Playoff Formatting Idea

[tb727]

I've been giving it a lot of thought, and it's not just for the sake of the Celts struggling in this series, but I think there needs to be some more incentive to the regular season.

Think of the concept: you play 82 games to get 1 more home court game over the lower seed?

My thinking was this- and it'd likely only apply to the first round.  If you win 10 to 19 games more than the team you're playing, you get 1 additional home game.  20-29 would mean 2 additional games.  And 30+ and the whole series you have at home.

The Bulls won 21 less games than the Celtics this season.  I think 6 of the 7 games should be played in Boston.  This is giving more incentive to winning more games in the regular season, and benefits the team by giving them more home games so they can earn more revenue.  The team with the better record could also select what games get played where.

Again after the first round this would lessen (Boston vs Orlando would be 4-3 as usual since only a few games separated the teams).

I know they don't do this in any other sports.  Just a thought, interested to see what anyone else says.

[adam8]

This is unfair to teams like the Hawks last year the playoffs was the best thing to happen to that team in a long time. They needed to get the fans interested again and if all the games are in Boston and they get swept the fans don't care. You get an extra home so that if you win at home you advance and I think that is good enough.

[tb727]

This is unfair to teams like the Hawks last year the playoffs was the best thing to happen to that team in a long time. They needed to get the fans interested again and if all the games are in Boston and they get swept the fans don't care. You get an extra home so that if you win at home you advance and I think that is good enough.

Well sure as the underdog you love it.  Remember- Atlanta almost missed the playoffs last year (they were very close with Indiana at the end of the season).  I was wondering if they didn't make it how much better they really would've been this season.

But again it's to give the team with the significantly better regular-season record some more credit for having an outstanding regular season.

[wdleehi]

How often do teams that are 20 or 30 games behind in the standings win as of now?

[guava_wrench]

I've been giving it a lot of thought, and it's not just for the sake of the Celts struggling in this series, but I think there needs to be some more incentive to the regular season.

Think of the concept: you play 82 games to get 1 more home court game over the lower seed?

My thinking was this- and it'd likely only apply to the first round.  If you win 10 to 19 games more than the team you're playing, you get 1 additional home game.  20-29 would mean 2 additional games.  And 30+ and the whole series you have at home.

The Bulls won 21 less games than the Celtics this season.  I think 6 of the 7 games should be played in Boston.  This is giving more incentive to winning more games in the regular season, and benefits the team by giving them more home games so they can earn more revenue.  The team with the better record could also select what games get played where.

Again after the first round this would lessen (Boston vs Orlando would be 4-3 as usual since only a few games separated the teams).

I know they don't do this in any other sports.  Just a thought, interested to see what anyone else says.

You might be thinking a little too much!

Getting the tiebreaker game is enough. There is no need to increase the impact of regular season record. In the end, the playoffs are the playoffs, and the regular season is just the regular season.

[tb727]

How often do teams that are 20 or 30 games behind in the standings win as of now?

Not too often- but the Bulls just took the Celts to 7 exhausting games and last year the Hawks finished almost 30 games behind Boston.  I just think it's a disservice to the team that had such a great regular season.  Shouldn't they have the chance to earn more playoff revenue from having the game played in their arena?  Shouldn't they have the better chance to advance for having such a spectacular season?

Again I just think there's too little emphasis on a season that last 6 whole months where if the home team has one bad game, suddenly, 30 more wins in the regular season is out the door and now they need to win a road game in the playoffs.

[libermaniac]

Explain to me how, in a 7 game series, one team could get 2 more home games than another?

[tb727]

Explain to me how, in a 7 game series, one team could get 2 more home games than another?

The Celtics won 21 more regular season games than Chicago.  Had they won only 19 more it would be 1 additional game, meaning 5 of the 7 games get played in Boston.

So the Celts choose Games 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 as their 5 home games.  And Chicago gets Games 3 & 6 in their arena.

Make sense?

Think of last year's Western Conference Playoff Standings.  Without looking I think 8 games separated the top 8 teams- so they all had good regular season records.  Therefore it should be played as currently constructed.

[wdleehi]

How often do teams that are 20 or 30 games behind in the standings win as of now?

Not too often- but the Bulls just took the Celts to 7 exhausting games and last year the Hawks finished almost 30 games behind Boston.  I just think it's a disservice to the team that had such a great regular season.  Shouldn't they have the chance to earn more playoff revenue from having the game played in their arena?  Shouldn't they have the better chance to advance for having such a spectacular season?

Again I just think there's too little emphasis on a season that last 6 whole months where if the home team has one bad game, suddenly, 30 more wins in the regular season is out the door and now they need to win a road game in the playoffs.

But the higher seed won. 

[tb727]

How often do teams that are 20 or 30 games behind in the standings win as of now?

Not too often- but the Bulls just took the Celts to 7 exhausting games and last year the Hawks finished almost 30 games behind Boston.  I just think it's a disservice to the team that had such a great regular season.  Shouldn't they have the chance to earn more playoff revenue from having the game played in their arena?  Shouldn't they have the better chance to advance for having such a spectacular season?

Again I just think there's too little emphasis on a season that last 6 whole months where if the home team has one bad game, suddenly, 30 more wins in the regular season is out the door and now they need to win a road game in the playoffs.

But the higher seed won. 

Oh where the lower seed won?  Well just off the top of my head, Golden State beat Dallas in 2007, Denver beat Seattle in 1994 (I know Seattle had 63 wins, not sure if Denver had more than 43).  I'm sure there could be a few others if I researched it more.  Like the Rockets in 1981 I know made the Finals with a 41-41 record so they likely beat someone along the way too.

[Redz]

The main advantage you generally receive for having a much better regular season record than your opponent is that you are, in fact, a much better team.  If that doesn't hold water in the playoffs, tough bananas.  If you're the better team you should be able to beat them on the road too.

[libermaniac]

Explain to me how, in a 7 game series, one team could get 2 more home games than another?

The Celtics won 21 more regular season games than Chicago.  Had they won only 19 more it would be 1 additional game, meaning 5 of the 7 games get played in Boston.

So the Celts choose Games 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 as their 5 home games.  And Chicago gets Games 3 & 6 in their arena.

Make sense?

Sorry, was just referring to your math.  5 - 2 = 3, not 2.

[PierceMVP08]

sorry to say, but this is a terrible idea.  Nothing against you, but just because you dominate the regular season doesnt mean you are entitled to just win.  In that case, the team with the best regular season record should just given the championship with no playoffs.

Dallas deserved to lose that series.  Seattle deserved to lose. Houston deserved to make the finals.  The ring is earned in the playoffs, not the regular season. 

[tb727]

Explain to me how, in a 7 game series, one team could get 2 more home games than another?

The Celtics won 21 more regular season games than Chicago.  Had they won only 19 more it would be 1 additional game, meaning 5 of the 7 games get played in Boston.

So the Celts choose Games 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 as their 5 home games.  And Chicago gets Games 3 & 6 in their arena.

Make sense?

Sorry, was just referring to your math.  5 - 2 = 3, not 2.

Ah no that's fine.  I was making the assumption that you realized it's normally 4 and 3.

[tb727]

sorry to say, but this is a terrible idea.  Nothing against you, but just because you dominate the regular season doesnt mean you are entitled to just win.  In that case, the team with the best regular season record should just given the championship with no playoffs.

Dallas deserved to lose that series.  Seattle deserved to lose. Houston deserved to make the finals.  The ring is earned in the playoffs, not the regular season. 

Very good points and convincing.  Perhaps I'll try to think of things that way moving forward...