<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marvinmartian @ Jun 9 2006, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>2-2-1-1-1 is better.</div>That is the best way by far, with 3 home games in a row it is kind of unfair. The reason why is if your team is on a roll at home and lets say you win all 3 games, you have all the momentum for game 6. I think with 2-2-1-1-1 you ahve to prove you can win at home and on the road, not just one game on the road and 3 in a row at home.
If you lose three in a row anywhere, you don't deserve to get a championship in my opinion. And the winner of every game seems to win the series at awfully high rate, unless you're specifically talking about teams that are already behind in the series.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jun 9 2006, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That is a stupid home court schedule there.It should be like it usually is: 2 in Dallas, 2 in Miami, 1 in Dallas, 1 in Miami, 1 in Dallas.</div>This way the Mavs get an advantage on there 3 day streak at home but Miami still gets more days in their city, but yeah I have to agree with you the original scheduling is much better, this is going to kill the Heat in the next few games.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jun 9 2006, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And just for clarification purposes, I looked it up and the 2004 Pistons are the only team in NBA history to sweep the three middle games at home. So... the format isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be in my mind.</div>If the first four games are split, which is hardly a rare occurance, why should the team without homecourt advantage get game five at their place?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fouled Out @ Jun 10 2006, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If the first four games are split, which is hardly a rare occurance, why should the team without homecourt advantage get game five at their place?</div>Even if they get Game 5 at their place with the series tied 2-2, they still have to go out and win that game. Also, even if they do win that game, they know they have to close out the series on the road... and that is no easy feat, especially in the Finals.If you are good enough to reach the Finals, you should be good enough to win on the road... plain and simple. Dallas has shown they can do it, as has Miami. I don't think it's as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iversonfan268 @ Jun 10 2006, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The only reason they probably do it like this is to make it a better chance to go to 7 games</div>Nope... I believe the NBA Finals series last year between Detroit and San Antonio was the first Finals series to go to seven games since the 1995 series between Orlando and Houston. Two times in 11 years aren't really good odds...Again, they changed it because of the circumstances during the Boston vs. LA Finals series in the 1980s... there was only one day between games, and that was the only time teams had to travel considering most of them did not have their own private planes (like they do now) and could not board the team plane directly after the game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jun 10 2006, 02:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nope... I believe the NBA Finals series last year between Detroit and San Antonio was the first Finals series to go to seven games since the 1995 series between Orlando and Houston. Two times in 11 years aren't really good odds...Again, they changed it because of the circumstances during the Boston vs. LA Finals series in the 1980s... there was only one day between games, and that was the only time teams had to travel considering most of them did not have their own private planes (like they do now) and could not board the team plane directly after the game.</div>Oh o that makes sense. BTW I didnt mean it like it happens all the time but that way it does seem to strenghten the chances of the series going to 7 games if you look how its set up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iversonfan268 @ Jun 10 2006, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Oh o that makes sense. BTW I didnt mean it like it happens all the time but that way it does seem to strenghten the chances of the series going to 7 games if you look how its set up.</div>Yeah, I know what you meant, but I just wanted to point that out anyway.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If the first four games are split, which is hardly a rare occurance, why should the team without homecourt advantage get game five at their place?</div> I don't get what your saying, are you saying that's a positive or negative for the away team? It sounds like a positive spin but really it's not. It's a luxury to have game 5 at home, but tied at 2-2, their not going to win the series with that win. And they have to win 1 more at the opposing team's floor. Nothing positive about that. I stated in the Heat/Mavs thread, the format is really in our favor, as only one team on the road has won those 3 in a row. So it's really a away team disadvantage, but their at a disadvantage to begin with. So I don't see the big deal either like bigmo has been saying.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rok @ Jun 10 2006, 05:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't get what your saying, are you saying that's a positive or negative for the away team? It sounds like a positive spin but really it's not. It's a luxury to have game 5 at home, but tied at 2-2, their not going to win the series with that win. And they have to win 1 more at the opposing team's floor. Nothing positive about that.</div>I don't remember the exact figure, but I was pinting out that the winner of game five in a tied series wins something like 80% of the time. A team with "homecourt advantage" should have game five at home, that's all I'm saying.
And like I said earlier, the winner of every game seems to win at an awfully high rate. The winner of game 1 wins 72.2893123% of the time. I made that up, but it's pretty accurate. Point is, it doesn't matter.Edit: The other silly part about it is that it's basically redundant. It's like saying "The person who is winning the series usually wins!" Durr.
I'm just figuring the mavs will be up 3-2 so it is good to have game 6 at home instead of Dallas having to play game 6 on the road which might force a game 7. It depends how you look at it.
They do this to cut down on the players traveling. It take energy to travel halfway across the country.But homecourt advantage is supposed to go to the better team, and the better team should be able to take care of business away from home. :winkglasses:
Eh, I'm actually not liking this new format anymore. We've got a ton of pressure now to win all three games at home.
Sorry man, but it won't happen...a team that made the finals won't lose 3 strait games, especially if they are as good a road team as the Mavs have been this year, and actually for the last few years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LightsOut @ Jun 12 2006, 07:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Eh, I'm actually not liking this new format anymore. We've got a ton of pressure now to win all three games at home. </div>Yeah, because it's less pressure to win two at home and one on the road, especially if you've already lost two on the road.Let me assure you, the Heat won't lose because of the format.
