Interconference Playoffs

[Reality]

To do away with one NBA Finalist having a much easier route to the Finals then the other, would you favor InterConference Playoff seedings?

Amare Stoudamire might be back to 90%+ for the season.  Okay lets say he is.  This makes just yet another good team in the West, while the East Conf the past few years gets to skate until the EC Finals.  Okay, we learned not to diss the East and it's two New Jersey Finals bow outs when Larry Brown and Detroit won '04.  Preseason we all thought the West would roll.  After L.A. upset San Antonio some still thought the West would win.

Last year Miami has to beat a Flippy Detroit team, but gets to skate in the earlier rounds.  Sternfish has made things much better by finally getting the playoff seeding correct according to record beginning in 2007.  However, do you think it would be much fairer if
InterConference seedings made up the playoffs?

For example last year:
1 Detroit 64 18  
2 San Antonio 63 19
3 Dallas 60 22  
4 Phoenix 54 28
5. Miami 52 30 .
6  Cleveland 50 32
7 New Jersey 49 33
8 Memphis 49 33
9  LA Clippers 47 35
10 LA Lakers 45 37 .549  
11 Denver 44 38 .537  
12 Sacramento 44 38  
13  Washington 42 40  
14  Indiana 41 41  
15 Chicago 41 41  
16 Utah 41-41
Or, since West teams only play East teams twice in the reg season, toss out the idea?  As the records may not reflect the true strength of schedule.  ie Memphis and Jersey have same record, but did Memphis have to work much harder to get their 49 wins?

[Joe Vancil]

If you're going to have InterConference seedings, why wouldn't you take a 41 win Utah team instead of Milwaukee?

I would NOT support interconference seedings/playoffs.

I WOULD support the idea of dropping divisions from 6 back to 4.

[Lurker]

Not really sure what interconference seeding would accomplish...half of top 8 teams came from each conference.  The only change in the playoffs last year would have been Utah in place of Milwaukee.  The biggest problem with the seedings has been addressed...except IMO the division winners should be guaranteed a playoff spot not a top 4 seed.  If you win your division with the 8th best record in the conference then you should be the 8th seed not the 4th.

[Reality]

Yes but the West was 2-3-4.
East was 13-14-15-16.

Miami would have had to have faced the Artest Kings in Round 1.

InterConf seeding would seed according to strength.  Or would it, since E only plays W 2 reg season games per year. :huh:

So Sternfish is giving the Div winner a top 4 seed irregardless of record in '07?
Boo!  I thought he was going to implement the way you suggested, Conf record period.

[ziggy]

No team plays exactly the same schedule, so trying to make a process that deals with every team, seeded based upon records, doesn't necessarily improve the process.  Do all teams play the same number of back to backs?  Do all teams play the same # of home and road back to backs?  Do all teams have the same road trips (length, # of games, distance traveled etc.).  There are a lot of issues that play into a season record, beyond just quality of talent, and injuries, and quality of coaching.  So what, lifes a bitch.  The Lakers and the Clips get to play 2 road games a season at home.  So what.  The Jazz and Denver play a lot of games at higher altitude, so what.  Can't make it perfectly fair so don't get all caught up in the inequities.

First and foremost, to win the championship you have to beat everybody you play, so who cares if you play SA in round 1, 2, 3, or 4.  You still have to beat them.  No system no matter how you implement is going to make for a totally fair result.

I have no problem giving the team with the better record home court advantage no matter what, and I am not averse to seeding teams according to record.  Give some advantage for playing well in the regular season, but beyond that you can't make it perfectly fair, so do your best and get on with it.

[rickortreat]

Some years the West has more quality teams and some years the East does.  Philly and Boston had to beat each up year after year just for the priveledge of facing the Lakers who cakewalked through the West.

I like the idea.  Why should it always be the Eastern Conference vs. the West?  Why shouldn't two WC teams be in the finals or two EC teams.  From the NBA head office, this would be a bad idea.  They want as many people engaged in watching the playoffs across the country.  Would people in LA tune in to watch the Pistons and the Heat as much as they would if it were Phoenix and the Heat in the finals?

It's set up this way for that reason, IMO.

 

[Reality]

I have no problem giving the team with the better record home court advantage no matter what, and I am not averse to seeding teams according to record.  Give some advantage for playing well in the regular season, but beyond that you can't make it perfectly fair, so do your best and get on with it.

RT and I would like to see a full on league seeding by record.  I also was dismayed at the old Celts and 6ers having to duke it out while the Stern Lakers waltzed thru the Mild Mild West.

However I could "settle" for each Conf seeding going by record only, that would be a huge improvement.

Lord Sternyfish has done neither.  I looked it up.
R1 will still have 1-2-3 seed award going to the 3 Division winners and the 4th seed being the non div winner with the best record.

Hence a setting like last years Denver 44-38 seeded above Dallas 60-22 will continue for Round 1. :rolleyes:

Round 2 on will be seeded by record beginning this year.  :cheers:   That is Sterns breakthru.  

[Lurker]

Sorry, reality....but the REALITY of the situation is that the way you described it is no change.  There is a change; the 3 division winners + the top record among non-division winning teams will be seeded 1-4 BASED ON RECORD.  So based on last year's records the seedings would have been:
1. Spurs
2. Mavs
3. Suns
4. Nuggets

[Reality]

Ouch.  I was just delivered that news 1 minute prior to reading your post.

While improving on Round 1, this new system ensures that division winners will be seeded in the top four, regardless of how weak the division may be. However, there may still be occurrences of a higher seed with a worse record facing a lower seed with a better record. :nonono:

So will Round 2 be reseeded by record?  Why did i think that?  Or was that proposed and Lord Stern vetoed the idea?
 

[Lurker]

So will Round 2 be reseeded by record?  Why did i think that?  Or was that proposed and Lord Stern vetoed the idea?

Never suggested because then you would scramble the brackets and make it easier for some team....

For example:

Seed 1 (62-20*) vs Seed 8 (41-41)

Seed 4 (41-41*) vs Seed 5 (50-32)

Seed 2 (61-21) vs Seed 7 (42-40)

Seed 3 (58-24*) vs Seed 6 (49-33)
* = division winner

If Seeds 1, 7, 3 & 5 win, then the current playoffs would match 1 vs 5 & 3 vs 7 with best record having homecourt.  If you re-seed then it would be 1 vs 7 and 3 vs 5 which then gives the 3 seed a tougher matchup and the 1 seed an easier team.

The change already made before last season is sufficient...it states that regardless of seed best record get home court.