PDA

View Full Version : Should Teams be Rewarded More for Regular Season Record...?



Dade County
06-20-2016, 07:39 AM
Lets say a team with a better record, gets 5 home games (instead of 4), if pushed to a 7 game series. So the lesser seeded team only has 2 home games in each round.


This would make the regular season more important. Players and coaches would throwaway less games year rd, and fans benefit because the entire season is just more important.


I donít know the order of games, if such a thing would be voted on by the owners. Would fit be 2-2, then the rest of the games (if needed), are at the hire seed home arena. Or maybe the lesser seed is allowed to pick which 2 games they would like at home before the series begins (strategic). IDK just thinking out loud lol

But what do you posters think?

da ThRONe
06-20-2016, 07:43 AM
No. The postseason is it's on season. Home court advantage and seeding is more than enough of an earned reward.

FraziersKnicks
06-20-2016, 08:18 AM
No it's absolutely perfect as it is.

IndyRealist
06-20-2016, 08:25 AM
Seeding is a huge advantage. While everyone can see giving the higher ranked team the extra home game in an odd numbered series, teams are never going to agree to 3 extra. That takes revenue from the other team.

ewing
06-20-2016, 08:54 AM
no

mightybosstone
06-20-2016, 09:15 AM
Seeding and one extra game on a home court throughout the playoffs are already huge advantages to top seeds. And I'm sure if we were to look at every postseason in NBA history, the numbers would show that the top seed has won more NBA Finals than any other seed.

Plus, this is how the league has always operated, and it's how hockey and baseball determine their home-field advantage for postseason series (except for the atrocious All-Star game rule for the World Series). Hell, a lot of sports play their championship games on neutral sites, like the Super Bowl, collegiate basketball and football, and many international soccer tournaments. So the NBA puts a far greater emphasis on the regular season than those sports. Basically, there may be a few rules in the NBA that need to be fixed, but this definitely isn't one of them. If you're the better team, win the series regardless of where it's played. Period.

Dade County
06-20-2016, 11:39 AM
I don't believe just having one game is enough for a 82game season. But that doesn't mean my thread topic is the best way of going about it either.

Gibby23
06-20-2016, 11:41 AM
lol

GoferKing_
06-20-2016, 11:42 AM
Ridiculous.

PhillyFaninLA
06-20-2016, 11:50 AM
This feels more luck punishing a team that isn't as good, wasn't as healthy, isn't coached as well, more than rewarding a team for winning

mngopher35
06-20-2016, 11:53 AM
Nah, gs got to play game 7 on their home court due to the better record in last series and again in the finals. I'd say that is a solid advantage.

JasonJohnHorn
06-20-2016, 05:53 PM
The only change that would make sense is a soft bracket where the highest seeded team in each round played the lowest seeded team. But I'm not even a fan of that notion.

FlashBolt
06-20-2016, 05:55 PM
Regular season is a waste of time, tbh. I think 60 games is enough to settle in and get ready for the playoffs. As for should they be rewarded more? Idk, game 7 at home is a huge luxury. Enough to decide who wins or loses. It's good enough as it is.

nastynice
06-20-2016, 05:56 PM
Yes, we should be crowned 2016 reg season CHAMPIONS and have a parade!! :win:

nastynice
06-20-2016, 05:58 PM
Wait, I misunderstood the question

Read the title and came in blindly firing. My bad