NBA's best 16 team format
Anyone looking at the standings realizes the NBA's Western Conference is once again much deeper than the Eastern Conference, which could have as many as three sub-.500 teams make the playoffs.
The disparity in the quality of teams has a few folks suggesting the playoff format should be altered so the NBA's best 16 teams -- not the top eight from each conference -- qualify for the playoffs.
It will never happen, of course. But if that format was used and the playoffs started Monday, 11 teams from the West and only five from the East would reach the postseason.
Here's how the first round pairings would look:
UPPER BRACKET
No. 1 Boston vs. No. 16 Sacramento/Washington
No. 8 Utah vs. No. 9 Houston
No. 5 San Antonio vs. No. 12 Denver
No. 4 Phoenix vs. No. 13 Cleveland
LOWER BRACKET
No. 3 L.A. Lakers vs. No. 14 Toronto
No. 6 New Orleans vs. No. 11 Golden State
No. 7 Dallas vs. No. 10 Orlando
No. 2 Detroit vs. No. 15 Portland
If the highest seeds all prevailed, the second-round would pit Boston-Utah, San Antonio-Phoenix, Los Angeles-New Orleans and Detroit-Dallas.
At that point, I'm guessing Boston-San Antonio and Los Angeles-Detroit would meet in the semifinals, with the Spurs meeting the Lakers in the NBA Finals.
What do you think?
-- Steve Luhm
The disparity in the quality of teams has a few folks suggesting the playoff format should be altered so the NBA's best 16 teams -- not the top eight from each conference -- qualify for the playoffs.
It will never happen, of course. But if that format was used and the playoffs started Monday, 11 teams from the West and only five from the East would reach the postseason.
Here's how the first round pairings would look:
UPPER BRACKET
No. 1 Boston vs. No. 16 Sacramento/Washington
No. 8 Utah vs. No. 9 Houston
No. 5 San Antonio vs. No. 12 Denver
No. 4 Phoenix vs. No. 13 Cleveland
LOWER BRACKET
No. 3 L.A. Lakers vs. No. 14 Toronto
No. 6 New Orleans vs. No. 11 Golden State
No. 7 Dallas vs. No. 10 Orlando
No. 2 Detroit vs. No. 15 Portland
If the highest seeds all prevailed, the second-round would pit Boston-Utah, San Antonio-Phoenix, Los Angeles-New Orleans and Detroit-Dallas.
At that point, I'm guessing Boston-San Antonio and Los Angeles-Detroit would meet in the semifinals, with the Spurs meeting the Lakers in the NBA Finals.
What do you think?
-- Steve Luhm
11:33 PM
| 
4 Comments:
With as terrible as the East has been for the last decade (minus Detroit and this year's Boston) the 16-team league-wide play-off is a good idea. Would Stern and Co. ever go for it? I doubt it. They see it like this: If you have two Western teams playing for the Championship, you lose some Eastern audiences (read advertising dollars) for TV. A fair playoff is not always equitable for TV revenues.
The Jazz should have a better seed - I'm not sure your format takes division winners into account.
unless the season schedule is tweaked so that eastern teams face western teams more than twice a year, this system will not work. as it stands today, the two teams with the highest win percentage are detroit and boston and they would get the one/two seeds. most people would argue that these are not the two best teams in the nba. but because they play teams from the east, their records are inflated. i like the mixed league playoff format, but it won't work until the regular season schedule is reworked.
Does it seem like division winners are getting more pointless? Yeah, you're guaranteed a top four seed, but that isn't much. You don't get homecourt advantage. Yes, you may get to play a lesser team in a 5-seed rather than a 2-seed, but I'd like to see more at stake to win the division. Otherwise, I'd like to get rid of the divisions, and everybody plays everybody randomly.
Post a Comment
<< Home