NBA considering change to playoff seeding?

[VF21]

Jeff Zillgitt ‏@JeffZillgitt 2m2 minutes ago
NBA moving forward w/plan to seed conference playoff teams 1-8 regardless of division winner starting in 15-16, per high-ranking NBA exec.

 

[kingsboi]

ummm....yes please!

 

[Capt. Factorial]

It's a start. I'd be interested in seeing the top-16 records get in regardless of conference, but I know there are obvious logistical/schedule balance issues that would need to be worked out. This can pretty much be done now with little negative consequence.

 

[IfAt1st]

Called it.

The Spurs should never have gone up against the Clippers in the first round - that was a huge mistake, caused by the current seeding system.
I would bet that next year there will be changes to the playoff structure, and you can virtually guarantee that if so, Divisional-champion-preferred-seeding is the thing that will be eliminated next year, and they will look into a Top 16 in later years. The Trailblazers should not have been seeded #4 just because they won the Northwest division.

 

[luckynuMBer10]

It's official.....

http://www.nba.com/2015/news/09/08/nba-to-seed-conference-playoff-teams-by-record/index.html

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Fine, I'll stand alone on the other side: I hate this decision. And I'm going to hate the one that now seems eminent following this one a thousand times more.

 

[miltonap]

This division seeding thing was fairly new right? I remember watching back in the day and I didn't remember anything about division seeding

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

"Fairly new" is hard to quantify. Something that's "fairly new" to me isn't necessarily "fairly new" to @bajaden, for example. But I will say that I remember the two division winners automatically receiving the top two seeds in the conference as far back as 1995. So, if twenty years ago is "fairly new" for you then, sure. Otherwise, not really.

 

[King Baller]

Fine, I'll stand alone on the other side: I hate this decision. And I'm going to hate the one that now seems eminent following this one a thousand times more.

Care to explain why? I'm having trouble seeing a down side?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Because it offends my sensibilities? Why do I need to give you a reason?

 

[HndsmCelt]

Ok so now what is the point of having divisions? Might as well just divide the league by conference and drop the pretense. The division is now officially the appendix of the NBA.

 

[whozit]

Ok so now what is the point of having divisions? Might as well just divide the league by conference and drop the pretense. The division is now officially the appendix of the NBA.

Bragging rights?

 

[VF21]

Because it offends my sensibilities? Why do I need to give you a reason?

I was going to ask the same thing, primarily out of curiosity.

 

[VF21]

Ok so now what is the point of having divisions? Might as well just divide the league by conference and drop the pretense. The division is now officially the appendix of the NBA.

It seems likely revamping divisions will be next on the agenda.

 

[King Baller]

Because it offends my sensibilities? Why do I need to give you a reason?

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

It seems likely revamping divisions will be next on the agenda.

Perhaps. As pointed out, divisions are basically irrelevant now. In-conference scheduling is not unbalanced, outside of a small deficit of games (3 instead of 4) against 4 of the 14 opponents, if I recall correctly. Those may all be out of division, so maybe there's a tiny effect of the division on schedule balance but other than that divisions may as well not exist, so why start messing with them? Completely eliminate them? I could see that, I guess. But there's not much reason to shuffle teams around within them, I don't think.

 

[luckynuMBer10]

If the NBA were to eliminate divisions all together, I propose the following...

30 teams
2 conferences
15 teams in the western conference
15 teams in the eastern conference
0 divisions
3 games (alternate between seasons....1 season have it be 2 home and 1 away, and then the next have it be 1 home and 2 away) against all other teams from same conference = 14 teams x 3 games = 42 GAMES
2 games (home and away) against all teams from other conference = 30 GAMES
72 GAMES TOTAL (Shortens NBA season by 10 games)

Postseason teams = 12 per conference
Top 4 get first round bye
5 vs 12 (single game elimination)
6 vs 11 (single game elimination)
7 vs 10 (single game elimination)
8 vs 9 (single game elimination)
Winners of first round matches go on to play top 4 teams
Rest of postseason remains as currently is.



Draft lottery

6 team playoff

Top 2 get first round bye
3 vs 6 (single game elimination)
4 vs 5 (single game elimination)
Winners of first round matches go on to play top 2 teams (single game elimination)
Winners then play a best of 3 series to determine number 1 pick (losing team obviously picks 2nd)
Other 4 eliminated teams enter a mini lottery to determine order of picks from 3 to 6......

Picks 7 to 30 are determined by regular season record, with the only exception being that the NBA champions pick last.


Go ahead. Call me crazy. I probably deserve the title at this point.

 

[VF21]

If the NBA were to eliminate divisions all together, I propose the following...

30 teams
2 conferences
15 teams in the western conference
15 teams in the eastern conference
0 divisions
3 games (alternate between seasons....1 season have it be 2 home and 1 away, and then the next have it be 1 home and 2 away) against all other teams from same conference = 14 teams x 3 games = 42 GAMES
2 games (home and away) against all teams from other conference = 30 GAMES
72 GAMES TOTAL (Shortens NBA season by 10 games)

Postseason teams = 12 per conference
Top 4 get first round bye
5 vs 12 (single game elimination)
6 vs 11 (single game elimination)
7 vs 10 (single game elimination)
8 vs 9 (single game elimination)
Winners of first round matches go on to play top 4 teams
Rest of postseason remains as currently is.



Draft lottery

6 team playoff

Top 2 get first round bye
3 vs 6 (single game elimination)
4 vs 5 (single game elimination)
Winners of first round matches go on to play top 2 teams (single game elimination)
Winners then play a best of 3 series to determine number 1 pick (losing team obviously picks 2nd)
Other 4 eliminated teams enter a mini lottery to determine order of picks from 3 to 6......

Picks 7 to 30 are determined by regular season record, with the only exception being that the NBA champions pick last.


Go ahead. Call me crazy. I probably deserve the title at this point.

I actually kind of like this. The problem I see first is in fewer games per season since that means less revenue for both the teams and the league itself (broadcast revenue). It's certainly worth discussing, however.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Similarly but more simply, they could just expand to 32, have 2 games out of conference and 3 games in, and that gets to a still high but perhaps more palatable 77 if my math is correct (it probably isn't).

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Go ahead. Call me crazy. I probably deserve the title at this point.

OK, you're crazy! But I'll at least explain what I don't think works.

72 GAMES TOTAL (Shortens NBA season by 10 games)

Due to revenue reasons, the NBA will not reduce the number of game on the schedule. In fact, I would assume that the national TV contract probably either requires the season to stay the same length or is prorated based on the actual number of games played. Five fewer home games hurts local revenue, too. 82 games is here to stay.

Postseason teams = 12 per conference

Only 6 teams miss the playoffs? What is this, hockey?

Top 4 get first round bye
5 vs 12 (single game elimination)
6 vs 11 (single game elimination)
7 vs 10 (single game elimination)
8 vs 9 (single game elimination)
Winners of first round matches go on to play top 4 teams
Rest of postseason remains as currently is.

And again, 16 teams a year go to single-elimination? The NBA hasn't done anything resembling single elimination in my memory, if ever. I can't recall any series under best of 5.

Draft lottery

6 team playoff

Top 2 get first round bye
3 vs 6 (single game elimination)
4 vs 5 (single game elimination)
Winners of first round matches go on to play top 2 teams (single game elimination)
Winners then play a best of 3 series to determine number 1 pick (losing team obviously picks 2nd)
Other 4 eliminated teams enter a mini lottery to determine order of picks from 3 to 6......

Picks 7 to 30 are determined by regular season record, with the only exception being that the NBA champions pick last.

"Lottery Playoff" proposals are usually pretty much DOA. The whole point of a lottery is to give the worst teams the best picks. This sort of proposal can force legitimately bad teams to miss out on top picks, which can easily turn into a vicious cycle. The only thing that remotely rescues it here is that only 6 teams are in it, so bad teams can only be hurt a bit instead of a lot, but I still think you've got perverse incentives here. The #9-12 teams in each conference have a tough position. They're going to have to go on the road for a 1-game playoff just for a chance to play a great team who is almost certainly going to eliminate them, and for their trouble, they lose any possibility of picking higher than #7 - a zero chance of moving up instead of a small one. The last two or three teams in each conference would probably spend the last month of the season tanking far harder than any teams tank now, just for the opportunity to "drop" into the 6-team playoff, dominate it, and get the #1 pick. I totally understand the concern about tanking, but I don't think this fixes it - in fact it may create some perverse incentives to increase it.

I'll give you one thing, you've proposed pretty radical changes. But the NBA isn't going to go out and buy a new house because they're not really keen on the kitchen faucet. Realistically, baby-step changes are the only thing you're likely to get.

 

[The Hammer]

Because it offends my sensibilities? Why do I need to give you a reason?

You don't "need" to give him a reason.

He asked you a question. Because this is a discussion forum.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You don't "need" to give him a reason.

He asked you a question. Because this is a discussion forum.

, right back at you.

"He asked me a question"? Fine. Here's my answer:

Because.

 

[The Hammer]

, right back at you.

"He asked me a question"? Fine. Here's my answer:

Because.

Fine.

In addition, I'd be in favor of some simple manners and graciousness training for the mods.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Good luck with that.

 

[The Hammer]

Good luck with that.

I'll need it.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Does this mean that I'm not invited to the housewarming party?

 

[King Baller]

Does this mean that I'm not invited to the housewarming party?

Still pouting over no Division winners I see

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

"Pouting" is a gross overstatement of my opinion on this matter. When they inevitably go to "Top 16," then you'll see me pouting. This? Not pouting. If people would stop replying to me, I would have stopped posting in this thread a day and a half ago. Hell, my last four posts in this thread haven't had anything to do with this decision, at all: I've pretty much just been replying to people who are @-ing me in their posts. I would have been perfectly content to make it known, for the record, that I'm not on the "pro" side of this issue, and let it go at that.

It's like when I tell people that I don't like football: it's not enough for me to just say I don't like it, they insist on knowing why not: what do you mean you don't like football? What do you mean you don't like getting rid of division winners? Look, I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade. I'm not here trying to harass people for being happy; I'm happy that y'all are happy. But, I feel like I'm entitled to come in here, as long as I don't bash the decision (which I didn't), or say anything disrespectful about the decision (which I didn't), or anybody who supports the decision (which I didn't), and say that I don't like it.

 

[luckynuMBer10]

OK, you're crazy! But I'll at least explain what I don't think works.



Due to revenue reasons, the NBA will not reduce the number of game on the schedule. In fact, I would assume that the national TV contract probably either requires the season to stay the same length or is prorated based on the actual number of games played. Five fewer home games hurts local revenue, too. 82 games is here to stay.



Only 6 teams miss the playoffs? What is this, hockey?



And again, 16 teams a year go to single-elimination? The NBA hasn't done anything resembling single elimination in my memory, if ever. I can't recall any series under best of 5.



"Lottery Playoff" proposals are usually pretty much DOA. The whole point of a lottery is to give the worst teams the best picks. This sort of proposal can force legitimately bad teams to miss out on top picks, which can easily turn into a vicious cycle. The only thing that remotely rescues it here is that only 6 teams are in it, so bad teams can only be hurt a bit instead of a lot, but I still think you've got perverse incentives here. The #9-12 teams in each conference have a tough position. They're going to have to go on the road for a 1-game playoff just for a chance to play a great team who is almost certainly going to eliminate them, and for their trouble, they lose any possibility of picking higher than #7 - a zero chance of moving up instead of a small one. The last two or three teams in each conference would probably spend the last month of the season tanking far harder than any teams tank now, just for the opportunity to "drop" into the 6-team playoff, dominate it, and get the #1 pick. I totally understand the concern about tanking, but I don't think this fixes it - in fact it may create some perverse incentives to increase it.

I'll give you one thing, you've proposed pretty radical changes. But the NBA isn't going to go out and buy a new house because they're not really keen on the kitchen faucet. Realistically, baby-step changes are the only thing you're likely to get.

As for your revenue comments, you make a good point, but by increasing the number of teams going to the postseason, you also increase the number of national TV games shown, which kind of does make up for the 10 game decrease per team in the regular season.

More than 6 teams miss out on the hockey postseason.

If the NCAA can send 64+ teams to a single elimination game, then so can the NBA.

Obviously, there is no one right answer to the draft situation. No matter what method is implemented, there are going to be fans out there who will complain. And, I disagree with your assessment that the higher seeds will always prevail. Take, for example, the top 4......by the top 4, I do not mean the top 4 with the best record out of the teams who miss the postseason. I mean the 4 teams with the worst record......Which means that, in the second round, the 4 "home" teams will actually be the ones with the 4 worst records that season. I don't necessarily see that as having an advantage, as they would have to knock off a better team. Yeah, ok the home court advantage comes into play but, honestly, how often do you see the worst team in the NBA in a given season even win on their home floor???????

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If the NCAA can send 64+ teams to a single elimination game, then so can the NBA.

Aren't there something like 330-odd colleges and universities that qualify as Division I for basketball, though? It's not really a comparable situation: it's not like those 64+ teams make up half, or even a fourth, of the schools playing Division I ball. There are already more than half of the teams in the NBA that get into the playoffs; we don't need more teams to get in, we need less.