IfAt1st said:
* There is a solid reason to change the playoffs. Huge, known, long-standing reasons.
Gee I must just be clueless to miss these HUGE long standing reasons and the NBA executives must be as well.
* You answered your question yourself - the better teams would be in the playoffs, instead of the bad EC teams getting playoff exposure. Worse teams should not be in the playoffs over better teams. That is pretty self-explanatory.
You either willfully ignored or missed the qualifier MARGINALLY better teams. This year it would have meant Brooklyn stays home and OKC makes the PO. That’s it. I am not sure how changing the flavor of first round cannon fodder by it’s self justifies upsetting a system that as I said is designed to maximize viewership across the country. I also honestly doubt OKC would prefer to make the PO as a 8 seed at the cost of a shot in the lotto but I do know that loosing the viewers in NY would really hurt… it’s sort of a large market.
* "No real cash advantage"? Are you actually proposing (or defending) that the NBA should be seeding the playoffs to favor whichever team's fanbase is larger?! NO I am not and you know that. That's the end result of this line of thinking.
No it is not. The NBA is built to promote fan interest. The Neo-Gladiatorial play offs crowning Champions from each conference and having them battle it out for the NBA Championship allows for 3 rounds of competition between the teams most fans know best and have a vested interest in seeing either win or lose. (eg: My two favorite teams are the Kings and whoever is playing the Lakers)
However the immediate result of giving births to teams based on record is the effective end of conference championships and there by the end of conferences. You can’t very well have Conference Champs when one conference gets more births and the seeding mixes the two from jump-street. Also there is no longer a reason for the conference distinctions; in fact you would WANT every team meet about 3 times during season play in order to make the standing more meaningful. So now what YOU give is a 16 team tournament whit only an NBA championship that could omit huge sections of the country… all this to make sure that a 45-37 team makes the play offs and a 36-44 team does not because it matters which team loses in the first round.
I am however saying that the NBA system is designed to maximize profits and I don’t see any reason THEY would change it in order to loose money.
"I'm sorry, small-market team (or West coast team), I know you are a much better team with a better record, but we can't let you into the playoffs because we have to show preferential treatment to this East Coast (or big market team) because we think they have more fans." <-- Disproven by rainmaker's excellent post <-- Disproven by Slim’s better post
* Changing the playoff seeding would have zero impact?! Are you serious? The better teams would be playing, the first rounds would have better basketball (with little chance of another Spurs/Clippers debacle), and it equalizes the playoff opportunities, eliminating arbitrary geographical separation. And you conveniently dismiss that as "zero impact".
This is a pure straw man argument and you know it. You intentionally feign misunderstanding when I clearly state “will have zero impact on the final outcome.” I then followed that FULL statement up with proof. Your out of context quote only serves to open the door for your position that what really matters is better round one competition even though you grudgingly confess that those better first round match ups will not affect the final outcome.
So lets give the rest of this section the attention it deserves. The HUGE impact you would effect is to replace a few sub-.500 teams with a few just above .500 teams (against differently weighted pools) ostensibly because “you know the better team has the better record” But will give you this much eliminating the conferences, and picking the to 16 teams by record would have an impact with large areas of country turning off the NBA in April. I will grant you that the improved cannon fodder in round one make a few first round series a bit more interesting and might even mean more game 6 and 7s… heck one or two of these marginal teams might even upset and sneak into round two. But it will not change the final outcome.
As for what you call the Spurs Clippers debacle I will give you this it is a good reason for the league to get rid of the rule giving top seeds to conference winners, but does it really matter? What team “snuck into the semi-finals? Memphis? Houston? LA? Let’s be honest Pop’s habit of sitting starters cost him games, turns out that had consequences. The aged Spurs could not take a team that then laid down in the semi-finals so while I acknowledge that the seeding rule giving conference winners top seeds set up an imbalance that ignored records the truth is the WINNER of that match up put up the saddest performance in the semi-finals. Would the Spurs have fared better? I doubt it but I will say I can’t picture them giving up like the guys that beat them did.
Tell that to the Suns last year, or the Thunder this year, or maybe the Kings next year.
Making the playoffs is HUGE for a squad - it leads to beneficial trades and free agent signings.... but no - it makes "zero impact", presumably because those teams wouldn't win the championship.
Again it would seem that you 1. Understand that my point IS that wholesale change of the birth and seed process will not change the outcome of the finals. 2. You feel that OTHER considerations are worth the NBA risking having entire sections of the country tune out in April. 3. That consideration is for a few teams on the fringe to get into round one while a few other teams on the other edge of the fringe stay home. Go to an OKC board a see how many fans were WANTING to tank and how many were upset about not making the playoffs. Do you think any FA’s are really going to look at Brooklyn as better local than OKC this season because of the play offs? Seriously? And how exactly does being in the play offs as a number 8 seed benefit in trades? Any examples of guys who just had to get on to that number 8 team?
So if I have this right you would eliminate the conferences and there by conference championships. This would require a leveling of the schedules with each team meeting either 2 or 3 times which either reduces the season to 58 games or extend it to 87 games. You know it will not change the outcome but it will give play off births to the top 16 team based on record regardless of location in order to benefit the 15th and maybe 14th seed and to NOT reward the teams with the 16th and 17th or maybe even 18th best record. You would risk large areas of the country tuning out, because of a graph showing large markets have the highest viewership during the regular season. Have I got that right?
