Poll: Finals - What's The Best Schedule Sequence?

[Bahku]

Some of us have been tossing this around, and I thought it would be cool to see what playoff series Finals schedule people prefer. The sequence used to be 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, with the first two games beginning at the home court of the team with the best record. The present schedule, (2, 3, 2), favors less travel-stress and jet-lag.

I feel the previous schedule is much more exciting, and much more balanced than the way it is now. I understand the travel costs and concerns, but I still feel the benefits of the old series order outweigh the draw-backs. What do you feel is the best sequence, and why?

[sns0274]

IMO, game 5 is the most pivotal game in a seven game series, thus should be on the home teams floor

[Redz]

I understand the practical reasoning behind the 2-3-2, but it just doesn't work as well for basketball.  Baseball, yes.

[Steve Weinman]

Some of us have been tossing this around, and I thought it would be cool to see what playoff series schedule people prefer. The sequence used to be 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, with the first two games beginning at the home court of the team with the best record. The newer schedule, (2, 3, 2), favors less travel-stress and jet-lag.

I feel the previous schedule is much more exciting, and much more balanced than the way it is now. I understand the travel costs and concerns, but I still feel the benefits of the old series order outweigh the draw-backs. What do you feel is the best sequence, and why?

I'm with ya Bahku, except that I have to say that I'm at a point don't understand the travel costs and concerns.  These guys aren't barnstorming around the country on commercial buses for games on back to back days.  In fact, they never play on back-to-back days during the playoffs and often have two days between games (though the Finals games are played only on Tuesday, Thursday, Sunday, if I recall correctly).  These are professional athletes.  They fly on chartered jets with plenty of leeway as to when they arrive and depart, and the costs are of no consequence to them.  They can live with one day of rest and some traveling between games.

For people making the case that in a time of concern over travel for people in general -- because of the natural issues concerned with oil and fuel-guzzling planes, fine.  That's an understandable cause, but I have a hard time believing that this is the NBA's major concern here.

That being said, it should be the competition that is viewed as the primary priority, and as sns0274 articulates, it is critical for the often-pivotal Game 5 to be on the floor of the team that is supposed to have the "built-in advantage," so to speak.

It would be neat if for the Finals every year, the home team was given the choice at the beginning of the series as to which format they would like to use.  It would be a nice wrinkle to gaining homecourt for the playoffs and a nice empirical experiment toward finding the preference of those who actually play in and coach these games.

Lock me in for 2-2-1-1-1.

-sw

Edit: Also, since I don't know if it's clarified anywhere on the thread, worth noting that only the Finals utilizes the 2-3-2.  The first three rounds of the playoffs are still 2-2-1-1-1.

[Bahku]

Some of us have been tossing this around, and I thought it would be cool to see what playoff series schedule people prefer. The sequence used to be 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, with the first two games beginning at the home court of the team with the best record. The newer schedule, (2, 3, 2), favors less travel-stress and jet-lag.

I feel the previous schedule is much more exciting, and much more balanced than the way it is now. I understand the travel costs and concerns, but I still feel the benefits of the old series order outweigh the draw-backs. What do you feel is the best sequence, and why?

It would be neat if for the Finals every year, the home team was given the choice at the beginning of the series as to which format they would like to use.  It would be a nice wrinkle to gaining homecourt for the playoffs and a nice empirical experiment toward finding the preference of those who actually play in and coach these games.

Lock me in for 2-2-1-1-1.

-sw

Ooh ... I like that idea, SW ... TP for ya! Thanks for the clarification reminder, too ... I'll do my best to add it.

[Roy Hobbs]

Just for clarification, the "newer" model has been around since 1985.

[Bahku]

I apologize ... I should have used the words "most recent" or "present" ... please forgive my lack of writing skills. I will edit for clarification ... thanks for pointing that out, Roy ... TP.

[Steve Weinman]

Some of us have been tossing this around, and I thought it would be cool to see what playoff series schedule people prefer. The sequence used to be 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, with the first two games beginning at the home court of the team with the best record. The newer schedule, (2, 3, 2), favors less travel-stress and jet-lag.

I feel the previous schedule is much more exciting, and much more balanced than the way it is now. I understand the travel costs and concerns, but I still feel the benefits of the old series order outweigh the draw-backs. What do you feel is the best sequence, and why?

It would be neat if for the Finals every year, the home team was given the choice at the beginning of the series as to which format they would like to use.  It would be a nice wrinkle to gaining homecourt for the playoffs and a nice empirical experiment toward finding the preference of those who actually play in and coach these games.

Lock me in for 2-2-1-1-1.

-sw

Ooh ... I like that idea, SW ... TP for ya! Thanks for the clarification reminder, too ... I'll do my best to add it.

Thank you, sir    Guess it's just something I've always wondered -- since the early results of our poll mirror my expectations about fans -- that they are overwhelmingly against the 2-3-2, I wonder how the teams themselves feel about it.  Seems like a practically feasible method of finding out.

And a TP and thanks to you for putting up an interesting question that made me think.  Always a pleasure, Bahku.

-sw

[Yakmanev]

A pivotal Game 5 should be on the better teams court plain and simple.

And on the other hand, the underdog shouldn't have to spend all of his home games 3 in a row. It's very difficult to win 3 in a row against the same team on the same court. No matter who it is. Especially if it's Finals worthy teams.

[celticmaestro]

well, i say 2-3-2 for the following reasons -
1 - it makes it slightly more even.
2 - it enables the team with home court to have games 6 and 7 to close out the series.

the team with home court is generally better (at least record-wise), so if it gets to the stage where a sixth game is needed, then having it on their own court is in this case a distinct advantage instead of going on the road in a must win game.

having said that, i like sw's suggestion of the home team being asked at the beginning what format they would like.

[Roy Hobbs]

It seems that the argument a lot of people use is that the 2-3-2 format gives some sort of advantage to the road team.  Is that really the case, though?  Only six road teams have won the Championship since the change went into effect in 1985: 1985 Lakers, 1993 Bulls, 1995 Rockets, 1998 Bulls, 2005 Pistons and 2006 Heat.  Only twice has the road team swept games 3 through 5, in 2005 and 2006.

In terms of series length, the breakdown since 1985 is:

Home team clinchers:

Game 4: 3
Game 5: 5
Game 6: 7
Game 7: 2

Road team clinchers:

Game 4: 1
Game 5: 0
Game 6: 4
Game 7: 1

That shows that most series are going fairly long, and that the home team still holds an advantage in those longer series: 7-4 in six game series, and 2-1 in game sevens.

I generally prefer the 2-2-1-1-1 format, as well, but in terms of actual results on the floor, there's no evidence that the 2-3-2 schedule has a negative effect on the home team, which seems to be what some are arguing.  The series change *may* cut down on Game 7s, but that is about the only tangible effect of the series shift that I can see.

[Redz]

It seems that the argument a lot of people use is that the 2-3-2 format gives some sort of advantage to the road team.  Is that really the case, though?  Only six road teams have won the Championship since the change went into effect in 1985: 1985 Lakers, 1993 Bulls, 1995 Rockets, 1998 Bulls, 2005 Pistons and 2006 Heat.  Only twice has the road team swept games 3 through 5, in 2005 and 2006.

In terms of series length, the breakdown since 1985 is:

Home team clinchers:

Game 4: 3
Game 5: 5
Game 6: 7
Game 7: 2

Road team clinchers:

Game 4: 1
Game 5: 0
Game 6: 4
Game 7: 1

That shows that most series are going fairly long, and that the home team still holds an advantage in those longer series: 7-4 in six game series, and 2-1 in game sevens.

I generally prefer the 2-2-1-1-1 format, as well, but in terms of actual results on the floor, there's no evidence that the 2-3-2 schedule has a negative effect on the home team, which seems to be what some are arguing.  The series change *may* cut down on Game 7s, but that is about the only tangible effect of the series shift that I can see.

You can also weigh in there somewhere that the team with home court advantage is usually the "better" team, so they're more likely to win anyhow.

[sns0274]

It seems that the argument a lot of people use is that the 2-3-2 format gives some sort of advantage to the road team.  Is that really the case, though?  Only six road teams have won the Championship since the change went into effect in 1985: 1985 Lakers, 1993 Bulls, 1995 Rockets, 1998 Bulls, 2005 Pistons and 2006 Heat.  Only twice has the road team swept games 3 through 5, in 2005 and 2006.

In terms of series length, the breakdown since 1985 is:

Home team clinchers:

Game 4: 3
Game 5: 5
Game 6: 7
Game 7: 2

Road team clinchers:

Game 4: 1
Game 5: 0
Game 6: 4
Game 7: 1

That shows that most series are going fairly long, and that the home team still holds an advantage in those longer series: 7-4 in six game series, and 2-1 in game sevens.

I generally prefer the 2-2-1-1-1 format, as well, but in terms of actual results on the floor, there's no evidence that the 2-3-2 schedule has a negative effect on the home team, which seems to be what some are arguing.  The series change *may* cut down on Game 7s, but that is about the only tangible effect of the series shift that I can see.

I would like to see the breakdown before the change. I believe you would see more game 5 clinches

[Roy Hobbs]

I would like to see the breakdown before the change. I believe you would see more game 5 clinches

Not really.  From 1950 until 1984, there were eight Game 5 clinchers; from 1985 until 2007, there were 5.  The ratio is almost the same.

An easy reference guide to check out series length is here.  Unfortunately, it doesn't separate out for home teams vs. road teams.

[Who]

Would you rather Game 5 at home or away?

Game 5 used to be/is normally the pivotal game for two evenly matched sides.

I vastly prefer the old format. I thought the change of venue was good, it freshened up the series and gave some degree of seperation between the past game and the next game.