PDA

View Full Version : Adam Silver Open To Changing Playoff Format



ClutchTime
02-06-2015, 10:15 AM
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12287800/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-open-changes-playoff-structure

Personally I don't like it.....

NBA commissioner Adam Silver said he's open to revamping the current playoff structure by eliminating conference seeding and instead going with the league's 16 best teams.

"Ultimately we want to see your best teams in the playoffs," Silver said while appearing on Comcast SportsNet Bay Area during Wednesday's Mavericks-Warriors game. "And there is an imbalance and a certain unfairness."

The Western Conference has had a decided edge over the Eastern Conference for quite some time, especially this season with it having 10 of the league's best 16 records.

Silver said he'd be willing to talk to the league's competition committee about a plan in which the six division winners would receive automatic berths and the remaining 10 playoff positions would be determined by overall record, regardless of conference affiliation.

"I think that's the kind of proposal we need to look at. There are travel issues, of course, but in this day and age every team, of course, has their own plane, travels charter," Silver said. "... It's something I'm going to look at closely with the competition committee. A lot of owners have strong feelings on it, but I think it is an area where we need to make a change."

Silver said he'd need input from the league's owners before proceeding with any such changes.

Under the proposal, teams such as Charlotte (21-27) and Miami (21-28), which currently rank in the playoff-eligible top eight in the Eastern Conference, would be supplanted by New Orleans (26-23) and Oklahoma City (25-24) in the West in a changed qualifying structure.

"I don't think the discussion should end there," Silver said of potential changes. "And as I've said, my first year I was studying a lot of these issues, and Year 2 is time to take action."

Sandman
02-06-2015, 10:22 AM
Fix the lottery and this might even itself out over time. Right now nobody gives 2 ***** about being the 8th seed.

Many teams see it as basketball purgatory. No chance in hell at contending, no chance in hell at improving. There's little incentive to compete for the last playoff spot.

How many teams make deadline deals in an effort to go for that last playoff spot?

A 16 team playoff is a joke in this sport at this point. How many teams really have a shot each year? Whatever the answer is, its not 16 and its probably not even 8.

This would kill annual rivalries between the best teams in the conference. What do you really get in result? only adding the 15th and 16th best teams to the playoffs instead of the 18th and 19th in years when one conference is not as strong as the other.

Either fix the lottery or cut the playoffs to 12 teams.

koreancabbage
02-06-2015, 10:32 AM
if the best 16 teams get in, then the only way to deal with this is an even schedule. everyone plays the other team twice and maybe a third game against regional (east or west) competition. (i.e. eastern conference teams would play each other 3 times instead of 2 times)

58 (each team twice) or 72 games (play all opposing conference teams 2x and conference side (east or west) a 3x)

Slug3
02-06-2015, 11:00 AM
I cant really see too many eastern conference teams voting for this new system.

LakersIn5
02-06-2015, 11:42 AM
How about give the lakers an automatic playoff berth and a lottery pick every year

KnicksorBust
02-06-2015, 11:51 AM
Fix the lottery and this might even itself out over time. Right now nobody gives 2 ***** about being the 8th seed.

Many teams see it as basketball purgatory. No chance in hell at contending, no chance in hell at improving. There's little incentive to compete for the last playoff spot.

How many teams make deadline deals in an effort to go for that last playoff spot?

A 16 team playoff is a joke in this sport at this point. How many teams really have a shot each year? Whatever the answer is, its not 16 and its probably not even 8.

This would kill annual rivalries between the best teams in the conference. What do you really get in result? only adding the 15th and 16th best teams to the playoffs instead of the 18th and 19th in years when one conference is not as strong as the other.

Either fix the lottery or cut the playoffs to 12 teams.

Exactly. This was great response. The entertainment value of the rest of the league would significantly decrease once you throw more teams out of contention and all for minimal competitive gain.

IndyRealist
02-06-2015, 12:09 PM
Plenty of years we say, "the REAL Finals was the Western Conference Finals, etc". I'm not sure enough people care about East/West rivalries anymore. Between transplanted fans, the internet, and yes, League Pass, there are plenty of Warriors fans out East, and Cavs fans out West. Conference affiliations only really matter in drunken arguments in sports bars. With the NBA increasingly looking at international broadcasting as a revenue stream, I think they will look to get the best teams on the biggest stage rather than hype up a rivalry that doesn't really exist anymore.

I would also like to point out that a 12 team playoffs gives bi's. Considering how many games are played in a round, that's a grossly unfair advantage and, again, doesn't put the best teams on TV more.

torocan
02-06-2015, 12:23 PM
12 team play offs is a BAD idea.

Not only does it make the regular season meaningless far sooner (lowering the quality of the regular season even earlier than happens now with teams resting players in the final weeks), but it create an unwieldy tournament structure (you MUST allow teams to skip rounds entirely for it to work).

As for the 8th seed, tell Phoenix, NOP and OKC that the 8th seed is meaningless. Being in the play offs adds millions of dollars in revenue for the teams involved. Additional games played are more tickets sold, more TV time and more merchandise sold.

Goose17
02-06-2015, 12:25 PM
Top 6 seeds from each conference get in.

7th, 8th, 9th and 10th from each conference play a one game knockout qualifying round for the remaining four places.

The teams that lose have to give up 6 players on their roster into free agency where the conference finalists get to take their pick of players.

Every second Sunday during the playoffs the 6th man of one of the playoff teams has to partake in a cage fight with Charled Barkley. If they lose their team is banned from participating in the NBA for a full season.

BKLYNpigeon
02-06-2015, 12:29 PM
Who cares about the rivalries and history. Changing the playoff structure will create new ones and intrigue to the games every year. 1st round of the eastern playoffs are brutal to watch.

The games changes and so should the rules.

bleedprple&gold
02-06-2015, 12:31 PM
Fix the lottery and this might even itself out over time. Right now nobody gives 2 ***** about being the 8th seed.

Many teams see it as basketball purgatory. No chance in hell at contending, no chance in hell at improving. There's little incentive to compete for the last playoff spot.

How many teams make deadline deals in an effort to go for that last playoff spot?

A 16 team playoff is a joke in this sport at this point. How many teams really have a shot each year? Whatever the answer is, its not 16 and its probably not even 8.

This would kill annual rivalries between the best teams in the conference. What do you really get in result? only adding the 15th and 16th best teams to the playoffs instead of the 18th and 19th in years when one conference is not as strong as the other.

Either fix the lottery or cut the playoffs to 12 teams.

And what is your proposal to fix the lottery?

bleedprple&gold
02-06-2015, 12:34 PM
if the best 16 teams get in, then the only way to deal with this is an even schedule. everyone plays the other team twice and maybe a third game against regional (east or west) competition. (i.e. eastern conference teams would play each other 3 times instead of 2 times)

58 (each team twice) or 72 games (play all opposing conference teams 2x and conference side (east or west) a 3x)

Isn't this already how it is? You play in conference opponents 3 or 4 times a year and out of conference twice a year.

R. Johnson#3
02-06-2015, 03:14 PM
It makes sense.

koreancabbage
02-06-2015, 03:38 PM
Isn't this already how it is? You play in conference opponents 3 or 4 times a year and out of conference twice a year.

you don't play every team twice at times i believe. You play your division teams 4 times. you shorten the season and you get a more even schedule.

Sandman
02-06-2015, 05:01 PM
And what is your proposal to fix the lottery?

Even it out so that the %s are something like 15-14-13 etc. something closer together.

They need to eliminate the incentive to lose. The net gain from a lotto pick can't be greater than getting beat in the first round.

The worst team can still get a minimum #4 pick.

numba1CHANGsta
02-06-2015, 07:06 PM
Make every team face each other 2-3 times a season instead of 2 and 4
Change lottery structure so that the same teams don't get top picks every season
Change playoff structure to where the top 16 teams make the playoffs
First round of playoffs a 1 game sudden death college basketball style (team with best record has home court)
Second round of playoffs 5 game series 2-2-1
Conference Finals 7 game series keep the same 2-2-1-1-1
Finals 7 game series keep the same 2-2-1-1-1
Change NBA All-star format to where the winning conference gets home court advantage in the Finals

JasonJohnHorn
02-06-2015, 07:28 PM
And what happens if a Western conference team wins the east?
Doesn't make sense to me.

I'd prefer to see the best team in, but the league has to address the parity, which is the cause of the imbalance.

Shammyguy3
02-06-2015, 08:42 PM
Exactly. This was great response. The entertainment value of the rest of the league would significantly decrease once you throw more teams out of contention and all for minimal competitive gain.

I counter that with, what rivalries are there in the league that are "can't-miss" for myself? None really. I want the 16 best teams seeded from best record to 16th best record in the playoffs. How awesome would it be to see the Warriors & Spurs play in the finals? Sure, the Western Conference finals is really cool but it doesn't have the same feel to it.

Now, that's selfish reasoning obviously. In the end though, I would prefer a more balanced schedule and the best teams being ranked by record. Right now the matchups would be as follows (without the balanced hypothetical schedule)
One side of the bracket
1. GSW vs 16. OKC
8. DAL vs 9. SAS

5. POR vs 12. CHI
4. HOU vs 13. MIL

Other side of the bracket
2. ATL vs 15. NOP
7. TOR vs 10. CLE

3. MEM vs 14. PHO
6. LAC vs 11. WAS

KnicksorBust
02-06-2015, 08:59 PM
Exactly. This was great response. The entertainment value of the rest of the league would significantly decrease once you throw more teams out of contention and all for minimal competitive gain.

I counter that with, what rivalries are there in the league that are "can't-miss" for myself? None really. I want the 16 best teams seeded from best record to 16th best record in the playoffs. How awesome would it be to see the Warriors & Spurs play in the finals? Sure, the Western Conference finals is really cool but it doesn't have the same feel to it.

Now, that's selfish reasoning obviously. In the end though, I would prefer a more balanced schedule and the best teams being ranked by record. Right now the matchups would be as follows (without the balanced hypothetical schedule)
One side of the bracket
1. GSW vs 16. OKC
8. DAL vs 9. SAS

5. POR vs 12. CHI
4. HOU vs 13. MIL

Other side of the bracket
2. ATL vs 15. NOP
7. TOR vs 10. CLE

3. MEM vs 14. PHO
6. LAC vs 11. WAS

The only reason this is better is because of the extremely rare exception of the #16 seed OKC. You may not appreciate Eastern Conference rivalries but I do.

IndyRealist
02-06-2015, 09:23 PM
you don't play every team twice at times i believe. You play your division teams 4 times. you shorten the season and you get a more even schedule.

You always play each team at least twice, except in lockout years. Inter-conference you get one home and one away against the other conference.

Shammyguy3
02-06-2015, 09:28 PM
The only reason this is better is because of the extremely rare exception of the #16 seed OKC. You may not appreciate Eastern Conference rivalries but I do.

True, but it's not like having this new format would prevent "Eastern" and "Western" rivalries anyway. And it could create some new rivalries (i find it disheartening that we've only seen Lebron/Durant play each other once in the playoffs, imagine if we could get that chance more often?)

JV35
02-06-2015, 09:29 PM
It still won't be the "16 best teams".

It will be 6 division winners and the "10 best teams that didn't win their division".

You could still have a .500 division winner stealing a spot from a team with a better record.

Shammyguy3
02-06-2015, 09:37 PM
It still won't be the "16 best teams".

It will be 6 division winners and the "10 best teams that didn't win their division".

You could still have a .500 division winner stealing a spot from a team with a better record.

They should do away with division winners as well, in that case.

slashsnake
02-07-2015, 07:17 AM
They should do away with division winners as well, in that case.

At the risk of losing a lot of what goes into the divisional rivalries? I can't think of the last time a division winner wasn't a top 16 team in the NBA record wise. Until that becomes an issue (starts happening often) I wouldn't worry about it and would keep that bid and home court as the reward that keeps those rivalry division games alive.


Me personally I like good games and better late seasons over being completely fair 99% of the time. I'll take a 7-9 NFL team making the post-season every so often to keep rivalries and more late season games that matter. Basically, two conferences means there's twice as many battles for that last seed.

Now the NBA may have that 1%. I'd like them to re-align if possible first though to get a little more parity, because the NBA seems to not really have that top to bottom between the two conferences for quite a while. I can't remember the last time the East had an 8 seed with a better record than the west 8 seed. So there might be the option... But I would make it a last option. There's nothing wrong with not being perfectly fair every year.

DODGERS&LAKERS
02-07-2015, 11:56 AM
Division rivalry are meaningless. Who even looks at the standings of the division? When you look at the standings, you look to see where you are playoff wise. Does anybody even hang a banner for a division title? If they do they shouldn't

kobe4thewinbang
02-07-2015, 02:08 PM
I don't know how I feel about division winners earning playoff spots, since some divisions are so bad with only one team doing well, but overall I think they should definitely change the qualifications for the playoffs. Nobody wants to see the Milwaukee Bucks get swept by the Miami Heat again, know what I'm saying? My switcheroo is to put the top 10 teams record-wise, regardless of conference, into the seeding, and then deal with the division standings.

Sandman
02-07-2015, 02:26 PM
Division rivalry are meaningless. Who even looks at the standings of the division? When you look at the standings, you look to see where you are playoff wise. Does anybody even hang a banner for a division title? If they do they shouldn't

Its not necessarily about winning the division, its playing 4-5 teams more than the rest of the league.

HoopsDrive
02-07-2015, 03:10 PM
Really? Division rivalries? It's not as big as some of you are making it out to be. Regular season is staying the same anyway so it's not like it's gonna affect those rivalries that much. It's just the playoff format that is changing. Besides, playoff rivalries can still happen under the new playoff format, nothing is impeding another Pacers-Knicks from happening in a 16-best playoff format.

The other argument is that you can have a finals with 2 teams from the same conference. If that happens, so what? As long as they're the best teams why would anyone care? I'd love to see a GSW-SAS finals.

The whole point of the playoffs is for the best teams to make it. It doesn't matter if the 16th seed has no chance to win it, another poor excuse that has been thrown around. It's like the soccer WC where the likes of Ukraine, Peru, and Sweden are constantly getting left out just to make room for the likes of New Zealand, Congo and North Korea due to continental representation. Who the **** wants to watch the latter 3 teams in the WC? Similarly, in the NBA, I'd rather watch the Pelicans than the Hornets this year come playoff time.

ohreally
02-07-2015, 03:29 PM
The league should go back to two divisions per conference and restructure conferences so East is East and West is West before they mess with this.

Obviously, if top 16 teams (or whatever number) make it, the schedule has to be balanced and there would need to be fewer games to avoid crossing 3-hour time differences so frequently. But either way, that means the central teams have something of an advantage since they would never be crossing hopping three hour time differences.

It would be difficult to establish any sort of rivalry with this system because you would be playing all teams pretty infrequently.

Have to figure that rivalries help the gate of of weaker markets, and whether having more games against top-tier teams would help, have to figure that the overall gate for those teams would take a hit, especially since tickets are sure to rise substantially if there are fewer games and less hope of playoff games.

All in all the "top" teams idea seems to hurt the overall sport.

Does anyone know what the actual record of cross-conference games is for this year at this point?

JLynn943
02-07-2015, 03:38 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't change it. It's not the format's fault that the East is garbage lately. I think the playoffs lose something if it isn't conference vs conference.

At most, make the 7th and 8th seeds in either conference be winnable by teams in the other conference if there's a huge record disparity. I still don't really like it, but that's a bit more fair I suppose. Though, that sort of screws over the top seeds more by giving them a harder opponent than some lower seeds. Maybe allow for one or two teams from the stronger conference to qualify wherever they would if they were in the weaker conference?

Sandman
02-07-2015, 03:39 PM
True, but it's not like having this new format would prevent "Eastern" and "Western" rivalries anyway. And it could create some new rivalries (i find it disheartening that we've only seen Lebron/Durant play each other once in the playoffs, imagine if we could get that chance more often?)

with a more wide open structure, we would not see anything regularly.

For ex, Pacers-Heat the last few years, Bulls-Heat a few years ago, Bulls-Pistons back in the day, Knicks-Pacers

When you have conferences, you have a general idea of the road to the finals. That helps hype regular season games as well as the playoff series.

Being able to infer playoff matchups is huge for regular season marketing. It doesn't even have to be a long standing or natural rivalry.

Sadds The Gr8
02-07-2015, 04:14 PM
Change it for **** sakes. Rivalries are dead in the nba. The players are basically a step away from making out before and after games....

Shammyguy3
02-07-2015, 06:14 PM
Change it for **** sakes. Rivalries are dead in the nba. The players are basically a step away from making out before and after games....

:laugh:

Bruno
02-07-2015, 06:25 PM
Division rivalry are meaningless. Who even looks at the standings of the division? When you look at the standings, you look to see where you are playoff wise. Does anybody even hang a banner for a division title? If they do they shouldn't

x2. fans who'd rather watch a 'storied rivalry' are living in the past. also, the idea that rivalries are dependent on divisions isn't totally accurate. the greatest rivalry in the history of the sport is between two teams who play in different conferences, let alone different divisions.

I want the best basketball available every single season, no exceptions.

not to mention, new rivalries could be created to be enjoyed in the future, that were never before possible under the current system. respectfully.

change is going to happen and it's nice to see silver embrace it. i'm in the zach lowe boat for this one. divisions are meaningless.

Bruno
02-07-2015, 06:27 PM
Change it for **** sakes. Rivalries are dead in the nba. The players are basically a step away from making out before and after games....

x2.

blame the 2000s draftees for the buddy ball era were in now.

Sadds The Gr8
02-07-2015, 06:59 PM
x2. fans who'd rather watch a 'storied rivalry' are living in the past. also, the idea that rivalries are dependent on divisions isn't totally accurate. the greatest rivalry in the history of the sport is between two teams who play in different conferences, let alone different divisions.

I want the best basketball available every single season, no exceptions.

not to mention, new rivalries could be created to be enjoyed in the future, that were never before possible under the current system. respectfully.

change is going to happen and it's nice to see silver embrace it. i'm in the zach lowe boat for this one. divisions are meaningless.
And even for the grandpa's that are complaining about rivalries being dead with this format, that's false. Wouldn't it be awesome to see Lakers/Celtics in a first round matchup? or even a semi-final? That makes the rivalry even better because they'd play more often and not have to hope both make the finals

Raps08-09 Champ
02-07-2015, 07:01 PM
Remember when everyone said Adam Silver was a clone of David Stern?

ohreally
02-07-2015, 08:13 PM
And even for the grandpa's that are complaining about rivalries being dead with this format, that's false. Wouldn't it be awesome to see Lakers/Celtics in a first round matchup? or even a semi-final? That makes the rivalry even better because they'd play more often and not have to hope both make the finals

The rivalry between the Lakers and Celts is a finals rivalry. True that any meeting of the two teams in the playoffs would have history giving it a bit more fuel, but it wouldn't be the same rivalry.

And how many of these rivalries exist between conferences?

Some playoffs rivalries might develop, but they would be rare, and regular season would just lose more meaning.

it's a very bad, short-sighted idea for the sport.

Sandman
02-07-2015, 08:17 PM
The rivalry between the Lakers and Celts is a finals rivalry. True that any meeting of the two teams in the playoffs would have history giving it a bit more fuel, but it wouldn't be the same rivalry.

And how many of these rivalries exist between conferences?

Some playoffs rivalries might develop, but they would be rare, and regular season would just lose more meaning.

it's a very bad, short-sighted idea for the sport.

Any post season rivarly would become more rare. Less of a chance to meet in a field of 16. Two fields of 8 forces it.

Sadds The Gr8
02-07-2015, 08:21 PM
The rivalry between the Lakers and Celts is a finals rivalry. True that any meeting of the two teams in the playoffs would have history giving it a bit more fuel, but it wouldn't be the same rivalry.

And how many of these rivalries exist between conferences?

Some playoffs rivalries might develop, but they would be rare, and regular season would just lose more meaning.

it's a very bad, short-sighted idea for the sport.

Who cares about regular season rivalry games? There is no rivalry in the nba right now...

Yes regular season may not mean as much with this format but it's already drawn out and watered down anyway. People only really start caring during the playoffs. this isn't like the Nfl. The regular season is already bleh....so why not make the playoffs better by adding better teams? I don't wanna watch some crap *** hornets/pacers/celtics/nets team in the playoffs. Would much rather watch okc/phx/pelicans

Sandman
02-07-2015, 08:24 PM
Who cares about regular season rivalry games? There is no rivalry in the nba right now...

Yes regular season may not mean as much with this format but it's already drawn out and watered down anyway. People only really start caring during the playoffs. this isn't like the Nfl. The regular season is already bleh....so why not make the playoffs better by adding better teams? I don't wanna watch some crap *** hornets/pacers/celtics/nets team in the playoffs. Would much rather watch okc/phx/pelicans

if the 8 seed wasn't OKC nobody would care enough to see a difference between PHX/NO and IND/CHA

xnick5757
02-07-2015, 08:26 PM
Who cares about regular season rivalry games? There is no rivalry in the nba right now...

Yes regular season may not mean as much with this format but it's already drawn out and watered down anyway. People only really start caring during the playoffs. this isn't like the Nfl. The regular season is already bleh....so why not make the playoffs better by adding better teams? I don't wanna watch some crap *** hornets/pacers/celtics/nets team in the playoffs. Would much rather watch okc/phx/pelicans


X2



The current system is way too susceptible to imbalances like the current one between east/west.


It's bad for the league if 3/7 of its best Superstars miss the playoffs simply because they play in the stronger conference

Sadds The Gr8
02-07-2015, 08:27 PM
if the 8 seed wasn't OKC nobody would care enough to see a difference between PHX/NO and IND/CHA
Of course they would....Anthony Davis is the future of the nba and Phx is like a top 6-7 entertaining team in the league. Indiana and Charlotte games put people to sleep.