All it is doing is eliminating one round of playoffs. We already have the system, plus a boring first round.
All it is doing is eliminating one round of playoffs. We already have the system, plus a boring first round.
Hardly ever do the two top teams make it to the finals and win ... Also, the two top teams in the East are so dominant because of that - they're in the East. Put them in the West and they wouldn't be that good ...
Outside of Dallas, they haven't played anyone who's really worth anything. Honestly, Boston will have problems getting past Toronto, Orlando and Detroit in a 7 game series - so it won't matter what they're like against the west.
oiprocs
Diamond Member
- Jun 20, 2001
- 3,780
- 2
- 0
If they really wanted to improve the level of play, they should start with contracts.
I say limit contracts to 2-3 years. This prevents some idiotic GM from signing ICan't PlayBall to a 6 year, $60 million dollar contract.
With less years, you wouldn't get all these teams with sh!tty players and unmovable contracts that no one wants to take. If a player starts sucking, he's only got 1 or 2 years left, and you can deal him or cut him in an easier fashion.
This also hinder teams from going over the salary cap and staying there for ~3-4 years. Bad contracts will run out and you won't have to wait as long to clear cap space.
Finally, the level of play would improve. If you couldn't hack it, you're out, and someone who can actually play ball is signed. Not only that, but players will play harder and train harder, knowing that every couple years they could get a new contract. Granted, players would be shuffling teams more often, but this isn't a bad thing. We definitely would not see another KG spending 12 years in Dumpsville before moving to better scenery on the back end of great career.
This will never happen though, because of the damn players union. No way they'll sign any CBA or whatever the hell they do agreeing to a limitation in contract years.
*sigh*
I say limit contracts to 2-3 years. This prevents some idiotic GM from signing ICan't PlayBall to a 6 year, $60 million dollar contract.
With less years, you wouldn't get all these teams with sh!tty players and unmovable contracts that no one wants to take. If a player starts sucking, he's only got 1 or 2 years left, and you can deal him or cut him in an easier fashion.
This also hinder teams from going over the salary cap and staying there for ~3-4 years. Bad contracts will run out and you won't have to wait as long to clear cap space.
Finally, the level of play would improve. If you couldn't hack it, you're out, and someone who can actually play ball is signed. Not only that, but players will play harder and train harder, knowing that every couple years they could get a new contract. Granted, players would be shuffling teams more often, but this isn't a bad thing. We definitely would not see another KG spending 12 years in Dumpsville before moving to better scenery on the back end of great career.
This will never happen though, because of the damn players union. No way they'll sign any CBA or whatever the hell they do agreeing to a limitation in contract years.
*sigh*
I agree that there is massive disparity right now, but I can't stand people bitching about it and claiming never to watch the NBA anymore because it is such a flawed product. Nothing is perfectly balanced ... especially in the business world, which the NBA is first and foremost ... a business. Add to that that even though some of the teams might blow chunks, they might still be making money.
The cycle will soon shift back towards the other side, and the whiners will be out in force again.
/rant
edit: not meant to rag on the OP, but a response to some of the responses.
edit2: I agree with oiprocs on the evil that is the NBAPA ... that needs to be redefined
The cycle will soon shift back towards the other side, and the whiners will be out in force again.
/rant
edit: not meant to rag on the OP, but a response to some of the responses.
edit2: I agree with oiprocs on the evil that is the NBAPA ... that needs to be redefined
oiprocs
Diamond Member
- Jun 20, 2001
- 3,780
- 2
- 0
Doesn't it just suck when your team is good but their conference happens to be really really good as well? It's like, way to get strong at the wrong time.
Kinda like the past few years, where NFL strongholds Colts, Chargers, Steelers, Pats all reside in the AFC. But like this year, when the NFC finally showed up to play, I' m hoping the NBA will balance out. We just need a few of these all stars out west to reject extensions, become free agents, and head to the east for more money.
I feel that way about my rockets in the southwest division. Dallas, San Antonio, and New Orleans...seriously wtf....
Each solution to the problem will present a new set of problems. Your solution sill just reward the 9th and 10th seed of the West with an easier playoff bracket in the East. How is that fair? I agree that this unbalance is pretty ridiculous but I really don't know if there's a good solution to it. Last year, there was the issue of of a weaker division winner getting a higher seed even though the 2nd place team in the stronger division had a better record. Each year presents its own problems and to I really don't think there's one single solution.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
it matters because a shitty team shouldn't be rewarded for playing shitty basketball because it happens to play in a shitty conference.
even when the bulls were dominating i think the west was a deeper conference. i could be wrong.
and yes, it goes in cycles. this would keep the cycles from being quite so glaringly bad as they are right now. sometime the east will be good and crappy teams from the west will be getting into the playoffs. that the disparity is cyclical doesn't invalidate the point that crappy teams from one conference shouldn't be getting into the playoffs when there are good teams from the other conference that aren't getting into the playoffs.
the current system rewards good teams in the east with a ridiculously easy shot at the championship because they don't get beat up so bad as teams in the west. under my suggestion they'd at least have to play more than one good other team.
i think the problem of western conference teams beating each other up in the playoffs while the eastern conference leader faces all of one good series is a bigger problem than a 9th western conference team having a slightly easier run to the finals. and that is before you get to the fact that losing teams are getting into the playoffs, which is a disgrace. why are losing teams being rewarded with shots at the playoffs? it's as bad as the 6-6 teams in bowl games. who the hell wants to watch that crap?
oiprocs
Diamond Member
- Jun 20, 2001
- 3,780
- 2
- 0
Yeah, I root for the Lakers and right when Kobe starts to understand that it's a team game, the Western Conference just explodes with the amount of good teams.
No wonder Lebron is so adamant about getting another all star now, before the deadline. He probably knows that the disparity will end soon, and he wants to take full advantage of the weak east to win at least one championship.
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
Suck, not really. What sucks is a team full of underachieving thugs even if they do win. I don't mind a strong conference as long as my team plays hard, they don't even have to make the play-offs. (well not every year anyway)
That said, watch out for my Blazers going forward....these guys are young AND they play hard....+ Oden and a couple years keeping this team together is going to pay-off big.
NBA should take a page out of college hoops and have some kind of single elimination tournament
have 6 teams in each conference get automatic entry to playoffs (3 division winners + 3 next best records). then have a single elimination tourney with the next 8 best records (which would leave out the worst team in each conference) to fill the last 2 spots
have 6 teams in each conference get automatic entry to playoffs (3 division winners + 3 next best records). then have a single elimination tourney with the next 8 best records (which would leave out the worst team in each conference) to fill the last 2 spots
16/30 = 75%?????
NBA 16/30 = 0.5333 = 53%
MLB = 8/30 = 26.7% (4/14 in AL, 4/16 in NL)
NFL = 12/32 = 37%
NCAA D-1 Bowl SubDivision Football = LOL
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter