It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Basketball: playoff changes?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 05:35 PM
Alright, here's my issue. What's happened in this year's NBA playoffs is that there are 2 teams in the eastern conference that have losing records that are in. Meanwhile, there are two teasm in the west that have winning records that are out.

Every year, in at least one of the four major (American) sports, this sort of thing seems to happen.

Does anyone else feel that there should be some kind of rule where if this happens, the teams that have a winnig record should get to make the playoffs, maybe in the other conference?


posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 05:36 PM
Well the eastern conference isnt deep at all and the western conference is and maybe lossing teams in the east will get in, i do belive that the Knicks are the 7th place

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:00 PM
Yeah, and maybe I'm biased since Utah is my favorite team, but, don't they deserve the playoffs more than either Boston or New York?

I mean, they finished 2 games over .500, but still at the bottom of thier division! That's depth!

[Edited on 4/17/2006 by Gibbs Baby!!!]


posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 08:14 PM
I have to admitt that it was sad to see Utah out of it, after a great season lead by their head coach who got them this far without stockton or malone

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 11:05 PM
Yeah, Utah is my 2nd favorite team (guess who my favorite is) and I was pulling for them to make the playoffs badly.

If I was running the league I would seriously consider adopting a seeding system in situations like this. However, there is always the hope that the East will pick up its act, which I think it will within a few years.

Until then we have crap situations like this in which quality teams are denied while mediocre teams are let in simply because they are in a weak conference.

[Edited on 04/10/03 by Cannon]

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:12 PM
Yeah, but it seems to happen, year in and year out, there are always some teams that make it that just plain don't deserve it, as far as their records go. I think I even remember an NFL team in the playoffs several years ago that was 7-9.

That's just wrong, in my book.

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:48 PM
Thought I'd bring this topic back up for discussion, since my Jazz have missed the playoffs yet again, but will likely end up with at leat a .500 record. Meanwhile, back East, there are 3 teams that will likely have losing records in the playoffs.

That just doesn't seem right to me...

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:54 PM
What do you suggest? Should the NBA just seed the teams from 1-16 over the entire league? If so, what is the point of having separate conferences? I believe the NHL tried that for a little while (in 1980, two teams from the old Patrick Division made it to the Stanley Cup finals) and then ditched the idea. Should they take the 16 best teams in the league, regardless of conference, even if there are 12 teams from one and only four from the other?

The Western Conference is again the superior one this year, but not as much as in recent years. Things will eventually change, though. In the NFL, the NFC dominated play for many years, winning 13 straight Super Bowls from 1984 to 1996 (seasons, not the calendar year). But now the AFC has the better teams overall.

My suggestion is to reduce the number of teams that get into the playoffs. The NFL has made the correct choice to stay with 12 teams even though the team total is at 32. The NBA has 30 teams and yet 16 get into the playoffs. Actally, the NBA went to the 16 team format in 1984 when they only had 23 teams; only seven teams missed the playoffs! In 1985-86, the Bulls made the playoffs with a 30-52 record!

Yeah, I know that wouldn't help a Jazz fan out this season, but it may improve the quality of play in the early rounds.

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 04:25 PM
Actually, back when professional leagues were forming, I don't think that they even had conferences. I don't have time to research that right now, but I am pretty sure that is the case. So yeah, why not throw away the whole idea of conferences? What meaning do they hold, anyway?

That wasn't my original intention, though. My idea is, if you are under .500, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs. Period. If your team does not have a winning record, you are, by definition, a losing team. Therefore, your team does not deserve the recognition, or the financial benefits, of being in the playoffs.

My plan goes something like this. I will use the 2003-04 NBA season as an example, it fits my arguement well. And my team got the shaft.

The final standings (and playoff seedings) were like this, followed by thier records:

Eastern Conference:
1 Indiana 61-21
2 New Jersey 47-35
3 Detroit 54-28
4 Miami 42-40
5 New Orleans 41-41
6 Milwaukee 41-41
7 New York 39-43
8 Boston 36-46

Western Conference
1 Minnesota 58-24
2 Lakers 56-26
3 San Antonio 57-25
4 Sacramento 55-27
5 Dallas 52-30
6 Memphis 50-32
7 Houston 45-37
8 Denver 43-39

and then...
9 Utah 42-40
10 Portland 41-41

I suggest that New York and Boston did not deserve to be there, but Utah and Portland did. In this case, we would make Utah the 7th seed and Portland the 8th seed, in the East, making them play the top 2 teams in the East, Indiana and New Jersey. (although an arguement could have been made for Detroit) There is no way that there would have been an upset in these series, but the lower seeded teams would have gotten the recognition, experience, and financial benefits that they deserved.

top topics


log in