There has been a lot of talk about the way the NBA has gone about formatting their playoffs. People have long complained about a lesser conference getting certain teams in just because eight from that part of the league have to. Theoretically, and very often, it means teams from the “stronger” conference have a few teams left out who have better records than a few who get in from the weaker side.
All the fan anger, really.
It happens. Nearly every year. We tend to complain about it. Then we move on because some guy from the Chicago Cubs is apparently the next Mickey Mantle or something. Still, almost everyone acknowledges something should be done to rectify that, or at least make it so only the best 16 teams get in the playoffs — regardless of conference alignment.
Along with, approximately, a billion other “fantasy booking the NBA” things, tinkering with the playoffs seems to be one of the more realistic aspects that can change. With that being said: Let’s take a look at what the NBA Playoffs would look like this year if Adam Silver — and the owners — decided the best 16 teams should get in, and be seeded by best overall record.
Note: After that, we will comment on if it is a feasible endeavor.
- 1- Golden State v 16- Boston
- 2- Atlanta v 15- Milwaukee
- 3- Houston v 14- Oklahoma City
- 4- L.A. Clippers v 13- New Orleans
- 5- Memphis v 12- Washington
- 6- San Antonio v 11- Toronto
- 7- Cleveland v 10- Dallas
- 8- Portland v 9- Chicago
Some things of note certainly happened. The Western Conference only got one extra team in. Meaning the “much inferior” Eastern Conference still managed to get seven; Cleveland, a two-seed in the regular brackets in the Eastern Conference, falls all the way to a seven; and Golden State playing against Boston in the first round actually seems silly from a travel standpoint. It is almost an unfair advantage to teams who are playing closer together.
Logistically, yes, it looks like it could end up a nightmare. One of the primary reasons the conferences are setup the way they are happen to be to avoid unneeded amounts of travel. It is like that in every sport. Having a “true-seeded” NBA Playoffs would be like playing Russian Roulette as far as that is concerned. One year it might work out fine, while another year can see the NBA using up all the jet fuel in the world — surely causing a future zombie apocalypse.
That is the fist immediate hiccup in the true-seeding brackets. There are solutions to it, though we may end up down a very slippery slope of fantasy booking the NBA Bill Simmons style. Eh, let’s do it.
I believe this is called infringement, Joe.
Basically, at least in my opinion, the NBA Playoffs should be held at a few different regional locations, much like the NCAA Tournament. Example: The first two rounds are played in your house, the final two in mine.
A huge issue does come up with that, unfortunately. We would be asking NBA owners to give up home-game money. And if we have learned anything about people with money — they want to keep as much as they have, and then make more than it. Honestly, it is hard to blame them for wanting to give up something they don’t actually have to.
There could be, theoretically, some way to divide the money up from the regional games to the owners, though. With the possibility of saving travel costs (hotel, flights, etc.), coupled in with splitting ticket and concession sales, it could work. Keyword being “could”.
It doesn’t mean it is likely. Even with logistics clearly being a problem, there are solutions (likely far better than mine) out there. Or, at least, ideas of solutions that can be discussed without being shoved immediately to the wayside in disgust.
That is the biggest issue. Unless UPS can lend some of their logistic experts, it might be too much to overcome. Owners don’t like to change. They just don’t. If given truth serum, some would even admit they would prefer the regular season to be shorter to add some sense urgency, but all would acknowledge they would never want to lose home-game revenue — which is the main issue if my solution of regional sites were to be adopted.
There’s also a funny thing about everything circling back around. This year it is people complaining about the East being an abomination to the senses (remember, they got seven teams in the true-seeding bracket). In a few years, it will be the opposite. Conference runs of dominance seem to be reciprocal. If a person’s lone reason to want true-seeding is a conference’s ineptness, tell him to chill, give it a few years and things will turnaround. Granted, the people who usually want true-seeding are those whose favorite team has a better record (say OKC) than a team who got in from the “worst” conference (Brooklyn… always Brooklyn).
It is hard to make heads or tails from this. Personally, and of course it is because I am selfish as well as it being my idea, the concept that the playoffs could be held at regional sites, while using true-seeding, seems swell. Get the best 16 teams in the playoffs, use the regional settings to make the series all feel more like “events” such as the Super Bowl or NCAA Tournament, lack of travel will cut down days between each game in a series, and allow for a much more consistent stretch of good first round games year-over-year.
Call me greedy. Call me selfish. Call me all the negative adjectives. Just don’t call the idea of true-seeding the NBA Playoffs impossible, because it isn’t. We just have to MacGyver the heck out of the entire thing with some duct tape. The NBA Playoffs, like life, provide us with endless opportunities and are open to countless possibilities.
Adam Silver and the owners, the NBA is your ocean — the playoffs your oyster. Make us some fine seafood or something. Likely something, but forget semantics and a reasonable column. This is April, man.