Second round seeding question

[Superman]

If the Warriors manage to put the Mavs away, do they get seeded as the first seed in the next round? In other words, since they're coming out of the first seed bracket, do they take the place of that first seed?

If so, assuming Phoenix and San Antonio finish off their series', the Warriors would play the winner of the Houston/Utah series, and Phoenix and San Antonio (the two best teams left in the West) would face off in the semis.

My memory is foggy on this but isn't this what Stern was trying to avoid? It would kind of take the air out of the WCF if you have the Warriors or Rockets playing the Spurs or the Suns, instead of having the Spurs face the Suns for the Western conference title.

Does anyone know exactly how the second round is going to be seeded?

 

[VF21]

I'm pretty sure it's winner of 1/8 plays winner of 4/5, while winner of 2/7 plays winner of 3/6...

 

[Superman]

I'm pretty sure it's winner of 1/8 plays winner of 4/5, while winner of 2/7 plays winner of 3/6...

That's what I thought. I don't think that's ideal, though.

 

[VF21]

It's not ideal, but had the Spurs and Suns finished first and second the problem wouldn't happen. The fly in the ointment is the Mavericks, who apparently forgot they were the #1 seed.

 

[Bricklayer]

That's what I thought. I don't think that's ideal, though.

the seedings don't change round by round -- you are in a bracket.

The NHL does it the other way (reseeding and changing matchups in the second round depending on who's left).

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I prefer it this way. I think Stern was trying to avoid matchups where the 4 seed was a better team (record wise) than either of the 2/3 seeds thus placing the 1 seed at a disadvantage.

I hate what the NHL has done to their playoffs, but then I'm a hockey purist who prefered everything as it was pre-Bettman. Each time he tweaked the game to make it have more "appeal" I lost slightly more interest to where I now watch ~10-15 NHL games a year.

 

[Bricklayer]

I prefer it this way. I think Stern was trying to avoid matchups where the 4 seed was a better team (record wise) than either of the 2/3 seeds thus placing the 1 seed at a disadvantage.

I hate what the NHL has done to their playoffs, but then I'm a hockey purist who prefered everything as it was pre-Bettman. Each time he tweaked the game to make it have more "appeal" I lost slightly more interest to where I now watch ~10-15 NHL games a year.

there was that tweak last year by Stern to make sure that the Top 4 teams were all seeded according to record (as opposed to being division winners), and that was good.

But the NHL system actually favors the #1 team MORE by assuring that it will meet the absolute weakest opponent possible every round. If the #6 team upsets the #3 team, in the NBA system the #2 team (assumign it won its own series) faces that #6 (would have faced #3 if they had won), while the #1 seed is locked into facing the winner of the #4/#5 series. So that #2 team could have the easier second round matchup than the #1 team. In the NHL, since they ressed every round, the #1 seed would first play the #8, then get to siwng over and play the #6, and then play whoever was left on the other side. Favors the #1 more, makes it even harder for the low seeds (who are always locked into having to face thre best remaining team). This is that while that's an interesting approach, it makes far more sensee in hockey where upsets are fairly routine and being a top seed no guarantee, than in the NBA where the top seeds already overwhelming advance.

 

[Superman]

the seedings don't change round by round -- you are in a bracket.

The NHL does it the other way (reseeding and changing matchups in the second round depending on who's left).

Didn't you and I debate about how unlikely it would be that the number one seed gets ousted in the first round of the playoffs? That was the one exception to the new system, keeping a division "loser" from being the number four seed if they have the second best record in the conference. It works fine if #1 doesn't lose to #8, but that's about to change.

I still think they should reseed every round, in order to maintain the excitement/competitiveness of the conference finals. Let's face it: if the Rockets or Warriors play the Suns or Spurs in the WCF, it's practically a foregone conclusion who will represent the West in the Finals. The Warriors are in the Mavs heads, but they're not good enough to compete with either of the other top teams in the West.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

there was that tweak last year by Stern to make sure that the Top 4 teams were all seeded according to record (as opposed to being division winners), and that was good.

But the NHL system actually favors the #1 team MORE

I agree that the NHL system favors the #1 seed more. Way too much imho, and that's why I dislike it (on top of destroying the historical division structure of the NHL). If I don't have a dog in the hunt I always root for the underdog.