Idea: Alternative Play-In Tourney

[GreenlyGreeny]

How about this alternative play-in: For each conference, seeds 1-7 are locked at the end of the season. If seeds 9-10 have a winning record (like the East this year), seed 9 hosts seed 10 and the winner visits seed 8 for the 8th spot in the playoffs. If seed 9 has a winning record but seed 10 does not, only the 8 vs. 9 matchup occurs. If seed 9 does not have a winning record, there is no play-in tourney in the conference. In fact, if seed 8 does not have a record of .500 or greater, the one seed gets a first-round bye to accommodate only seven teams making the playoffs (in other words, you cannot make the playoffs with a losing record any longer). If somehow a conference only has six teams with a .500+ record (doubt it has ever happened since surpassing 20 teams in the NBA), both the first and second seeds get first-round byes.

In other words, the play-in tourney would only be deployed if a team with a winning record is in 9th or 10th place. I would even open it up to the 11th seed if they had a winning record, but I doubt that would ever happen.

[celticsclay]

How about this alternative play-in: For each conference, seeds 1-7 are locked at the end of the season. If seeds 9-10 have a winning record (like the East this year), seed 9 hosts seed 10 and the winner visits seed 8 for the 8th spot in the playoffs. If seed 9 has a winning record but seed 10 does not, only the 8 vs. 9 matchup occurs. If seed 9 does not have a winning record, there is no play-in tourney in the conference. In fact, if seed 8 does not have a record of .500 or greater, the one seed gets a first-round bye to accommodate only seven teams making the playoffs (in other words, you cannot make the playoffs with a losing record any longer). If somehow a conference only has six teams with a .500+ record (doubt it has ever happened since surpassing 20 teams in the NBA), both the first and second seeds get first-round byes.

In other words, the play-in tourney would only be deployed if a team with a winning record is in 9th or 10th place. I would even open it up to the 11th seed if they had a winning record, but I doubt that would ever happen.

I like this idea and think it is an improvement over the current system.

[GreenlyGreeny]

How about this alternative play-in: For each conference, seeds 1-7 are locked at the end of the season. If seeds 9-10 have a winning record (like the East this year), seed 9 hosts seed 10 and the winner visits seed 8 for the 8th spot in the playoffs. If seed 9 has a winning record but seed 10 does not, only the 8 vs. 9 matchup occurs. If seed 9 does not have a winning record, there is no play-in tourney in the conference. In fact, if seed 8 does not have a record of .500 or greater, the one seed gets a first-round bye to accommodate only seven teams making the playoffs (in other words, you cannot make the playoffs with a losing record any longer). If somehow a conference only has six teams with a .500+ record (doubt it has ever happened since surpassing 20 teams in the NBA), both the first and second seeds get first-round byes.

In other words, the play-in tourney would only be deployed if a team with a winning record is in 9th or 10th place. I would even open it up to the 11th seed if they had a winning record, but I doubt that would ever happen.

I like this idea and think it is an improvement over the current system.

Thanks. Just came up with it after thinking about how horrible it looks that a team with a record of 36-46 made the playoffs. That’s embarrassing. The Suns should just be granted a first-round bye instead.

[GreenlyGreeny]

I mean, if we’re cool with losing records showing up in the playoffs, let’s just make the 8th spot “The Wildcard” and create “The Wildcard Tourney” where every team has a shot at the playoffs by winning three games in a row. In other words, each conference has a winner-takes-all tourney with this structure:

15 seed at 8 seed
12 seed at 11 seed

14 seed at 9 seed
13 seed at 10 seed

The biggest advantage to a wildcard tourney: Enables the 1-7 seeds time to rest up and get healthier, which ought to result in a better playoff product. It also gives every team hope until the bitter end. No hiding like LeBron did this year either. It would have been fun watching him twist, turn and lose in such a tourney this year. It would also be exciting to some year see a true “Cinderella” make it to the playoffs even though they were one of the three or four worst records in the year.

The obvious downside is that it really marginalizes the regular season in a sense. The counter argument could be made that seeds 1-7 are what really matter, though. Heck, if you look at the teams that have won the title, it’s never been a seed outside of the top four with the exception of the defending champion Rockets back in ‘94-95 who did it as a six seed.

“ Out of the 74 NBA champions, most of them have come from the No. 1 (53) and No. 2 (12) seeds. That’s 65 titles between the two seeds and the rest were divided between the third (7), fourth (1) and sixth seeds (1). As noted, there were seven No. 3 seeds to win the title in NBA history. Here they are in chronological order:

1. 1973 New York Knicks
2. 1977 Portland Trail Blazers
3. 1978 Washington Bullets
4. 2002 Los Angeles Lakers
5. 2004 Detroit Pistons
6. 2007 San Antonio Spurs
7. 2011 Dallas Mavericks”

Source: https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/5-lowest-seeds-ever-win-nba-championship

The (1) four seed to win it all was the ‘68-69 Celtics and the (1) sixth seed to win it all was the ‘94-95 Rockets, so two defending champs with a ton of experience. Just goes to show you how important it is to get seeds 1-2 and the power of HCA. Of the seven three seeds above, I’m curious how many of them faced teams that upset the two seed in the first-round.

[Moranis]

2 years ago the East only had 6 teams with a winning record.  It happened in 15 (Boston was the 7th seed at 40-42).  It happened in 08 as well as both the Hawks and Sixers were below .500.  Heck the Hawks won 37 games that year and nearly beat eventual champion Boston in the 1st round. It happens a lot more than you think.  I mean more than half the teams make the playoffs. Teams make the playoffs below .500 all of the time.  It is just math.

[celticsclay]

2 years ago the East only had 6 teams with a winning record.  It happened in 15 (Boston was the 7th seed at 40-42).  It happened in 08 as well as both the Hawks and Sixers were below .500.  Heck the Hawks won 37 games that year and nearly beat eventual champion Boston in the 1st round. It happens a lot more than you think.  I mean more than half the teams make the playoffs. Teams make the playoffs below .500 all of the time.  It is just math.

Yeah but this is probably an argument against the play in also. That year the 9th and 10th seed had 33 or 34 wins. Nobody needs to see more games from this kinds of teams. I know they won’t get totally rid of it, but I am optimistic there will be some tweaks. Especially with how big a push there is to shorten the season.

[Ed Monix]

I like the concept, TP.

I already posted my own idea regarding an alternative to the play-in-tournament.

My idea relies on the league expanding to 32 teams.

• The NBA divisions are expanded from 6 to 8.
• The 8 winners of each division automatically qualify for the playoffs.
• The 8 best records (4 each conference) that did not win their division, will playoff for the 2 total (1 each conference) wildcard spots.

[bopna]

I like it and this is what it should have been. No 10th seed should be allowed to even sniff the playoffs if they do not deserve it.

I would also like to clamor for the top 2 seeds atleast to have a say as to who they want to pick to draw in a 7 game series. This adds further drama because the be careful what YOU WISH FOR addendum and it just frankly stops what the BUCKS did this yr tanking the final reg season game to get a better draw in round one.

Imagine the Heat and the Cs will have a choice from the remaining playoff teams who they want to face in round one.

[johnnygreen]

I like it and this is what it should have been. No 10th seed should be allowed to even sniff the playoffs if they do not deserve it.

I would also like to clamor for the top 2 seeds atleast to have a say as to who they want to pick to draw in a 7 game series. This adds further drama because the be careful what YOU WISH FOR addendum and it just frankly stops what the BUCKS did this yr tanking the final reg season game to get a better draw in round one.

Imagine the Heat and the Cs will have a choice from the remaining playoff teams who they want to face in round one.

Lol, the Celtics were trying to do the exact same thing as the Bucks.

[Neurotic Guy]

With the idea that no 9th or 10th seed below .500 gets a chance, I’d keep the 8th seed regardless. Can’t have a 1st round bye in the NBA - possibly waiting more than 2 weeks to play.  Other than that, I like it better than current.

[coco]

I am a fan of the Play-in tournament as is.

I like that 1 and 2 do not know who they will be playing until just before the playoffs

I also like that 7 thru 10 have a shot (especially 9 thru 10 and in some cases 9 thru 12). Basically forcing almost everyone to play for "something" until last week of regular season. I don't care either way if they have a losing record or not...

[GreenEnvy]

So while every sport is looking to make more playoff games, you are looking for ways to eliminate not only games, but series?

The play-in tournament is great. If you are the 7/8 seed, you need to win 1 of two games to get in. With at least one game at home. The 7 and 8 seeds definitely have a much bigger advantage than the 9/10, but makes them work to secure their spot. Creates excitement and if you don’t like it, finish 6th or better.