Author Topic: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change  (Read 2518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2018, 04:20:14 PM »

Online celticsclay

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8790
  • Tommy Points: 970
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know youíre not necessarily saying itís your logic, but the leagueís). If the series werenít ďcompetitiveĒ (Iím assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesnít really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Yeah I don't disagree with you that this may not result in better series, just saying the league losing money on last years playoffs is 100% the reason it is being discussed. This year it could theoretically make for a few better series but that would change year to year

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #46 on: February 19, 2018, 04:31:57 PM »

Online tazzmaniac

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3564
  • Tommy Points: 327
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know youíre not necessarily saying itís your logic, but the leagueís). If the series werenít ďcompetitiveĒ (Iím assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesnít really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Yeah I don't disagree with you that this may not result in better series, just saying the league losing money on last years playoffs is 100% the reason it is being discussed. This year it could theoretically make for a few better series but that would change year to year
How did the league lose money on the playoffs?  Or do you really mean that they didn't make as much money as they would have liked too?   

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #47 on: February 19, 2018, 09:07:15 PM »

Online celticsclay

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8790
  • Tommy Points: 970
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know youíre not necessarily saying itís your logic, but the leagueís). If the series werenít ďcompetitiveĒ (Iím assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesnít really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Yeah I don't disagree with you that this may not result in better series, just saying the league losing money on last years playoffs is 100% the reason it is being discussed. This year it could theoretically make for a few better series but that would change year to year
How did the league lose money on the playoffs?  Or do you really mean that they didn't make as much money as they would have liked too?

It was less than what was projected. Zach Lowe and some other prominent writers mentioned it as being responsible for the salary cap being at least 1-2 million for 2017-2018. It's crazy to think about but if the warriors and cavs had some more competitive series we probably have Avery Bradley on the team right now.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2018, 11:13:38 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1985
  • Tommy Points: 259
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who canít imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, Iíd rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses moreso than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #49 on: February 20, 2018, 02:28:02 AM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2832
  • Tommy Points: 869
Divisions are totally irrelevant now. They mean nothing unless you want to claim division winner for a banner. The playoffs are determined by top 8 in the conference with no consideration about division for anything. They should do away with divisions.

Completely disagree.

Isnít that what hockey kinda did? Doesnít look any better. Iím a huge b-ball fan and Iím not even entirely positive what teams are in what division (out west), but the structure is important imo. You know whoís in your division and you treat those games with importance.


I donít believe adding (wild card) teams is the answer, at all. Think about it: more teams make the playoffs than the lottery. Thatís crazy. Baseball has 10 of 30, football has 12 of 32, and hockey has 16 of 32. More than half of your league shouldnít make the playoffs.

Whoever was complaining about to Rockets having to take on the Warriors before they roll the East is hogwash. More often than not the two best teams come from the same conference. Itís never been a problem. Rockets fans should be more upset that their team isnít good enough to beat the Warriors rather than when they lose to them.

If they want to FIX the playoffs they have to sacrifice games. They simply donít want to make a better product by leaving money on the table, so they are grasping at straws. Their should be less playoffs teams, byes, and a shorter first round series (best of 5).
I AM A CELTIC

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #50 on: February 20, 2018, 03:12:22 AM »

Offline Androslav

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1310
  • Tommy Points: 243
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners-up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, I’d rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses more so than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
I agree with the response.
The finals appearance is definitely more valuable. It is a remarkable achievement to be in the top 6% in anything, especially in the best basketball league in the world.
Saying that losing in the 2nd round or conference finals is better than losing in the finals reminds me of the bear story:

A bear was climbing a pear tree, but when he couldn't reach the high hanging fruits, suddenly his disliked pears.

The game 7, 2010 finals was without a doubt, my toughest NBA loss to digest. It took me 7 years to rewatch that game. But I really respected the guys for being able to (Doc's voice:) "Hang in there!" despite KG's weak knee and Pierces lost alpha scorer ability.

PJ's 4th qtr timeout words still vividly ring in my head. We were up and like some prophet he said: "Guys, they are the best in the league in blowing up big leads". One of the most underrated coaching moments I saw.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 03:21:14 AM by Androslav »
"The joy of the balling under the rims."

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #51 on: February 20, 2018, 06:20:59 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1401
  • Tommy Points: 151
  • Running in the 00s KANSEI DORIFUTO
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who canít imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners-up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, Iíd rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses more so than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
I agree with the response.
The finals appearance is definitely more valuable. It is a remarkable achievement to be in the top 6% in anything, especially in the best basketball league in the world.
Saying that losing in the 2nd round or conference finals is better than losing in the finals reminds me of the bear story:

A bear was climbing a pear tree, but when he couldn't reach the high hanging fruits, suddenly his disliked pears.

The game 7, 2010 finals was without a doubt, my toughest NBA loss to digest. It took me 7 years to rewatch that game. But I really respected the guys for being able to (Doc's voice:) "Hang in there!" despite KG's weak knee and Pierces lost alpha scorer ability.

PJ's 4th qtr timeout words still vividly ring in my head. We were up and like some prophet he said: "Guys, they are the best in the league in blowing up big leads". One of the most underrated coaching moments I saw.
It should be "guys the Lakers are the best 8 on 5 team in the 4th quarter"
****cago Bull****

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #52 on: February 20, 2018, 06:54:58 AM »

Offline Androslav

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1310
  • Tommy Points: 243
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners-up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, I’d rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses more so than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
I agree with the response.
The finals appearance is definitely more valuable. It is a remarkable achievement to be in the top 6% in anything, especially in the best basketball league in the world.
Saying that losing in the 2nd round or conference finals is better than losing in the finals reminds me of the bear story:

A bear was climbing a pear tree, but when he couldn't reach the high hanging fruits, suddenly his disliked pears.

The game 7, 2010 finals was without a doubt, my toughest NBA loss to digest. It took me 7 years to rewatch that game. But I really respected the guys for being able to (Doc's voice:) "Hang in there!" despite KG's weak knee and Pierces lost alpha scorer ability.

PJ's 4th qtr timeout words still vividly ring in my head. We were up and like some prophet he said: "Guys, they are the best in the league in blowing up big leads". One of the most underrated coaching moments I saw.
It should be "guys the Lakers are the best 8 on 5 team in the 4th quarter"
Mate, I'm afraid that their "best paint crew in the league" (Gasol, Bynum, Odom, MWP) got the better of our Perk-less frontcourt. It was too much to overcome for us in the end. Offensive rebounds galore.
The Kings vs Lakers as you wrote yesterday is a different cup of tea.
"The joy of the balling under the rims."

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #53 on: February 20, 2018, 06:58:51 AM »

Offline CFAN38

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3614
  • Tommy Points: 287
Bad news for LeBron...

and for the Celtics

Rather then a total ditching of conferences I would rather see a system where the top 6 teams from each conference make up the east and west playoff seeding. After that the next best 4 fill out the playoffs regardless of conference. These teams can be placed logically using their geography. IE Western conference teams in the center of the country get shipped east. If a year yields 4 coastal teams then extra days for travel should be added into that series. 

* Other more extreme idea would be to make a 8 team single elimination play in tournament for the last for playoff spots. This could make for great TV.

Current playoffs based off of 6 in from each conference and then 4 best

East.

1. Raptors
2. Celtics
3. Cavs
4. Wizards
5. Pacers
6. Bucks

West

1. Rockets
2. Warriors
3. Spurs
4. T-Wolves
5. OKC
6. Nuggets

next 4

Blazers .552
Pelicans .554
76ers     .545
Clippers .536

Geography would place 76ers and Pelicans in the east

First round

East

1. Raptors  vs 8. 76ers
2. Celtics    vs  7. Pelicans
3. Cavs       vs  6. Bucks
4. Wizards  vs  5. Pacers

West

1. Rockets     vs  8. Clippers
2. Warriors   vs  7. Blazers
3. Spurs        vs  6. Nuggets
4. T-Wolves  vs  5. OKC

An interesting outcome of this system would be the benefits of being the 7th seed rather then the 6th if one conference is particularly strong. A fix to avoid any possible late season tank would be to give the 6th seeds the right to swap spots with the 7th if they deem the match up to be beneficial












 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 07:19:59 AM by CFAN38 »

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2018, 07:01:34 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34309
  • Tommy Points: -27880
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who canít imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners-up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, Iíd rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses more so than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
I agree with the response.
The finals appearance is definitely more valuable. It is a remarkable achievement to be in the top 6% in anything, especially in the best basketball league in the world.
Saying that losing in the 2nd round or conference finals is better than losing in the finals reminds me of the bear story:

A bear was climbing a pear tree, but when he couldn't reach the high hanging fruits, suddenly his disliked pears.

The game 7, 2010 finals was without a doubt, my toughest NBA loss to digest. It took me 7 years to rewatch that game. But I really respected the guys for being able to (Doc's voice:) "Hang in there!" despite KG's weak knee and Pierces lost alpha scorer ability.

PJ's 4th qtr timeout words still vividly ring in my head. We were up and like some prophet he said: "Guys, they are the best in the league in blowing up big leads". One of the most underrated coaching moments I saw.
It should be "guys the Lakers are the best 8 on 5 team in the 4th quarter"
Mate, I'm afraid that their "best paint crew in the league" (Gasol, Bynum, Odom, MWP) got the better of our Perk-less frontcourt. It was too much to overcome for us in the end. Offensive rebounds galore.
The Kings vs Lakers as you wrote yesterday is a different cup of tea.

The refs totally changed how they called the game in the 4th. It went from a physical game to ticky  tack fouls being called.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 07:10:26 AM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2018, 08:21:57 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18336
  • Tommy Points: 868
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know youíre not necessarily saying itís your logic, but the leagueís). If the series werenít ďcompetitiveĒ (Iím assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesnít really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Yeah I don't disagree with you that this may not result in better series, just saying the league losing money on last years playoffs is 100% the reason it is being discussed. This year it could theoretically make for a few better series but that would change year to year
I just don't buy that this fix would solve that.  Looking at last year's playoffs.

1 GS . 16* POR (this is the only actual matchup - GS in 4)
2 SAS v. 15* CHI
3 HOU v. 14 IND
4 BOS v. 13 MIL
5* CLE v. 12* MEM
6* LAC v. 11* ATL
7* TOR v. 10 OKC
8* UTA v. 9 WAS
17* MIA

Obviously tie breakers come into play here (the stars are all the same record for that seeding range), but whatever the potential seedings (I just put them in order that made sense based on last years seedings and going every other east to west), I just don't see those matchups as so much better or creating much better matchups in any real round.  In fact, I think those matchups would have actually led to less overall games.

Assuming the top seeds all advance that makes the 2nd round
GS v. UTA
SAS v. TOR
HOU v. LAC
BOS v. CLE

GS swept Utah and Cleveland beat Boston in 5.  I think Houston beats the Clippers in no more than 5 games, leaving just San Antonio and Toronto as the only possible good series.

The Semis would be
GS v. CLE
SAS v. HOU

Those were actual series, GS won in 5 and SAS won in 6.

The Finals would be GS v. SAS, which was a 4 game sweep for GS (though maybe Kawhi doesn't get hurt and it is a better series).

There really is no point in eliminating the conferences for seeding if you aren't going to eliminate the conferences for determining the actual teams that make the playoffs, and given the imbalance in the conferences, that isn't fair to the teams in the tougher conference i.e. the West, unless there is a significant change to scheduling (so like they expand the regular season to 87 games and just play every team 3 times). 
Mock Deadline - Hornets - Current Roster
PG - Teague, Rubio, MCW, Stone
SG - Monk, Lamb, Muhammad
SF - Wiggins, Sefolosha, Bacon
PF - Kaminsky, Faried, O'Bryant
C - Howard, Bradley

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2018, 09:46:33 AM »

Offline Section301

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 154
  • Tommy Points: 25
  • Yum
I would love to see a "both..and" solution. 

1 - Keep the current playoff seeding method, but reduce the first round to a best of 5 to allow for better rested play in the latter rounds

2 - Reduce the number of regular season games slightly (maybe 70?  games)

3- Add a playoff system for all the lottery teams.  The team that wins the lottery playoff gets the #1 pick. (and all other teams get picks in order of finish as well). 

Adding the lottery playoff  has several benefits:
- Every fan base gets a playoff game
- More games means more ticket revenue for the league
- Less incentive for bad teams to go into full tank mode.  If you jettison all your good players, you end up with the lowest lottery pick

Good food, like good music and good love, always requires a little sweat in the making in order for it to be truly memorable.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #57 on: February 20, 2018, 09:53:09 AM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1754
  • Tommy Points: 156
Did they NBA care in the 80ís when the Lakers only really had the Rockets to get past and the East was top heavy? Teams in the east had to kill themselves to get to the Finals and the West was a cake walk in comparison.
the East had 2 real contenders in the 80's. It wasn't that top heavy.
Celtics
76ers
Pistons

And tough teams like the Bulls and Bucks. Much more difficult then the teams out west.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #58 on: February 20, 2018, 11:33:56 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18336
  • Tommy Points: 868
Did they NBA care in the 80ís when the Lakers only really had the Rockets to get past and the East was top heavy? Teams in the east had to kill themselves to get to the Finals and the West was a cake walk in comparison.
the East had 2 real contenders in the 80's. It wasn't that top heavy.
Celtics
76ers
Pistons

And tough teams like the Bulls and Bucks. Much more difficult then the teams out west.
The early 80's there were 4 legit contenders for most of those years, the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, and Rockets.  The late 80's had 4 legit contenders for most of those years, the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, and Rockets.  The Rockets weren't as consistent as the Lakers and Celtics as a top tier contender, they even had 2 seasons of not making the playoffs, but they were far more consistent than any team in the East (outside of Boston of course), though without the peak of the Sixers or Pistons.

For some further support, by the time the Pistons rose, the Sixers were gone as a real contender (I mean they weren't even a playoff team in 88).  The Bucks were a good, but not great, team at best without a single HOFer in their prime (Tiny and Lanier both well past their primes).  The Bulls didn't become a true contender until the 89/90 season.  The fact that Bucks could win as many games as they did shows just how weak that conference was on the whole.  I mean were the Bucks really any better than a team like the Nuggets.  The Nuggets at least had a HOFer in his prime i.e. Alex English, unlike the Bucks who were led by some very good players, but no HOFers i.e. Moncrief, Johnson, Pressey, etc.  Then you had a team like the Mavs, which was very similar to the Bucks as the Mavs which were filled with good, but not great players like, Harper, Blackmon, Aguirre, Perkins, Schrempf, Tarpley, etc.  Or what about those George Gervin Spurs teams that made back to back WCF in the early 80's, how is that team worse than the Bucks (it isn't).

I understand why we as Celtics fan want to play up the East and downgrade the West, but it just isn't born in reality.  The league was pretty weak overall for much of the 80's.  The Lakers and Celtics were all time great teams, but the league itself, pretty weak on the whole.  I mean have you really looked at teams that were making the playoffs that decade.  Lots of crap.  The 90's were even worse.  It wasn't until the end of the 90's that the league started to balance itself out again and find more parity at the top and more quality throughout the ranks. 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 12:21:08 PM by Moranis »
Mock Deadline - Hornets - Current Roster
PG - Teague, Rubio, MCW, Stone
SG - Monk, Lamb, Muhammad
SF - Wiggins, Sefolosha, Bacon
PF - Kaminsky, Faried, O'Bryant
C - Howard, Bradley

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #59 on: February 20, 2018, 12:47:15 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32700
  • Tommy Points: 1523
  • Pre-school artwork
Are playoffs ratings a big issue?   



Why not an easier fix?   Shorten the schedule.   In each playoff series, only one day off between games.   


Keep the East and West separate until the Finals. 

Knicks: Irving, Drummond, Marcus Morris, S. Muhammad, C. Lee, Sullinger, Hield, M. Chriss , V. Carter, T. Zeller, N. Cole, T. Prince, Livio Jean-Charles, Tyler Ulis, N. Collison