waaait. so the playoffs don't reseed? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!

[Fanchie]

lol bear. good spelling me!

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.

Haaaaaaa! Now we do agree!!

[planetmars]

Per the bold, this is already the case, barring upsets.

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?

My argument is that I believe that after 82 games / 5 months of play that seeding should not just affect the first round but as many rounds as possible. The best team should have the best advantage because they deserve it. The worst team should have the worst advantage because they deserve that. If you really want to screw around in the regular season (either because you want to 'tank' or because you aren't very good) than that should be penalized some how once you are in the playoffs. So that means getting a harder opponent in round one and if you advance another difficult opponent in round two.

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.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

My argument is that I believe that after 82 games / 5 months of play that seeding should not just affect the first round but as many rounds as possible. The best team should have the best advantage because they deserve it. The worst team should have the worst advantage because they deserve that. If you really want to screw around in the regular season (either because you want to 'tank' or because you aren't very good) than that should be penalized some how once you are in the playoffs. So that means getting a harder opponent in round one and if you advance another difficult opponent in round two.

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.

I definitely understand points from both sides of the argument.

[Other Scott]

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.

[jamesk]

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.

....That.