2-3-2 finals format was Red Auerbach’s idea Celtics legend Red Auerbach suggested to commissioner David Stern that the schedule for the Finals be changed to its current 2-3-2 sequence. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>LOS ANGELES - More than two decades ago, when the Celtics [team stats] and Los Angeles were hogging the NBA’s biggest stage and treating it as their own annual best-of-seven postseason playground, Celtics legend Red Auerbach suggested to commissioner David Stern that the schedule for the Finals be changed to its current 2-3-2 sequence. Stern remembers it well. “Although he’s not here to deny it, Red said to me be back in ’84, that this is too much play, travel, play, travel, play, travel,” Stern said yesterday. “In subsequent years, he said it was terrible that we went to the 2-3-2, but a young commissioner was motivated by the father of us all.” Father doesn’t always know best. Somewhere, Red may be wishing he hadn’t opened his cigar-savoring mouth. Since its inception in 1985, the 2-3-2 format has been a sore spot among players and some coaches. “From afar, what I’ve never liked about the 2-3-2 is you fight all year to have Game 7 at home and Game 5 at home,” Celtics coach Doc Rivers said. “Game 5 is taken away from you. We’ve had three huge Game 5s in the first three rounds. All of them have been at home.” Lakers coach Phil Jackson isn’t as down on the 2-3-2 concept as Rivers, but as always, he has his own take on the difficulties of playing three in a row in one place. “The duration of three games on one court, those have always been tough to maintain,” said Jackson, tied with Auerbach with nine NBA titles. “I’ve had teams that have been on the road and won three games in a row, but I can’t ever remember winning three the other way around as a home coach in the finals.” Jackson, 9-1 in the Finals, is right. Since the 2-3-2 format began, no home team has won the middle three games.</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Jackson, 9-1 in the Finals, is right. Since the 2-3-2 format began, no home team has won the middle three games.</div> 04 Pistons, 06 Heat...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Big Frame @ Jun 11 2008, 12:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Jackson, 9-1 in the Finals, is right. Since the 2-3-2 format began, no home team has won the middle three games.</div> 04 Pistons, 06 Heat... </div> Yeah at first I had to reread that because it seemed like such a bad typo it couldn't be real...
^ I think the article is trying to say that no home team has gone away in the Finals and won all 3 of those away games. 04 Pistons and 06 Heat were away teams, that went back home and won their "3" home games straight. Like for example if LA was to win the next two games, that would mean they had won 3 home games, but thats what it is designed for, the 2-3-2 format, to give the away team almost the same advantage. Of course the Celtics will have an extra game at their home but LA having 3 straight at their home, certainly helps a lot as well. I personally don't like the format, especially after playing all these playoff rounds getting into the finals, 2-2-1-1-1, and then finally changing into 2-3-2. It throws the home court advantage right of the table IMO.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 10 2008, 10:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ I think the article is trying to say that no home team has gone away in the Finals and won all 3 of those away games. 04 Pistons and 06 Heat were away teams, that went back home and won their "3" home games straight. Like for example if LA was to win the next two games, that would mean they had won 3 home games, but thats what it is designed for, the 2-3-2 format, to give the away team almost the same advantage. Of course the Celtics will have an extra game at their home but LA having 3 straight at their home, certainly helps a lot as well. I personally don't like the format, especially after playing all these playoff rounds getting into the finals, 2-2-1-1-1, and then finally changing into 2-3-2. It throws the home court advantage right of the table IMO.</div> Why should there be a home court advantage? The idea is to have a fair & balanced competition between the best two teams from each conference to see which is the best.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 11 2008, 01:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ I think the article is trying to say that no home team has gone away in the Finals and won all 3 of those away games. 04 Pistons and 06 Heat were away teams, that went back home and won their "3" home games straight. Like for example if LA was to win the next two games, that would mean they had won 3 home games, but thats what it is designed for, the 2-3-2 format, to give the away team almost the same advantage. Of course the Celtics will have an extra game at their home but LA having 3 straight at their home, certainly helps a lot as well. I personally don't like the format, especially after playing all these playoff rounds getting into the finals, 2-2-1-1-1, and then finally changing into 2-3-2. It throws the home court advantage right of the table IMO.</div> Well then, the '90 Pistons won Three Straight in Portland, and the Lakers won 3 straight against the Sixers I forgot the year. When I point out your flaws you know its bad reporting.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 11 2008, 02:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 10 2008, 10:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ I think the article is trying to say that no home team has gone away in the Finals and won all 3 of those away games. 04 Pistons and 06 Heat were away teams, that went back home and won their "3" home games straight. Like for example if LA was to win the next two games, that would mean they had won 3 home games, but thats what it is designed for, the 2-3-2 format, to give the away team almost the same advantage. Of course the Celtics will have an extra game at their home but LA having 3 straight at their home, certainly helps a lot as well. I personally don't like the format, especially after playing all these playoff rounds getting into the finals, 2-2-1-1-1, and then finally changing into 2-3-2. It throws the home court advantage right of the table IMO.</div> Why should there be a home court advantage? The idea is to have a fair & balanced competition between the best two teams from each conference to see which is the best. </div> Why try and win the most games in the league then? Whats the point of that if you don't even care about getting HCA?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Big Frame @ Jun 11 2008, 05:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 11 2008, 01:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ I think the article is trying to say that no home team has gone away in the Finals and won all 3 of those away games. 04 Pistons and 06 Heat were away teams, that went back home and won their "3" home games straight. Like for example if LA was to win the next two games, that would mean they had won 3 home games, but thats what it is designed for, the 2-3-2 format, to give the away team almost the same advantage. Of course the Celtics will have an extra game at their home but LA having 3 straight at their home, certainly helps a lot as well. I personally don't like the format, especially after playing all these playoff rounds getting into the finals, 2-2-1-1-1, and then finally changing into 2-3-2. It throws the home court advantage right of the table IMO.</div> Well then, the '90 Pistons won Three Straight in Portland, and the Lakers won 3 straight against the Sixers I forgot the year. When I point out your flaws you know its bad reporting. </div> I didn't write the article, but I see what you're saying.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 11 2008, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I didn't write the article, but I see what you're saying.</div> I didnt mean your flaws...I know that youd be smart enugh to double check your facts.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 11 2008, 07:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 11 2008, 02:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 10 2008, 10:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ I think the article is trying to say that no home team has gone away in the Finals and won all 3 of those away games. 04 Pistons and 06 Heat were away teams, that went back home and won their "3" home games straight. Like for example if LA was to win the next two games, that would mean they had won 3 home games, but thats what it is designed for, the 2-3-2 format, to give the away team almost the same advantage. Of course the Celtics will have an extra game at their home but LA having 3 straight at their home, certainly helps a lot as well. I personally don't like the format, especially after playing all these playoff rounds getting into the finals, 2-2-1-1-1, and then finally changing into 2-3-2. It throws the home court advantage right of the table IMO.</div> Why should there be a home court advantage? The idea is to have a fair & balanced competition between the best two teams from each conference to see which is the best. </div> Why try and win the most games in the league then? Whats the point of that if you don't even care about getting HCA? </div> HCA for the eastern or western conference playoffs makes sense. The finals is supposed to be between the two best teams. The schedule for the western teams is considerably harder than for the eastern teams, so the overall record is biased, no?
They're already doing it by league's best record. What I'm saying is that they don't want to make the home court a dominating advantage for that team because of the schedule difficulty and that you want to see who's the actual better team. It's why they play the superbowl at a neutral site...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 11 2008, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How would you determine who starts off the series on their homecourt?</div> The only way to do it besides a coin flip would be to do it by the winner of All-Star Game Talk about making the All-Star Game important....(I think MLB does it this way, not sure) <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>It's why they play the superbowl at a neutral site...</div> 7 games is a lot of games to be playing at a neutral site though.
I like it that there is a neutral site for the Superbowl. It is difficult to determine who should get HCA in a championship game since the Western conference is so much harder.
Like Hunter said, the MLB does make the all-star game count for something. The winning league gets the home field advantage to the World Series. I like that idea.
I'm not very big on the 2-3-2 format either. I think it gives the away team more advantage, with the ability to go up 3-2 and take the momentum into game 6. As far as the home court advantage being biased, probably, but it's been done with every sport in America, except for football where they play only one game. It's why they play 16, 82, or 162 games in a regular season. I'd be open to a 2-2-1-1 and neutural series. That'd be fun, we'd play the game in St. Louis or Chicago. haha. Not a big fan of the All-Star game deciding who gets Home Court Advantage. Why should a team get home court advantage because their conference won the All-Star game. Not every team gets a representative in the All-Star game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aquaitious @ Jun 11 2008, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not a big fan of the All-Star game deciding who gets Home Court Advantage. Why should a team get home court advantage because their conference won the All-Star game. Not every team gets a representative in the All-Star game.</div> Plus the Allstar game is not meant to be competitive, it's meant for fun and entertainment. In baseball, pitchers get pulled after 1 inning, no one runs anything out, and lineup changes are constantly made so everyone gets to play. Something as important as home court advantage should be taken more seriously, putting the best players on the field and making a serious effort to win. I think an idea would be to take the sum of the records against the other conference and whichever conference has the best record gets home court advantage. Of course that would penalize a team like the Celtics who may be the best during the regular season but would be on the road becuase their conference sucks.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 11 2008, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The schedule for the western teams is considerably harder than for the eastern teams, so the overall record is biased, no?</div> The Celtics had a better winning % against the West than they did against the East. Just throwing that out there.
