I have absolutely had it. I am through being quiet about this issue. Seriously, the NBA Playoffs has me all up in a lather.
And no, it is not because of the Finals.
And no, it is not because the West is so much better than the East.
It is because of stupid articles like this, this, and this latest one by Bill Simmons calling for a radical restructuring of the NBA Playoffs.
To borrow from Hollywood, these ideas are just dumb, dumber, and dumberer.
First, lets examine the reason why these three intelligent men (I am honestly not being sarcastic, I generally enjoy both Hollinger and Simmons, although I am not familiar with Fitzgerald.) would propose changing the playoff format. You don't have to be a genius to see that the best basketball teams come from the Western Conference. Just look at the standings, where 5 of the top 6 NBA teams (by record) were in the West. The assumption made by these men though, is that the East is damned to mediocrity for the foreseeable future, especially since both Kevin Durant and Greg Oden are headed out West. Is this a fair assumption on their parts, or is it merely an extremely reactionary stance given the particular discrepancy in records that has been seen this season? I'll go with the latter, and let me explain why. The three above authors generally chose to ignore the fact that if Detroit had won Game 7 of the 2005 NBA Finals that we would have experienced three consecutive Eastern Conference NBA champions. Think about that. We are one game from an Eastern Conference three-peat, and all of a sudden because of one uncompetitive Finals matchup everyone is labeling the Eastern Conference as a lost cause and calling for the destruction of the current playoff system? Please. Also, lets examine the records a little further in the past, like last season where the East boasted the team with the best regular season record (Detroit) and both the East and the West boasted three teams with 50 or more wins. The season before that the West did indeed dominate the regular season in a similar fashion to this year, having six 50 win teams to the East's two. There is however, an important detail that weakens Simmons' argument. In that season, 2004-2005, two of the Western Conference teams with 50 plus wins were Sacramento and Seattle, and in the East Chicago, Cleveland, and Orlando all failed to make the playoffs. So how can these three men argue that there is no chance for change in the NBA hierarchy when those five teams have fluctuated so greatly in the span of only two seasons?
One of the other prevailing arguments is that the West is set to maintain its current level of dominance due to its extreme advantage in terms of stars. It is true that the West does have a large number of elite players, including Dirk, Kobe, Duncan, Nash, Yao, and KG along with the incoming additions of Oden and Durant. It is foolish however, to ignore the talent pool in the East. Don't the Cavs happen to have the best wing player in the league in LeBron James? Didn't Dwayne Wade lead his team to a title last season? Did you see the clutch performances put up by Gilbert Arenas throughout this season? Aren't Chris Bosh and Dwight Howard two of the three best young power forwards in the NBA? (Amare being the third) And if I am not mistaken, aren't their rumors abounding that KG, Kobe, and Shawn Marion among others could all be headed East this offseason? Point being, the alleged cap in talent between the two conferences is nothing more than a media hyped mirage, one that certainly was not being discussed too heavily when the Pistons and Heat were winning championships in recent years.
Now onto what these three men are actually proposing to do. Their general consensus is that the playoffs should move to a 16 team bracket, with the first round matchups featuring East vs West matchups, or in Simmons scenario being seeded solely by record except for the top team in each conference being assured a top two seed. These authors believe that such a system would prevent matchups such as the Spurs and Suns this season, where arguably the top two teams in the league face off before the Finals. The fundamental problem with these arguments is that, well, they miss the point.
Here is a major news flash: the purpose of the NBA Finals is not to give you the most entertaining matchup, it is to crown a champion, who often times does not happen to be the team with the best regular season record.
Often times yes, two really good teams will face off before the NBA Finals. It happens. Does it somehow wreck the sport? No. Did the world end last season because Dallas and San Antonio faced off in the second round? No. Is the NBA going to close up shop because San Antonio and Phoenix played in the second round this year? No. Are the Spurs not a worthy NBA champion because they never faced the Mavs in this year's playoffs? Also no. As long as the top teams are in the playoffs somewhere, things will work themselves out. If you are to extend the logic of restructuring the NBA playoffs a little further, why not just have the two teams with the best record in the regular season face off in a championship and just scrap the rest of the playoffs?
The point of the NBA playoffs, or the World Series, or the Stanley Cup, or the Super Bowl, is not to match up the two best teams in the sport from a given year. The Finals along with those other championships matchup the champions from the two respective conferences (or leagues) in that sport. Why? Well, here is the reason why: in all of those sports the conferences play an unbalanced schedule, meaning that the W-L records that result are not 100% representative of which conference is better. Take last year in the NBA for instance. There were two 60 win teams in the West, yet a 52 win Miami team won the championship. Take a look at college football this past season. All season long everyone believed that the Big 10 and their two undefeated juggernauts were the best conference in all the land. And what happened? Michigan got the crap beat out of them by a two loss USC team and Ohio State was dismantled by a one loss Florida team.
The NBA playoffs do not need to change. All sports leagues experience periods of ebb and flow, and the current NBA is no different. Should the playoffs have been changed in the 90's to make things tougher on the Bulls? Should the AFC not been allowed to play in the Super Bowl in the 90's when they had lost 13 in a row? No, these suggestions sound pretty silly, as are the suggestions that the NBA should scrap the current playoff format.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Enough Is Enough
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
The real problem is it's too darn hard to gamble on the games. It's amazing what ten bucks will do.
Think you missed the point of simmons article. He wanted to increase viewership, not just make it more competitive. You point about the Detriot win is valid, but that series was incredibly boring for a Championship series. I think its a logical solution to move to a tourney format for the NBA playoffs. This would at least generate more interest for a sport that has become stale throught the season and now the playoffs.
Simmons has gone off the deep-end. He's critical of everything, and always claims to have the answer to "fix" it all, even though he just makes it more gimmicky.
Sorry Simmons if the NBA isn't like back in the day when Bird was winning titles and you were sitting on your Daddy's lap.
Keep watching your ##### reality shows for your drama fix you pansy.
I see what you are saying Scott, though I would counter that the NBA is not stale, it is actually the number two sport in America behind football. If you start tinkering with putting the playoffs in a tourney format and scrapping the Conference system, or if you enact Simmon's strange anti tanking mini tournament, it still would not ensure an entertaining matchup. Under his scenario, the top two teams and the chalk Finals matchup would be Dallas versus Detroit. Would those ratings be any higher? I agree with Dr. TJ, this is just more gimmicky.
Here, here. Excellent post, sir.
Why does everyone always talk about the ratings? I am a sports nut and I couldn't see watching a Finals without my team (or my favorite player) in it. Why would you? I hate Cleveland and all things Cleveland and the Spurs are a great basketball team. I still can't watch that garbage. My feeling on the problem with the NBA is it has become predictable. The star of the home team gets more calls. If a series goes 2-0 then the 3rd game will (normally) go to the other team "just to make it a series" also known as more money flowing around. It is madness. The rule inconsistancy is what gets me the most. Situtaion 1): a guy drives the lane down by 2 at the end of a game... he is getting to the line no matter if there was a foul or not to send it to overtime. Situation 2) a guy puts up a shot in a tie game to win at the final seconds... he NEVER gets to the line for the win (whether he is completely hacked or not). The reffing absolutely dominates the outcome of these games and has become hard to watch. I remember numerous times this season where I said to myself "I am not watching tonight, it is just too hard to watch." I have NEVER said that about NBA basketball and this year I remember saying it at least ten times. Something needs tinkering, that is for certain. I am just unsure if it is the post season seedings that need changing.
first..i agree wholeheartedly that the playoffs should not be restructured. You cannot go to a 16 team tourney without going to a balanced schedule. It's not fair. anyne who says otherwise is just not thinking.
second..the NBA is not the #2 sport behind football....college football is, then NASCAR.
I agree on some parts of the Simmons plan were gimmicky. But the overall tournament idea is not. To counter your chalk "finals", thats the beauty of a tournament, the likelyhood of the finals being the top two teams in the tournament is very rare, i think it would even be a better idea if they cut back the series to 5 games or 3 games. Lets face it, we live in a short attention span culture. Casual fans want instant results and i feel that the tournament would bring in more casual fans. Especially those who do not live in an NBA market.
Your evidence about the relative competitiveness of each conference and the fact that we are 'a game away' from an Eastern conference threepeat is quite misleading. Here is why:
1) "a game away"...well, the Spurs had a better record that year and won game 7 at home. Now we are looking at the 6th western conference team winning it all in 8 years.
2) the fact that an east team wins the title is not indicative of it being a stronger conference. Last year Dallas had to go through San An and Phoenix and that clearly took a lot out of them.
3) The eastern team's regular season records are skewed (ie Detroit's 64 wins last year) because of the glut of horrible teams they get to face 3 or 4 times a year.
I agree some of the proposed solutions are gimmicky, but if you don't think a system where Cleveland plays 1 team with more than 42 wins on its way to the finals needs fixing, you are just as bad as the writers you criticize.
"To counter your chalk "finals", thats the beauty of a tournament, the likelyhood of the finals being the top two teams in the tournament is very rare"
So why change it?
Also, the real point is that you cannot scrap the current format without getting rid of the conference system. As long as teams play an uneven schedule the current playoff system has to remain in place.
Thanks for all the comments by the way, even the dissenting ones. Thoughtful opinions are always appreciated.
I think the point that is being missed here is that the NBA playoffs are not really about naming a champion. The whole process is really just a gimmick to create a greater sense of drama that will draw people into the sport who normally wouldn't watch. For that reason, I have no problem with them changing the playoffs to make them more entertaining. That's what the playoffs are solely about...entertainment...not determining the best team.
If they really wanted to crown the best team in the NBA, they'd have every team play the same schedule and name the team with the best record at the end of the season the NBA Champion. Instead they have a gimmicky playoff system that doesn't really tell us who the true champ is.
"I agree some of the proposed solutions are gimmicky, but if you don't think a system where Cleveland plays 1 team with more than 42 wins on its way to the finals needs fixing, you are just as bad as the writers you criticize."
Two things:
1. Do you think the current system creates champions that are not deserving? If not, why change it?
2. The real reason the Cavs played two lowly team was because of another problem: the team with the third best record in the conference, Chicago, was seeded fifth instead of third. If anything needs to change that silly bit of seeding should.
Why do you have to scrap the conference system. Its not like they only play teams from their respective conference. Example - NCAA basketball. They play in a tournament and have conferences. Yes some conferences are harder than others, but that means increased competition and when it comes to gut check time in the playoffs, the teams from the better conference have a small advantage. It balances out.
You certainly would have to scrap the conference system. You can't have teams arbitrarily playing a different pool of teams and then put everyone in an even footing in a sports league as small as any of the four major ones. In the NBA teams play more games in their conference, and even more in their division. It is the same in the NFL, NHL, and MLB and they all have league/conference based postseasons. The NCAA basketball example entirely fails because teams are not ordered by record in the NCAA tournament. If so, teams like Butler and VCU would have been 2-3 seeds.
I think Simmons is on to something. Sure, a team can dominate a division or conference during the regular season, and you don't want to get rid of divisions or conferences because of a) travel costs and b)developing rivalries, etc.
But in the playoffs, you should try to expose weaker teams by giving them the seed they deserve compared to the other playoff teams -- ALL of them, not just half of them. Travel is not as big an issue.
However, I do disagree with Simmons when he talks about getting new blood to the top; part of the great stories of sports are the teams that always run up against their nemesis and lose, and can't get over the hump. They shouldn't be allowed to avoid these matchups.
The interconference tournament idea is DOA, 'cause of the strictures of schedule, I agree. However, I do believe the seeding within the conferences needs to be changed, i.e. no more division winners getting automatic high seeding, and reseeding after each round. Although the latter is famously curtailed by TNT and ABC/ESPN, I see no reason the former couldn't be enacted.
The problem with Simmons argument about drumming up interest is that if the West is so strong, it means there won't be an Eastern Conference team in the finals, which will hurt ratings. As bad as the ratings have been with Lebron, would a matchup of San Antonio - Utah fix that?
Simmons has been so off-base the last few days, not just the re-do playoffs post, but his chat where he was contradicing himself left & right. Totally agree with your post. What was ridiculous about Simmons was he totally dismissed the travel issues this format would create. Charter planes or not, if let's say Portland had to play Miami, it would not be easy on the players. You could have teams forced into some brutal travel for 3 to 4 rounds. You would have to change all rounds to 2-3-2 format, and you might have to extend each series over more days, you might have the Finals in July this way. Here's the deal: Simmons' NBA/basketball analysis has never been that astute, even though he's anointed himself an NBA expert. He should just stick to the pop-culture angles.
Yeah, Simmons as an NBA expert? Please. If you haven't listened to it yet, you should check out his podcast with David Stern, if only so you can hear Stern's response when Simmons proposed the restructuring. Stern just said "So you are proposing a balanced schedule?", and Simmons brainlocked and admitted that he had not even considered that a balanced schedule would be needed. Just proves that he did not think his article through at all.
I think the main problem with this final has been that the Spurs are in it. I think Phoenix or Dallas vs. Cleveland would have been much better. What the writers really fail to acknowledge is conference power is cyclical, but 10 years isn't a long time. In the NFL, I remember the NFC outclassing the AFC for longer than that. The AFC has been better for a while now too. The NFL isn't exactly hurting.
That said, I think Simmons' idea was great. Why not change things? Seeding everyone except the top in each conference isn't too unfair. The schedules may be unbalanced, but it's closer to balanced than any other major US sports. The conferences mean less in the NBA than they do in other sports.
The best part would be a play-in tournament for the last 4 playoff spots. I'd make it single elimination rather than double. It would give a reason for the lowest teams' fans to still care (for non-lottery reasons) and the drama would be enjoyable for neutrals.
Much like the NFL, the seeded teams would get a rest though. The play-in teams would have little chance. In the end it would give us a better chance of having two more competitive teams in the Finals. That's not the NBA's biggest problem, but I think generally most fans would want that.
Post a Comment