NBA Playoffs: Change in Format Coming?

[Papelbon's Poutine]

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.

Not sure it will never happen, but agree it probably won’t. There’s ways to mitigate it if it proves to be beneficial. I’m pretty sure you could get most owners on board with a better split on revenue for one game if it meant a bigger pie to be cut up overall. Give the visiting team a bigger cut or make everything closer to 50/50 and they’ll take the small loss for the bigger gain if it pans out for TB revenue. They are t buttering their bread on gates and there’s enough that are savvy enough to realize it opens up a better chance to even make the playoffs in any given year.

 

[NoXInNixon]

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.

Reseeding at F4 would probably result in teams caring more about regular season games. Being the #1 overall seed would be a big advantage. And when there's one dominant team, being the #1 seed in the other conference is huge. Last year Cleveland would have faced GS in the semis. You can bet that they would have fought a lot harder to finish the season ahead of Boston.

 

[Swedgin]

Not sure it will never happen, but agree it probably won’t. There’s ways to mitigate it if it proves to be beneficial. I’m pretty sure you could get most owners on board with a better split on revenue for one game if it meant a bigger pie to be cut up overall. Give the visiting team a bigger cut or make everything closer to 50/50 and they’ll take the small loss for the bigger gain if it pans out for TB revenue. They are t buttering their bread on gates and there’s enough that are savvy enough to realize it opens up a better chance to even make the playoffs in any given year.

Agreed. Silver is not floating this idea because it is "good for the game." If the NBA adopts reseeding it will be because Silver and Co. have run the numbers and concluded that it will ultimately benefit the bottom line. I can see the arguments in its favor. The league has faced two general criticisms of late: 1) the regular season does not matter and 2) dominance of the Warriors/conference in-balance/we know the champ before the season starts. Reseeding would get at both of these issues to some degree.

 

[cheech13]

Does re-seeding really solve the Warriors issue though? Looking over the current seedings versus proposed and they'd actually play marginally worse teams (by record) in the first two rounds under the proposed 1-16 format (NO and Minnesota instead of Portland and San Antonio). Most assume their only real challenger is Houston, whom they'd likely play in the Finals instead of Western Conference Finals. What's the difference in shifting that pairing one later round? We are getting that series either way.

Same with Cleveland. They've been cited in this thread as a team that couldn't coast through the regular season under the new formula. Under current seeding they'd get Milwaukee and then Boston. Under the proposed structure they'd get Denver... and Boston. It's an easier first round and the second remains unchanged. We'd also lose Giannis-Lebron. The real difference comes in the semi-finals where they'd have Houston instead of Toronto. Okay that's interesting but you still have GS waxing Toronto in the other semi-final. Is GS-TOR/CLE-HOU/GS-HOU way better than GS-HOU/CLE-TOR/GS-CLE?

I'm open to the idea that you want the two best teams in the Finals. I really am. I just can't get behind the idea that re-jiggering the whole playoffs is somehow going to make this better for the fans. Can someone on the pro side give a compelling real-world scenario on how this improves the playoffs drastically?

 

[tims4wins]

Another possible playoff change: tournament for the 7-10 seeds

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

Long story short, #7 would host #8, and #9 would host #10. Winner of 7-8 gets the 7 seed. Winner of 9-10 then plays at loser of 7-8 for the 8 seed. Single game eliminations.

In conjunction with this, the NBA could expand the lottery to include the 7th and 8th place finishers. This would be a great step towards reducing tanking IMO. You could still go for a playoff spot while maintaining lottery odds. And I highly doubt you would "tank" from 6th to 7th because then your playoff spot is in jeopardy.

 

[cheech13]

Another possible playoff change: tournament for the 7-10 seeds

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

Long story short, #7 would host #8, and #9 would host #10. Winner of 7-8 gets the 7 seed. Winner of 9-10 then plays at loser of 7-8 for the 8 seed. Single game eliminations.

In conjunction with this, the NBA could expand the lottery to include the 7th and 8th place finishers. This would be a great step towards reducing tanking IMO. You could still go for a playoff spot while maintaining lottery odds. And I highly doubt you would "tank" from 6th to 7th because then your playoff spot is in jeopardy.

That's actually not the worst idea in the world. The best part is that it creates two inflection points: mid-tier teams will fight for the 5th and 6th slots to avoid the play-in and teams 7 to 11 are going to be playing meaningful games late without worrying about lottery implications. It doesn't really do anything to improve the first round of the playoffs, but it does help with the end of the season drag.

I still think this needs to be combined with even more drastic lottery reform. Everyone is concerned about bad teams tanking, but the root problem is teams stuck in the middle having to get worse before they can get better. Give the middling teams a better chance to improve through the draft and free agency and you remove some of the incentive of blowing it up.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

So the rest of the teams are sitting around getting cold for three weeks? Pass.

 

[cheech13]

So the rest of the teams are sitting around getting cold for three weeks? Pass.

Wouldn't it take two to three days at most? Use a neutral site and you can do the 7-8 and 9-10 games on a Saturday and the final on Sunday.

 

[tims4wins]

Yeah we are talking about single elimination games here. Season ends Sunday. First game is Tuesday. Second game Thursday. First round begins Saturday for the 1-8 and 2-7 matchups. The 3-6 and 4-5 can begin Friday. As an example.

Actually the 7 seed will be locked in on Tuesday so the 2-7 can begin whenever too. The 1-8 would begin Saturday in my scenario.

 

[snowmanny]

Should have had this format in the 1980's, so LAL would have been stuck with Philly a bunch of times in the semis instead of the tomato cans they played every year en route to the finals.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Yeah we are talking about single elimination games here. Season ends Sunday. First game is Tuesday. Second game Thursday. First round begins Saturday for the 1-8 and 2-7 matchups. The 3-6 and 4-5 can begin Friday. As an example.

Actually the 7 seed will be locked in on Tuesday so the 2-7 can begin whenever too. The 1-8 would begin Saturday in my scenario.

OK, I exaggerated a bit, but it's for each conference, so it's four total games. You know they'll want to televise each and bring maximum exposure, so you still have the teams sitting around for a week, while scrub teams fight for the chance to get slaughtered. It's gimmicky and it's a money grab, Lowe even admits it in the article. I'm not sure how it improves the quality of the playoffs. Which means it probably has legs.

 

[tims4wins]

OK, I exaggerated a bit, but it's for each conference, so it's four total games. You know they'll want to televise each and bring maximum exposure, so you still have the teams sitting around for a week, while scrub teams fight for the chance to get slaughtered. It's gimmicky and it's a money grab, Lowe even admits it in the article. I'm not sure how it improves the quality of the playoffs. Which means it probably has legs.

Eh, as it stands right now, the teams get 3 days off then play. Under this scenario the teams would get one single extra day off.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I think we need to favor an in-conference system for reasons of travel and time zones.

At most, maybe have the top 7 in each conference followed by a record based wild card?

I like the idea of a play in tournament for #7 and #8 and giving them a place in the lottery. Maybe also let them draft before the lowest 2 lottery teams that miss the playoffs.

One other thing I'd like to see is a different way of determining opponents: for each round of the playoffs, the highest seeded team chooses its opponent from the rest of the field. Then the next highest team does the same, etc. This way there is no need for the #1 team to throw a few games at the end of the season because they would rather match up with the #7 seed than the #8, etc. And it would pump up the "disrespect" element for the underdogs.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

2-3-2 reduces the travel issues, if everyone can agree with that format

 

[JakeRae]

Another possible playoff change: tournament for the 7-10 seeds

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

Long story short, #7 would host #8, and #9 would host #10. Winner of 7-8 gets the 7 seed. Winner of 9-10 then plays at loser of 7-8 for the 8 seed. Single game eliminations.

In conjunction with this, the NBA could expand the lottery to include the 7th and 8th place finishers. This would be a great step towards reducing tanking IMO. You could still go for a playoff spot while maintaining lottery odds. And I highly doubt you would "tank" from 6th to 7th because then your playoff spot is in jeopardy.

But, the 9/10 teams aren't the ones tanking right now. (Aside, tanking doesn't bother me but I'm assuming it is a problem for the purposes of this post.) It's the 12-14 teams that tank. Because, it's really just a top 3-5 pick that has significant value and being in the back of the lottery means really low odds of obtaining such a pick. Weighing really low odds against playoffs favors playoffs. If you have a situation where a team could tank to compete for a bottom 3 record of could make a push for a 10-seed (this will be rare) I'm not positive the playoff game or two will be enough to overcome real odds of a top pick. It certainly wouldn't be in a draft like this year.

 

[ishmael]

But, the 9/10 teams aren't the ones tanking right now. (Aside, tanking doesn't bother me but I'm assuming it is a problem for the purposes of this post.) It's the 12-14 teams that tank. Because, it's really just a top 3-5 pick that has significant value and being in the back of the lottery means really low odds of obtaining such a pick. Weighing really low odds against playoffs favors playoffs. If you have a situation where a team could tank to compete for a bottom 3 record of could make a push for a 10-seed (this will be rare) I'm not positive the playoff game or two will be enough to overcome real odds of a top pick. It certainly wouldn't be in a draft like this year.

They already changed the lotto odds. The change just doesn't happen until the 2019 draft lottery: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20849861/zach-lowe-nba-draft-lottery-reform-potential-ramifications

This proposed change would mesh nicely with what they've already done.

 

[JakeRae]

They already changed the lotto odds. The change just doesn't happen until the 2019 draft lottery: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20849861/zach-lowe-nba-draft-lottery-reform-potential-ramifications

This proposed change would mesh nicely with what they've already done.

As that article notes, the lottery changes don't really impact much the teams at the back of the lottery, who continue to have tiny odds of moving up. The new system won't lead to the 9/10 teams in the standings tanking, just like they currently don't. Those teams try to make the playoffs. But, the 12th worst team probably still isn't going to scramble to compete for the 10 seed instead of resting vets and trying to drop to a top 5 pick, at least not in a strong draft year, because the value of a top pick will still dwarf that of a playoff game or two. And, unlike the MLB wildcard thing that has real stakes because the MLB playoffs are a crap shoot, no one will care about these play in games because the 7 and 8 seeds are basically just cannon fodder in the NBA.

Finally, there is the potential to actually decrease regular season drama. Witness the West this year, where an expanded playoff would mean that instead of a competitive race where 2 good teams aren't going to make the cut, you'd have no real playoff race at the bottom. The East might have a competitive race for the last seed this year. Expand the playoffs to 10 seeds and there would be no competition. (The Knicks will fade without their best player.)

 

[jon abbey]

Witness the West this year, where an expanded playoff would mean that instead of a competitive race where 2 good teams aren't going to make the cut, you'd have no real playoff race at the bottom.

Actually you'd have all of those teams trying to get into the top 6 instead of the top 8, otherwise you have to play a single game elimination. The better team will win a single-game elimination more often in hoops than in baseball, but you'd still like to avoid that scenario if at all possible. To decrease drama, you need not only a lot of room between 10 and 11 (as is the case in both conferences currently) but also between 6 and 7 (this is definitely not the case, the Cavs in 3 are just 2 losses ahead of Philly at 7, and same with SA at 3 and OKC at 7 in the West).

 

[bsj]

As an aside, I've always felt they should invert the lottery odds so that the teams who just missed the playoffs get the highest odds, and then it declines from there. But the teams that DONT win the order and then placed in reverse order of finish.

I always felt that this gives bad teams incentive to compete the whole way, but that it still creates a logical order allowing the very worst to have no worse than a 4 pick if they have terrible luck

 

[chilidawg]

As an aside, I've always felt they should invert the lottery odds so that the teams who just missed the playoffs get the highest odds, and then it declines from there. But the teams that DONT win the order and then placed in reverse order of finish.

I always felt that this gives bad teams incentive to compete the whole way, but that it still creates a logical order allowing the very worst to have no worse than a 4 pick if they have terrible luck

I like that idea, makes a lot of sense. Would be really good for the Lakers pick this year too.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Should have had this format in the 1980's, so LAL would have been stuck with Philly a bunch of times in the semis instead of the tomato cans they played every year en route to the finals.

My thoughts exactly. Until the Rockets came along the Lakers had to simply not choke to get to the finals.

 

[nighthob]

As an aside, I've always felt they should invert the lottery odds so that the teams who just missed the playoffs get the highest odds, and then it declines from there. But the teams that DONT win the order and then placed in reverse order of finish.

In an eight team league where four teams make the postseason, sure. But in a 30 team league where there aren't enough franchise guys to go around you're essentially dooming bad teams to rebuilding projects that will last a generation.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

My thoughts exactly. Until the Rockets came along the Lakers had to simply not choke to get to the finals.

Man, the teams the 1987 Lakers had to face were something special. They were a combined 118-128 on the season. The Celtics played one opponent under .500, but it was Jordan's Bulls, and they also faced a strong Bucks squad, and on-the-cusp Pistons team. The Lakers basically had 10 weeks of rest before the Finals.

 

[the moops]

As an aside, I've always felt they should invert the lottery odds so that the teams who just missed the playoffs get the highest odds, and then it declines from there. But the teams that DONT win the order and then placed in reverse order of finish.

I always felt that this gives bad teams incentive to compete the whole way, but that it still creates a logical order allowing the very worst to have no worse than a 4 pick if they have terrible luck

Don't you just create a different set of teams who will tank at years end? Right now, teams on the playoff bubble have a decent incentive to make the playoffs and host a few game and increase revenue while energizing some fans. If that teams choice is to get smoked in the first round or have a ~25% chance of getting the top pick, I think we all know how that is going to play out.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Man, the teams the 1987 Lakers had to face were something special. They were a combined 118-128 on the season. The Celtics played one opponent under .500, but it was Jordan's Bulls, and they also faced a strong Bucks squad, and on-the-cusp Pistons team. The Lakers basically had 10 weeks of rest before the Finals.

The Celtics were gassed by the finals. The Pistons really had them, except for IT1's pass. The bright side is that moment of Bird's steal was fantastic. To this day when the team I am coaching for or cheering for is putting a game away I say, "as long as we don't let Isiah in bound it we are okay."

 

[Blacken]

In an eight team league where four teams make the postseason, sure. But in a 30 team league where there aren't enough franchise guys to go around you're essentially dooming bad teams to rebuilding projects that will last a generation.

Just means you have to come up with something that captures the incentives you want, though. Like, just off the top of my head:

- Current draft order, worst-first
- Bimodal lottery ball distribution--9th, 10th, 11th, 28th, 29th, and 30th get the most balls, somewhere in the middle--let's say 20th--gets the least.
- If you were within 4 wins of the playoffs in your conference, you move up 12 spots instead of 4 if you win the lottery. Just missing the playoffs and picking 8th in the draft is a pretty good deal. (Or, shit, make it 16 spots. I wouldn't let the 10th-place team get the first overall, but make it worth it.)

There are a lot of ways to mess with the lottery if they wanted to reward the un-tank and encourage teams to build a "winning culture" rather than engage the tank.