I don't understand the rationale for seeding the top teams of each division 1-2-3, regardless of their record. The only argument for it that I can think of is that it allows teams from all regions to get far in the playoffs. However, I think it creates worse matchups in the 2nd rounds, by letting teams from crappy divisions face easier teams. And some of the teams aren't even in there specific regions (Washington in the Southeast, Phoenix in the Pacific, etc.). The Atlantic division is a perfect example, the top team (Philly) would only be an 8th seed, but if they would be lucky enough to grab a 3rd seed over much better teams like Indiana and Cleveland.
Yeah man it is ridiculous. Especially when teams like the Spurs and Mavs are in the same division. Whichever one doesn't win the division can only be 4th seed at best. That means that they'll be playing a 5th seeded team that has a horrible record.
I am guessing that the purpose would be to supposedly create excitement for divisional races and the top-3 seed that automaticly comes with it like in baseball.
Hey it would only make things easier for the better teams. I'm sure they are not complaining. And if you are a fan of one of those better teams that have a better record then a division leading team then you shouldn't complain knowing your team is almost guranteed to make the 2nd round.
I thought it would be unfairly punishing the better teams. For example, if Philly got the 3rd seed because of winning the division, Indiana would be stuck with the 4th seed unfairly. Therefore, the Pacers would have to face a tougher team in the 1st round (5th seed), while the 6th seed would be able to catch a break by facing a team at their level. I'm in favour of letting the best teams face each other in the end, and the fact that a crappy team suddenly has a better chance of making it further doesn't seem fair.
another guess: if you are the NBA you want later rounds of the playoffs to feature matchups of geographic diversity, hence bringing in more markets.
Its too keep things even during the regular season and for potential cinderella stories come playoff time. and yes, like JWohl said, it allows for two markets to bring in viewership. A New York/New Jersey playoff matchup is no good for the NBA, but a New York/Miami is.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting FedEx227:</div><div class="quote_post">Its too keep things even during the regular season and for potential cinderella stories come playoff time.</div> No it is not. Sure, Phoenix and Seattle did it last year. But for the most part Cinderella teams barely even win their division. Chicago and Washington were in the middle of the pack last year. Golden State will do the same this year. The Milwakee Bucks a couple years back were in the same situation. The regular season has no affect on the playoffs in the end. The Lakers won rings when they were as low as the third seed, while the Kings won the west more than once and never even got to the finals. Teams like the Pistons (and even the Spurs to a certain extent) mess around/experiment with lineups during the regular season, and then turn it on later.
ohhhhhhhhhh...i been wondering why minnesota was all outta place in the conference rankings. that's pretty stupid if you ask me. it rewards teams in sh!tty divisions, when they already get rewarded by their easier schedule.
NVM. TO MUCH controversy to post this crap. I really don't feel like getting into this crap...to much explaining.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting igotask8board:</div><div class="quote_post">I really don't feel like getting into this crap...to much explaining.</div> Actually that's just a horrible theory. So you think that every time a new team emerges as elite that the NBA will restructure the divisions? I don't think so. Someday the Spurs will suck, and the Hornets will be contenders but the NBA will just have to deal with it. If the NBA wanted to help teams with stars, then why give high draft picks to the teams that get poor records because they don't have a star? Your theory doesn't make sense.
You guys are looking at it the wrong way, I think it does make each divisional race more exciting, kind of how baseballs is exciting but that's not the theory of the system. It's similar to the nfl and mlb in the idea that it protects tough divisions from missing out on high seeds. The idea is that if you had a stacked division where teams beat each other up so much that no team was able to acquire a great record, they shouldn't miss out and should still get a higher seed. In baseball they do it so that a team wouldn't get screwed out of a playoff birth in bball they do it so that potential team wouldn't get screwed out of a high seed. The problem is that there is almost never a division like this and if a division is strong they accumulate so many out of divison wins that they still end up w/ a high record.
also like lat year when the nets and cavs tied last year for the 8th seed, you can't let them both in
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting number99:</div><div class="quote_post">also like lat year when the nets and cavs tied last year for the 8th seed, you can't let them both in</div> umm if that happens don't you get another game and whoever wins that goes to the playoff??
No.....first they would look at who won the season series between the two teams, which is silly really since now that there are 30 teams some only meet 3 times during the season. After that I believe that they look at division record, I'm sure that the list goes on. My guess would be that conference records come next, and so on.
It's in place so the divisions actually mean something. If it wasn't, then there would be no point to even having the divisions. Also, don't forget that the NFL and MLB go by the same rule (don't know or care about the NHL). If we ever see the rule create a scenario that's overly ridiculous (like a team that's record wouldn't even qualify for the playoffs getting the 3rd seed), then they'd quickly fix it. But since homecourt goes to the team with the better record anyway, it hasn't created any major problems yet and probably won't anytime soon.
Ahh...that system was not designed with the fact that division winners would just be .500 or average teams..it was designed with the fact that division leaders were among the elite, so the NBA doesnt want elite teams clashing in the early rounds of the playoffs, they rather save elite teams(which they expect division winners to be) for the later rounds..so the way it was meant to be is that a team like Indy and Maimi could meet no earlier then the 2nd round..but every so often you get a weak division like the Atlantic...who gives you a bunch of below average teams. So they luck up and get a high seeding by winning the division. But the seeding wasnt meant to keep elite teams from clashing in the 1st round. And as far as what division teams are placed in it doesnt have to do with how good or bad a team is...the divisions get changed when expansion teams are added. When the Bobcats came in they could not be added to the atlantic division because charolatte has always been considered a central team that time zone came into the league..but by putting them back into the central it would have left the divisions unbalanced. So the NBA decided to switch the divisions to three...and they took every team that wasnt really directed in the atlantic or the North east like Maimi, and teams that were more located in the soutern area like Orlando and Alanta but played in the central for division balance reasons....and came up with a South east division...and the reason why Washington even though it is a north east team ended up their is because New York, New Jersey, Boston and The Raptors are located more north then Washington...and the league needed a balance of 5 teams per division. And Phoenix, the Pacific division is really the South West division...all teams located the neearest to the south West stayed in that division moving Seattle and Portland out even tough they are located nearer the pacific ocean then Phoenix , the NBA really got rid of the Pacific and Atlantic divisions and replaced them with the North East and South West...but they just kept the old names...I dont think they wanted to reture the familiar-ness people had with those divisions like when the Lakers ruled the Pacific or when Boston and New York ruled the atlantic, so they just changed the setup a bit but not the name.Well something like that..
I made a thread where I suggested abolishing conferences and divisions entirely, there were some responses as well. I'd pretty much be copy/pasting my post if I made a new reply, so here you go: http://www.justbball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18510
