2-3-2 Finals format disadvantage to Home Team?

[j804]

Does anybody think this format should be changed back? It's like the home advantage team has to win the first 2 or could be in trouble fast. It seems the 3 straight games in the middle of the series is a boost to the opposing team.

[rondohondo]

I agree it's such an advantage for the lower seed ,especially if they take 1 of the first 2 games. It pretty much allows them to control the majority of the series .

[Who]

I don't like it. I'd like them to switch it back.

[CelticInRedSox]

I actually think it's the opposite. At that level its so hard to win 3 games in a row - 2 is much more manageable. If the higher seeded team loses one of the first 2 games, they have 3 consecutive chances to catch up. If the higher seed wins the first 2 then if the lower seed loses any of the 3 middle games the series is essentially over. Pretty much what happened to the C's in 2010 (shudder)

[CelticSooner]

I can take or it leave it. The better team wins a 7 game series the majority of the time.

[MBz]

Any time there's a possible situation where if everyone wins their home games and the higher seed is losing seems like a disadvantage to me.  After game 5, if everyone wins their home games it's 3-2 in favor of the lower seed.  That defeats the purpose of a home court advantage.

[bdm860]

I believe it's done purely for business/logistical reasons not basketball reasons, so I don't think it really matters if it doesn't favor the higher seed.

While it's not as bad this year with it being OKC vs Miami, think about if OKC was still located in Seattle, or if it was Miami vs LA, or Boston vs LA, or any East Coast team vs any West Coast team, and all the people covering the finals, and what not.

In a Seattle vs Miami 7 game series scenario (which is pretty much the worst possible scenario traveling within the continental US):

Miami would fly to Seattle for 2 games.
Then both teams would fly to Miami for 2 games.
Then both teams would fly back to Seattle for 1 game.
Then fly back to Miami for 1 game.
Then fly back to Seattle for 1 game.
Then Miami flying back home afterwards.

That's the away team flying cross country 6 times, and the home team flying cross country 4 times in a 2-2-1-1-1 format.  But with the 2-3-2 format the away team would only fly cross country 4 times, and the home team 2 times.  Door-to-door that could be like an 8-9 hour trip across 3 different time zones.  You want to do that as little as possible.

That could be a lot of cross country flights.  And it would be tough for the players if there was only one day off between certain games, like with the Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday stretch, think if that coincided with games 5-6-7. sure you'll say the NBA should change the Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday format, but that's another thing done for "business" reasons that they won't change.

And don't just think of the players traveling, but the coaches, assistants, trainers, staff, and the hundreds of media outlets (like the low-budget local news papers/stations, and even international outlets) who cover the games too.

Also, the travel isn't as big of a deal between say a Boston/Philly or Miami/Orlando or Dallas/San Antonio or a lot of other potential inter-conference series, and there is also only a fraction of the media coverage so the 2-2-1-1-1 format works better in the 1st round, conference semis, and conference finals, but not so much for the finals with the potential travel.

So screw the slight advantage to the lower seed, it's done purely for business reasons.

[tenn_smoothie]

i HATE the 2-3-2.

it too often ruins what have been historical games of some great finals - games 5 & 6.
game 5, in particular, has lost its luster.

it may have cost the Celtics a World Title in either '85 or '87. Stern, being the pathetic little worm that he is, has laid a big part of the reason for the format at Red's feet.

[NoraG1]

Why in the world they all of a sudden change the format is ridiculous. It's a joke

[Yoki_IsTheName]

I disagree.

Any home team has to care of their business at home. The lower seeds only have 3 home games, so if they steal one form away, they will have the advantage. But if the higher seeds take care of business, or steal one from the lower seeds, there goes the lower seed HC.

[edwardjkasche]

It's much worse than the 2-2-1-1-1.

It's only done for ONE REASON: THE MEDIA.

Due to the media hoopla surrounding the Finals, the League changes the format to suit the media entourage that travels for all the games.  This Finals format allows the media to camp in a specific city for more than 36 hours.  Imagine if they all had to pick up and move every 24 hours for the final three games of the Finals.  They'd throw a hissy fit behind closed doors, and I'm sure they did, which is why Stern switched the this format.

It does give a huge advantage for the lower seed.  Not only do they get three games in a row, but that equates to six or seven days of sleeping in their own beds and practicing in their own gyms.  That is very important because it helps them breed rhythm, while the the "home team" spends a week away from home in hotels and away-team practice facilities.

Yes, more often than not the better team wins a best-of-7, but this format doesn't help keeps things equal.

The League should keep the format identical throughout all rounds.

[quidinqui33]

Never liked the 2-3-2 though I get it from a logistical standpoint.  But honestly, if you can do a 2-2-1-1-1 during the other rounds, you can do it during the finals.

It does put a lot of pressure on the "home court" team to win its first two, and it also means the "road" team is going to get 3 games at home before the "home" team gets three games.

This is unfair from a competitive standpoint and from a business standpoint.  The team with home court advantage should not see less games of revenue for their city than the road team, and if the series ends 4-1, the "home" team gets one less game of revenue for their city than the road team.  Makes no sense from a basketball or business standpoint.

[KGs Knee]

I HATE the 2-3-2 format.  If anything though, it is more of an advantage for the team with the 4 home games.  When two evenly matched teams play each other, it's not too often one can beat the other three straight times.  Essentially, the team with the middle three games likely has to win 2 road games instead of just 1.  Having games 6 AND 7 at home is huge.

And the NBA is full of it, saying it's for logisitcal or financial reasons.  It's purely to suit the whiny media.  The NHL uses a 2-2-1-1-1 format and has teams every bit as far apart as the NBA.  Just check the last two Stanley Cup Finals.  Boston v. Vancouver and LA v. NJ.  Can't get much further apart than that.  If it was financially prohibitive you'd have to think the NHL would do the same, seeing as how the NBA is a more financially lucrative league.

[Tgro]

Essentially, the team with the middle three games likely has to win 2 road games instead of just 1.  Having games 6 AND 7 at home is huge.

It IS huge and part of what done us in during 2010. Even though we lost Perkins in game 6, do you really think we would have lost both games 6 and 7 if we were at home? Maybe one, but both???

And the fact OKC gave up home court in game 2, you had to keep telling yourself if you get this series back to OKC for games 6 and 7, OKC still has a chance. If OKC can't steal ONE game in Miami, than they don't deserve to be crowned champions when Miami did it on their court. OKC could turn up the heat on the HEAT if they could just make their way back home, but they are coming up chumps so far. They don't look mentally tough and Miami does. The advantage of the 2-3-2 format totally flips back to the home team if they can make it back home. The fact that OKC may not, I don't blame the format. They just may not be worthy.

[Kathleen5]

Thanks for sharing.