What if the best teams made it to the playoffs? That would be cool. I have a radical idea that no one else seems to share. Do away with all Divisions and Conferences. We don't need them. They are just arbitrarily decided. I'll admit that in basketball the East and West is a good way to split up the teams. But look at Baseball and Football. What makes a team AFC or NFC, AL or NL? Some stupid old tradition.
Does anyone really care if their team wins their division? The only reason you care is because it guarantees a spot in the playoffs. But wouldn't most teams with a record good enough to win their division make the playoffs anyways? And if they only win their division because the rest of the teams in it suck, what happens? Everyone complains because they're in the playoffs only because of a weak division. And what compounds the matter is that teams normally play more games against teams in their own division. So if your division stinks not only can you climb to the top of it easily, but a good portion of your wins come against crappy teams.
The whole thing is silly. The best 16 teams should make the playoffs, end of story. The only reason to maybe keep divisions are the rivalries. Which I think could still exist without the divisions, due to geographical proximity or something.
Take a look at what the playoffs would like if the season ended today. I have played out the entire playoffs with the team with the better record advancing to the next round just as an example. To make the comparison to my system I have seeded all 16 teams according to their record (instead 1-8 for East and 1-8 for West).
Under the current system:
Round 1
E (7) Detroit vs (14) Milwaukee; (17) New Jersey vs (9) Chicago
E (10) Washington vs (11) Orlando; (8) Cleveland vs (13) Indiana
W (1) Dallas vs (15) Golden State; (4) SA vs (5) LA Lakers
W (3) Utah vs (6) Houston; (2) Phoenix vs (12) Denver
Round 2
E (7) Detroit vs (9) Chicago; (10) Washingon vs (8) Cleveland
W (1) Dallas vs (4) SA; (3) Utah vs (2) Phoenix
Round 3
E (7) Detroit vs (8) Cleveland
W (1) Dallas vs (2) Phoenix
Finals
(7) Detroit vs (1) Dallas
Under my system:
Round 1
(1) Dallas vs (16) Minnesota; (7) Detroit vs (10) Washington
(5) LA Lakers vs (12) Denver; (3) Utah vs (14) Milwaukee
(4) SA vs (13) Indiana; (6) Houston vs (11) Orlando
(8) Cleveland vs (9) Chicago; (2) Phoenix vs (15) Golden State
Round 2
(1) Dallas vs (7) Detroit; (5) LA Lakers vs (3) Utah
(4) SA vs (6) Houston; (8) Cleveland vs (2) Phoenix
Round 3
(1) Dallas vs (3) Utah; (4) SA vs (2) Phoenix
Finals
(1) Dallas vs (2) Phoenix
Couple of things to note here:
1. I ranked NJ 17 because they have the 17th best record in the league. They're not even .500 for goodness sake!
2. I included Minnesota in my playoffs because they have the 16th best record and are at least .500. Sorry NJ, that .419 record wasn't cutting it.
3. The Finals now if there were no upsets would be Dallas and Detroit. Which sounds good except that Detroit is much worse this year. You have the #1 seed playing the #7 seed in the Finals! Dallas's record is .160 points higher than Detroit's!
4. In the current system Utah and SA don't make it past the second round. They are two of the best teams right now!
5. I'll admit that the first round under the current system is a little better matched but only in the West because all of the teams are so good. Which leads me to my next crazy idea...
Get rid of the first round of playoffs. Yeah, I said it. Having 16 teams (more than half of the league) going to the playoffs is ridiculous. Every year there are a couple .500 teams that make the playoffs and sometimes a sub .500 team. The playoffs should be a reward. Not to mention with the exception of last year the first round of the playoffs is usually a joke. Having Dallas play Golden State right now would be hilarious (except for Golden State fans). The only occasionally good matchup is the #4 vs #5. And in the first round of the 2005 playoffs two matchups ended 4-0 and three ended 4-1.
Besides, players and many fans already complain about the playoffs being too long and how it's almost like a second season. Here is what I propose instead...
There are 30 teams. Get rid of the divisions all together. Everyone plays each other 3 times during the regular season for a total of 90 regular season games. But only 8 teams make the playoffs. So I added 8 games to the end of the regular season but subtracted 4-7 games from the end of the season. Then 8 teams with the best records make the playoffs, straight up. If two or more teams tie for record then compare their head-to-head records. One team will have gone 2-1 or 3-0 against their opponent.
So here is how the playoffs would look now:
Round 1
(1) Dallas vs (8) Cleveland; (4) SA vs (5) LA Lakers
(3) Utah vs (6) Houston; (2) Phoenix vs (7) Detroit
Round 2
(1) Dallas vs (4) SA; (3) Utah vs (2) Phoenix
Finals
(1) Dallas vs (2) Phoenix
Now every matchup is good. I would also be for a 60 game season where every team played each other twice. I'll end with a quote I found from a sports writer:
If someone suggested that Major League Baseball junk the National League versus American League format in the World Series, its fans would go ballistic. This fan included, being a traditionalist.
But the NFL playoffs would sure be a lot more attractive next month if the NFC didn't receive six playoff berths automatically. The four best teams in football are in the AFC...
I say change them all. Comments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ga-dang! Jimi gets longest post award. Thanks for the homework? =)
I like what you have going there, seems really logical. However, I do think it does away with some of the rivalries which are good for the sport.
Where is the piece about how they changed the rankings this season? Inquiring minds want to know!
I did notice that they changed the rankings this year so that a repeat of Dallas-SA in the second round doesn't happen again.
That was stupid.
(to jimi's comment above) just a technicality but that change is actually meant to make sure that the 1 & 2 seeds don't meet in the 2nd round. The 2nd & 3rd seeds (assuming they win their first round matchups) still meet in the 2nd round. So... if PHX has the best record, odds are SA & DAL would play in the 2nd round again.
I agree very much with dissolution of the divisions, conferences, etc. I've actually heard this mentioned recently but it was a brief statement rather than thought through commentary.
I think one major advantage that it would bring is more meaning to regular season record. If you're having to eye the seeding for the top 16 teams it can make an enourmous difference; especially to those lower seeds trying to make it through the first round should one climb more toward the middle of the pack.
The only disadvantage I see immediately does have to do with rivalry but more in relation to geography. When the playoffs begin, I can only imagine that one city's fans would be more likely to travel to an away game if it's just a few hour drive. That's gotta be plus for matchups. I'd think that the number regional matchups (LAL-SAC, LAL-LAC, or HOU-DAL-SA for example) would diminish significantly if teams were ranked exclusively by their record.
I can't decide whether dropping to 8 teams is too much... I'd personally agree more with 12 but either way, neither would seem viable due to the almighty dollar.
The 90 game season sounds great (60 games wouldn't work for the same reason above) because that makes the regular season records an odd number (3 as opposed to 4 now) which probably doesn't mean much but I like the fact that no team to have an even record during the regular season.
Good post jimi
i think jer is right. nba is not going to do anything that will lose them money. (although i completely agree with your theory, jimi- there are WAY too many teams that get to go to the playoffs as it is)
i think it's more important to have the league set up in a fair and logical way than to keep rivalries intact. there's got to be more to it, though. right? would the nba keep using an obviously flawed system just to keep the rivalries the way they are? doesn't add up.
I think its clear that they would continue to use an obviously flawed system...just look at the refs!
touche.
Guess what Jimi--Booooooooo!
Thats right!:)
Conferences and Divisions are not "arbitrarily" decided. It all has to with the pain in the ass that is traveling. That is why Cross-conference teams are only played 2 times each.
The way the system is now, a team like Boston only has to go to LA twice a year. Once to play the Lakers, and once for the Clippers. And those teams only got to come to boston once a year. Sometimes the far away teams are hit on same trip, whether it is two LA teams' games, or one LA team and, maybe, Golden State...
Of the 82 games a season: 30 are cross-conference, 52 are in-conference. Of those 52 games: 16 (4 games per team) are in-division and 36 are cross-division. Of those 36 games: 6 teams are played 4 times each, and 4 teams are played 3 times each.
If, we took the season as it is set up now, but, instead took best 16 records, the rankings would still be rather unfair. I believe potentially more unfair than they can sometimes be now. Say the West just happened to have the 5 best teams some season (i don't mean by record, i mean actually the best teams). Now, say the East has 2 pretty good teams and 14 god-awful ones. Being that those two east teams would have inferior competition, their records would be inflated compared to the west; because, the west teams would play a great team every other night and so they would have more losses. This can leave a lesser skilled #1 seed to sweep and be well-rested for next round, while a team that is truely better may be sweating it out 6-7 games as a #2-#3 seed. If your big concern is the two best teams playing eachother b4 the finals, well, a zero-division, non-conference league does not fix that.
The rivalries that develop are not the reason for the divisions, but rather, a byproduct of them. Even though the rivalries are a byproduct, they are a good reason for the divisions. I like playing our division rivals, whom we regularly see in the playoffs, four times a year. Those "playoff rematches" are some of the most exciting and most interesting reg. season games of the year.
The current system also serves as a way for teams to familiarize themselves with who they will be playing in the playoffs. Allowing for more strategy. Unless teams go to the finals, they will only play each cross-conference team twice. Which is fine, cause we are most likely not going to play them anyway. Since, only one team from each side makes it to the finals.
Think of a 3-4 year span where perennial conference leaders see eachother in the playoffs almost every year. There is a good chance we will see our rivals 10 games a year. The manuvering that these frequent matchups create i think is one of the more interesting aspects of the NBA. It is hard to be familiar with all 30 teams, even, when in the NBA. These would probably lead to more general strategies for victory, and less of the "chessgame" strategies it sometimes feels like the coaches are in during these big games.
Your idea of 60 games a season and 3 rounds of finals, takes care of travel problem. But as a fan, i hate when the season is over, and i can't wait for it to start. This system would have the whole thing over in a period that is shorter than the current regular season alone. And, it would have rivals most likely playing eachother twice a year, instead of 4,(or the likely 10 if they expectedly see eachother in the playoffs)
I know you think that the first round of playoffs is a joke, but i disagree. I have seen lots of upsets over the years (especially in hockey, where so much depends on the goalies). Being ranked 1 in your conference, rewards you with the easy first round opponent. But even still, it is not always as easy as one may think. Sometimes, teams slump at end of season. Sometimes good teams become great from late season trades, or jsut a long awaited cohesiveness. (In a 60-games, 3-playoff-round, no-conference system, Detroit would not have made the playoffs at all the last year they won it all)
As for a 90 game season, i think playing all the (what are now) cross-conference teams 3 times each is too big of a travel issue. OF course, we DO NOT play with ourselves, (well not all of us:)), so we would be playing more cross-conference games (45), than we would be playing in-conference games (42). Playing more games 1500-2000 miles from home, than games 150-200 miles away is silly.
I think the current system is carefully crafted to help teams stay fresh while still playing an incredible amount of games in a season. In in-conference games, teams dont usually have to sleep overnight in the away town.
Detroit can fly to chicago, indy, or milw..play a game, and fly back; and, they are still able to maintain a healthy schedule (esp. as far as sleep is concerened) But, when a team flies for 4 hours to play Vancouver or Miami, they gotta sleep there. It is a large enough burden that they usually throw 1 or 2 other teams in area on same road trip. Not just so each team has an equal number of "homecourt adv."
Not only that, but, economically, the system is crafted to cut down travel expenses as much as possible. A road trip across the continent cost a lot more than traveling 200 miles. By using this economically efficient method, teams are able to make things cheaper for fans. Hard to believe, but concessions and tickets would cost more if we played, as you suggest 3 times each team.
There is no perfect system for being economically efficient, travel efficient, and determining who exactly are the best teams. That, i think, is part of the reason there are four rounds of playoffs. By allowing 8 teams from each conference instead of only 4, as you like, it ensures that any team that has a chance at winning the ring gets a chance at it. It is a safty net that makes up for what will always be imperfect reg. season systems of determining the best.
If we only took the top 4 from each conference, there is too great a risk of leaving someone out that deserves to be there; it's just too small of a seleciton. 6 teams on each side of the playoff brackets would not work, it has to be divisible by 4, unless we had a losers bracket as well. I don't think anyone wants that. The next possible choice is 8 teams each bracket. I think this is the only choice that guarentees the best 6ish teams make it to the dance. With a couple extra teams that serve as easy (most the time) opponents to reward the hardworking teams with the best regular season records.
Post a Comment