Tanking in the NBA

[buzzcut]

One of the main controversies going around the media recently has been the idea that certain teams in the NBA are purposely losing games in order to gain a WORSE seed in the NBA playoffs. What I'm asking all of you is what changes do you want to do to the playoff format(Seeding, Length of series, etc.).

My idea is simply to take the six division winners and the next 10 teams in the overall standings to form the playoff field. The seeds would be based STRICTLY on overall regular season record.

The first round pairings(2005/06 season, as of Monday):

1 Detroit vs. 16 Chicago

2 San Antonio vs. 15 Indiana

3 Dallas vs. 14 Milwaukee

4 Phoenix vs. 13 Washington

5 Miami vs. 12 Sacramento

6 New Jersey vs. 11 LA Lakers

7 Cleveland vs. 10 Denver

8 Memphis vs. 9 LA Clippers

(All series are 2-game total-points, if tied after 2 games, a 12 minute overtime "mini-game" will be played. The lower seed will host game 1, the higher seed game 2.)

After the first round, the series winners will be re-ranked for the quarterfinals in order of regular season record:

1 vs. 8

2 vs. 7

3 vs. 6

4 vs. 5

(All series are best-of-three(1-1-1 or 1-2 if more than 1500 or so miles apart in distance))

After the quarterfinals, the series winners will be re-ranked for the semifinals

1 vs. 4

2 vs. 3

(Both series are best-of-five(2-2-1))

NBA Finals remain a best-of-seven(2-3-2)

Note: If the moderators deem this thread as being suitable for the Concepts board rather than Sports in General, I will not object to the move.)

[CC97]

I'm saying no, because the amount of games for each series is just way too low.

2 games total points in round 1?

best of 3 in round 2??

best of 5 in the semis???

They got rid of best of 5 in the FIRST round for a very good reason

[Cujo]

I think the NBA should just go to an 8-team playoff system. Kind of like MLB's current format (but with all series' being 7 games), take the three division winners and one wild card and have them play it out. You hardly ever see a team seeded 5 thru 8 make the conference finals and usually you'll have a couple of those teams are under .500 which make it even more unnecessary for having all the lower seeds in the playoffs.

In other words, the first round is a joke. It seems like 95% of the time, the 1 thru 4 seeds come out on top and you wont see these teams tanking to get a better first-round matchup. It's not like the Clips or Grizz are going to make it past the second round anyways.

[officeglenn]

I would also say no, not only for the reasons Chris pointed out, but I think it would also create too many cross-country trips in early rounds (even in your example, you have Miami-Sacramento and New Jersey-L.A. Lakers), which I'm sure those teams would be none too happy about and could wear them out for later rounds.

There probably isn't a perfect way to do things, but what the NBA has now is pretty good all things considered. I don't agree with the division winners getting the top three seeds, especially when there might be another team with a better record in another division. But there still needs to be some sort of incentive for winning one's division.

[Tentomushi5150]

I think if you just had the order go by record, there wouldn't be any problems. Keep the series at 7 games, just don't give a division winner a guaranteed top 3 seed. I think that's the only problem with the current system.

[HedleyLamarr]

The NBA should simplify things.

1. Reward a team for winning it's division by giving them HC in the first round. Keep the division winners as the top three seeds.

2. Use the conventional bracket. The 1-vs-8 winner plays the 4-vs-5 winner, and the 2-vs-7 winner plays the 3-vs-6 winner, with the higher seeded team getting HC, regardless of the regular season records.

[NJTank]

Yeah that may work, but how often will a Division winner be that much weaker then the 4th Seed?