Should the NBA abolish the East vs West

[Guest Dangerous A]

I brought up an interesting argument about the NBA changing it's playoff bracketing so the finals wouldn't be the Eastern Conference Champ vs Western Conference Champ. I proposed they mix up the top teams from the east and west, especially since the west has all the dominance and the eastern conference clubs seem to not care enough to make the moves necessary to move ahead towards contendership.

 

This way, the top teams would have a legit chance of playing in the finals instead of the first couple rounds of the playoffs. It would help ratings trememdously because people might actually want to tune into the finals to watch the Lakers vs Kings, Mavs vs Twolves, Lakers vs Mavs, Spurs vs Kings, etc. as opposed to one of the 5 big west teams eating some poor east team for breakfast during the finals and no one caring. If the league is willing to go to 7 game series for the first round, maybe they'd be open to this idea of mixing up conferences for the playoffs too.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Keep conference playoffs until League semis... re-seed the final 4 teams.

[Guest alkeiper]

I voted to keep it the way it is. The way I see it, changing the format will improve the finals, but reduce interest in the rest of the playoffs.

[Guest goodhelmet]

i think the current system works fine. it isn't the geography of the system in the league that is messed up. it is the inability of general managers and coaches to build teams that can compete.

 

i guess you could also clame the pistons, knicks and heat for creating the ugliest form of basketball ecer in the last decade.

 

if you look in the west, mark cuban, the maloofs (?), buford and pop are some of the most dedictaed and smartest front offices out there. the lakers have a winning tradition. when other gms and owners step up to the plate, the finals will be competitive once again.

[Guest Dangerous A]

I don't think it'll hurt the rest of the playoffs, as long as they keep the top seeds away from each other. Keep them away from each other and see if one of the lower teams i.e. eastern conference teams can knock them off from getting to the finals. The people will stay tuned because of the chase to get to the finals to see if the top teams really can make it past the peons i.e. eastern conference teams.

[Guest CanadianChris]

I say keep it the way it is. The East will catch up eventually, and then it won't be such a problem. Everyone's all up in arms about what problems there are right now, without thinking long term. It wasn't that long ago that all the really good teams were out in the East (Bulls, Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Celtics by turns), and during the Bulls' runs (especially the second), everyone watched the East because the Finals seemed like a foregone conclusion (which they usually were, with a couple of exceptions). Except for the Lakers, there were no truly good teams out West during the 80s and early 90s, except for the Blazers after Drexler got really good and before he left.

[Guest Lethargic]

i think the current system works fine. it isn't the geography of the system in the league that is messed up. it is the inability of general managers and coaches to build teams that can compete.

I think this system WOULD make the GMs from the East do a better job. The way it is now, those guys in the East, with the exception of New Jersey, are NOT trying to build championship caliber teams. They are ONLY trying to build teams that can make the finals and then roll over. To them, winning the East IS their championship. Then you got those teams struggling to win 40 games because 40 games can get you in the playoffs. Meanwhile, over in the West there are teams with 3 - 5 more wins sitting at home. But if you mixed them up then all that would get thrown out the door. There would no longer be the mindset of "we can get away with mediocrity" because only the good teams would come out on top and the East's mediocrity would no longer be rewarded with a guaranteed spot in the finals.

 

I know this system HAS to be there for scheduling in the regular season but I have heard no argument that comes close to explaining to me why the championship of this sport is decided by geographical location. It's stupid. The best two teams, or at least the two best teams that can fight their way through the rest of the cream of the crop, should play for the title. It's that simple. The best vs the best. Not the best vs some guys that are here just because they happen to be in a lesser conference. I don't think being in the eastern side of the U.S. should automatically make you one of the best two teams in the league and deserving to be in the championship series. If somebody can give me an argument that proves that a team from the East (and vice versa) should always play for the title no matter what, go ahead, because I really want to hear it.

 

You're talking about crowning the CHAMPION of the sport, you're talking about the FINALS. The most important 7 games the NBA has but more often than not, they're a waste of time because the best two teams aren't playing. If there's a system that could be used to put two of the best, and DESERVING, teams into the finals together to fight it out for a championship, that's the system that should be used.

 

As far as the playoffs not being as good. Going by the hypothetical brackets I made in the other thread, they look just as good, if not better, than this year's first round brackets.

 

Bracket 1

San Antonio vs Orlando

Portland vs Philadelphia

Detroit vs Utah

Sacramento vs Phoenix

 

Bracket 2

Dallas vs Houston

New Jersey vs Indiana

Lakers vs New Orleans

Minnesota vs Boston

 

You got Timmy vs T-Mac.

The Blazers vs 6ers? That's a 1000 technicals waiting to happen.

Det vs Utah? Ok, that one sucks.

Kings, Suns? Two exciting fun to watch teams playing each other?

Two more fun teams to watch in Mavs and Rockets.

Nets vs Pacers, was a good series two years ago.

Lakers and Hornets, that leaves something to be desired but could be good.

Then Paul Pierce vs Kevin Garnett. I'd buy that for a dollar.

 

If second round went like expected you'd have Portland and SA slugging it out. Detriot's defense vs Sacramento's offense. New Jersey and Dallas running and gunning all over the court. Lakers and Timberwolves was already good series we know.

 

I'm not predicting the whole thing, but to me that looks very, very good. And in the first year it's gonna generate lots of interest from casual fans who may have tuned out the NBA much like inter-league play did for baseball. Hopefully those people will see the new breed of NBA stars and become fans again. I see nothing positives all the way around.

 

And if they find a way to quit calling Memphis a west team, I'd REALLY be happy.

[Rendclaw 0]

The Grizz are only two years removed from being in freaking Vancouver, give them some time to straighten it out, though thats low on the list of priorities for the league.

 

Keep the system the way it is. As was said before it wasn't that long ago that there were good/great teams from both conferences, and it wasn;t long ago that the East was the dominant conference.

 

Everything goes in cycles. Changing the format would be a kneejerk reaction because the West is the conference to beat right now.

[Guest Lethargic]

If it wasn't for this system the "cycles" wouldn't matter. This has nothing to do with the fact that that the West is dominate right now, 10 years ago the West couldn't win a title to save their lives. Bulls winning 6 wasn't that long ago. It has nothing to do who's better right now. It has everything to do with the fact that AT ALL TIMES the best teams should be playing and that's not what the current system allows. If the west is dominate, east is dominated or both are even, it shouldn't matter. Just put the best 16 teams in there period and give us a better chance at seeing a quality product rather than blowouts.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

Keep it as it is. Things will eventually work the other way and the east will be tops again. Not in the next few years or so, but it's bound to happen.

[Guest bravesfan]

It has everything to do with the fact that AT ALL TIMES the best teams should be playing and that's not what the current system allows

 

That summed it up perfectly. To add to that, each year is almost a foregone conclusion on who's going to win; In fact, the last time I saw a competitive match-up in the Finals, was nearly a decade ago (Rockets/Knicks, Bulls/Suns the year prior).

 

I voted for a change to the current format; it'd be great to see the look on the Eastern Conference GM's faces, when they find that NONE of the Eastern Conference teams make either of the semi-finals.

 

Things will eventually work the other way and the east will be tops again.

 

Then we'll have the same "parity" crap that we have now - doesn't make me want to watch the NBA Finals, or the postseason games leading up to it, in any fashion.

[Rendclaw 0]

If there is nothing worse for a sports league, it is a dynasty. People stopped caring about the finals right around the time the Bulls won their 4th championship, and everyone knew that Jordan was not going to lose again after they lost to the Magic in his combeack year.

 

Its not about the teams in the beginning. Its about the best, most dominant player. Once Jordan started winning titles, a lot of teams in the East knew they HAD to get better because the Eastern Conference plays the lion;s share of games against Chicago.

 

The West had to do the same thing but they would beat on each other in the playoffs. I don;t think any team in the Western Conference went less than six games in their conference finals during the Bulls' dominance of the NBA.

 

Fight that hard, only to get rolled by the Bulls in the Finals.

 

Now, the power balance titled HARD towards the West when Shaq bolted from Orlando, and it only got worse when they drafted Kobe. I think the Spurs winning the titles might actually start the balance of power to shift back towards the middle, though it all depends how the next few seasons go. The bulk of talent in the league is in the West, thats why they are dominant. The circle will turn and then it will be the East, or better yet (in my mind) it will be equally split, and two talent-deep, deserving teams will meet in the finals, and there will be a seven game series for the ages.

 

That's my hope, anyway.

 

There is no way to make a seeding system that would be satisfactory. Using the previously mentioned system, it would be almost Western teams in the "Final Four" anyway.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Keep it the way it is -- no need to inject crappy playoff teams seeded higher than 4 into the West and ruin that division's postseason games, too...

[Guest The Fett]

Some alterations need to be made. They should try splitting the playoffs into two sections.

 

I.

First the top four teams from each division should have a mini-playoff until there is a champion from each division.

 

II.

Then reseed the remaining four teams so that the best team (record-wise) faces the worst and the 2nd seed meets the 3rd, regardless of what conference they are from.

[Guest The Czech Republic]

The Fett, what you have is a very good idea, and in a way similar to the pre-Bettman NHL. Division championship, conference championship, league championship. Perfect ascension. Personally that's what I'd go with for the NBA right now.

 

However, there is one glaring fault. With the Charlotte Bobcats starting up, the NBA is likely realigning into 6 divisions, throwing off your idea, good as it is. So it'll likely be the 1, 2, and 3 seeds going to the division leaders and nothing we haven't seen before. Oh well.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

No. Dumbest idea ever. Sooner or later the East will have someone win it.

 

After Shaq retires.

[Guest shlidgn90]

new jersey and detroit are going to be much improved. the spurs will not repeat and the lakers are still old. i don't think the mavs or the kings have improved this off-season.

[Guest razazteca]

Spurs will repeat by defeating the Nets again or a longshot like the Magic will win.

 

The only team in the West that did not get stronger is the Mavs. The Kings did get Brad Miller who could be the one player the team needed to get to the finals.

[Guest ant_7000]

I brought up an interesting argument about the NBA changing it's playoff bracketing so the finals wouldn't be the Eastern Conference Champ vs Western Conference Champ. I proposed they mix up the top teams from the east and west, especially since the west has all the dominance and the eastern conference clubs seem to not care enough to make the moves necessary to move ahead towards contendership.

 

This way, the top teams would have a legit chance of playing in the finals instead of the first couple rounds of the playoffs. It would help ratings trememdously because people might actually want to tune into the finals to watch the Lakers vs Kings, Mavs vs Twolves, Lakers vs Mavs, Spurs vs Kings, etc. as opposed to one of the 5 big west teams eating some poor east team for breakfast during the finals and no one caring. If the league is willing to go to 7 game series for the first round, maybe they'd be open to this idea of mixing up conferences for the playoffs too.

You must've read the Kenny Smith's article in SLAM magazine did you?

[Guest slabinskia]

not to get too off topic but there are strong and weak divisions in every sport.take football for example.

the nfc east and north are won easily by the eagles and packers.they have little competition.meanwhile,the afc east and west beat each other to death and have lesser records because all of there teams are good and go against each other twice a year.