Author Topic: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change  (Read 2767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #75 on: February 22, 2018, 03:16:25 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9150
  • Tommy Points: 998
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize itís all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?

Well it depends on how you view it. A lot of people probably end up viewing the wildcard in baseball as not really making the playoffs if you lose. It is like half making it. You are not getting a full series or revenue if you lose (the 9 and 10 seeds would get very minimal money if they lose one away playoff game). The downside as I just said in another thread is you could end up with a horrific series if a really bad 9 seed upsets in the wildcard game and gets matched against a warriors/raptors juggernaut for a full series. I can see advantages and disadvantages.
But 8 teams made the playoffs in baseball before they added the wild card game.  Big difference.

I agree with you that worse teams would make it in basketball compared to baseball based on the sheer number of teams. That being said, you could view these playoff games as not real playoff games (i would) and it seems more palatable to me.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #76 on: February 22, 2018, 03:18:52 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34958
  • Tommy Points: -27821
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize itís all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Couldn't agree more.

It doesn't but it allows the league to bleed more money in television rights out of its broadcast partners.

At some part those broadcasters will ask if itís really worth it.  Is it worth spendings millions to show bad basketball nobody will watch, while at the same time lengthening the playoffs and adding to viewer fatigue?


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 #77 on: February 22, 2018, 03:20:58 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18880
  • Tommy Points: 888
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize itís all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Couldn't agree more.

It doesn't but it allows the league to bleed more money in television rights out of its broadcast partners.

At some part those broadcasters will ask if itís really worth it.  Is it worth spendings millions to show bad basketball nobody will watch, while at the same time lengthening the playoffs and adding to viewer fatigue?
If they cut the 1st round to 5 game series, that would solve some of the issues you are talking about. 

I just don't see why anyone would want bad teams in the playoffs.  and let's be real, the 10th seed is quite often a bad team (I mean sometimes the 8th seed as is is a bad team).

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #78 on: February 22, 2018, 03:33:55 PM »

Offline chiken Green

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 589
  • Tommy Points: 72
This is actually a good thing I think.

*We were an embarrassment last year in the ECF (1 win ((when our star was not playing))
*The Cavs were smoked by the Champs 2 out of the last 3 years... (Fewer games, fewer commercials, less money made for TV)
*Next year The Easts main Attraction "Lebron" is probably taking his talents out West, which would really make the East look even less appetizing to the casual fan than it does right now...
*The NBA charges more money for Playoff games, but with the East being nearly devoid of Superstar Talent, how appealing are those games to investors...
*The league needs to do something to help the competitive balance since they cant stop players from going where they want...
And since the road to the Championship would be random year after year it might attract a few more Marquee players to actually play in the East...   


Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #79 on: February 22, 2018, 04:00:59 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24010
  • Tommy Points: 1050
  • What a Pub Should Be
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize itís all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Couldn't agree more.

It doesn't but it allows the league to bleed more money in television rights out of its broadcast partners.

At some part those broadcasters will ask if itís really worth it.  Is it worth spendings millions to show bad basketball nobody will watch, while at the same time lengthening the playoffs and adding to viewer fatigue?

I don't know. 

The NFL added those Thursday night games years ago and, generally, its a terrible product but it still gets viewership and tv broadcast partners to pay an arm & a leg for.

Someone will still pay for those rights.  Whether the NBA makes it part of the packages that TNT & ESPN currently hold or make it a separate package where someone els (Fox Sports 1, NBCSN, or even Amazon or Yahoo) might step into the package, almost someone will certainly pay for those rights.

Live TV rights are still valued.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team