To get in the playoffs do you have to be one of the top 4 teams in your devision or at least the 8th best in your conference??
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AirJordan:</div><div class="quote_post">To get in the playoffs do you have to be one of the top 4 teams in your devision or at least the 8th best in your conference??</div> Top 8 in each confrence advance to the playoffs. Seed 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. Then the winner of 1-8 and 4-5 play, the same goes for 2-7 and 6-3. The the winner of those play to determine who goes to the finals. Everything is a best of 7 game series.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dexter:</div><div class="quote_post">Top 8 in each confrence advance to the playoffs. Seed 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. Then the winner of 1-8 and 4-5 play, the same goes for 2-7 and 6-3. The the winner of those play to determine who goes to the finals. Everything is a best of 7 game series.</div> Thanks dexter. I was having an argument with a friend, he said top four in the devision but I knew that wouldn't be fair for other teams. Thanks again.
I think that eventually they will move to taking the top 16 teams. Eliminates garbage and would increase ratings.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rudeezy:</div><div class="quote_post">Top 16 in a conference? No Way. How would that eliminate garbage?</div> LOL no. Top 16 overall, as opposed to requiring that there be 8 from each conference. For example there could be 12 from the west and four from the east. It eliminates garbage. Besides Rudeezy there aren't even 32 teams in the NBA.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">LOL no. Top 16 overall, as opposed to requiring that there be 8 from each conference. For example there could be 12 from the west and four from the east. It eliminates garbage. Besides Rudeezy there aren't even 32 teams in the NBA.</div>LOL...I knew I must have read you wrong. Top 16 overall would be nice but then there really wouldn't be any need for conferences.
the top 16 overall in my opinion would not be very fair, because eastern conference teams have the easier schedules because of the toughness in the west
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting P_Stojakovic16:</div><div class="quote_post">the top 16 overall in my opinion would not be very fair, because eastern conference teams have the easier schedules because of the toughness in the west</div>Doesn't matter, the West would still represent more teams.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">For example there could be 12 from the west and four from the east. It eliminates garbage.</div> Era's change, it won't be like that for much longer, that would be a stupid rule.
Just to add to that... the #1 record in each Conference gets the #1 seed, then the team that leads the opposite Division gets #2... the next 6 seeds are best record from the rest of the Conference. So even if ALL 8 teams in the Central Division have better records than the Atlantic Division, the team leading the Atlantic would be the 2nd seed... and only the top 7 out of the Central would make it. I hope that made sense. Here's that scenerio in action. Atlantic Division --------------------- New Jersey (41-41) Boston (40-42) Philadelphia (35-47) Miami (30-52) New York (29-53) Washington (25-57) Orlando (12-70) Central Division --------------------- Indiana (62-20) Detroit (61-19) New Orleans (55-27) Milwaukee (52-30) Toronto (45-37) Chicago (44-36) Cleveland (43-39) Atlanta (42-40) So even though ALL 8 teams in the Central beat the BEST team from the Atlantic (New Jersey), the Nets will be the #2 seed, so the playoffs would look like this (Atlanta wouldn't make it even though it has a better record than the Nets)... #1 Indiana (62-20) #8 Cleveland (43-39) #4 New Orleans (55-27) #5 Milwaukee (52-30) #2 New Jersey (41-41) #7 Chicago (44-36) #3 Detroit (61-19) #6 Toronto (45-37) ----------------- So to answer the question (again as it has been answered) NO, it's not the best 4 from each division, it's the top teams from each division, and then the 6 remaining best records from the conference. So although scenerios like this one have never happened (at least not that I'm aware of) it is possible that only 1 team from 1 of the divisions make the playoffs, and on top of that could have a worse record than a team NOT making the postseason. Again, hope all that made sense, if not it's probably my fault, that is how it works, I'm just not the best at explaining things!!
but none of that really matters, all they are playing for in the east is who gets to be the sacrificial lamb to appease the western basketball gods. *lakers, kings, spurs, mavs, wolves* :mrgreen:
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting King James:</div><div class="quote_post">Era's change, it won't be like that for much longer, that would be a stupid rule.</div> Why? You are a basketball fan, don't you want to see more higher-quality ball? When better teams make the playoffs there will be more series that extend to 7 games. We as fans benefit because we get to watch them, and the stations benefit for the obvious reasons. I don't like watching teams get swept. I hate it when a team in the East goes 41-41 and makes the playoffs while the teams working their butts of for an 8th seed in the west (Sonics, Warriors, Rockets) don't even get to play in the post season.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">Why? You are a basketball fan, don't you want to see more higher-quality ball? When better teams make the playoffs there will be more series that extend to 7 games. We as fans benefit because we get to watch them, and the stations benefit for the obvious reasons. I don't like watching teams get swept. I hate it when a team in the East goes 41-41 and makes the playoffs while the teams working their butts of for an 8th seed in the west (Sonics, Warriors, Rockets) don't even get to play in the post season.</div> Got a good point, first I'd like to say the playoffs are now lame, best of 7 for the 1st round? That's retarded... I loved the 5 game, it allowed for easy teams to be swept in 3 games, and gave way for some great upsets (Seattle/Denver comes to mind) bring back the best of 5!! Okay back to the subject... it's a good idea to have the BEST of the BEST, but what's the sense of having conferences and divisions? It's so you are playing those you are competiting against, if you are going to pick the top 16 teams in the NBA, you'll just mush them all together into 1 big group and each team plays each team 3 times so that now leads to a 90 game season (30*3 = 90). Would you rather see Lakers/Kings or Lakers/Hawks? Well now you see them equally (3) instead of 4 Lakers/Kings games and 2 Lakers/Hawks games. The way it is now gives better rivals, like how the NCAA works (seperating the teams by regions, making in-state rivals and whatnot). Besides when the East takes back over dominance in the NBA, us western folks won't like the idea as much Personally I like the new divisions next year, it's more regional. I'm not sure if the new divisions allow the teams to play their division rivals more, but I think it should be like the NFL and MLB... it sort of is because you play each in-conference team 4 times and only 2 games against the opposite conference teams... but by allowing 5 games against division foes (5*4=20), 3 against the other division teams in-conference (3*10=30), and 2 against the opposing conference (2*15=30) which totals 80 games, I guess the other 2 games can be determined by the league in some manner, or they can drop to 80 games (which I wouldn't mind, I think the players would be healthier for the playoffs, and it's not like 80 games won't be enough to determine the top 8 teams). Sorry I got off topic, just ranting about my ideas about the league... but I think the playoffs are fine how they are. I'd never get rid of the divisions and conferences to jam the teams together in a big bowl and pick the best 16... although it would make for better games, it isn't the right way to go. I'd love to see one year with the NFL playoff system, 6 teams making it, and 2 of those getting bye rounds... sounds good to me :mrgreen:
if they want to still get to send 8 teams to the playoffs, the eastern GMs better show up at work one day and realize that they are getting their asses handed to em year after year in the finals by the west and that they need to get some deals together to get some better people. if they dont then the commisioner might switch it to division leaders and then the next 12 best teams or something, in that case it would probably be 10-6 or something, maybe even 12-4.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">Why? You are a basketball fan, don't you want to see more higher-quality ball? When better teams make the playoffs there will be more series that extend to 7 games. We as fans benefit because we get to watch them, and the stations benefit for the obvious reasons. I don't like watching teams get swept. I hate it when a team in the East goes 41-41 and makes the playoffs while the teams working their butts of for an 8th seed in the west (Sonics, Warriors, Rockets) don't even get to play in the post season.</div> KJ is right, but look at it from a different direction. Right now, the middle of the pack Western teams are getting screwed right? I think we can all agree on that. But if this rule had been in place during the 90's, the balance would have been in favor of the East, and West fans would have been upset. The system is fine as it is. From '96 to '98, West fans will say that the only East strength was in Chicago, which is wrong. If this top 16 system was in place, 9 east teams and only 7 west would have qualified each of those years. Middle of the pack east teams got screwed back then, Charlotte in '96, Cleveland in '97, and Washington in '98.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dexter:</div><div class="quote_post"> Everything is a best of 7 game series.</div> I thought the first round is the best of 5?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Ming637:</div><div class="quote_post">I thought the first round is the best of 5?</div> For 18 years, that was true. But last year was the first where all four are best of seven, including the first round.
The west doimination over the East isn't goin to last much longer, and I wouldn't be suprised this if this is the last year of big time dominace. Next year them should be a little better then the East, but not by much.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting starman85:</div><div class="quote_post">KJ is right, but look at it from a different direction. Right now, the middle of the pack Western teams are getting screwed right? I think we can all agree on that. But if this rule had been in place during the 90's, the balance would have been in favor of the East, and West fans would have been upset. The system is fine as it is. From '96 to '98, West fans will say that the only East strength was in Chicago, which is wrong. If this top 16 system was in place, 9 east teams and only 7 west would have qualified each of those years. Middle of the pack east teams got screwed back then, Charlotte in '96, Cleveland in '97, and Washington in '98.</div> It is not simply a matter of teams getting screwed, it is a matter of quality. Really this only applies in the west because the east is wide open and it's not impossible for an 8 seed to "upset" the 1 seed. I don't want to watch the Kings/Lakers/Spurs play the Grizzlies/Sonics/Rockets in the first round. It is simply not fun to watch. I am not just being a western conference fan, I want to see quality basketball before the finals. I personally think that they are moving towards my idea. Why else would the extend the series to best of 7? So that we can see more crappy ball? They know that in the future teams will be in more equal match-ups and more likely to play the full 7 games. If they weren't looking into my idea, why not just leave the series at 5 games so that stronger teams eliminate the weaker teams more quickly?
