God damnit I overshared again.
To me, maintaining the playoff brackets (which are themselves determined completely be regular season results) seems like a good balance of rewarding both regular season and playoff results.
To play devil's advocate:
I could say that playoff success is too highly rewarded in the current system, when teams average 10-15 playoff games, as opposed to 82 regular season games. I could say that rewarding the regular season results more would lead to more entertaining regular season games and more jockeying for seeding.
We'd just be arguing over where to place the emphasis. We can have nuanced discussions about this and that, but what it comes down to is personal preference and a matter of opinion. We can disagree, but neither side will ever be proven wrong!
After all, what do they frequently call the playoffs? The second season. In other words, you have to prove yourself all over again and what you did in the regular season no longer matters.
Plus, since when do high seeds need to be helped? If you look at the past Finals:
Heat (1) - Spurs (2)
Heat (2) - Thunder (2)
Mavs (3) - Heat (2)
Lakers (1) - Celtics (4)
Lakers (1) - Magic (3)
Celtics (1) - Lakers (1)
Spurs (3) - Cavs (2)
Heat (2) - Mavs (4)
Spurs (2) - Pistons (2)
Pistons (3) - Lakers (2)
Spurs (1) - Nets (2)
Lakers (3) - Nets (1)
Lakers (2) - Sixers (1)
Lakers (1) - Pacers (1)
So since the 1999 lock-out season and the #8 seed Knicks trip to the Finals (taken down by the #1 Spurs), there hasn't been any team ranked lower than #4 in the Finals.
#1 : 10 trips to the Finals (6 titles)
#2 : 11 (4 titles)
#3 : 5 (4 titles)
#4 : 2 (no title)
Thanks for them, but I think they're already doing fine without reseeding.
There exists the point of view that using 82 games to decide home court advantage in the 1st round only, makes 6 months of basketball somewhat meaningless.
Congratulations! You just killed yourself through a marathon. Now come up here and claim your prize....a bright, shiny, chocolate coin!
"I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder
however... i do spend way too much of my life right now watching sports. I am definitely by far the biggest sports fan I know... I just cant stop.
Last edited by CashGameND; Tue Apr 29th, 2014 at 03:19 PM.
also in a 7 game series, stylistically you can end up against a team that is just a tougher matchup against you despite their rank.
Last edited by CashGameND; Tue Apr 29th, 2014 at 03:20 PM.
I don't understand how a team like Atlanta shouldn't be rewarded for upsetting the #1 team, who was supposedly getting the easiest route to the finals. Plus, why should a loss by Indiana benefit Miami, by giving them an even easier route to the playoffs (on paper, of course, given Atlanta just upset the #1 seed)? Or conversely, why should another team get a harder route to the playoffs, even though they did what they were supposed to and beat the weaker team they were matched up against?
The regular season sets the brackets. Once the playoffs start, it's really up to each team to prove themselves worthy of their regular season record. Teams grow and improve and adapt throughout the season and into the playoffs, especially in a 7-game series style playoff. The teams that are able to win in the playoffs should absolutely be rewarded.
Saying to Atlanta: "Hey, we all thought you'd miss the playoffs, then figured you'd get swept. Congrats on the impressive upset win against top-seeded Indi. As a result, the next best regular season team gets a shot at you, because you still barely made the playoffs. Again, congrats on that remarkable upset series win, but it's utterly meaningless. Good luck in the second round." is just dumb and goes against the spirit of winner-take-all elimination competition.
I see your points of view. I think everyone hear has laid on the table the pros and cons to the different formats. And I can definitely see an argument for both sides at this point. I've certainly been trained from other sports that reg. season rank should carry through whole playoffs. Maybe I'm wrong. But when I see a missed opportunity of avoiding the Heat in the 2nd round I feel so right hahahahaha.
Personally I'm with CashGameND on this one. I think the best team in the regular season should have the easiest path to the finals. It also has a better chance of preventing 'tanking'. If Miami knew that if they finished first they'd have the 'easiest' path to the finals than they probably wouldn't rest their players as much. Wins could also mean more for a 3rd seed over a 6th seed and perhaps Brooklyn wouldn't have thrown away their last 2-3 games.
Ultimately though the reason they have fixed seeds is for scheduling. Once a bracket is decided in the first round quickly, teams can play each other despite waiting for the rest of the field to finish their games. It accelerates the first/second rounds which probably helps the league over all.
Miami knew the risk of finishing 2nd and will ultimately have an easier than expected ECF matchup, given the upset of the #1 seed. All the discussion in this thread is about just the 2nd round; regular season determines 1st round matchups and 3rd/4th round matchups are definitive.
Again, the regular season dictates that Miami gets the 2nd easiest projected route to the ECF. I still fail to understand the rationale behind the suggestion that Atlanta upsetting the #1 seed (Indiana) in the 1st round should result in Miami getting a modified and even easier (on paper) route to the ECF. Indiana losing (be it in the 1st or 2nd round) will already benefit Miami in the ECF, but why should it influence Miami's route to the ECF that was already determined by the regular season?
The argument that the regular season counting for more in the playoffs, as a justification for re-seeding for the 2nd round, seems like an oxymoron to me. The regular season established the playoff brackets. Changing the brackets based on the 1st round outcomes seems like the exact opposite, since the 1st round outcomes are taking precedent over the very brackets established by the regular season... no?
The 8th team knocking off the 1st placed team is great... but they should be playing the next best team because they weren't a good team in the regular season. They shouldn't benefit from a favourable second round because they defeated the best team in the conference.
I think the weight of a regular season has to be have more impact then it currently does in terms of playoff seeding. Stopping at the first round is just not good enough for me.
I can live with how they're doing it, but I think it is more "fair" if they reseed.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that you want the best matchups in the later rounds.
Let's take the West, for example. Let's say Dallas beats the Spurs while both OKC and the Clippers win. Ideally, you want the best remaining matchup, Clippers vs. OKC to be your Conference Final, where there's only one other series going on. It allows for more eyeballs.
In terms of fairness, I do see both sides. I think the fact the 8 barely ever beats the 4-5 after beating the 1 seed does tell you that there is more value to the regular season as a gauge of your team's talent than a 7 game series, though.
And BTW, if you're pro-reseeding, you must be against conferences, right? Otherwise, I'd love to hear how you think it's fair that with our 11th best record among playoffs teams, we get to play the 14th best (and 3rd worst) team.
Reseeding is the worst and most unfair idea in sports. Imagine you're a Hawks fan, you see your team upsetting the #1 seed and for what? Having to play #2 right after? That is not how sports should work. You beat the #1s, you get their bracket, that's just fair.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)