NBA Playoffs: Change in Format Coming?

[bsj]

Commissioner Adam Silver told reporters during his annual All-Star speech on Saturday that the NBA continues to give “serious attention” to the relative merits of its two-conference playoff format, which includes eight teams each from the Western and Eastern Conferences, and a potential new format that would include the best 16 teams, regardless of conference.

https://www.si.com/nba/2018/02/18/adam-silver-nba-playoffs-format-schedule-warriors-cavaliers-rockets

 

[bsj]

I feel like if you are gonna do this, you need to just bag conferences altogether. Seems clunky as hell to allow teams to play different schedules but then compare them uniquely. Everyone plays everyone else 2-3 times in one big 32 team deal, call it a day.

 

[NoXInNixon]

The big issue with doing away with conferences is time zones, and I don't know how you fix that.

Under a 16 team format, right now the #4 seed Celtics would meet the #13 seed Blazers in the first round. Whatever time you start those games, it will hurt TV ratings compared with a matchup between #2 Boston and #7 Philly.

 

[jon abbey]

This would instantly probably double my interest in the NBA, I have been calling for this for years. This would make for a way better postseason every single year.

 

[54thMA]

So in other words, the NBA is considering what the NHL did from the late 1970's through the early 1980's, just line them up 1-16 and let them have at it.

Interesting.

 

[moondog80]

The big issue with doing away with conferences is time zones, and I don't know how you fix that.

Under a 16 team format, right now the #4 seed Celtics would meet the #13 seed Blazers in the first round. Whatever time you start those games, it will hurt TV ratings compared with a matchup between #2 Boston and #7 Philly.

What if they only did it once they got to the final four?

 

[jon abbey]

What if they only did it once they got to the final four?

You still have the massive structural problem that when the three best teams are in the same conference (or even three of the four best teams), two of them meet in the second round.

 

[Reverend]

You still have the massive structural problem that when the three best teams are in the same conference (or three of the four best teams), two of them meet in the second round.

Yeah, the issue is the initial seeding as much as anything.

Anyone play with the idea of eight from each conference but then seed them in combination based on record?

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Between the NBA looking at this change and trying other tweaks (even if they don't work out), as well as Silver blessing the league's players speaking out on social issues, the Association is without peer in terms of stewardship.

 

[Reverend]

Between the NBA looking at this change and trying other tweaks (even if they don't work out), as well as Silver blessing the league's players speaking out on social issues, the Association is without peer in terms of stewardship.

“A confidant of one owner reached out to gauge whether Adam Silver, the NBA commissioner, would be interested in running the NFL, to which Silver immediately said no. ”

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/21441056/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-bitter-battle-saw-coming-led-dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones

 

[jose melendez]

Jesus. The regular season is boring enough. Watching team vie to be the 13th seed vs the 14th seed is the dullest thing I can think of. It might make the playoffs more exciting, but it might also cut the year in year out rivalries that are so great.

 

[jon abbey]

Jesus. The regular season is boring enough. Watching team vie to be the 13th seed vs the 14th seed is the dullest thing I can think of. It might make the playoffs more exciting, but it might also cut the year in year out rivalries that are so great.

Disagree, right now you have CLE not needing to show up until the playoffs for the fourth season in a row since LeBron came back. This is the weakest of their four teams probably, but they are a ridiculous 36-5 in the last three Eastern Conference playoffs. Under a combined system, they would have to worry much more about their seeding.

Also, not sure why the disdain for the 13th/14th teams in the league, those are just 6 and 7 seeds now. Teams in that range currently are Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Denver and Portland, watching them battle down the stretch sounds pretty entertaining to me.

 

[Marceline]

I like the current setup as is. It creates some compelling early round playoff series, which is a good thing. What is wrong with 2 of the best teams meeting in the 2nd round?

Plus the time zone differences would suck as pointed out above. I really don't want the Celtics having a bunch of 10:30 or 11pm start times and I'm sure fans on the west coast don't want a lot of 5pm start times either.

 

[the moops]

What is wrong with 2 of the best teams meeting in the 2nd round?

Nothing is wrong with it, but for me, I would prefer to see the two best teams in the championship game rather than a potential dud of a game because one conference is significantly weaker than the other.

 

[ElUno20]

Why wouldn't the split the seeds into the different sides of the bracket?

 

[Vinho Tinto]

The big issue with doing away with conferences is time zones, and I don't know how you fix that.

Under a 16 team format, right now the #4 seed Celtics would meet the #13 seed Blazers in the first round. Whatever time you start those games, it will hurt TV ratings compared with a matchup between #2 Boston and #7 Philly.

Between work and family, there is no chance I’d watch a first round Wednesday night Celtics at Portland 10 PM tip off.

 

[Buck Showalter]

Between work and family, there is no chance I’d watch a first round Wednesday night Celtics at Portland 10 PM tip off.

Absolutely agree. This would not be good for the league IMO.

 

[DJnVa]

I like the current setup as is. It creates some compelling early round playoff series, which is a good thing.

And I think the NBA would say they'd rather have compelling late round series.

 

[bankshot1]

I haven't put pen to paper, but is a mixed approach a way to go? For example seed East and West 1-8, play the first two rounds as is, and keep the traditional rivalries intact (for example Celts v Knicks or 76ers, etc) but then take the 4 remaining teams (2 East, 2 West) re-seed them, and if we get a
E v E or W v W, finals, that's the way it is.

The big drawback is the East coast TV markets watching a W v W starting later than 9PM.

 

[JCizzle]

I like the current setup as is. It creates some compelling early round playoff series, which is a good thing. What is wrong with 2 of the best teams meeting in the 2nd round?

Plus the time zone differences would suck as pointed out above. I really don't want the Celtics having a bunch of 10:30 or 11pm start times and I'm sure fans on the west coast don't want a lot of 5pm start times either.

I mean, I'd still watch it because I can't help myself, but a 10pm start time would be killer

 

[cheech13]

I don't see the upside to this as it's a massive change to address what is a relatively small problem. Re-seeding may, and I stress may, make the last two rounds slightly better, but the first and second rounds are likely to be much worse. Plus those first round series are now going to involve more travel (which could impact on the court play and scheduling) and be played in non-traditional time slots while also eliminating historic geographic rivals. I know that the East/West imbalance has been a thing for a while but it's unlikely to persist forever.

Who were the four best teams last year? GS, Cleveland, SA and Houston? So maybe you get slightly more competitive semi-final rounds and an equally noncompetitive Finals? I just don't think that the perceived upside is going to be there in reality. You want more competitive playoff rounds? Cut the number of teams per conference to four or six instead of eight.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Go to 2-3-2 for all rounds if you’re worried about travel. Cross coast games can be scheduled to fall on weekends or play with the schedule as much as possible to optimize viewing.

Out of market, are people really more likely to watch the Cavs wax the weak 8 seed by 25 points than they are to stay up to watch them play a more competitive game and get a challenge?

I get that it’s inconvenient for each coast, but there’s ways to mitigate and it’s worth a shot imo. Maybe bribing in more travel levels the playing field a bit and we don’t see teams coast to the playoffs before even trying because they have a super team and don’t need to.

And I’m sorry but rivalries? I’m not the biggest NBA fan but people really are still clinging to a Celtics rivalry with the Knicks or Sixers? I’d love to see this put in.

 

[bsj]

Go to 2-3-2 for all rounds if you’re worried about travel. Cross coast games can be scheduled to fall on weekends or play with the schedule as much as possible to optimize viewing.

Out of market, are people really more likely to watch the Cavs wax the weak 8 seed by 25 points than they are to stay up to watch them play a more competitive game and get a challenge?

I get that it’s inconvenient for each coast, but there’s ways to mitigate and it’s worth a shot imo. Maybe bribing in more travel levels the playing field a bit and we don’t see teams coast to the playoffs before even trying because they have a super team and don’t need to.

And I’m sorry but rivalries? I’m not the biggest NBA fan but people really are still clinging to a Celtics rivalry with the Knicks or Sixers? I’d love to see this put in.

I hate the idea of 2-3-2's.

I feel like every layer of this makes it worse and worse. The Thunder have played the 16th hardest strength of schedule this year to Indiana's 30th. Yet in this crazy ass format Indy would be higher seeded. How does this make sense?

You cannot ignore conferences for seeding and playoff structure if you use conferences to imbalance the damn schedule. Its ridiculous.

Keep it the same, or just lose conferences altogethe

 

[reggiecleveland]

They should have done this during 80s when the Lakers had a cakewalk in the west half the time.

There are more bad things than good things about changing. Conferences are more likely to create short term rivalries. Rockets /warriors is already building.

 

[bowiac]

Should go to 3-2-2 really. Making the higher seed get 5 home games would curb a lot of regular season malaise.

 

[Jeff Van GULLY]

If you go with best 16 teams or re-rank 8 East and 8 West teams based on record, you have to change the regular season schedule. Either playoff change is saying that intra-conference and intra-division games don't matter.

And really, they shouldn't matter (or at least as much) because otherwise the NBA would be comparing apples to oranges in terms of wins & losses for playoff seeding.

If they don't change the schedule, almost certainly one conference is going to be penalized over the other in any given year due to aggregation of talent. In recent history, we see a consistency where one conference (the West) is better than the other.

Right now, teams play:

• 4 games against the other 4 division opponents (4×4=16 games),
• 4 games against 6 (out-of-division) conference opponents (4×6=24 games),
• 3 games against the remaining 4 conference teams (3×4=12 games),
• 2 games against teams in the opposing conference (2×15=30 games).

In the current schedule, 63.4% of games are within a team's own conference.

In the current model, games are concentrated against a small number of opponents. Almost half of a team's games are played against only 1/3 of the NBA (division and preferred out-of-division conference opponents = 40 games and 10 teams).


The NBA has already lessened the significance of a division title in recent years with the seeding change. For a conservative change, the NBA should pair down to 76 games including:

• 4 against Divisional teams (4 x4 = 16)
• 3 against non-division Conference teams (3 x 10 = 30)
  
• 2 against non-Conference teams (2 x 15 = 30)

In this model, 60.5% of regular season games would be within a team's own conference.


Or for a little more radical model, get rid of divisions completely (and drop to 72 games):

• 3 games against Conference teams (42)
  
• 2 games against non-Conference teams (30)

58.3% of regular season games would be in a team's conference.


Either model keeps the idea that Conferences matter but lessens the schedule disparity.

As is being bandied about again, Simmons' idea about a knockout tournament for the last two seeds could make up for the loss in regular season games and revenue associated with it.

 

[cheech13]

Playoff reform is ultimately going to run into the same underlying problem with draft reform: There's an agreement that a change is needed, but no one has the same vision of what it needs to be changed to. Is the goal to have better earlier round matchups and more upsets, or get the best teams in the semifinals and finals? You can do one or the other, but probably not both.

 

[bankshot1]

And I’m sorry but rivalries? I’m not the biggest NBA fan but people really are still clinging to a Celtics rivalry with the Knicks or Sixers? I’d love to see this put in.

Rivalries are part of the sports experience, and part of a fan's history with the game. They can also create buzz and more importantly in early rounds of play-off games can be marketed and probably draw eyeballs (and higher ratings) than a match-up with no history or little buzz could approach.

That's was just one of the reasons I suggested keeping early round E-E/W-W match-ups to keep traditional rivalries alive.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Rivalries are part of the sports experience, and part of a fan's history with the game. They can also create buzz and more importantly in early rounds of play-off games can be marketed and probably draw eyeballs (and higher ratings) than a match-up with no history or little buzz could approach.

That's why i suggested keeping early round E-E/W-W match-ups to keep traditional rivalries alive.

Yes, thank you, I understand the value of rivalries, I just don't particularly see them still existing much in the NBA or at least ones like Celtics/Sixers, outside of those particular fanbases. I don't think a matchup of those two is causing a fan of the Jazz to tune in based on their history against each other, rather than the quality of the game. But I can see how one might disagree with that, particularly an older demographic, I'm just not sure that's where they focus their marketing on. No offense, but I'm not sure companies buying advertising time are weighing the 66 year old guy that wistfully harkens back to the Dr J / Larry Bird fight much; most people that remember those old rivalries aren't their target anymore.

 

[cheech13]

I don't think that it's the historic rivalries like Celtics-Sixers that are important, but more so the rivalries that develop when a team faces each other multiple years in a row, like say the Spurs and Suns in the mid to late '00s. There is something extra satisfying about seeing teams against each other year after year, or seeing a team finally vanquish an opponent they haven't been able to get past previously.

 

[bankshot1]

Yes, thank you, I understand the value of rivalries, I just don't particularly see them still existing much in the NBA or at least ones like Celtics/Sixers, outside of those particular fanbases. I don't think a matchup of those two is causing a fan of the Jazz to tune in based on their history against each other, rather than the quality of the game. But I can see how one might disagree with that, particularly an older demographic, I'm just not sure that's where they focus their marketing on. No offense, but I'm not sure companies buying advertising time are weighing the 66 year old guy that wistfully harkens back to the Dr J / Larry Bird fight much; most people that remember those old rivalries aren't their target anymore.

You're welcome.

I happen to think a first round Celts-Philly playoff is very marketable by TBS/ESPN and yes they will leverage it by using elements of the historic rivalry that you all but said was not important in the post I initially responded to.

And very few 1st round games are ratings locks, but Celts-Philly-(Knicks-Wiz etc) would do reasonably well on the East Coast, while the games are played at 8-10pm

Then the West coast games with their establlished rivalries could be played 10-midnight to its natural regional audience as a base, filled in by the NBA fan who wants to watch a game.

Celts-Portland (whoever) provides no buzz, and IMO delivers few eyeballs.

And i agree the NBA does not care about a 66 YO fan. But they still have to find a hook for the 25-54 demo, and they will leverage the rivalry angle to sell the game.

Whats the hook to keep you up after midnight to watch Celts-Portland?

 

[Schnerres]

I don't see the upside to this as it's a massive change to address what is a relatively small problem. Re-seeding may, and I stress may, make the last two rounds slightly better, but the first and second rounds are likely to be much worse. Plus those first round series are now going to involve more travel (which could impact on the court play and scheduling) and be played in non-traditional time slots while also eliminating historic geographic rivals. I know that the East/West imbalance has been a thing for a while but it's unlikely to persist forever.

So you want to keep the bad teams in the playoffs and have them face off in the 1st rounds and then get smacked in the ECF + WCF instead of the other way around? Makes no sense.
Sure, let´s have the Cavs play Toronto, Boston play Milwaukee in the 1st round and the winners face off in the Semis. The other East half is Indy vs. Philly and Miami vs. Washington. Semis are Cavs vs. Boston and Indy vs. Washington.
In at least 25% you´ll get Indy to the East Coast Finals (and get swept). How someone can prefer that to competitive matchups of Cavs vs. Rockets at bad times for a third of the country, I can´t understand this.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

You're welcome.

And i agree the NBA does not care about a 66 YO fan. But they still have to find a hook for the 25-54 demo, and they will leverage the rivalry angle to sell the game.

Whats the hook to keep you up after midnight to watch Celts-Portland?

I fully understand the point you're trying to make, I'm saying that the younger demo isn't being lured in by the rivalry. You clearly disagree and reasonable minds can differ. I'm 38 and Sixers-Celtics doesn't mean a whole lot to me, at least not more than seeing a more competitive game. We've not that long ago had teams with sub .500 records making the playoffs to get blown out in four games, while better teams i the other conference sit at home; how good do you think that match up is for ratings in early rounds? If they're considering it, I'm pretty confident they've done their homework on how it impacts revenue. I think you're vastly overrating how much value they can glean from a grainy video from the 80s wrt hooking a young neutral fan into watching.

 

[cheech13]

So you want to keep the bad teams in the playoffs and have them face off in the 1st rounds and then get smacked in the ECF + WCF instead of the other way around? Makes no sense.
Sure, let´s have the Cavs play Toronto, Boston play Milwaukee in the 1st round and the winners face off in the Semis. The other East half is Indy vs. Philly and Miami vs. Washington. Semis are Cavs vs. Boston and Indy vs. Washington.
In at least 25% you´ll get Indy to the East Coast Finals (and get swept). How someone can prefer that to competitive matchups of Cavs vs. Rockets at bad times for a third of the country, I can´t understand this.

Where did I say I want bad teams in the playoffs? We are talking about seeding teams 1-16 and if you took the current standings you'd end up with nine Western conference teams and seven Eastern conference teams. You aren't changing the competitive balance. All they'd be doing is shifting the match-ups, and yes, as a Portland fan I'd rather see a first round match-up with Golden State with all games starting at 7 than a cross-country series with Boston where I wouldn't be able to watch half the games because I'd still be at work.

Is a Cavs-Rockets and Warriors-Raptors semi-finals so much better than Warriors-Rockets and Cavs-Raptors that we need to blow up the entire playoff structure? I respect that people don't agree here, but I just don't see the upside in the change.

 

[bankshot1]

I fully understand the point you're trying to make, I'm saying that the younger demo isn't being lured in by the rivalry. You clearly disagree and reasonable minds can differ. I'm 38 and Sixers-Celtics doesn't mean a whole lot to me, at least not more than seeing a more competitive game. We've not that long ago had teams with sub .500 records making the playoffs to get blown out in four games, while better teams i the other conference sit at home; how good do you think that match up is for ratings in early rounds? If they're considering it, I'm pretty confident they've done their homework on how it impacts revenue. I think you're vastly overrating how much value they can glean from a grainy video from the 80s wrt hooking a young neutral fan into watching.

80s?

They'll show even granier film from the 60s of Havlicek stealing the ball (that was against the 76ers).

Much like they show Babe Ruth or Bucky Dent on ESPN when the Sox-MFY face each other.

Rivalries sell the history and romance of the game.

and it sells advertising.

No matter how you slice it with 16 teams in the post-season, there are going to be shitty teams playing and shitty 1st and perhaps 2nd round match-ups. This is not a new problem. I'm not sure killing natural regional rivalries is a good way to cure it.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Where did I say I want bad teams in the playoffs? We are talking about seeding teams 1-16 and if you took the current standings you'd end up with nine Western conference teams and seven Eastern conference teams. You aren't changing the competitive balance. All they'd be doing is shifting the match-ups, and yes, as a Portland fan I'd rather see a first round match-up with Golden State with all games starting at 7 than a cross-country series with Boston where I wouldn't be able to watch half the games because I'd still be at work.

Is a Cavs-Rockets and Warriors-Raptors semi-finals so much better than Warriors-Rockets and Cavs-Raptors that we need to blow up the entire playoff structure? I respect that people don't agree here, but I just don't see the upside in the change.

You're ignoring that the standing wouldn't look like they do today if this system was in place. They would need to adjust the balance of schedules - less weight on non-divisional conference opponents to balance SOS. So things would look a lot different and it might end up being 10 teams from one conference and 6 from the other.

I fully understand it would suck for you personally and many on the coasts, but they aren't thinking about individual fans on specific teams, they're playing the numbers to get the most eyes on the TV and a much larger number of people are in fact out of work to watch an 8PM start time or the late finish is somewhat mitigated.

80s?

They'll show even granier film from the 60s of Havlicek stealing the ball (that was against the 76ers).

Much like they show Babe Ruth or Bucky Dent on ESPN when the Sox-MFY face each other.

Rivalries sell the history and romance of the game.

and it sells advertising.

You really think the big NBA sponsors are counting on Havlicek stealing the ball to drive viewership of millennials? Because of the romance and history? Things have changed a lot. You think Samsung or Taco Bell are growing their customer base off of 25 yo people that weren't even alive for it? Rivalries are only good for advertising when the target demo lived through it and were a part of it. Especially with cord cutting, they need to maximize incentive to watch to the entire fanbase, not just the hardcores but the casual ones. Everyone has their preferences, but I'd be much more inclined to watch a more competitive game than a rivalry from when I was 3.

I fully understand the criticism of it, but it baffles me that people think they haven't done market research on it. Doesn't mean it will make it a sure thing, but it's also not a parallel to "hey, let's add a Thursday night football game, because more is better'.

 

[cheech13]

Maybe I missed something but I haven't seen Silver allude to eliminating conferences or rebalancing the schedule. That's even more extreme, but slightly preferable to what's being proposed. As far as I can tell the two options on the table are taking eight from each conference and seeding 1-16, or just taking the top 16 without any respect to conferences. I still think that would lead to relatively mundane first and second round match-ups with a slight chance at a better final four at the cost of more travel, more off-days and greater scheduling conflicts. YMMV.

 

[bankshot1]

You really think the big NBA sponsors are counting on Havlicek stealing the ball to drive viewership of millennials? Because of the romance and history? Things have changed a lot.

No I think NBA sponsors who buy time on ESPN/TBS are counting on the marketing people at those meda comanies to market the games in the best possible light to attract the max # of eyeballs. If it takes a grainy film of Babe, Bucky or Havlicek to frame the game in a historic manner to best attract ratings, they'll do it. If it means using history and romance, that my friend is a lay-up.

And they've done it for years.

Nice to know you that at 38 you are immune to the marketing draws of Babe, Bucky and Havlicek, that ESPN/Fox/TBS etal have exposed you and younger viwers to for decades. There is a method to their madness.

And i strongly suspect before any change is done the NBA and the media companies will have sliced/diced and fully analyzed the data to see how changing prospective play-off match-ups impact ratings. Again I'm not sure why a 1-16 is more compelling than a 1-8, or a first round E-W match-up is more attractive than a regional rivalry like the Celts-76ers, which already has a built-in audience and head start on ratings than a less familiar match-up.

If the goal is the get rid of crappy games, lose 8 post-season teams.

But that's not happening.

I suggested a modest modification which keeps the early round regional rivalries that appeal to the regional fan, and can be played within the relevant time zone to maximize those viewers.

 

[allstonite]

I like the idea because of the potential for some fun different matchups across conferences. Simmons quickly read down the matchups if the season ended today and most of them I think actually remained in conference but one I remember was Milwaukee vs Minnesota. Towns vs. Giannis for a 7 game series could be fun as would a lot of other mid-playoff, up and coming matchups.

Sure these teams play each other twice a year already but with injuries or "scheduled losses" on a 3rd game in 4 nights (especially common on east to west or west to east swings) we don't always get the best of these teams. Also, the animosity should build over the course of a series.

I get the inequality in schedules but it will never be fully balanced so it's there anyway. If you're the 17th seed and miss the playoffs you don't have much room to complain.

The time change would be tough but I think you could do 9pm eastern starts for the games on the west coast. Not the best for everyone but that's what the finals games usually are anyway and it's better than 10pm.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

You really think the big NBA sponsors are counting on Havlicek stealing the ball to drive viewership of millennials? Because of the romance and history? Things have changed a lot.

No I think NBA sponsors who buy time on ESPN/TBS are counting on the marketing people at those meda comanies to market the games in the best possible light to attract the max # of eyeballs.

And I think that if they do it, they have numbers showing that it will do exactly that. They aren't going to do it for shits and giggles.

If it takes a grainy film of Babe, Bucky or Havlicek to frame the game in a historic manner to best attract ratings, they'll do it. If it means using history and romance, that my friend is a lay-up.

And they've done it for years.

Correlation =/= causation. If the Celtics won 70 games and the Sixers won 35 but sneak in as the 8 seed, are viewers or fans in places outside of Boston and Philly tuning in because of the rivalry or the history? You would, because you're big on it. A 27 year old that lives in Detroit, I assure you, gives less than two shits. And that's their demo.

Nice to know you that at 38 you are immune to the marketing draws of Babe, Bucky and Havlicek, that ESPN/Fox/TBS etal have exposed you and younger viwers to for decades. There is a method to their madness.

I've quite literally never watched a game because of grainy footage of some old game or player. I - and many neutral fans - were fixated on Sox-Yanks for a long time because of the hammer vs. nail aspect, the arms race that developed, the drama and 1918. Since they broke that barrier, I don't find it has anywhere near the draw based on the rivalry. It's cool to see the old clips, but they aren't a draw, they fill in gaps of dead air. The Celtics Sixers don't have any heat anymore outside of your demographic - they've never been relevant at the same time since the early 80s.

And i strongly suspect before any change is done the NBA and the media companies will have sliced/diced and fully analyzed the data to see how changing prospective play-off match-ups impact ratings. Again I'm not sure why a 1-16 is more compelling than a 1-8, or a first round E-W match-up is more attractive than a regional rivalry like the Celts-76ers, which already has a built-in audience and head start on ratings than a less familiar match-up.

This is a huge part of my stance and point - do you think he'd even mention it if they hadn't already gone through those numbers, done market research, focus groups, etc?

If the goal is the get rid of crappy games, lose 8 post-season teams.

But that's not happening.

I suggested a modest modification which keeps the early round regional rivalries that appeal to the regional fan, and can be played within the relevant time zone to maximize those viewers.

The goal is to make more money. They wouldn't do it if they didn't think it would. Regional doesn't mean as much as it used to, with cord cutting, DVRs, cable packages, etc. It's not like when we grew up and you got the local game all season then went to national for playoffs to watch teams you had never seen anything more than box scores for.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I don't think that it's the historic rivalries like Celtics-Sixers that are important, but more so the rivalries that develop when a team faces each other multiple years in a row, like say the Spurs and Suns in the mid to late '00s. There is something extra satisfying about seeing teams against each other year after year, or seeing a team finally vanquish an opponent they haven't been able to get past previously.

Yeah, this is my fear too. Late 80s Celts/Pistons, Bulls/Pistons, 90s Blazers/Lakers, Rockets/Spurs, Rockets/Jazz, Spurs/Jazz, Bulls/Knicks, Knicks/Heat, 2000s Cavs/Celts, Spurs/Lakers, Kings/Lakers, etc. These memorable short burst rivalries really make the playoffs more fun and dramatic, and they are usually 2-5 years so there's always a new one developing. They make the playoffs more than just a one-year thing.

I don't think it's been mentioned but going back to best of 5 in the first round would add a little randomness, and also get it over with more quickly. best of seven first round is usually a snore. Probably never happen again though, gotta get that 4th blowout money

 

[NoXInNixon]

The only change I would support is to reseed the final four. Limits travel for two rounds and still gives a better change at the NBA finals being a matchup of the best two teams.

 

[bankshot1]

PP
This is being proposed for 2 reasons 1) money and 2) losing money because of poor TV ratings due to a shitty final match-up. The concern is if LeBron and the rest of the stud NBA players continue to their migration west, the East will blow and nobody will watch a non-competitive Finals.

So as I suggested keep the first 2 rounds as is, (and all the attendant benefits-rivalries, appropriate TV times, travel time) but reseed the Final Four, and if it ends up E-E or W-W, so be it.

 

[snowmanny]

Doesn't the re-seeding at the semis only work if the best teams are trying hard to get the best possible record in the regular season? I ask because they're not, particularly Cleveland of course.

The Silver plan seems more about getting the best 16 teams in the playoffs.

Ed:

So if you switched at the Semis last year you would have had GS over Cle, SAS over Bos, GS over SAS. Really no gain in entertainment value, but I suppose there wouldn't be when one team is dominant.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

PP
This is being proposed for 2 reasons 1) money and 2) losing money because of poor TV ratings due to a shitty final match-up. The concern is if LeBron and the rest of the stud NBA players continue to their migration west, the East will blow and nobody will watch a non-competitive Finals.

We are saying the same thing. It's about money and that's why they're doing it, because they believe it's more valuable to have higher nationwide ratings for early rounds than it is to bank on a regional matchup panning out from the standings. To your second point, I'd argue we haven't had a shitty matchup in the Finals - at least ratings wise - since 2007 and even that had LeBron, but if things had been reshuffled, maybe you get Dallas or Pheonix or someone that could compete with SA.

So as I suggested keep the first 2 rounds as is, (and all the attendant benefits-rivalries, appropriate TV times, travel time) but reseed the Final Four, and if it ends up E-E or W-W, so be it.

I don't discount the travel and time issues, but they can be overcome and if their numbers say it's worth it, they'll try it. Rivalries, at least historic ones, have little chance of actually happening to occur. I think they're better off banking on better quality than on the seeding working out to maximize two markets.

Again, I just don't think he'd even mention it if they hadn't already done some work on it already. I think it was said as a test balloon to see if their research is correct. Reseeding I think seems gimmicky but that could just be me. I want to see the best 16 teams duke it out. ymmv

 

[tims4wins]

I know it was mentioned upthread, but you'd HAVE to go to 2-3-2 in this scenario right?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I know it was mentioned upthread, but you'd HAVE to go to 2-3-2 in this scenario right?

You’d think, or as bowiac suggested, go 3-2-2 and give teams a little less incentive to not coast. Cleveland is only two games out of a hypothetical scenario where they’d be starting on the road.

 

[lexrageorge]

You’d think, or as bowiac suggested, go 3-2-2 and give teams a little less incentive to not coast. Cleveland is only two games out of a hypothetical scenario where they’d be starting on the road.

That will never happen, as teams would be potentially giving up a home playoff game. Owners have no real incentive to do that, so it's not happening.

 

[allstonite]

I don't think they'd need to change the 2-2-1-1-1. It could be a lot of travel but these guys are flying charter and there's usually 2-3 days off on travel breaks in the series now anyway.

 

[oumbi]

I suppose my concern with the new format would be the possibility of having the final four teams all from out west. That would mean the final few weeks of the NBA playoffs would have all the games all start at 9 PM or 10 PM. This might hurt the TV rating on the east coast.