NBA to seed playoff teams regardless of division winners starting next season

[rapfan10]

This actually wouldn't have affected our seeding at all the past two years since we had a better record than the 5 seed both times.

Would've bumped Portland down to 5th though this year.

Actually would've bumped Portland to 6th

[Apollo]

Link: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...ivision-winner

About damn time they stopped rewarding teams solely due to the luck of being grouped with other underachievers.

[planetmars]

I thought Doc Rivers and the Clippers voiced their concern the loudest before the playoffs since they had to play the Spurs first round instead of a team like Portland. I personally don't see the big deal behind this change though.

I'd rather see the lottery revamped.

[Apollo]

I thought Doc Rivers and the Clippers voiced their concern the loudest before the playoffs since they had to play the Spurs first round instead of a team like Portland.

Some ideas:

• Easier match ups mean fresher players in later rounds.
• Easier match ups mean increased odds to advance and make more money.
• There was potential in the past for teams to make the playoffs who didn't really earn it. Right place, right time sucks if you're on the outside looking in at that team when you have a better record.

I'd rather see the lottery revamped.

I'd like to see equal odds to all teams who miss the playoffs. This would pretty much kill tanking and create a better on court product for the fans. Some savvy fans understand tanking and appreciate but some savvy fans resent this practice and for sure casual fans do not understand it; they expect a good on court product and a win, that's why they're putting their money down for a ticket, jersey, whatever.

[KeonClark]

I'd like to see equal odds to all teams who miss the playoffs. This would pretty much kill tanking and create a better on court product for the fans. Some savvy fans understand tanking and appreciate but some savvy fans resent this practice and for sure casual fans do not understand it; they expect a good on court product and a win, that's why they're putting their money down for a ticket, jersey, whatever.

You know how nobody wants the 5th-8th seeds anymore, you just get called a treadmill team? It would become 10 times worse. It basically makes making the playoffs absolutely meaningless, when every team would rather by 9th than 8th hands down.

[Apollo]

You know how nobody wants the 5th-8th seeds anymore, you just get called a treadmill team? It would become 10 times worse. It basically makes making the playoffs absolutely meaningless, when every team would rather by 9th than 8th hands down.

I don't agree. If this were true the problem would still exist right now even with lower odds involved. I really don't believe the majority of teams around the league value tanking like the pro tanking fans out there because the teams understand the business and the detriment to the bottom line that comes from perpetually losing. It's more lucrative to never pay luxury tax and simply field a mediocre playoff team than it is to stink for five years in hopes of then maybe making it for a while.

Teams at the back end of the lotto still land high picks now from time to time but never do you hear of teams tanking the last few games of the season to miss the playoffs.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[planetmars]

I'd like to see equal odds to all teams who miss the playoffs. This would pretty much kill tanking and create a better on court product for the fans. Some savvy fans understand tanking and appreciate but some savvy fans resent this practice and for sure casual fans do not understand it; they expect a good on court product and a win, that's why they're putting their money down for a ticket, jersey, whatever.

That's a good idea.. equal odds for the top 3 picks, not just the top pick though.. it's the top 3 that teams really strive for since those are the picks that teams would lose purposely for.

You know how nobody wants the 5th-8th seeds anymore, you just get called a treadmill team? It would become 10 times worse. It basically makes making the playoffs absolutely meaningless, when every team would rather by 9th than 8th hands down.

I think most teams would prefer the extra revenue from making the playoffs over potentially winning a lottery. Fans may not.. but you can never please most fans.

[KeonClark]

I think most teams would prefer the extra revenue from making the playoffs over potentially winning a lottery. Fans may not.. but you can never please most fans.

Which teams? Maybe short sighted cheap teams like OKC. A vast majority of teams would understand drafting the next super duper star is much more profitable than a couple home playoff games

[Apollo]

That's a good idea.. equal odds for the top 3 picks, not just the top pick though.. it's the top 3 that teams really strive for since those are the picks that teams would lose purposely for.




I think most teams would prefer the extra revenue from making the playoffs over potentially winning a lottery. Fans may not.. but you can never please most fans.

Yes, make it so the odds of the really bad teams are much lower for getting the top pick. Nose diving for say, 10%(arbitrary number, there'd have to be a study done to figure out the right number) odds is not as appealing.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[Letter N]

Has this ever really been an issue though? I don't really feel like going back and tracking the playoff seedings for the last 10 years but I only recall this happening a couple of times out West. Seems like an answer to a question no one was asking.

Why should changes only be made after something bad happens? Anticipate and make the changes before a disaster.

[Apollo]

I think most teams would prefer the extra revenue from making the playoffs over potentially winning a lottery. Fans may not.. but you can never please most fans.

*gets up on soapbox*

Plus hasn't anyone noticed how these teams almost NEVER seem to win the FA superstar sweepstakes? Players don't give a shit about WHY your (not 'you' for this or anything to follow, planetmars) team has had a losing record for four or five years or for MOST of your franchise's history. They only care about the fact that your team is a loser. They grew up laughing at your team, their agent reminds them of how much your team stinks and then they play your team and see how poor they are first hand. If your team takes a run at a player best believe their agent is trying to use your shitty team reputation to leverage a better deal. They eat, drink and sleep how shitty your team is. It's entrained in them and yet some of you hope somehow, someway that keeping on figuratively bashing your head against a rock is going produce different results?

Hell, at one time Vince Carter was considered better than Kobe and still even then the Raptors couldn't lure in big names without a trade and even then they had to give bad contracts to their guys to keep the team together. If you want to have longevity you need to have respect across the league with the players and their agents and you do not do that by missing the playoffs every year. Why the hell do people think the Raptors had so much trouble keeping their stars in the past? The best thing Ujiri can do is keep fielding playoff teams for as many years as possible, build up the credibility and goodwill around the league and in the process hit on some later draft gems. We've been down this stinkfest road many times and we've seen many stars, many quality players leave. Time for a change, the Raptors are a perfect example of why stinking doesn't payoff in most cases. In most cases the stinkers are essentially glorified d-league teams and will always sink back to this state.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[KeonClark]

*gets up on soapbox*

Plus hasn't anyone noticed how these teams almost NEVER seem to win the FA superstar sweepstakes? Players don't give a shit about WHY your (not 'you' for this or anything to follow, planetmars) team has had a losing record for four or five years or for MOST of your franchise's history. They only care about the fact that your team is a loser. They grew up laughing at your team, their agent reminds them of how much your team stinks and then they play your team and see how poor they are first hand. If your team takes a run at a player best believe their agent is trying to use your shitty team reputation to leverage a better deal. They eat, drink and sleep how shitty your team is. It's entrained in them and yet some of you hope somehow, someway that keeping on figuratively bashing your head against a rock is going produce different results?

Hell, at one time Vince Carter was considered better than Kobe and still even then the Raptors couldn't lure in big names without a trade and even then they had to give bad contracts to their guys to keep the team together. If you want to have longevity you need to have respect across the league with the players and their agents and you do not do that by missing the playoffs every year. Why the hell do people think the Raptors had so much trouble keeping their stars in the past? The best thing Ujiri can do is keep fielding playoff teams for as many years as possible, build up the credibility and goodwill around the league and in the process hit on some later draft gems. We've been down this stinkfest road many times and we've seen many stars, many quality players leave. Time for a change, the Raptors are a perfect example of why stinking doesn't payoff in most cases. In most cases the stinkers are essentially glorified d-league teams and will always sink back to this state.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

I hate to nitpick an overall great post, but at no point was Vince Carter ever better than Kobe.

[MACK11]

Has this ever really been an issue though? I don't really feel like going back and tracking the playoff seedings for the last 10 years but I only recall this happening a couple of times out West. Seems like an answer to a question no one was asking.

Last year's playoffs it became a problem. Portland was the 4th seed due to winning they're division and The Clippers had to face the Spurs in round 1

[Apollo]

I hate to nitpick an overall great post, but at no point was Vince Carter ever better than Kobe.

Never said he was. I said others considered him better. There was, at one time, a debate where more thought Carter was the better player. It was not just fans, it was the media too at the height of Vinsanity.

I remember one time long, long ago Jordan was asked who was better and he said Kobe. That launched a bunch of articles and debates on the matter. People seriously thought Carter was the next Air Jordan in the making.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[JimiCliff]

I hate to nitpick an overall great post, but at no point was Vince Carter ever better than Kobe.

Four years into their careers it was neck and neck