Hollinger: new Play-in Idea suggested for 8th Seed Playoffs

John Doe [MIN] · Post #41 » by **John Doe [MIN]** » Sat Mar 6, 2010 5:33 pm

killbuckner wrote:I'd make it that the top 6 seeds automatically get in. Let me demonstrate with the Eastern conference

#1. Cleveland
#2. Orlando
#3. Atlanta
#4. Boston
#5. Toronto
#6. Bucks
----^ all in

#7 Chicago plays the winner of
#10 Philly vs #11 Washington

#8 Miami plays the winner of
#9 Charlotte vs #12 New York

Detroit, Indy, New Jersey left out.

To me this is great because the playoff seeding matters. Finishing 2nd is much better than finishing 3rd because of the chance you might be able to face a team like Philly or Washington instead of the Bucks. Finishing 6th is a lot better than Finishing 7th. Finishing 8th is a lot better than finishing 9th. It gives the regular season games a lot more meaning. And no one wants to see Detroit, Indy, and New Jersey play more games.

There's another reason to like this. It works better with the draft.

The league's bottom 6 teams are bad for a reason. They need talent and really can't afford to win a few games and suddenly go from drafting 2nd to 10th. On the other hand, the value lost from dropping from, say, pick 9 to pick 15 isn't as substantial, so the opportunity to make the playoffs is probably more appealing.

For the bottom six teams, it might be prudent to change the draft lottery system. With only 6 teams eligible to win the top pick, the odds of any one team getting it move up. You might see a tanking battle to get from 7th worst to 6th worst. Is there a better fix than simply going back to a coin flip for the two worst teams?

s_other · Post #42 » by **s_other** » Sat Mar 6, 2010 5:35 pm

the_warden wrote:First, on behalf of Phoenix, plzplzplz no on the Southwest division. If the goal is to make it a cakewalk for the Lakers, then you've succeeded, but Spurs/Thunder/Rockets/Nuggets/Mavs/Suns is a ridiculous division.

You don't let teams current performance affect the division set-up. Half those SW teams will probably be non-playoff teams within three years.

Entertaining-As-Hell Tournament: thumbs down
Re-aligning divisions and eliminating Conferences: thumps up

Of course, knowing the NBA, they won't do it because this will disrupt the All-Star Game set-up and we have to keep that meaningless exhibition legitimate.

CrymeTime · Post #43 » by **CrymeTime** » Sat Mar 6, 2010 7:27 pm

This seems like a horrible idea.

Though I like the idea of 5 divisons then take the top 16 teams in the playoffs, I don't think they'll get rid of the conferences becasue it'd be tough to have an all-star game.

They should just try to exapnd the leauge by 2 teams(VAN, MTL) more or less to even out the divisons geographically, and have 4 divison of 8 teams.

funkatron101 · Post #44 » by **funkatron101** » Sun Mar 7, 2010 3:55 am

CrymeTime wrote:This seems like a horrible idea.

Though I like the idea of 5 divisons then take the top 16 teams in the playoffs, I don't think they'll get rid of the conferences becasue it'd be tough to have an all-star game.

They should just try to exapnd the leauge by 2 teams(VAN, MTL) more or less to even out the divisons geographically, and have 4 divison of 8 teams.

USA Vs World for the All-Star game. Problem solved.

xxRoyalexx · Post #45 » by **xxRoyalexx** » Sun Mar 7, 2010 3:56 am

Why in god's name would anyone want to make the Playoffs longer?

Post #46 » by **DaVoiceMaster** » Sun Mar 7, 2010 4:36 am

I'm intrigued by the 1 Conference, 5 Divisions set-up and the top 16 teams making the playoffs regardless of division. Portland probably cuts their air miles in half with a realignment like this. I have no interest in seeing the bottom dwellers participate in the playoffs what-so-ever.

Post #47 » by **kingkirk** » Sun Mar 7, 2010 5:08 am

Rupert Murdoch wrote:
I'd rather see overall seeding from #1 to #16 regardless of conference.

You must be reading my thoughts. I'm tired of watching eastern conference teams that finish around .500 make the playoffs with ease while a 45 to 50 win team from the west gets left out. Just rank the best 16 teams and have them play each other.

Totally agree. Its a miserable thing seeing 3-4 teams out East taht are under .500, yet still able to secure a playoff birth whilst Portland, who is currently 8th out West is on track for a 47 win season. I like this idea, not some play in rubbish.

funkatron101 · Post #48 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 9:13 pm

DaVoiceMaster wrote:I'm intrigued by the 1 Conference, 5 Divisions set-up and the top 16 teams making the playoffs regardless of division. Portland probably cuts their air miles in half with a realignment like this. I have no interest in seeing the bottom dwellers participate in the playoffs what-so-ever.

I really like the idea and have had it for a while. It does bring up some questions, however.

Q. What would be the point of divisions if just the top 16 teams move on?
A.
1. To continue to establish rivalries, and with the realignment, create new rivalries that should always have been there. Vikings and Packers are a huge rivalry, Wolves and Bucks should be.
2. To keep team, league and fan morale up by crowning Division champions.

Q. What happens if one division is much stronger than another? How can you accurately have a top 16 seeding?
A. Perhaps there could be a point system based not only on record, but strength of division based on team success outside of the division?

Q. What happens to the All-Star game? (As brought up and answered before)
A. USA Vs World. I think the league has come close to having enough foreign talent to make this a competitive game. Plus it creates intriguing storylines of team-mate vs team-mate.

devonaff · Post #49 » by **devonaff** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 11:42 pm

Nah. This is starting to sound a lot like the NCAA committee's ideas.

BAD

Effigy · Post #50 » by **Effigy** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 1:12 am

This is really dumb. We really want to have a playoff to see what team gets to be slaughtered by the Lakers or Cavs? Really? Oh boy. Talk about worthless.

Post #51 » by **DaVoiceMaster** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 11:06 am

funkatron101...

Are you suggesting a BCS type system? Yikes! I do like the idea of realigning the whole league though. Portland, Minnesota and Oklahoma City in the same Division? Now that's just plain goofey. I get how it came to that, but it's still goofey.

carrottop12 · Post #52 » by **carrottop12** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 11:46 am

Honestly just have every team play every team 3 times, except that you only play 5 of the teams 2 times and that just comes randomly and switches every year and then seed the teams 1-16.

Travel isn't a problem anymore like it used to be, there is plenty of time off between games to accommodate the playoffs. Every team gets at least one home game against every team in the league just like it is now, some teams you play twice on the road and just once at home and some teams it's the opposite, just like it is in conference play.

There is no reason for them not to be doing this.

dookieguy · Post #53 » by **dookieguy** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 12:42 pm

Why include all? 8 vs 11 and 9 vs 10 would be good enough

funkatron101 · Post #54 » by **funkatron101** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 4:16 pm

DaVoiceMaster wrote:funkatron101...

Are you suggesting a BCS type system? Yikes! I do like the idea of realigning the whole league though. Portland, Minnesota and Oklahoma City in the same Division? Now that's just plain goofey. I get how it came to that, but it's still goofey.

It's certainly not perfect, but if divisions are going to remain, then there should be a method to determine strength of division. Southwest would currently be a very tough division, and strong teams within that division may not make the playoffs because of it. However, that could change in a few short years. Duncan, Dirk and Nash retire, Amare is on a different team. etc.

ropjhk · Post #55 » by **ropjhk** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 5:15 pm

Pros of 5 divisions, 1-16 seeding:

- Better teams make the playoffs.
- Teams in the standings are closer together (Ex: Instead of chasing Atlanta who is 6.5 games ahead, Milwaukee will be chasing Portland who is only 2.5 games ahead)
- Reduce travel expenses. The money saved can potentially be used to facilitate labour agreement.
- Create more geographical rivalries.

Cons:
Teams 19 and below will go into major tank mode.
All star game may lose some lustre if it's not conference based and the new format doesn't work.
No more conference championships.

Solutions:
Combine this idea with the play-in playoffs. This can include any number of variations on the idea. The goal should be to reduce tanking, create excitement for fans outside of the top 16, and to encourage teams from 1 to 20+ to continually try to improve their standings.

All Star game can be between the two top coaches in the league. Have them pick their players from a pool of players either selected by the coaches or the fans. Make it a halftime event for the first nationally televised Sunday game after the Superbowl. This creates excitement as fans tune in to see which players each coach would pick for their team.

funkatron101 · Post #56 » by **funkatron101** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 5:25 pm

ropjhk wrote:All Star game can be between the two top coaches in the league. Have them pick their players from a pool of players either selected by the coaches or the fans. Make it a halftime event for the first nationally televised Sunday game after the Superbowl. This creates excitement as fans tune in to see which players each coach would pick for their team.

Did you read this on the Wolves board? I had a very similar idea. I think it would work well! Have the fans vote on team names and colors perhaps, to still keep them involved.

PimpORL · Post #57 » by **PimpORL** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 6:11 pm

The tanking problem could be averted in a number of ways: Only allow the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th seed teams fight for the bottom two seeds. So, even if a team does tank to 10th seed, chances are it would still end up with a mid 1st round pick from the lottery and a first round bout with one of the two best teams in the conference. Or, you give a certain number of teams below a certain seed the option to enter this tournament but also forfeit the chance of having a top 5 pick. So, if a team that forfeited the chance of having a top 5 pick gets a top 5 pick in the lottery, that team would be bumped 5 places down and, the other teams would be bumped up. Say a team gets the number 1 pick but chose to forfeit their chance before the playoffs: that team would get bumped down to 6th pick and all the other teams 2-6 would each be bumped up a spot.
Still, you could just save all this time by not doing any of this stuff. Basketball is a sport with very few big upsets, especially with a 7 game series. The chances of a team that couldn't even reach 8th seed winning the championship? Very close to 0.

Agenda42 · Post #58 » by **Agenda42** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 6:24 pm

I think folks are really overrating the ability of a 3 day event to prevent teams from dumping players and tanking. Do you really think a slim chance at the #8 seed is worth losing a chance at a high lottery pick?

99 Problems · Post #59 » by **99 Problems** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 7:41 pm

Maybe you could combine both that idea of scrapping the conferences and just having 1 thru 16 in the playoffs, along with the mini-tourney.. But in a different way..

1 thru 16 makes the playoffs, however in the time period after the regular season ends and before the playoffs begin, you can have a 3-5 day, knockout mini tournament with all the lottery teams involved.. Winner gets some type of 'Cup' or prize, maybe some cash from a League fund too.. Or maybe some other incentive related to the draft..

ropjhk · Post #60 » by **ropjhk** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 9:19 pm

funkatron101 wrote:
ropjhk wrote:All Star game can be between the two top coaches in the league. Have them pick their players from a pool of players either selected by the coaches or the fans. Make it a halftime event for the first nationally televised Sunday game after the Superbowl. This creates excitement as fans tune in to see which players each coach would pick for their team.

Did you read this on the Wolves board? I had a very similar idea. I think it would work well! Have the fans vote on team names and colors perhaps, to still keep them involved.

I came up with the idea myself.

Great minds think alike though.