I don't really think the series had started. If they had lost game 3 (meaning a team winning on the road) then yes, it would have "started" and ended in the same game. 2 teams blowing eachother out on eachothers home court really doesnt = the start of a grueling playoff series to me.
I guess agree to disagree here. But again, no road wins means top seed moving on. Which means you could have just not done the series at all.
If we go to Game 5 with four blowouts, but the road teams went 4-0 instead of the home team, what's the difference? The series started in Game 1, according to your criteria, but Game 5 is just as crucial for both teams. A 2-2 series means it's a best of three, regardless of who won what game by how many. It's tied up and someone is going to be on the ropes after that game; does it matter who? The playoffs are set up so that the team with the better record has the advantage of playing the most games at home, but that's generally not the reason they win the series. They generally win the series because they're the better team, and that's why they had home court advantage in the first place. It's up to the lower seeded team to steal that advantage, if they can, but even if they can't, they have the opportunity to even it up if they win their home games. I don't see how that lessens the series if that happens.
And if you think that seven games = no games just because the home team went 7-0, ask the Celtics if they would have preferred a first round bye to going back and forth to Atlanta, even though they took care of home. Might as well have not played, right? But here they are in the second round, showing the same struggles that plagued them on the road in the Hawks series, and it could potentially cost them a shot at the title. But that series hasn't started yet, right?
In the '98 ECF, the Bulls and Pacers went seven games, with the home team not losing a game. That was one of the most competitive, hard-fought series in the last decade, maybe the most competitive. I have a soft spot in my heart for the 2002 WCF, but the objective fan in me says that that series was tops. There was fighting, there was bickering, there was drama (always was with Reggie Miller), and there were broken hearts. Probably Reggie Miller's best shot at a ring, even though he made it to the Finals two years later, only to be cut down again by a Phil Jackson super squad.
According to you, that series never even started. I reject that notion.
Like I said, I understand your gripe about the blowouts and all that, but let's not get so caught up in silly cliches that we ignore the fact that every win and every loss is crucial in the playoffs, whether it's at home or not, whether you have home court advantage or not. The series starts when the ball goes up in Game 1, and that's why they play the games.
