but if Wilt was around today, he'd be better conditioned than everybody (with the possible exception off Kobe). He'd still have his 45 mpg stamina. Few people know that after he retired from basketball, at around 40 years old he played semi-pro volleyball - what couldn't he do? Did he service 20,000 women? Maybe not. But did he mess around, sometimes with more than one of them, before and after games (like it was his day off) - all the time! Don't doubt, that if he had set his mind to it; he would have put that record out of reach too. He HAD virtually unlimited stamina.

THE "UN-INJURED" BILL WALTON
Bill Walton IS the 2nd greatest College basketball player of all time. If you could combine 3 of the All-Time greats by-position: center: Bill Russell; power forward: Karl Malone ("the body"); and small forward: Larry Bird. that would be Bill Walton. He was Karl Malone-strong, Larry Bird-finesse, Bill Russell-complimentary. And he was Rick Barry-smart. Un-injured, he was so good and so complete, he would have been the GOAT. And one more thing, Bill Walton was (is?) the O. J. Simpson of basketball interviews. To the best of my knowledge, Walton never ever praised himself; but boy did he give compliments to ALL the other good players, lots of compliment; and he spoke like an expert. He would brag about the GOAT-finalists such as: Wilt, MJ, Magic and KAJ. "Any of them could get 40 points any night it was needed. Any of them could dominate any game, even just by their passing." (This a near-quote from memory, on my part.) With the exception of scoring, he would say all the same things about Russell. Walton also "produced" not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 decent-quality NBA-ers as sons.

THE ABA
I was a huge fan. Was totally aware of the ABA greats for 9 of those years. Went to a game; San Diego Sails (?) - excuse my depleted memory banks, please. Watched the ABA All-Stars BEAT the NBA All-Stars; imagine that. If my dad's biggest (and really only big gripe) against the GOAT rankings is that Russell is put too high; my biggest one is that the NBA has OFFICIALLY erased what the 10 greatest ABA-Era players accomplished. True, the average ABA-er was inferior to the average NBA-er. But these 10 or so guys, were every bit the equal of their NBA peers; at the least, these 10 or so guys should have all their ABA-career stats included in the NBA all-time list.

MIKAN (including his first GREAT years)
My second greatest beef: George Mikan's pre-NBA (then known as the BAA? for a year or two) career. While he wasn't officially in the NBA, the NBL then was clearly the better league (but in smaller venues); and he was DEFINITELY, hands-down the greatest pro b-baller. Unfairly, NBA officialdom robs him of his stats and Title(s?). MAYBE they shouldn't count (or at least only include with an asterix) his first year with the Gears; because even compared to his later career, during that year, the rest of the players were WEAK!; but they MUST count his NBL-championship year with the Minneapolis Lakers. This is just the NBA League Office being petty and spiteful towards its worthy former competitors; the NBL and the ABA. Hopefully, some future generation will clean this sh__ up! and treat the efforts and accomplishments of Mikan and the top ABA-ers with all the respect they earned!

SOME OF MY PERSONAL PRO-B-BALL -RELATED HIGHLIGHTS (including Wilt, Walton & Bickerstaff)
As I've said in another post, I went to a four-year high school very near Boston - so I personally experienced all this stuff about the Celtics. I went to games in the "Gaa-den"; I was surrounded by Celtic rabid fans all-day, everyday, 9 months a year for 4 years. All we talked about was the Celtics and their rivals. And Celtic fans have always been amongst the most-knowledgeable. I also went to games at Madison Square Garden to see the N.Y. Knickerbockers (when, and why did they shorten that great name?). I stood next to Wilt himself one day at the arena in San Diego. I'm walking up the aisle-stairs to go to the refreshment stands; and, Holy, Mo'Fo, here's The Stilt, sitting in one of the further-back, higher-up, aisle seats. He was almost as tall as me; and he was sitting down! My only regret - I couldn't speak! I couldn't get my mouth to work! I "ran across" Mountain Man Bill Walton in Balboa Park, San Diego; he was biking, I was running in the middle of a 4-hour run ... we didn't know each other; but did say "hi" and wave. (At least I managed to say one word!) My dad & I were (been out of contact for decades) personal friends with (recent Laker's coach) Bernie Bickerstaff. He played varsity ball at my university (USD). My dad was Academic Dean there then and frequently and cordially conversed with him (about b-ball, academics and personal stuff between good friends). Bernie was always, always a class act; so skilled and so silky-smooth on the court; yet so personally humble. I'm so totally proud of you, Bernie.

Enough rambling for now?
Thanx,
Pablo

P.S. Almost forgot: You ask: "How would compare the complete games of Kobe/Lebron/Durant against the legends of past? What about big men like Garnett and Duncan?" Next time?

4milesperday
07-23-2013, 01:04 PM
Hey Jersey (hope you don't mind me calling you that?),
N.B. I had a great friend from Poland named Jersey and used to call him "JerseyJoePolack" out of pure friendship and respect (funniest, sweetest guy I've ever met; boy do I miss him). We used to hang out at a nude beach ("clothing optional" technically) with 10,000 other people each weekend (and many weekdays too).

People there did all the typical things one might imagine: sunbathing, swimming, drinking cold brewsky (not me - I never got to like the taste or the dizzy after-affect - and, being unofficial "mayor", I had to 100% of the time be at my best to help prevent the great joy from descending into utter chaos ... which was always a real danger one stupid insult from happening); jogging, frisbeeing, horshoeing, volleyballing (I played 5,000 games myself there; 25 games in one day once! = 12+ hours, sunrise to past sunset; imagine "trying" to play volleyball in the dark! - just crazy!); and, of course, ENJOYING THE SPECTACULAR VIEWS! And, PLEASE my friend, don't doubt the quality of the views. My oh my.

But, at that beach, of all the pastimes the favorite one, by far, was sticking funny nick-names on each other. After a few years, I was "proclaimed" the champion amongst the hundreds of skilled nick-naming "players". Thus, why I call you Jersey; it's fun, isn't it? If it bothers you, immediately I'll call you whatever you'd prefer.


Anyway, you're too cool in my opinion, with that opinion rising with each new post of yours. It feels like we're just two half-adult/half-kids getting to know each other surrounded by the sweetest respect vibe all while chatting mostly about NBA Greats. Few things in life could be much sweeter, imho.

JEALOUS OF MY LUCK FOR HAVING SEEM VIRTUALLY ALL THE NBA GREATS IN ACTION? I dig ya.
Truly, I have been lucky. My dad was exceptionally marvelous: a complete man, skilled at seemingly almost everything important; but especially WITH UNLIMITED RESPECT TOWARDS MY MOM - what a role model. And, as my luck seemed to have no limit under his guidance, he was a total NBA FAN. There was "no hope" for me; I'm sure I began watching (and hearing about) the NBA (even NBL - cause of Mikan) while still in diapers with a baby bottle in its proper place. Blame it on dad.

First experiences: The utter individual dominance of Wilt, the completeness of the big "O" (with his quality side-kick Jerry Lucas), the thrilling duo-brilliance of West-Baylor (to this day I just can't rank one over the other; they were that good and that closely equal) ... all of them taking turns against the decade-long Celtics All-Star Team. Red Aurbach was indisputably THE greatest coach of that time. The Celtics, as Hawk often points out, had "not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, but maybe 7 HOFers. Their 6TH MAN, Hondo might have been the MVP of the league he was that good; and he, rightfully didn't even start - that's how machine-like un-stoppable were the C's. With THAT coach, with THAT much talent AND with BIG BILL in the middle PERFECTLY complimenting everyone - they basically could not be beat.

I remember all those series than went down to games 7; all those game 7s that went down to the final minute, even overtime. If you didn't LIVE it; how could you know. Every year, all these great, great players thrilled the sh__ out of me; and every year, almost, that damn Celtic All-Star Machine BARELY, BUT FINALLY, crushed my favorite players and teams. If you were "there" AND were not a Celtic-homer (and, believe me, in those days they were worse than even the Laker-homers of today; how could they not be, they won everything almost every year?!) ... anyway, if you were "there", you would NEVER, for an instant, doubt Wilt's heart or his greatness. This gentle giant (who was literally as strong as any other two guys put together) NEVER fought; but instead broke up many would-be fights. He treated his "arch-enemy and nemesis" with more respect that Big Bill ever received from anybody else; they were life-long best friends. He, personally, by himself, integrated, first entire cities, then entire regions. But, it was on the court, of course, where he was just astonishing.

It was said repeatedly that he was all of the following simultaneously, THE: fastest, strongest and longest-lasting (in both sense of the word) guy in the NBA. This was not because the center position in those days was weak. Other posters here at PSD have listed a whole number of (near-) 7-footers that he went up against AND dominated. He averaged some 27 ppg and 20+ rpg against THE greatest defensive center of all time. This was no much below what he averaged against everybody else (30 ppg, 22 rpg). I know this: Russell NEVER stopped Wilt; never. When people think, or try to imply that Wilt was a loser; this just means they don't know their history. Wilt had decent teammates; but never an all-star team. He had decent coaches; but never RED. Red was NOT a little bit better than Hannum and the rest; he was ahead of them by an NBA-epoch.

When you take all this into consideration, when Wilt's teams lost series to the Celtics; it was almost NEVER a rout; instead, virtually every series was a WAR; fought down to the last second. Imagine Wilt have teams equal to Russell's: those series would have been ROUTS. If they had such a thing as play-off series MVP, Wilt should have been declared unanimously the MVP of every single one of those series. He was WAY better than Big Bill.
Also, because Wilt was mostly in the East, he didn't even get to the finals - this hurts hugely his All-Time ranking.

Jersey, you ask, "Could Wilt have done well, even dominate, in today's NBA?" This is a super-interesting question. Let me answer this by starting with a logically-similar question: "Could West, Baylor and the big "O" have competed in other, later, epochs, even today?"

JERRY ("ALL-TIME 3 POINT SHOOTER") WEST
Picture Jerry (CLUTCH) West with a 3-point line!!! He literally had unlimited range. He'd be personally unstoppable; and his teams would space out perfectly to take advantage of that. His defense was excellent - he'd be, at least a top 5 2-Guard every year for 10 straight years in any epoch, including today.

THE BIG "O" (Magic and MJ in one body)
Same for the big "O". I remember reading, back then, about one particular moment, before he even turned pro. He went one-on-one with one of the best NBA players of the time: Jack Twyman. Now, O was a gracious dude; it was NOT his style to show-off just for the sake of it. But, the "rules" were "don't hold back anything; let's see if you're as good as everybody things you'll be". And, basketball-wise, he just humiliated Twyman. Most people know about 1962 when O did his triple-double thing. But he was WAY better than that. Over his first 5 years, some 400 games, he just barely missed a triple-double (9.8 rebounds); while scoring at a non-Wilt phenomenal rate. Take away Wilt's 1962, and O's 1962 might be the greatest single season ever. Could he play today: what current point guard could slow him, much less stop him. True, he was not the defender that West was; but, today, he'd fit perfectly, defense for point guards today is near the bottom of the list of their requirements.

ELGIN
Baylor WAS Connie Hawkins FIRST. Baylor WAS Dr. J. FIRST. Baylor WAS MJ FIRST. He was sheer BEAUTY on the court. Only 6'5"; but HE INVENTED HANG-TIME. ALL my most-favorite moments, from that epoch, are Elgin Baylor moves. He had an unlimited repertoire around the rim. He could hit the mid-range jumper. Rebounds? He was Barkley and Rodman FIRST. Guts and humility: THE GOAT. Could he play today? No doubt about it: 10 years as a top-5 Small Small Forward.

WILT
In my fewest words; WILT WAS WAY, WAY BETTER than West and Baylor and the big "O". How would he have done in other epochs? Top-2 Center every year, in any epoch, 10+ years straight. KAJ? Bill
alton (theoretically un-injured): the "A-Train", Artist f___in' Gilmour? Shaq? Hakeem? In every case, I have not the shadow of doubt in my mind; Wilt, would have been, "at worst" a 1b to all of them. TODAY? Are you kidding? Wilt would still be faster than every non-PG in the league; he'd still be stronger than everyone. You wanna argue that athletes today are better-conditioned? Sure, but if Wilt was around today, he'd be better conditioned than everybody (with the possible exception off Kobe). He'd still have his 45 mpg stamina. Few people know that after he retired from basketball, at around 40 years old he played semi-pro volleyball - what couldn't he do? Did he service 20,000 women? Maybe not. But did he mess around, sometimes with more than one of them, before and after games (like it was his day off) - all the time! Don't doubt, that if he had set his mind to it; he would have put that record out of reach too. He HAD virtually unlimited stamina.

THE "UN-INJURED" BILL WALTON
Bill Walton IS the 2nd greatest College basketball player of all time. If you could combine 3 of the All-Time greats by-position: center: Bill Russell; power forward: Karl Malone ("the body"); and small forward: Larry Bird. that would be Bill Walton. He was Karl Malone-strong, Larry Bird-finesse, Bill Russell-complimentary. And he was Rick Barry-smart. Un-injured, he was so good and so complete, he would have been the GOAT. And one more thing, Bill Walton was (is?) the O. J. Simpson of basketball interviews. To the best of my knowledge, Walton never ever praised himself; but boy did he give compliments to ALL the other good players, lots of compliment; and he spoke like an expert. He would brag about the GOAT-finalists such as: Wilt, MJ, Magic and KAJ. "Any of them could get 40 points any night it was needed. Any of them could dominate any game, even just by their passing." (This a near-quote from memory, on my part.) With the exception of scoring, he would say all the same things about Russell. Walton also "produced" not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 decent-quality NBA-ers as sons.

THE ABA
I was a huge fan. Was totally aware of the ABA greats for 9 of those years. Went to a game; San Diego Sails (?) - excuse my depleted memory banks, please. Watched the ABA All-Stars BEAT the NBA All-Stars; imagine that. If my dad's biggest (and really only big gripe) against the GOAT rankings is that Russell is put too high; my biggest one is that the NBA has OFFICIALLY erased what the 10 greatest ABA-Era players accomplished. True, the average ABA-er was inferior to the average NBA-er. But these 10 or so guys, were every bit the equal of their NBA peers; at the least, these 10 or so guys should have all their ABA-career stats included in the NBA all-time list.

MIKAN (including his first GREAT years)
My second greatest beef: George Mikan's pre-NBA (then known as the BAA? for a year or two) career. While he wasn't officially in the NBA, the NBL then was clearly the better league (but in smaller venues); and he was DEFINITELY, hands-down the greatest pro b-baller. Unfairly, NBA officialdom robs him of his stats and Title(s?). MAYBE they shouldn't count (or at least only include with an asterix) his first year with the Gears; because even compared to his later career, during that year, the rest of the players were WEAK!; but they MUST count his NBL-championship year with the Minneapolis Lakers. This is just the NBA League Office being petty and spiteful towards its worthy former competitors; the NBL and the ABA. Hopefully, some future generation will clean this sh__ up! and treat the efforts and accomplishments of Mikan and the top ABA-ers with all the respect they earned!

SOME OF MY PERSONAL PRO-B-BALL -RELATED HIGHLIGHTS (including Wilt, Walton & Bickerstaff)
As I've said in another post, I went to a four-year high school very near Boston - so I personally experienced all this stuff about the Celtics. I went to games in the "Gaa-den"; I was surrounded by Celtic rabid fans all-day, everyday, 9 months a year for 4 years. All we talked about was the Celtics and their rivals. And Celtic fans have always been amongst the most-knowledgeable. I also went to games at Madison Square Garden to see the N.Y. Knickerbockers (when, and why did they shorten that great name?). I stood next to Wilt himself one day at the arena in San Diego. I'm walking up the aisle-stairs to go to the refreshment stands; and, Holy, Mo'Fo, here's The Stilt, sitting in one of the further-back, higher-up, aisle seats. He was almost as tall as me; and he was sitting down! My only regret - I couldn't speak! I couldn't get my mouth to work! I "ran across" Mountain Man Bill Walton in Balboa Park, San Diego; he was biking, I was running in the middle of a 4-hour run ... we didn't know each other; but did say "hi" and wave. (At least I managed to say one word!) My dad & I were (been out of contact for decades) personal friends with (recent Laker's coach) Bernie Bickerstaff. He played varsity ball at my university (USD). My dad was Academic Dean there then and frequently and cordially conversed with him (about b-ball, academics and personal stuff between good friends). Bernie was always, always a class act; so skilled and so silky-smooth on the court; yet so personally humble. I'm so totally proud of you, Bernie.

Enough rambling for now?
Thanx,
Pablo

Dafuq? FYI...no one will read this. Ain't nobody got time for that.

4milesperday
07-23-2013, 01:08 PM
There is no lapse in critical thinking by us man. The OP was saying re-rank ALL the teams 1-16 at all. It was more keep the current system in tact, THEN when one conference is weaker, bump those bottom teams out and replace them with the 9-whatever seeds of the stronger conference. The regular season matchups wouldn't be affected.

How's that fair? Bobcats play Heat 4 times, GS state, only once or twice...hence a good record. If you want top 15, everyone is treated equally in reg season. The top East teams are tough to beat, top West teams are only tough to beat at home. If the Lakers had to play Heat, Knicks, Pacers instead of Utah and co at end of their season, they won't make play-offs.

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 01:17 PM
Dafuq? FYI...no one will read this. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Sincerely my friend,
It's ok to not read it. I wrote it cause it's how I feel and I do have 55 years of NBA-fan-hood; and was encouraged by at least one person here to "tell more". If anybody at all does read it and enjoy it; that's fair enough by me. Feel free to skip this and any other of my posts if you like. No problem for me.
Thanx, Pablo

P.S. It strikes me as kind of funny; that you felt the need to comment on my post, saying "...no one will read this. ..."; yet you yourself included it in your post by using "Reply With Quote". No big deal; but kinda funny, no?

MonroeFAN
07-23-2013, 01:25 PM
there is no way of determining who the top 16 teams league wide are. West coast teams play west coast teams more often, and it's a completely different style of basketball.

Hellcrooner
07-23-2013, 01:57 PM
you can not do it unless you fix the Schedule in order that every team in the league faces every other team the same amount of times.

if you are playing an uneaven Schedule conference wise, like it happens now ( you play more games vs your own conference) you are still having better teams getting lower records because of facing stronger position, thus the top 16 wouldnt be the real top 16

rocket
07-23-2013, 02:10 PM
If it ain't broke don't fix it

Wrigheyes4MVP
07-23-2013, 02:30 PM
If it ain't broke don't fix it

Its broke.

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 02:39 PM
Hey Jersey,
I like super-teams, even when it's not "my" team. I can't wait to see Deron Williams do his thing with that starting line-up! I'd be willing to bet (though not a betting man; so make that bet figuratively) that, barring injury (as always) they'll be significantly better each month during the regular season. I haven't been paying enough attention to the state of their subs; so that might be a big enough weak-point to keep them out of the top spots. But, forget about double-teaming anybody on the first team.

On the other hand, has not this Russian Billionaire just FUBAR-ed the new CBA?

Congrats (finally) to Nets fans. Enjoy; I know I will.

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 02:46 PM
Right now, it's running almost neck-and-neck: 14 Yes, 17 No.
Here's two more reasons to vote: YES:
1) This is NOT a vote about any temporary technical (perhaps travel-related) difficulties. Those can always somehow be overcome or adjusted for (where there's a will, there's a way). It IS a vote about getting more fairness into the NBA play-off system. Somebody asked if we should favor as many as 12 teams from the West and only 4 from the East. Me, personally, unequivocably I would. "Let the best man win" = "Let the best 16 teams fight it out for the Chip". I would gladly settle for any real change that was less severe; say a max of 1-2 teams getting in that otherwise wouldn't. Just based on fairness; don't you agree?

2) This is my first poll guys/gals. Are you gonna let me go down in flames??? Could I ever recover??? hehe

JerseyPalahniuk
07-23-2013, 03:08 PM
Dafuq? FYI...no one will read this. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Then don't read it dude, it wasn't even directed towards you. There are plenty of people that have big enough attention spans to read this.

Pablo, reading through your post now. I'll respond later on after I do some job-related work and read up on the newest Nets-related news haha.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-23-2013, 03:17 PM
Right now, it's running almost neck-and-neck: 14 Yes, 17 No.
Here's two more reasons to vote: YES:
1) This is NOT a vote about any temporary technical (perhaps travel-related) difficulties. Those can always somehow be overcome or adjusted for (where there's a will, there's a way). It IS a vote about getting more fairness into the NBA play-off system. Somebody asked if we should favor as many as 12 teams from the West and only 4 from the East. Me, personally, unequivocably I would. "Let the best man win" = "Let the best 16 teams fight it out for the Chip". I would gladly settle for any real change that was less severe; say a max of 1-2 teams getting in that otherwise wouldn't. Just based on fairness; don't you agree?

2) This is my first poll guys/gals. Are you gonna let me go down in flames??? Could I ever recover??? hehe

While we all understand that it is "fair" to have the best team win, you HAVE to consider these "technical difficulties" you are dismissing. To implement such a system would take months of deliberation and probably a few years of tinkering before getting to the system you like (at first maybe the 9th seed in West and 8th seed in West play a game or 3 or that playoff spot, then two teams, then no elimination game, etc.).

Example: The League has been thinking about installing the "no goaltending" rules that FIBA has for a quite a while now. They took months to work out the kinks but still didn't implement it yet. They instead are trying it out in the D-league first. The next step won't be in the NBA but maybe the summer league, then they'll wait for feedback. The next season maybe preseason too. If ONE rule has to take while to implement think about how long it would take for an entire revamping of the playoff system? It wouldn't just have to go through the league though - the Players association and the GMs/Owners of all the NBa teams would have to be contacted. A LOT o of persuading would have to occur.

I'll get back to your NBA history/life post later on. Great conversation.

EDIT: WOW. Just read that post anyway, have so many things to say but have to control myself till I finish this work haha. For any of you interested in the dominance of Wilt/West/Baylor/Big O and the Celtics teams, read through his post. I HIGHLY recommend it

rocket
07-23-2013, 03:40 PM
Its broke.

probably not

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 04:42 PM
I'm not the biggest Dirk fan; but what he did in those finals * has almost never been equaled: a virtual one-Star Championship. (Bill Walton and Hakeem Olajuwon may be the only other members of this exclusive club; PLUS, with an asterix (because he DID have Elgin) maybe Jerry West for being the only Finals-Loser to win the fMVP); .
So, how many of us wouldn't rather have seem him in BOTH of the last two years get into the play-offs again; instead of some East 8th seed 4-0 wipe-out??? A guy like that could have another run like that, if only given the chance - that would have been something to see; regardless of his team's results, no?

* and entire Play-Offs.

Hellcrooner
07-23-2013, 05:01 PM
I'm not the biggest Dirk fan; but what he did in those finals * has almost never been equaled: a virtual one-Star Championship. (Bill Walton and Hakeem Olajuwon may be the only other members of this exclusive club; PLUS, with an asterix (because he DID have Elgin) maybe Jerry West for being the only Finals-Loser to win the fMVP); .
So, how many of us wouldn't rather have seem him in BOTH of the last two years get into the play-offs again; instead of some East 8th seed 4-0 wipe-out??? A guy like that could have another run like that, if only given the chance - that would have been something to see; regardless of his team's results, no?

* and entire Play-Offs.

Arent you forgetting someone on the list of " starts that won a ring with scarce help" ?


Someone that used to shoot underhanded Free trhows ;)

Hawkeye15
07-23-2013, 05:05 PM
Arent you forgetting someone on the list of " starts that won a ring with scarce help" ?


Someone that used to shoot underhanded Free trhows ;)

someone who employed a sweet comb-over?

(well, not too bad, just the style the extreme comb-overs copied later on)

TheMightyHumph
07-23-2013, 05:17 PM
I'm not the biggest Dirk fan; but what he did in those finals * has almost never been equaled: a virtual one-Star Championship. (Bill Walton and Hakeem Olajuwon may be the only other members of this exclusive club; PLUS, with an asterix (because he DID have Elgin) maybe Jerry West for being the only Finals-Loser to win the fMVP); .
So, how many of us wouldn't rather have seem him in BOTH of the last two years get into the play-offs again; instead of some East 8th seed 4-0 wipe-out??? A guy like that could have another run like that, if only given the chance - that would have been something to see; regardless of his team's results, no?

* and entire Play-Offs.

Rick Barry 1975
Elvin Hayes 1978

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 06:31 PM
RICK BARRY (SHAME ON ME!)
I am truly ashamed about Rick Barry; heck I just got finished praising his b-ball IQ when referring to Bill Walton.
I just absolutely loved Barry - this was the most cold-blooded marksman of all time; nothing phased him while shooting. Boy did he get a super-un-deserved raw-deal due to switching leagues (losing a whole PRIME year as a player; never getting a job as an NBA head-coach; and NOT getting his (along with some 9 or so other greats') ABA stats included by the NBA Hierarchy). Anybody here doubt the man could have coached great. Look at his 4 sons: he gave them not only great DNA; but, surely, he helped coached them from the crib onward. And that foul shot of his. If I were a coach of any of the horrible foul-shooters in the NBA (and there are way too many); I swear I'd force them to "swallow their damned pride" and "do the Barry". It's a better percentage shot, imo.


Really guys, you can't get away with no sloppy sh__ here, can you? I hope some day, you-all, but especially Rick Barry himself will forgive me for this horrible slight.

ELVIN HAYES
I have to admit a three things here:
1) My memory banks on him are pretty rusty. But didn't he have Wes Unseld that year? If he did, well, Unseld was, if not a super-star, certainly an all-star; so Elvin wouldn't quite qualify, would he?
2) I have this personal weakness that only applies to the Big E. My college team, UCLA, with Lew Alcindor leading the way, was untouchable. THEN 2 things happen: the future-KAJ gets his eye poked bad; and Elvin Hayes has the one of the greatest college games of all time. AND STILL, Houston barely beat UCLA!
I can't completely stop myself from holding that against the big E; silly as this obviously is.
3) There was SOMETHING about Elvin Hayes' game that just always struck a nerve with me. I'd have to think about this some more to be sure; but was it his too me-first style? or complete disdain for defense? Help me out here guys.

In sum:
A) RICK BARRY = DEFINITELY ONE OF THE FIVE GREATEST "ONE-STAR" FINALS PERFORMANCES;
B) ELVIN HAYES = I don't remember that series well enough to say; weren't they very low ranked and beat a very low-ranked Seattle team? What does everybody else think about the Big "E's" Finals Performance.

Thanx for all the corrections guys,
Pablo

TheMightyHumph
07-23-2013, 06:42 PM
Rick Barry apparently rubs a lot of NBA people the wrong way, including his sons.

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 07:13 PM
Rick Barry apparently rubs a lot of NBA people the wrong way, including his sons.

Definitely knew the first part (couldn't that most be attributable to his challenging the NBA head-on?; they don't take kindly to challenges nor are they very forgiving). Perhaps there is more to this problem of his than I thought.

I had no idea about his sons.
Thanx

TheMightyHumph
07-23-2013, 07:17 PM
And Wes Unseld was the '78 Finals MVP

Hawkize31
07-23-2013, 07:38 PM
If you can't finish in the top 8 of your conference, you have no shot to win anyway, and no room to complain.

TheMightyHumph
07-23-2013, 07:40 PM
If you can't finish in the top 8 of your conference, you have no shot to win anyway, and no room to complain.

There is always room to complain

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 08:23 PM
I agree, it should be top 16 teams regardless of conference who make the playoffs.

Under that system, here would have been the 1st round matches last year:

Miami vs. Boston
Oklahoma City vs. Utah
San Antonio vs. Atlanta
Denver vs. Houston
LA Clippers vs. Chicago
Memphis vs. LA Lakers
New York vs. Golden State
Indiana vs. Brooklyn

While I wouldn't be 100% automatically against what you've just mapped out as the 1st round match-ups; here's the problem. These match-ups would represent the pooling together of all 16 play-off qualifiers, ranking them over-all REGARDLESS OF CONFERENCE, and them setting up the match-ups.

BUT, in my OP proposal, I'm leaving the integrity of both conferences mostly unchanged. In "my" proposal, each conference would be ranked separately from the other conference; so instead of your one 16-group rankings; I'd have two 8-group rankings. Where mine would differ from what the NBA has now is ONLY that the lowest ranked play-off qualifying teams (I'm not insisting it be all of them) in one conference, be replacable by the highest ranked non-qualifying teams of the other conference ONLY if the teams that would have NOT qualified DO have better records than the teams that otherwise would have qualified. Then, only for the play-offs that given year) these new-system qualifiers would be switched from their own conference where there are the full 8 teams already qualified, and put into the other conference as the lowest ranked team(s).

This would NOT nearly be as radical a change as your set-up fleshes out with your match-ups. For example, last years West Conf. play-offs would have, under "my" system, the EXACT same match-ups. Only the East Conf. match-ups would have been affected; and not too much either. Instead of Miami playing Milwaukee, they would have played Boston (Because Utah would have forced Milwaukee out of the play-offs entirely; and Utah would have out-ranked Boston; so Boston would be the East 8th seed). Next it would be Indy vs Utah (because Utah would now be the 7th ranked "East" seed.

So, in sum, with "my" new system; only one West team would have actually replaced only one East team (Utah replacing Milwaukee); AND only two play-off match-ups out of the 8 of them would have been changed (Miami would face Boston instead of Milwaukee = clearly a better match-up; AND Indy would face Utah (probably a better match up than Boston was). Almost for sure, both big-underdogs would have gotten beaten; so vey little would have changed; but it would have been a good deal fairer.

P.S. Under this system, Dallas would have barely missed qualifying. If they had won one game more OR if Boston had lost its 82nd game (which was canceled) (thus ending up tied with Dallas record wise) AND IF (due to the newly required and applicable cross-conference tie-breaker(s)) Dallas out-ranked Boston; in either of these two cases (and possibly still another scenario that's not worth including here for space-considerations); then Dallas would have out-ranked Boston and ended up playing Miami. Wouldn't that have kicked ***, a finals rematch (though at a lower level of the playoffs)? A chance for "sweet revenge" by Miami vs Dallas who had beaten them only 2 years prior??? VS Dirk having another chance to thwart them.

Pablonovi
07-23-2013, 09:04 PM
And Wes Unseld was the '78 Finals MVP

Thanx for this reminder. Well that takes Elvin Hayes completely out of the list of candidates for:

All-Time 5 Greatest Finals Performers Who Were (Essentially) The Only Big Star On Their Team.
Right now the list stands at:
Jerry West 1969 *, Rick Barry 1975, Bill Walton 1977, Hakeem Olajuwon 1994 **, Dirk Nowitzki 2011.

* Jerry West 1969 (Baylor & Chamberlain = sub-par playoffs & finals) West = Only Big-Star; fMVP ! BUT LOST.
**Hakeem 1995: He wasn't the Only Big-Star; Clyde Drexler (20.5 ppg and a higher winshare in the playoffs)

N.B. I've just started a new thread entitled: All-Time 5 Greatest Finals Performers Who Were The Only Big Star On Their Team Then http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?830621-B-All-Time-5-Greatest-Finals-Performers-Who-Were-Their-Team-s-Only-Big-Star-Then-B

TheMightyHumph
07-23-2013, 09:40 PM
For the best 16 teams to make the playoffs, there would have to be no Conferences and no divisions, each team would have to play each other an equal amount of games, with the two home games being alternated every year, and it would have to be an 87 game schedule.

Anyone think that that is going to happen?

Pablonovi
07-28-2013, 10:10 PM
For the best 16 teams to make the playoffs, there would have to be no Conferences and no divisions, each team would have to play each other an equal amount of games, with the two home games being alternated every year, and it would have to be an 87 game schedule.

Anyone think that that is going to happen?

MightyHumph.
One might say that this would be the fairest way to determine the best 16 teams; but NO ONE is proposing such a scheme; and it'd be unworkable anyway; so it strikes me as a kind of ridiculous proposal. (no offense).

In this thread we were leaving the regular season format alone. We were just looking at how the Play-Off System is ordinarily run; and IF it could be changed to make it fairer; i.e., either:

Leave it as is: with 8 teams from each conference, regardless of record, making the playoffs; OR
Change it: replace one (or more) of the lowest ranked ordinarily-qualifying teams from one conference; with an equal number of ordinarily-non-qualifying teams from the other conference BUT who had better records.

This is a pretty straight-forward proposal. In particular, seeing as for many years now the West has almost always be far superior to the East; almost every year one or more West better-quality team(s) are being penalized for playing in the stronger conference; while one or more East poor-quality team(s) ARE making the play-offs and, imo, don't deserve the honor because they didn't really earn it. In the worst cases, teams with losing records ! are "IN" while superior teams with winning records are "OUT". Seems way unfair to me.

And it seems to me that any difficulties in changing the system to a fairer one, would NOT be insurmountable; and justified.

Pablonovi
07-29-2013, 08:23 PM
Looks like my proposal is narrowly going down to defeat.
Isn't there any way I can multi-vote??? Heck, to avoid losing my very first poll, I promise any new voters (if you PM me where/what you want; I'll back you up in some other thread; in exchange for your POSITIVE vote here). NOT hehehe
Thanx for all the comments,
Pablo

NYY 26 to 7
07-29-2013, 09:24 PM
Doesn't logically make sense to get rid of the conferences both from a logistical standpoint or scheduling. Confrences exist so there is continuity and balance in the schedule including making travel reasonable. Why don't we just say whoever finishes 1st in the standings wins. Look there are only so many playoff spots and the NBA playoffs are already way too long and already have the fairest playoff systems where it's hard to argue that the best team doesn't win. So you want to realign the entire league to swap an 8 seed that is more "deserving" yet has only pulled off 3 upsets ever and only 1 ever reached the finals (in a lockout shortened season and a 5 game 1st round). When will it be "fair" to you. There is always a case for another team - maybe just start giving out participation ribbons to everyone so we don't hurt feelings.

Pablonovi
07-29-2013, 10:51 PM
Doesn't logically make sense to get rid of the conferences both from a logistical standpoint or scheduling. Confrences exist so there is continuity and balance in the schedule including making travel reasonable. Why don't we just say whoever finishes 1st in the standings wins. Look there are only so many playoff spots and the NBA playoffs are already way too long and already have the fairest playoff systems where it's hard to argue that the best team doesn't win. So you want to realign the entire league to swap an 8 seed that is more "deserving" yet has only pulled off 3 upsets ever and only 1 ever reached the finals (in a lockout shortened season and a 5 game 1st round). When will it be "fair" to you. There is always a case for another team - maybe just start giving out participation ribbons to everyone so we don't hurt feelings.

NYY 26 to 7,
Thanx for posting,
I think either you have mis-understood my OP proposal or I did a poor job of explaining it.
The OP proposal completely leaves the Conferences and their divisions as is/are during the Regular Season.
The OP proposal ONLY attempts to switch a team (or 2 or so) with a better Reg. Season record INTO the play-offs of the opposite Conference ONLY IF the would-be replaced team has an inferior Reg. Season record.

So,
1st, LOW-RANKED TEAMS: we are talking about very low ranked teams;
2nd, VERY FEW TEAMS: we are talking about a very few teams being affected;
3rd, LOSING RECORDS: in particular, teams with losing records would be replaced with teams with winning records which imo seems completely fair (if you can't even win half your games, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs).
4th, MOSTLY SMALL AFFECT: It's true that only infrequently would this proposal affect much more than the first round;

5th, LOGISTICS, particular travel, while not nothing, seem imo a very minor & fixable challenge (afterall, even air-travel between intra-Conference teams can often take 2+ hours; and the max for cross-Conference teams would be an additional 2 hours. Is that really that inconvenient when weighed against having better quality teams in the play-offs? I don't believe so.

IN SUM: You say, "... you want to realign the entire league to swap an 8 seed that is more "deserving" ". This is just NOT even close to what I'm proposing; it is instead a gross exaggeration of my proposal. (No offense, OK?)

In any event,
Thanx for weighing in on the debate,
Pablo

TheMightyHumph
07-30-2013, 12:40 AM
Number 8 seed in the west had 37 losses last year. Number 5 team in the east had 37. And that was a bad year for the west.....

Facts.

So no Conferences, no Divisions, just 30 teams that play each other 3 times a year (with 5 teams only meeting twice a year, on a rotating basis, and all other teams having the extra home game on a rotating basis.

You think that makes the NBA extra money, keeps the lower echelon teams' fans as interested late in the season, and stops complaints of fans of playoff and near playoff teams because their teams didn't get the extra home game in the 3 game season series?

Pablonovi
07-31-2013, 04:42 PM
So no Conferences, no Divisions, just 30 teams that play each other 3 times a year (with 5 teams only meeting twice a year, on a rotating basis, and all other teams having the extra home game on a rotating basis.

You think that makes the NBA extra money, keeps the lower echelon teams' fans as interested late in the season, and stops complaints of fans of playoff and near playoff teams because their teams didn't get the extra home game in the 3 game season series?

MightyHumph,
Forgive me guys if I repeat myself briefly here.
The OP proposal has ZERO to do with reorganizing anything at all about the Regular Season; so the Divisions and Conferences would stay AS IS.
The ONLY change would occur to the Play-Off System Conference Rankings; due to one (or more?) lower-ranked team(s) from one conference would replace an equal number of higher-ranked team(s) from the other conference ONLY IF the "replacer(s)" had better regular season record(s).

TEAMS WITH LOSING-RECORDS SHOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR THE PLAY-OFFS (imo)
This would be fairer; especially in the cases of teams from one conference who have losing records yet still get into the Play-Offs - this is what I personally object to the most.

N.B. In years where both conferences have Play-Off qualifying teams with losing records; while I don't think any of them really deserve to get into the Play-Offs; I am NOT proposing any change in the over-all number of teams that do qualify.

beasted86
08-01-2013, 12:09 PM
Would make travel a nightmare. Imagine a team like Miami fights through the regular season to get the number one seed, then have to face the Portland Trailblazers in the first round. All that travel making them possibly tired leading to injury or maybe an early exit in the next round. Pointless.

Pablonovi
08-01-2013, 04:27 PM
Would make travel a nightmare. Imagine a team like Miami fights through the regular season to get the number one seed, then have to face the Portland Trailblazers in the first round. All that travel making them possibly tired leading to injury or maybe an early exit in the next round. Pointless.

Hey beasted86,
Are you in the Miami area? How much time does the longest typical flight to/from Miami take to/from the furthest Eastern Conf. team? How much for the furthest Western Conf. team? I doubt it's more than 2 hours max extra. That isn't really that much. They have private jets, all the comforts, and they, if they travel the same night after a game, then they'd have some 36 hours to recuperate and get in a practice if they wanted to.

Just doesn't seem that extra hard, no?

beasted86
08-01-2013, 08:09 PM
Hey beasted86,
Are you in the Miami area? How much time does the longest typical flight to/from Miami take to/from the furthest Eastern Conf. team? How much for the furthest Western Conf. team? I doubt it's more than 2 hours max extra. That isn't really that much. They have private jets, all the comforts, and they, if they travel the same night after a game, then they'd have some 36 hours to recuperate and get in a practice if they wanted to.

Just doesn't seem that extra hard, no?

Yes, it is harder. Aside from that you have a 3 hour swing in time difference which makes it a big deal. By the time they are closing out a 8PM PST game in the 4th quarter, while it might be 11:30 PM there, their body is telling them its 2:30 AM. Really can wear down a team if it goes 7 games.

Pablonovi
08-03-2013, 12:17 PM
Yes, it is harder. Aside from that you have a 3 hour swing in time difference which makes it a big deal. By the time they are closing out a 8PM PST game in the 4th quarter, while it might be 11:30 PM there, their body is telling them its 2:30 AM. Really can wear down a team if it goes 7 games.

Hey beasted,
Thanx for the reply.
Here's the problems I have with it.
1) 2-HOUR SWINGS: I imagine that there are already (non-Finals) playoff series that involve teams 2-hour apart. So compared to that, this is only 1 hour more difference (imo not that much extra hassle.)
2) 3-HOUR SWINGS: In the regular season frequently; and occasionally in the Finals (for example L.A. vs any East Coast team) there are 3-hour swings. I have not heard much talk or complaining about such.
3) 3-HOUR SWINGS FREQUENCY OF OCCURANCE: In the great majority of the possible cases, it won't involve a West-Coast team vs an East Coast team. So, the frequency of occurence of these 3-hour swings is low.
4) 7-GAME SERIES: We're talking about the #1 (or at most #1 + #2) ranked team(s) of one conference playing a playoff series vs the #9 (or # + #10) team(s) from the other conference. These kinds of lop-sided match-ups almost never get to 6 games much less 7 games. In a 4-game series (which these frequently are) that's only one 3-hour swing); in a 5-game series, that's only two.

Given the above, I'd stand by the position that the slightly added frequency of difficulty more difficult travel IS worth the improvement of the quality of the playoff teams.

Pablonovi
08-03-2013, 12:43 PM
Dear PSD NBA-ers,
I've Added A New "P.S." To The "OP-Post"

I've done so because it seems to me that most of the "NO" votes were "no's" because the voter felt one of these two things:
a) The NBA League Office won't do this (for any number of reasons NOT-related to )the "fairness" question; &/or
b) Regardless of the "fairness" question, the increased travel-time technical difficulties mean the current-system should NOT be changed TO the OP-Proposal.

So, for your (further) consideration, here's the OP-Post newly-added "P.S.", word-for-word:
- - - - - - - - -

P.S. At this date, 20130803 (Aug. 3rd), I'd guess that at least 2/3rds of the "NO" voters; have voted that way NOT because they think the OP suggested-change is NOT more fair; but instead, because they think it will either the NBA will simply NOT make the change or , even if the NBA would consider making the change, it should not make that change because it would be too inconvenient (travel-wise) for the teams involved.

imo These are NOT good enough reasons to vote "NO".

1) "The NBA will simply NOT make the change": "Where there's a will, there's a way"; i.e. the NBA League Office would make the change IF:
a) It's a WORTHWHILE CHANGE to make (i.e., that the increased fairness and competitiveness merits it); and
b) There is ENOUGH SUPPORT for it. I don't believe the technical inconveniences are that great/frequent * to overwhelm the "fairness" argument; and because of that, there very well could develop enough support.

* OP-induced inconveniences due to the increased travel time (especially in the case of West-Coast vs East-Coast match-ups.) In my opinion, the combination of the: infrequency of such match-ups PLUS their lop-sidedness means that that type of series will occur infrequently and/or NOT last long. So, the real inconveniences will be infrequent and relatively minor. Additionally, all NBA teams and their players experience these quite frequently during the regular season - so, it is not something unfamiliar.

bearadonisdna
08-03-2013, 12:56 PM
No cuz there will be a year where one side of the country is blacked out. Either the East or West will be shut out. Which hurts overall national interest.
Also when considering how many of the short wearers actually consider weather a basketball decision, this could disrupt balance in FA and player acquisitions.

Pablonovi
08-03-2013, 04:38 PM
No cuz there will be a year where one side of the country is blacked out. Either the East or West will be shut out. Which hurts overall national interest.
Also when considering how many of the short wearers actually consider weather a basketball decision, this could disrupt balance in FA and player acquisitions.

Hey bearadonisdna,
Thanx for participating in this discussion.
Unfortunately I didn't understand either of your two sentences. This may be my fault; but, would you mind restating/expanding your positions, for further clarity?
Thanx,
Pablo

MILLERHIGHLIFE
08-04-2013, 11:31 AM
Probably could say the same thing for the NFL. When the NFL switched to 4 divisions each in the AFC and NFC. Some divisions are weak and get a team in on default. Even if their horrible. I miss the old NFL of 3 divisions in each NFC and AFC. If the NBA gets two more expansion teams down the road. Think there will be more divisions as well?

Puck017
08-04-2013, 12:27 PM
Just had a crazy idea after reading the first few pages of this thread. What if the NBA had three conferences but kept the current playoff system. The additional conference could be used to even out the winning % of the teams in the two playoff brackets. Furthermore if the conference was located between the other two it wouldn't created any new travel issues that don't already exist in the Western Conference.

ManRam
08-04-2013, 01:43 PM
I'm OK with this, but then everyone needs to play a more balanced schedule. Might as well get rid of conferences then.

But I don't care too much. If you aren't the 8th best team in your conference you really only have yourself to blame as far as not getting in.

TheMightyHumph
08-04-2013, 02:28 PM
MightyHumph.
One might say that this would be the fairest way to determine the best 16 teams; but NO ONE is proposing such a scheme; and it'd be unworkable anyway; so it strikes me as a kind of ridiculous proposal. (no offense).

In this thread we were leaving the regular season format alone. We were just looking at how the Play-Off System is ordinarily run; and IF it could be changed to make it fairer; i.e., either:

Leave it as is: with 8 teams from each conference, regardless of record, making the playoffs; OR
Change it: replace one (or more) of the lowest ranked ordinarily-qualifying teams from one conference; with an equal number of ordinarily-non-qualifying teams from the other conference BUT who had better records.

This is a pretty straight-forward proposal. In particular, seeing as for many years now the West has almost always be far superior to the East; almost every year one or more West better-quality team(s) are being penalized for playing in the stronger conference; while one or more East poor-quality team(s) ARE making the play-offs and, imo, don't deserve the honor because they didn't really earn it. In the worst cases, teams with losing records ! are "IN" while superior teams with winning records are "OUT". Seems way unfair to me.

And it seems to me that any difficulties in changing the system to a fairer one, would NOT be insurmountable; and justified.

That is not a fair system, as teams play other teams in their conference at least three or four times, teams out of conference twice. The teams in the better conference are penalized.

No go.

Puck017
08-04-2013, 02:56 PM
Putting my previous post aside, I voted to keep the current system. If there was more parody in the league I would probably agree with the OP, but history tells you that these teams have pretty much no chance of winning a title. I think it would be better if these teams got compensated for their trouble in the draft. Maybe they could be given a compensation pick between the first and second rounds or slightly adjusting the lottery to give these teams a better chance of winning it.

Pablonovi
04-13-2014, 04:47 PM
I wouldn't ordinary bump a thread that's been inactive for so long (in this case 8 months); BUT
this thread ran just before the season began. Now we have the entire season (minus a few games still to be played) to reflect back on. And if we do reflect back on this past season, the same HUGE reason to (at least partially) FIX THE NBA PLAYOFF SYSTEM screams out.

At the end of the regular season, while it is still fresh in everybody's minds, is when people sum up that season, the good, bad and ugly. We've had some great stuff happen this season; but we've also had a super-UGLY Conference Vs Conference imbalance AGAIN.

So, I'm copying a post I just made (in another very-much related thread) to this thread, because? Because it BELONGS HERE & NOW.
- - - - -
It's definitely time to make the nba play-off system more fair.



Comparing the number of wins per West team vs East team shows almost exactly 8 more averaged over all 15 teams. This is an incredible gap.
So, the three West teams in this scenario EASILY get the #3, 4, 5 seeds.
AND with the way Indy has been playing for the entire second half of the season (and would be playing even worse with this 3 teams switched to the East); I say Indy gets beaten by whichever of the # 3, #4 teams (from the West).

Have you-all noticed that even the new comish has come out and stated that they are going to look into re-vamping the Playoff-qualification system.
Article Title: "Adam Silver says NBA will ‘take a fresh look’ at changing playoff format to include league’s best teams"
Link: http://www.prosportsdaily.com/Headli...ticleId=300202

N.B. I raised this issue about 9 months ago, in my first PSD thread and poll, entitled "Hey NBA Commissioner, How About Putting The Best 16 Teams In The Playoffs". The discussion lasted 2 weeks (from late July to early August) and had a number of very good points.

It might be worth your while to review the points pro and con NOW in light of the new Commissioner's comments AND in light of this super-lopsided season where a very good West Conf. team, (which will have ended up some 15 games over .500 DESPITE playing most of its games against West Conf. opposition) will be deprived of a playoffs spot; while the Atlanta Haws, against much weaker competition (8 games worse PER team), gets to qualify despite ending up some 6 or so games UNDER .500 . (Heck the T-Wolves are a lot more deserving than the Hawks. Personally, I'd MUCH rather see K. Love & company in the playoffs.)

Here's the link to that thread: http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...n-The-Playoffs

You might notice in that thread, that most of the "no" votes (meaning the system should NOT be changed) were based on three main arguments:
1) The system is fair enough as it is;
2) The NBA will never change the system; and/or
3) Too much Playoff travel time.

The new commissioner clearly admits that:
1) The system is definitely NOT fair;
2) The NBA might very well change the system; and
3) With chartered flights, the Playoff travel time issue is very minor.

dtmagnet
04-13-2014, 08:33 PM
No, there are conferences due to travel times. If conferences were eliminated and a balanced schedule was to be played by all teams it would be a nightmare to schedule and also for the players.

kdspurman
04-13-2014, 08:54 PM
No, there are conferences due to travel times. If conferences were eliminated and a balanced schedule was to be played by all teams it would be a nightmare to schedule and also for the players.

That was an issue when teams flied via commercial flights. Now that there are private charters, that's not really an issue anymore.

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-13-2014, 09:03 PM
No, there are conferences due to travel times. If conferences were eliminated and a balanced schedule as to be played by all teams it would be a nightmare to schedule and also for the players.

Not if they do what they do in baseball. In a balanced schedule, a team would have to play 24 teams 3 times and 5 teams twice. That would be an 82 game schedule. Obviously a team is going to get to play two games at home and one on the road against certain teams and vice versa for other teams. I would propose that the two road games be played in a series type of way where team A does not leave the city of team B until two games have been played. That would cut the travel time even more than it is now.

Shammyguy3
04-13-2014, 09:17 PM
With private jets and days off between every game, travel isn't an issue anymore. ****, LA is 1,926 miles from Minneapolis (only 89 miles less than LA to Chicago). Portland is 2,509 miles from New Orleans (only 159 miles less than LA and Washington DC). Salt Lake City is 2,310 miles from Orlando (shorter than Portland to New Orleans). Boston is 1,488 miles from Miami (only 212 miles shorter than San Antonio to Toronto).


The travel excuse is soooooooooo outdated. Let the 16 best teams play the most important games of the year.

torocan
04-14-2014, 06:58 AM
Top 4 reasons to make the play offs the best 16 teams.

1. Better quality basketball in the play offs.

2. No teams get a significant advantage in the run to the finals. If the play offs started today and was seeded based upon the top 16 with league wide seeding, we'd see the following rd. 1 match ups.

SAS-CHA
OKC-WAS
LAC-BKLN
IND-PHO
MIA-CHI
HOU-TOR
POR-MEM
GSW-DAL

Now wouldn't that be a LOT more fun to watch?

3. Makes every game count for Every team in the regular season for the purposes of seeding. IE, no coasting because you're a top seed in your conference. We'd be looking at races down to the last game of the regular season.

4. Ensures that the worst teams get in the lottery EVERY season. Is there any way to justify why Minnesota (40-40) or one of Dallas/Memphis/Phoenix (47+ wins) will be getting a lottery pick and Atlanta (37-43) will not?

Make the play offs the best 16 teams. Seed it accordingly. Change the play off home/away format if travel is really the issue (it's really not with charter jets)

AddiX
04-14-2014, 09:45 AM
Lmao look at these sour puss fans crying over the conference there in, coming up with any excuse you can.

You know why your not in the playoffs?

Because your divisional record sucks. That's it. What your excuse for that? You can't be a top team in your own division and your crying about your conference your in, and blaming that for not making playoffs?

Welcome to sports! Thats how it is in every league, quit this crybaby nonsense.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 11:12 AM
what an idiotic position to take, and none of us are crying. How is wanting to see the best playoffs with the best teams possible indicative of crying like a baby? :laugh2:

bleedprple&gold
04-14-2014, 11:27 AM
I understand the argument for re-seeding but I just don't see it happening? Why? Like everything else it comes down to money. The nba doesn't want 14 west and two east teams in the playoffs. That means hardly anybody on the east coast will be watching. The current format ensures teams from around the whole country are in it and fans everywhere are interested. And no other sport does it so why start now and make a permanent change because of a few bad years? The east will be back at some point.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 12:50 PM
I understand the argument for re-seeding but I just don't see it happening? Why? Like everything else it comes down to money. The nba doesn't want 14 west and two east teams in the playoffs. That means hardly anybody on the east coast will be watching. The current format ensures teams from around the whole country are in it and fans everywhere are interested. And no other sport does it so why start now and make a permanent change because of a few bad years? The east will be back at some point.

That's a good point, but the 14 West/2 East would never happen. Right now, if the top-16 teams made the playoffs then 9 would be from the West and 7 from the East. And those teams are from all over the country. The scenario that you presented where there would be no interest nationally would never occur.

ricky recon
04-14-2014, 01:07 PM
You all sound like a bunch of communists.

tredigs
04-14-2014, 01:18 PM
what an idiotic position to take, and none of us are crying. How is wanting to see the best playoffs with the best teams possible indicative of crying like a baby? :laugh2:

The kid has been sounding off in some ridiculous tirade every post I've seen of his this year. No clue how he's still here, but the act is tired.

I agree that the travel excuse is way overblown at this point.

tredigs
04-14-2014, 01:29 PM
I understand the argument for re-seeding but I just don't see it happening? Why? Like everything else it comes down to money. The nba doesn't want 14 west and two east teams in the playoffs. That means hardly anybody on the east coast will be watching. The current format ensures teams from around the whole country are in it and fans everywhere are interested. And no other sport does it so why start now and make a permanent change because of a few bad years? The east will be back at some point.

I'm not sure that I buy that either. Ultimately if you're a casual fan who is really only interested in your home team playing, then why would you care about watching the Wizards (over say, Phoenix) if you're a Nets fan? Vice versa if Phoenix were to not make the playoffs in place of say the Bobcats. Now you're losing their casual fans and Charlotte gains theirs. I think that's all pretty relative.

But, overall? I'd say the most interest to be gained in drumming up a casual fan whose team is not in the post-season is by putting out the best product possible; which generally isn't the case when you have the leagues 11th best record out and 19th best record in simply because they played in the vastly easier conference that year.

beasted86
04-14-2014, 02:17 PM
If you were to redistribute the seeds, there would be 10 west teams and 6 east teams in the 2013-14 playoffs.

Going off the 2012-13 season 9 west teams, and 7 east teams
Going off the 2011-12 season 8 west teams, and 8 east teams
Going off the 2010-11 season 9 west teams, and 7 east teams.
Going off the 2009-10 season 9 west teams, and 7 east teams

Going back the past 10 years actually, there would be more than a 1 team change in only 2 of those 10 seasons (13-14 and 07-08).

So, what is all the complaining about again? Can somebody remind me?

I know for certain I don't want to watch any playoff games starting at 10:30 on a weeknight, and I'd bet most west coast fans don't want to not watch (because they are likely still at work/school/in traffic) games starting at 4:30 PM.

beasted86
04-14-2014, 02:22 PM
But, overall? I'd say the most interest to be gained in drumming up a casual fan whose team is not in the post-season is by putting out the best product possible; which generally isn't the case when you have the leagues 11th best record out and 19th best record in simply because they played in the vastly easier conference that year.

Do you really believe this or are you saying it just for saying it sake? If you really do believe it then I have nothing to say. But I pretty much refuse to believe the NBA would substantially increase attendance and/or ratings by replacing Memphis with Atlanta.

Even if it were the case of a big market team on a bad year, IE: New York replacing Atlanta, I still don't think it makes a huge difference in the general scheme of profit./league growth.

beasted86
04-14-2014, 02:40 PM
For the sake of the eastern conference they'll never do it. There's been seasons in recent history that if it was the top 16 teams literally only like 4-5 teams from the east would've even made the playoffs.


Which season was this in the past 30 years? Because I don't remember it.

Can you name one season where 5 or less East teams would have made it and 11 West teams based on the top 16 records?

ztilzer31
04-14-2014, 02:55 PM
NBA playoffs will be broken no matter what. Too many teams.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 02:56 PM
If you were to redistribute the seeds, there would be 10 west teams and 6 east teams in the 2013-14 playoffs.

Nope, there would be 9 west teams and 7 east teams

SAS .775
OKC .725
LAC .700
IND .679
MIA .675
HOU .663
POR .654
GSW .613
DAL .605
MEM .600
PHO .588
CHI .588
TOR .588
BRK .550
WAS .525
CHA .513
_____________
MIN .500
ATL .463

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-14-2014, 03:02 PM
Which season was this in the past 30 years? Because I don't remember it.

Can you name one season where 5 or less East teams would have made it and 11 West teams based on the top 16 records?

Your argument is based off uneven schedules. If everyone had to play the same schedules the east would lose about 5 teams in these playoffs. You can't use previous years schedules because a 42-40 west team is far greater than a 42-40 east team.

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-14-2014, 03:07 PM
That's a good point, but the 14 West/2 East would never happen. Right now, if the top-16 teams made the playoffs then 9 would be from the West and 7 from the East. And those teams are from all over the country. The scenario that you presented where there would be no interest nationally would never occur.

Not if there were balanced schedule. There is a good chance only the Heat and Pacers would be in the playoffs this year.

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-14-2014, 03:10 PM
Nope, there would be 9 west teams and 7 east teams

SAS .775
OKC .725
LAC .700
IND .679
MIA .675
HOU .663
POR .654
GSW .613
DAL .605
MEM .600
PHO .588
CHI .588
TOR .588
BRK .550
WAS .525
CHA .513
_____________
MIN .500
ATL .463

If it was the best 16 teams, they would play balanced schedules and the Bobcats would not have a 513 win percentage and the Wolves would be higher than 500.

AddiX
04-14-2014, 03:22 PM
what an idiotic position to take, and none of us are crying. How is wanting to see the best playoffs with the best teams possible indicative of crying like a baby? :laugh2:

How is it idiotic?

None of the teams you guys are crying over have a winning record in there own division, none. That's why there not in the playoffs, and that's why no one should feel bd for them.

Win your division, win your conference, win the finals, this is how every team sport in America works, yet you guys think only the NBA teams are victims in this. This is some cry baby bs.

Cant win in your own decision so you want to change the entire playoff system, lmao, what a bunch of losers.

beasted86
04-14-2014, 03:41 PM
Your argument is based off uneven schedules. If everyone had to play the same schedules the east would lose about 5 teams in these playoffs. You can't use previous years schedules because a 42-40 west team is far greater than a 42-40 east team.

But everyone doesn't play the same schedule so how exactly can we know? The only thing equal in the NBA schedule of every team is 41 home games, 41 road games.. That's it. Number of back to backs, number of games pre or post all-star break, number of above .500 teams, etc, etc. is all different.

But I do honestly love the weak west team is always better than a weak east team take disregarding any an all facts.

beasted86
04-14-2014, 03:44 PM
Nope, there would be 9 west teams and 7 east teams

SAS .775
OKC .725
LAC .700
IND .679
MIA .675
HOU .663
POR .654
GSW .613
DAL .605
MEM .600
PHO .588
CHI .588
TOR .588
BRK .550
WAS .525
CHA .513
_____________
MIN .500
ATL .463

Which helps make my argument even stronger.

Most years its a 1 team difference based on the current record/schedule system we have.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 04:00 PM
How is it idiotic?

None of the teams you guys are crying over have a winning record in there own division, none. That's why there not in the playoffs, and that's why no one should feel bd for them.

Win your division, win your conference, win the finals, this is how every team sport in America works, yet you guys think only the NBA teams are victims in this. This is some cry baby bs.

Cant win in your own decision so you want to change the entire playoff system, lmao, what a bunch of losers.

Since when is division record the be-all end-all? What division is tougher:
SAS, HOU, DAL, MEM, NOP (combined 254-157 = .618 win% = 51 wins each season)
MIA, WAS, CHA, ATL, ORL (combined 197-203 = .493 win% = 40 wins each season)

Atlanta's win percentage versus the 15 current playoff teams & Phoenix is 14-30 = .318
Minnesota's win percentage versus the 16 playoff teams & Phoenix is 18-30 = .375
Memphis' win percentage versus the 15 current playoff teams & Phoenix is 20-24 = .455
Phoenix' win percentage versus the current 16 playoff teams is 20-24 = .455

versus the best teams in the league, Atlanta doesn't rack up with 3 western conference teams.

And you're wrong about "if you can't win the division you shouldn't be in the playoffs" crap. Countless teams that haven't won their division ended up as wild-card teams and won a championship. Recent examples in the NFL include the '10 Packers, '07 Giants, '05 Steelers, '00 Ravens, 99' Titans, '97 Broncos. In baseball, the '97 Marlins, '02 Angels, '03 Marlins, '04 Red Sox, '11 Cardinals. **** in basketball the '11 Mavericks, the '07 Spurs, and so forth.

Your claims are stupid. And nobody here is complaining about their own team not making the playoffs. We're complaining about teams that deserve it over other teams. Psh.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 04:03 PM
Which helps make my argument even stronger.

Most years its a 1 team difference based on the current record/schedule system we have.

Yup. And when you combine that the actual distance traveled (hell even the time zones traveled between conferences and out-of conference are the same) between places like POR and NOP, BOS and MIN, etc like i posted earlier in this thread and there's seriously zero reason to not put the best product on the court.

dtmagnet
04-14-2014, 04:03 PM
Not if they do what they do in baseball. In a balanced schedule, a team would have to play 24 teams 3 times and 5 teams twice. That would be an 82 game schedule. Obviously a team is going to get to play two games at home and one on the road against certain teams and vice versa for other teams. I would propose that the two road games be played in a series type of way where team A does not leave the city of team B until two games have been played. That would cut the travel time even more than it is now.

Yes but then you might have road trips that last a month long due to scheduling, I don't really think thats fair to the players.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 04:09 PM
Yes but then you might have road trips that last a month long due to scheduling, I don't really think thats fair to the players.

how so? take the Celtics for example. Their road trip starts out as follows:
TOR, CHI, MIN, CLE ... back at home vs NYK, MIA, DEN, POR ... back on the road to UTA, LAC, PHO, SAC, MEM ... back at home vs ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ... back on the road versus CHA, MIA, NOP, etc etc.

There would never be a longer road streak than 8 games, just as it is right now. I like Dodgers&Lakers schedule idea - that's exactly how it should be if we keep 82 games and 30 teams.

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-14-2014, 04:36 PM
How is it idiotic?

None of the teams you guys are crying over have a winning record in there own division, none. That's why there not in the playoffs, and that's why no one should feel bd for them.

Win your division, win your conference, win the finals, this is how every team sport in America works, yet you guys think only the NBA teams are victims in this. This is some cry baby bs.

Cant win in your own decision so you want to change the entire playoff system, lmao, what a bunch of losers.

You act like only the 8th, 9th, and 10th seeds are affected by unbalanced schedules. I'm sure the Spurs would like to play the same teams that the Heat get to play to ensure home court from last year. They might have another title. Im sure the Thunder would rather play the Bobcats over the Mavs in round one.

It seems the only people arguing against a balance schedule and the best teams getting in are fans of teams who take advantage of the unbalanced schedule. Not all the fans are like that. But most.

beasted86
04-14-2014, 04:48 PM
Yup. And when you combine that the actual distance traveled (hell even the time zones traveled between conferences and out-of conference are the same) between places like POR and NOP, BOS and MIN, etc like i posted earlier in this thread and there's seriously zero reason to not put the best product on the court.

But why should any #1 seed be subjected to extra travel? Isn't that the entire point of having the best record to make your trip to the Finals easier? Because the 1-2 seed is exactly who this would affect most of the time. It might not seem a factor between Boston and Minnesota, but what about Miami and Portland. New York and LA?

east fb knicks
04-14-2014, 04:49 PM
i don't think the best 16 should make the playoffs but ther should be a rule if a team misses the playoffs with atleast 45 wins they should take the spot of the playoff team with the worst record meaning that the suns or grizz would take the spot of the hawks this year

beasted86
04-14-2014, 05:05 PM
At the end of the day the people complaining about this are either hardcore fans who have some idea of the "pureness" of competition or fans of the teams missing out.

The average fan doesn't want to be in work or stuck in traffic while playoff games are going on. The average fan doesn't want to have to stay up until 1:00 AM to watch the end of a playoff game when they have to wake up at 6:00 AM. Not only would this cost the NBA owners more money in terms of longer distance travel costs, but less fans would be watching and/or attending games and they would be hit with a double whammy in some cases.

Guppyfighter
04-14-2014, 05:12 PM
To the people in this thread, Adam Silver said the NBA is already consider doing this next year.


So the people acting like this shouldn't happen or won't happen can stop acting like self-righteous ***** now.

Trwood12
04-14-2014, 05:13 PM
Being a t-wolves fan, it sucks to see my team out of the playoffs yet again when they would be in the east. It needs to change.

beasted86
04-14-2014, 06:00 PM
Being a t-wolves fan, it sucks to see my team out of the playoffs yet again when they would be in the east. It needs to change.
Do the Wolves really deserve anything after all the wasted picks?

Guppyfighter
04-14-2014, 06:16 PM
Which helps make my argument even stronger.

Most years its a 1 team difference based on the current record/schedule system we have.

And the top eight teams for home court are West other than two. Pretty significant deal.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 06:19 PM
But why should any #1 seed be subjected to extra travel? Isn't that the entire point of having the best record to make your trip to the Finals easier? Because the 1-2 seed is exactly who this would affect most of the time. It might not seem a factor between Boston and Minnesota, but what about Miami and Portland. New York and LA?

see below


With private jets and days off between every game, travel isn't an issue anymore. ****, LA is 1,926 miles from Minneapolis (only 89 miles less than LA to Chicago). Portland is 2,509 miles from New Orleans (only 159 miles less than LA and Washington DC). Salt Lake City is 2,310 miles from Orlando (shorter than Portland to New Orleans). Boston is 1,488 miles from Miami (only 212 miles shorter than San Antonio to Toronto).

the travel distances are just as worse in conference for the West as they are out of conference. The only teams that would hate it are teams like LAL and BOS if they met in the 1st round, but once again the days off would be more than enough for players to stay healthy.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 06:23 PM
Do the Wolves really deserve anything after all the wasted picks?

Wasted picks hurt, but they did acquire Kevin Love for OJ Mayo (so essentially nothing), found Pekovic, and overall have a damn respectable roster. So yeah, they do deserve it because they're a much better team than Atlanta. Plus, their fans deserve it too.

Trwood12
04-14-2014, 06:34 PM
Do the Wolves really deserve anything after all the wasted picks?

Our front office sucks. That doesn't take away from the fact that we would be a playoff team in the east. There is too much disparity between conferences.

AddiX
04-14-2014, 07:06 PM
Do the Wolves really deserve anything after all the wasted picks?

NBA franchises and there fans looking for that playoff welfare.

I mean seriously, how many damn excuses can you guys come up with, it doesn't freaking end.

Minnesota was not a good team this year, theres 9 freaking teams with better records than them in there own conference, they are not a victim, they suck, and there not in then playoffs, get over it.

Phx over produced themselves, but they still rent that good, if they don't make it, they never should of in the first place, no big deal. Really, the only reason they are in it is because a lot of west coast teams sucked this year and Memphis fell off and Minnesota as always underproduced.

Memphis has no one to blame either, they stopped adding talent, had some injuries.

Straight up the teams above them drafted well, and spent $, and won games in there division. You guys didn't.

tredigs
04-14-2014, 07:24 PM
NBA franchises and there fans looking for that playoff welfare.

I mean seriously, how many damn excuses can you guys come up with, it doesn't freaking end.

Minnesota was not a good team this year, theres 9 freaking teams with better records than them in there own conference, they are not a victim, they suck, and there not in then playoffs, get over it.

Phx over produced themselves, but they still rent that good, if they don't make it, they never should of in the first place, no big deal. Really, the only reason they are in it is because a lot of west coast teams sucked this year and Memphis fell off and Minnesota as always underproduced.

Memphis has no one to blame either, they stopped adding talent, had some injuries.

Straight up the teams above them drafted well, and spent $, and won games in there division. You guys didn't.

The only "playoff welfare" is being awarded a post-season appearance simply because your conference sucks. Not having the best of the best move on regardless of manufactured boundaries is much closer to your NBA communism and welfare state you keep regurgitating like a drunk frat girl. You're confusing "spreading the wealth" with wanting "only the best". Somehow this does not surprise anyone.

Don't fret, the teams of the worse conference would still keep their inherent advantage over the best conference on account of getting to play one another more often.


At the end of the day the people complaining about this are either hardcore fans who have some idea of the "pureness" of competition or fans of the teams missing out.

The average fan doesn't want to be in work or stuck in traffic while playoff games are going on. The average fan doesn't want to have to stay up until 1:00 AM to watch the end of a playoff game when they have to wake up at 6:00 AM. Not only would this cost the NBA owners more money in terms of longer distance travel costs, but less fans would be watching and/or attending games and they would be hit with a double whammy in some cases.

I'd contest that the average fan does not want to see **** teams like this years Knicks/Cats/Hawks battling for playoff spots in order to be swept in a snoozer round 1 while legitimate foes with very solid seasons like Phoenix and Memphis may get the ax in another conference. The only legitimate reason why the EC 1st round could pose some excitement this season is because the top of the conference is stumbling. Not exactly an ideal entertainment scenario. Staggering gametimes and other logistical issues are figured out easily enough.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 07:24 PM
NBA franchises and there fans looking for that playoff welfare.

I mean seriously, how many damn excuses can you guys come up with, it doesn't freaking end.

Minnesota was not a good team this year, theres 9 freaking teams with better records than them in there own conference, they are not a victim, they suck, and there not in then playoffs, get over it.

And yet they're still above .500, a better record in obviously a tougher conference than Atlanta. Atlanta's the team that sucks. But most importantly, the playoff structure as is sucks.


Phx over produced themselves, but they still rent that good, if they don't make it, they never should of in the first place, no big deal. Really, the only reason they are in it is because a lot of west coast teams sucked this year and Memphis fell off and Minnesota as always underproduced.

But what does that have to do with Atlanta, who has done nothing impressive this year. At least Phoenix produced on the court.


Memphis has no one to blame either, they stopped adding talent, had some injuries.

Straight up the teams above them drafted well, and spent $, and won games in there division. You guys didn't.

This is so stupid. Did Atlanta draft well? Does Atlanta have a larger payroll than Memphis? And again with the division crap. Memphis has won more games in a tougher conference. Memphis has a better record against current playoff teams.

AddiX
04-14-2014, 07:50 PM
So basically this is a thread arguing about who is the best of the crappy teams.

Here, let me give the little kids a reward for being the best of the crappy teams so they can feel like they accomplished something.

:)

There you go, you happy, tell your parents to hang it up on your fridge or something.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 08:00 PM
That's exactly what Atlanta is - the best of the crappy teams. Are you satisfied rewarding that awfulness with a playoff appearance over a team like Memphis, Phoenix, or Dallas?

And i'll hang that up on the fridge next to my "let the best 16 teams in the playoffs" banner

tredigs
04-14-2014, 08:03 PM
Rather, let's give the weak teams a pass into the post-season for simply being there. A "participation" award if you will.

Addix's mindless blathering would hold more weight if the teams he's speaking of weren't ~15 games over .500 (against tougher opponents) and top ten overall in SRS. Simply put, there is nothing crappy about the 9 seed team in the West, and very much about the bottom tier playoff teams out East. And there in lies the issue. Fans of the game like watching actual competition, not what we see out East. Whoulda thunk

AddiX
04-14-2014, 08:04 PM
That's exactly what Atlanta is - the best of the crappy teams. Are you satisfied rewarding that awfulness with a playoff appearance over a team like Memphis, Phoenix, or Dallas?

And i'll hang that up on the fridge next to my "let the best 16 teams in the playoffs" banner

No, I don't give a crap which of the crappy teams makes a god damn 8th seed, none of them are doing s damn thing. There's EIGHT god damn playoff spots in each conference. If you don't make playoffs you suck.

Draft better, spend better, coach better, whatever, you freaking suck if you can't grab 1/8 spots.

Shammyguy3
04-14-2014, 08:07 PM
:laugh:

tredigs
04-14-2014, 08:10 PM
Phoenix/Dallas/Golden State are 20-10 against the East. Memphis 21-9. Hell New ****ing Orleans is 19-11 (13-37 against the West).

The Heat at 20-10 are the SOLE EC Team with a better record against the West than New Olreans has against the East. Think about that (if that's possible). And these teams don't crack the top 5 in West V East records.

tredigs
04-14-2014, 08:18 PM
As a sports capitalist, I just want true competition and no more playoff "handouts". The deck is already so far stacked in their favor by playing their sorry selves a majority of the time throughout the season, we need to stop the bleeding at some point.

The tides will eventually turn back in a decade or so, and in that scenario we can revel in premier East basketball all May while we don't have to sit and watch struggling/rebuilding West teams get blasted in the 1st round in a gimme series that nobody wants to watch.

Guppyfighter
04-14-2014, 08:32 PM
If you were to only take winning percentage among the East, the East would have two teams in the playoffs.

Trwood12
04-14-2014, 09:05 PM
If you were to only take winning percentage among the East, the East would have two teams in the playoffs.

So.. If the other teams aren't good enough, should they really be in the playoffs?

beasted86
04-14-2014, 09:20 PM
No, I don't give a crap which of the crappy teams makes a god damn 8th seed, none of them are doing s damn thing. There's EIGHT god damn playoff spots in each conference. If you don't make playoffs you suck.

Draft better, spend better, coach better, whatever, you freaking suck if you can't grab 1/8 spots.

+1. You don't reward a crappy team with anything, let alone forcing a #1 or 2 seed to potentially fly cross country to play your crappy *** team.

sunsfan88
04-14-2014, 09:42 PM
+1. You don't reward a crappy team with anything, let alone forcing a #1 or 2 seed to potentially fly cross country to play your crappy *** team.

You think #8 in West Memphis is a crappy team? If the Heat played Memphis in the playoffs, there's absolutely no gurantee that the Heat would beat Memphis. Gasol + Randolph would be setting career highs every game.

AddiX
04-14-2014, 09:49 PM
You think #8 in West Memphis is a crappy team? If the Heat played Memphis in the playoffs, there's absolutely no gurantee that the Heat would beat Memphis. Gasol + Randolph would be setting career highs every game.

Memphis has a legit squad, and I'd love to see them in the playoffs, especially against all those soft run and gun west coast teams that they could beat up on.

But they had a decision a few years ago to get better or to be more profitable, they chose the profit.

They have nothing to cry about.

slashsnake
04-14-2014, 09:50 PM
The 9th best team in the west not making the playoffs isn't a travesty. It happens everywhere in SPORTS. Sports isn't perfectly fair. There are 7-9 NFL teams making the playoffs and 10-6 teams missing them. Wichita State gets a tough quarter of the bracket. Last year in baseball Texas had more wins than Cincinatti but the reds made it while the Rangers sat home. The same things happen in Hockey.

Look at all the chances you have in the NBA. Win your Division. Can't do that, have the next best record in your conference of those non-division winners. Can't do that have the 2nd best record. Can't do that, have the 3rd best. the 4th best. the 5th best. Can't do that, making the playoffs isn't a big loss to me.

What comes around goes around. The same Wolves fans crying that they would be a playoff team in the East forget that in 1999 they made the playoffs at .500 when Eastern teams were out being 4-5 games over that. They weren't complaining then, they were cheering Garnett getting their team to the post-season. A couple years before that the Suns were there as a 7 seed with what would have been a 10 seed record in the west. Suns fans weren't crying then.

What comes around goes around. The west has had quite the edge this century, but it will rotate around. You want in, be in the top half of your conference and you are GUARANTEED a spot. That's where your competition is.

But I will take a conference schedule, with in-season rivalries over sending Boston out to Portland 2-3 times a year and vice versa for a "fair" schedule without conferences and adding a few more weeks to the NBA schedule to get in 82 games with the insane amount of travel time needed to make sure everyone plays everyone.

Sure, it isn't perfectly fair. Ok, so what. Neither is life.

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-14-2014, 09:56 PM
+1. You don't reward a crappy team with anything, let alone forcing a #1 or 2 seed to potentially fly cross country to play your crappy *** team.

So it's okay to fly across the country for a meaningless regular season game but not for playoff games? they should change it to balanced schedule and all teams should play each other almost equally.Then we will have a better idea which teams are really number one seeds. I'm sure the Spurs would have liked to play the teams in the East last year to secure home court advantage in the finals. Game six and seven might have been played in San Antonio and they might have their 5th ring 13 years.

I know you are a fan of a team that is taking advantage of a week schedule right now so obviously you do not want that to change. But in 10 years the Heat might have 50 wins and won't make the playoffs and a team with 39 wins in the west will be in. That is when it will hit home and you are going to be crying foul just the same. They should fix it now so next year and in the future, weaker teams are not rewarded due to a glitch in the system.

slashsnake
04-15-2014, 12:02 AM
So it's okay to fly across the country for a meaningless regular season game but not for playoff games? they should change it to balanced schedule and all teams should play each other almost equally.Then we will have a better idea which teams are really number one seeds. I'm sure the Spurs would have liked to play the teams in the East last year to secure home court advantage in the finals. Game six and seven might have been played in San Antonio and they might have their 5th ring 13 years.

I know you are a fan of a team that is taking advantage of a week schedule right now so obviously you do not want that to change. But in 10 years the Heat might have 50 wins and won't make the playoffs and a team with 39 wins in the west will be in. That is when it will hit home and you are going to be crying foul just the same. They should fix it now so next year and in the future, weaker teams are not rewarded due to a glitch in the system.

You are talking about what? Extending the NBA season another month? Boston flies out to Portland once a year, runs down the coast and calls it good. You want even trips, you are sending them out there 2 or 3 times. Not only do I not want a matchup like that in the post-season where we are looking at more travel days, but you are sending those teams on opposite coast trips more often to try and get your "everyone plays everyone" scheme. MLB does divisions by location, NHL does division by location, NCAA does divisions by location, NFL does divisions by location.

I want to see the Clippers and Lakers in the same division with that to brag about. I want to see Boston, NJ, and NY doing the same. I don't want some crappy, non-rival regular season where all we care about now is if the Twolves or Bobcats are making it as the 16th seed. That is WELL worth the price of the 9th best team in a conference not making the playoffs to me.

Which leaves you with more travel days and either.

A. Longer season
or
B. Fewer games.

NBA union and owners aren't taking the income cut for fewer games, so you are adding travel days.

And it isn't a glitch. EVERY pro sport has this. It is the cost of having rival in season games fighting for a division.



And not sure how the spurs would have had the #1 overall in 2012.


Heat vs. the East 41-11 79% won
Heat vs. the West 25-5 83% won

Spurs vs. the West 33-19 63% won
Spurs vs. the East 25-5 83% won

Spurs in the East based on their conference records... 62 wins
Spurs in the West 58 wins

Heat in the East 66 wins
Heat in the West (based on conference records) 67 wins

Play however you want, but the Heat would be the #1 seed anyway you dice it up. So it sounds nice, but it just isn't so.

Guppyfighter
04-15-2014, 02:01 AM
Flight is not really a problem. It's why they changed the finals back to 2-2-1-1-1. Conferences were set up because travelling was hard to start with. It's not anymore.

Now the real question begins, if you were to begin the league a new, what would be the more well received idea? Dividing teams up into arbitrary conferences for travel reasons and awarding worse teams to get in the playoffs or the best 16 teams flat out?

The better idea if you were to implement one in a new a league would obviously be the latter. Luckily the NBA isn't run by dumb ****s who make dumb arguments, which is why they are already seriously considering this.

Guppyfighter
04-15-2014, 02:02 AM
You are talking about what? Extending the NBA season another month? Boston flies out to Portland once a year, runs down the coast and calls it good. You want even trips, you are sending them out there 2 or 3 times. Not only do I not want a matchup like that in the post-season where we are looking at more travel days, but you are sending those teams on opposite coast trips more often to try and get your "everyone plays everyone" scheme. MLB does divisions by location, NHL does division by location, NCAA does divisions by location, NFL does divisions by location.

I want to see the Clippers and Lakers in the same division with that to brag about. I want to see Boston, NJ, and NY doing the same. I don't want some crappy, non-rival regular season where all we care about now is if the Twolves or Bobcats are making it as the 16th seed. That is WELL worth the price of the 9th best team in a conference not making the playoffs to me.

Which leaves you with more travel days and either.

A. Longer season
or
B. Fewer games.

NBA union and owners aren't taking the income cut for fewer games, so you are adding travel days.

And it isn't a glitch. EVERY pro sport has this. It is the cost of having rival in season games fighting for a division.



And not sure how the spurs would have had the #1 overall in 2012.


Heat vs. the East 41-11 79% won
Heat vs. the West 25-5 83% won

Spurs vs. the West 33-19 63% won
Spurs vs. the East 25-5 83% won

Spurs in the East based on their conference records... 62 wins
Spurs in the West 58 wins

Heat in the East 66 wins
Heat in the West (based on conference records) 67 wins

Play however you want, but the Heat would be the #1 seed anyway you dice it up. So it sounds nice, but it just isn't so.

Your math is completely off. Miami only has 54 wins as it stands right now. Not 66. Are you high?

Kaner
04-15-2014, 02:05 AM
Honestly would prefer if the Nba copied the NFL playoff format. 7th and 8th seeds are gimmies 95% of the time anyway.

Guppyfighter
04-15-2014, 02:28 AM
Honestly would prefer if the Nba copied the NFL playoff format. 7th and 8th seeds are gimmies 95% of the time anyway.

To be fair, upsets rarely ever happen. The fifth seed is the highest percentage upset and that only happens 25 percent of the time.

slashsnake
04-15-2014, 03:03 AM
Your math is completely off. Miami only has 54 wins as it stands right now. Not 66. Are you high?

He said...

"I'm sure the Spurs would have liked to play the teams in the East last year to secure home court advantage in the finals. Game six and seven might have been played in San Antonio and they might have their 5th ring 13 years."

LAST YEAR, both teams in the East, Heat have #1. Both in the West, Heat have #1. Heat in West, Spurs in East, Heat have #1 and as it was, Heat had the #1 seed.

The Heat were excellent vs. the West last year.

KnicksorBust
04-15-2014, 09:55 AM
You are talking about what? Extending the NBA season another month? Boston flies out to Portland once a year, runs down the coast and calls it good. You want even trips, you are sending them out there 2 or 3 times. Not only do I not want a matchup like that in the post-season where we are looking at more travel days, but you are sending those teams on opposite coast trips more often to try and get your "everyone plays everyone" scheme. MLB does divisions by location, NHL does division by location, NCAA does divisions by location, NFL does divisions by location.

I want to see the Clippers and Lakers in the same division with that to brag about. I want to see Boston, NJ, and NY doing the same. I don't want some crappy, non-rival regular season where all we care about now is if the Twolves or Bobcats are making it as the 16th seed. That is WELL worth the price of the 9th best team in a conference not making the playoffs to me.

Which leaves you with more travel days and either.

A. Longer season
or
B. Fewer games.

NBA union and owners aren't taking the income cut for fewer games, so you are adding travel days.

And it isn't a glitch. EVERY pro sport has this. It is the cost of having rival in season games fighting for a division.


I deleted the Spurs/Heat stuff but the rest of the post was spot-on. I agree with everything that was said here. Earlier in the season this may have been a bigger issue but now it should be moot. The Raptors/Nets/Bulls are all credible playoff teams and the Wizards/Bobcats are both over .500. The only screwed team is Phoenix (who I told people all season would fall off and wouldn't have done jack in the playoffs) and the only "lucky" team is Atlanta.

15 of the 16 best teams are in the playoffs.

That is not even close to being a problem worthy of overhauling the entire NBA schedule and playoff system.

Pablonovi
04-15-2014, 11:06 AM
I deleted the Spurs/Heat stuff but the rest of the post was spot-on. I agree with everything that was said here. Earlier in the season this may have been a bigger issue but now it should be moot. The Raptors/Nets/Bulls are all credible playoff teams and the Wizards/Bobcats are both over .500. The only screwed team is Phoenix (who I told people all season would fall off and wouldn't have done jack in the playoffs) and the only "lucky" team is Atlanta.

15 of the 16 best teams are in the playoffs.

That is not even close to being a problem worthy of overhauling the entire NBA schedule and playoff system.

Hey Knicks Or Bust,
One can claim things like "15 of the 16 best teams are in the Playoffs"; but claiming it, even endlessly doesn't make it fact.

Consider:
1) Strength Of Schedule:
Link: http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/ranking/strength-of-schedule-by-team

Notice, (as of this morning) that ALL 13 teams with less than a 100.0 ranking are East Teams. The East had ALL 13 of the easiest schedules. You play an easier schedule, you're going to tend to have a better record Vs a team playing a (much) harder schedule than you. Just this FACT alone, negates your claim that 15 of the 16 best are in.

2) Conference Ranked Teams Vs Their Correspondingly-Ranked Opposite-Conference Ranked Teams:
As of this morning, the West is just a bit under 8 games per team better than the East. Seeing as each team only plays about 1/3 of their games against opposite-conference opponents, this is HUGE.

3) NOW, Add The Results of the facts of: Strength Of Schedule PLUS Inter-Conference Disparity (despite that horribly unequal SOS):
The West is thoroughly better than the East. IF schedules were roughly equal in opponent strength; then this year (as usual for the past 2+ decades, check it out): The East would probably only have 2 Playoff Teams.

4) The WEST being FAR superior has meant, that the West teams have had to play their better players more minutes and more intensely during those minutes to fight for only 8 spots. Meanwhile, just the reverse in the East. Indy, which has mostly stunk up the place the last half of this entire season, beat Milwaukee with the Pacers second string! This is still another HUGE advantage. West teams enter the Playoffs more worn down than their counter-parts in the East.

5) The West Playoffs will inevitably be much tougher, more-wearing. Miami (or whoever) that comes out of the East will have had BY FAR the easier road; and should therefore be a good deal in better shape. How is that fair?


All 5 of these points are straight out facts. And all 5 mean big unfairness. Add all 5 up together, and you have HUGE unfairness.

Pablonovi
04-15-2014, 11:14 AM
According to teamrankings.com
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/ranking/overall-power-ranking-by-team
as of this morning:

THE TOP 5 (!) NBA TEAMS ARE ALL Western Conf. Ones. (8 of the top 10 are West).
THE 4 WORST NBA TEAMS ARE ALL Eastern Conf. Ones. (6 of the bottom 8 are East).

10 OF THE TOP 16 NBA TEAMS ARE WESTERN CONF. ONES. (and so, based on fairness, 10 West teams would qualify for the Playoffs and only 6).

This chart alone really says all one needs to know.

ztilzer31
04-15-2014, 11:14 AM
No matter what they do I won't be watching the first round of the playoffs. Well unless it goes down to less teams.

Pablonovi
04-15-2014, 11:20 AM
With chartered flights, additional travel time has become a very minor issue.
In the Playoffs, (with NO back-to-backs) even more so.

There would be NO need to either lengthen the schedule or reduce the number of regular season games if:

In addition,
it's very possible to make it even less of an issue.
For example:
When East-Coast teams go West: have them play a series of West teams in a row - reducing their travel time. And vice versa with West-Coast Teams going East.

Another example:
Distant teams could play back-to-backs in the same city (eliminating travel time between games entirely). Given that each team will play each of the others 3 times, this would mean 2 of those three games would actually reduce the total travel time between the two cities. The small unfairness here (of having two games in one city and one in the other), would be balanced out by them switching places every other year. Net unfairness = zero.

Pablonovi
04-15-2014, 11:29 AM
In the OP, I proposed a few options that would be:
1) Not very radical
2) Not very difficult at all to implement;
3) Face the least resistance and thus have the most chances for getting implemented.

At the opposite end of things:
A total re-organization of both scheduling (to be the maximum-close to completely fair) and to Playoff Qualifying (and seeding) would be:

1) Much more radical;
2) A little more difficult (than the less-radical proposals) to implement;
3) Face much more resistance and thus have less chance for being implemented.

I'd much prefer the major revamp.
I'd settle for any of the "less-radical" adjustments.
Perhaps, the NBA could do the change-process in two (or more) steps:

1st) The less-radical changes;
2nd) a little later, complete the fairness-adjustment.

Pablonovi
04-15-2014, 11:32 AM
Still another Inter-Conference Unfairness:

The Western Conf. teams are geographically much more spread out. So every year, those 15 teams have to travel more per team, than do the Eastern Conf. teams.

Pablonovi
04-15-2014, 11:37 AM
btw, this year, with the Lakers eliminated; I was gonna root for the Heat.
BUT, I'd much rather see the two Finalists have relatively-equal challenges to get there; THAN have a way easier path to the Finals for the East team, than for the West team.

I'll probably end up rooting for the West Finalist because of their much-tougher path to get the Finals.
For me, fairness is more important than team-loyalty.

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-15-2014, 02:20 PM
The hoops prophet.... I mean Pablonovi just owned this thread. The only argument that can be made against it is "my team benefits from the way it is so leave it alone" or, "I just don't like change so leave it alone"

Pablonovi
04-15-2014, 03:06 PM
The hoops prophet.... I mean Pablonovi just owned this thread. The only argument that can be made against it is "my team benefits from the way it is so leave it alone" or, "I just don't like change so leave it alone"

Hey DODGERS&LAKERS,
LOL.

Thanx for the compliment.
I was born with DNA for math-excellence; when younger I could beat people with hand-calculators, in doing non-super-complex add-subtract-divide-multiply operations. Now?, forget about it!

But, I'm still always paying attention to numbers. Everytime I see numbers, I start "working with them".

And the NBA (along with Marathoning) are my two favorites sports. So, if I see what I think are significant number-patterns - I can get "lost" "processing" them for days! (I've got a whole series of Excel documents full of NBA All-Time stats and Marathoning All-Time stats.)

Not saying it's necessarily something to be proud of; it's just the dog, I mean, thehoopsprophet in me !

Actually some months back, I got so curious about these super-duper claims about me, that I read lots of his posts (he was extra-ordinarily funny, often informative, pretty unique; but didn't really last all that long (that many posts)).

I then went to his youtube "channel" cause a vid there had been recommended here at PSD. I left a comment for him; expressing an interesting in comparing notes. He has not been active with that channel/video in over a year. I think he's in Germany (I'm no where's near Europe; never been there.)

Our similarities? Maybe he's a "long-lost" grandkid I had no idea I had a hand in "producing"; and that explains it? (hehe)

ScottFromCanada
04-15-2014, 04:12 PM
Not a bad idea but if they did this I think the NBA should get rid of conferences all together and everyone plays each other equally.

sunsfan88
04-20-2014, 10:54 PM
Memphis has a legit squad, and I'd love to see them in the playoffs, especially against all those soft run and gun west coast teams that they could beat up on.

But they had a decision a few years ago to get better or to be more profitable, they chose the profit.

They have nothing to cry about.
What the hell are you talking about? The Rudy Gay trade?

Every team Rudy has been traded off has been better since his departure.