waaait. so the playoffs don't reseed? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!

[jamesk]

And BTW, if you're pro-reseeding, you must be against conferences, right? Otherwise, I'd love to hear how you think it's fair that with our 11th best record among playoffs teams, we get to play the 14th best (and 3rd worst) team.

Reseeding is the worst and most unfair idea in sports. Imagine you're a Hawks fan, you see your team upsetting the #1 seed and for what? Having to play #2 right after? That is not how sports should work. You beat the #1s, you get their bracket, that's just fair.

....That.

[Other Scott]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that you want the best matchups in the later rounds.

Let's take the West, for example. Let's say Dallas beats the Spurs while both OKC and the Clippers win. Ideally, you want the best remaining matchup, Clippers vs. OKC to be your Conference Final, where there's only one other series going on. It allows for more eyeballs.

In terms of fairness, I do see both sides. I think the fact the 8 barely ever beats the 4-5 after beating the 1 seed does tell you that there is more value to the regular season as a gauge of your team's talent than a 7 game series, though.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

My argument is that I believe that after 82 games / 5 months of play that seeding should not just affect the first round but as many rounds as possible. The best team should have the best advantage because they deserve it. The worst team should have the worst advantage because they deserve that. If you really want to screw around in the regular season (either because you want to 'tank' or because you aren't very good) than that should be penalized some how once you are in the playoffs. So that means getting a harder opponent in round one and if you advance another difficult opponent in round two.

The 8th team knocking off the 1st placed team is great... but they should be playing the next best team because they weren't a good team in the regular season. They shouldn't benefit from a favourable second round because they defeated the best team in the conference.

I think the weight of a regular season has to be have more impact then it currently does in terms of playoff seeding. Stopping at the first round is just not good enough for me.

I can live with how they're doing it, but I think it is more "fair" if they reseed.

I definitely understand points from both sides of the argument.

[planetmars]

Per the bold, this is already the case, barring upsets.

Miami knew the risk of finishing 2nd and will ultimately have an easier than expected ECF matchup, given the upset of the #1 seed. All the discussion in this thread is about just the 2nd round; regular season determines 1st round matchups and 3rd/4th round matchups are definitive.

Again, the regular season dictates that Miami gets the 2nd easiest projected route to the ECF. I still fail to understand the rationale behind the suggestion that Atlanta upsetting the #1 seed (Indiana) in the 1st round should result in Miami getting a modified and even easier (on paper) route to the ECF. Indiana losing (be it in the 1st or 2nd round) will already benefit Miami in the ECF, but why should it influence Miami's route to the ECF that was already determined by the regular season?

The argument that the regular season counting for more in the playoffs, as a justification for re-seeding for the 2nd round, seems like an oxymoron to me. The regular season established the playoff brackets. Changing the brackets based on the 1st round outcomes seems like the exact opposite, since the 1st round outcomes are taking precedent over the very brackets established by the regular season... no?

My argument is that I believe that after 82 games / 5 months of play that seeding should not just affect the first round but as many rounds as possible. The best team should have the best advantage because they deserve it. The worst team should have the worst advantage because they deserve that. If you really want to screw around in the regular season (either because you want to 'tank' or because you aren't very good) than that should be penalized some how once you are in the playoffs. So that means getting a harder opponent in round one and if you advance another difficult opponent in round two.

The 8th team knocking off the 1st placed team is great... but they should be playing the next best team because they weren't a good team in the regular season. They shouldn't benefit from a favourable second round because they defeated the best team in the conference.

I think the weight of a regular season has to be have more impact then it currently does in terms of playoff seeding. Stopping at the first round is just not good enough for me.

I can live with how they're doing it, but I think it is more "fair" if they reseed.

[Fanchie]

lol bear. good spelling me!

I see your points of view. I think everyone hear has laid on the table the pros and cons to the different formats. And I can definitely see an argument for both sides at this point. I've certainly been trained from other sports that reg. season rank should carry through whole playoffs. Maybe I'm wrong. But when I see a missed opportunity of avoiding the Heat in the 2nd round I feel so right hahahahaha.

Haaaaaaa! Now we do agree!!

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Personally I'm with CashGameND on this one. I think the best team in the regular season should have the easiest path to the finals. It also has a better chance of preventing 'tanking'. If Miami knew that if they finished first they'd have the 'easiest' path to the finals than they probably wouldn't rest their players as much. Wins could also mean more for a 3rd seed over a 6th seed and perhaps Brooklyn wouldn't have thrown away their last 2-3 games.

Ultimately though the reason they have fixed seeds is for scheduling. Once a bracket is decided in the first round quickly, teams can play each other despite waiting for the rest of the field to finish their games. It accelerates the first/second rounds which probably helps the league over all.

Per the bold, this is already the case, barring upsets.

Miami knew the risk of finishing 2nd and will ultimately have an easier than expected ECF matchup, given the upset of the #1 seed. All the discussion in this thread is about just the 2nd round; regular season determines 1st round matchups and 3rd/4th round matchups are definitive.

Again, the regular season dictates that Miami gets the 2nd easiest projected route to the ECF. I still fail to understand the rationale behind the suggestion that Atlanta upsetting the #1 seed (Indiana) in the 1st round should result in Miami getting a modified and even easier (on paper) route to the ECF. Indiana losing (be it in the 1st or 2nd round) will already benefit Miami in the ECF, but why should it influence Miami's route to the ECF that was already determined by the regular season?

The argument that the regular season counting for more in the playoffs, as a justification for re-seeding for the 2nd round, seems like an oxymoron to me. The regular season established the playoff brackets. Changing the brackets based on the 1st round outcomes seems like the exact opposite, since the 1st round outcomes are taking precedent over the very brackets established by the regular season... no?

[planetmars]

Personally I'm with CashGameND on this one. I think the best team in the regular season should have the easiest path to the finals. It also has a better chance of preventing 'tanking'. If Miami knew that if they finished first they'd have the 'easiest' path to the finals than they probably wouldn't rest their players as much. Wins could also mean more for a 3rd seed over a 6th seed and perhaps Brooklyn wouldn't have thrown away their last 2-3 games.

Ultimately though the reason they have fixed seeds is for scheduling. Once a bracket is decided in the first round quickly, teams can play each other despite waiting for the rest of the field to finish their games. It accelerates the first/second rounds which probably helps the league over all.

[CashGameND]

The bold doesn't really make much sense though. Regular season schedules aren't balanced and certain teams will have much easier schedules than other teams. I get that the regular season determines who makes the playoffs and who gets the easiest route to the championship.

I don't understand how a team like Atlanta shouldn't be rewarded for upsetting the #1 team, who was supposedly getting the easiest route to the finals. Plus, why should a loss by Indiana benefit Miami, by giving them an even easier route to the playoffs (on paper, of course, given Atlanta just upset the #1 seed)? Or conversely, why should another team get a harder route to the playoffs, even though they did what they were supposed to and beat the weaker team they were matched up against?

The regular season sets the brackets. Once the playoffs start, it's really up to each team to prove themselves worthy of their regular season record. Teams grow and improve and adapt throughout the season and into the playoffs, especially in a 7-game series style playoff. The teams that are able to win in the playoffs should absolutely be rewarded.

Saying to Atlanta: "Hey, we all thought you'd miss the playoffs, then figured you'd get swept. Congrats on the impressive upset win against top-seeded Indi. As a result, the next best regular season team gets a shot at you, because you still barely made the playoffs. Again, congrats on that remarkable upset series win, but it's utterly meaningless. Good luck in the second round." is just dumb and goes against the spirit of winner-take-all elimination competition.

lol bear. good spelling me!

I see your points of view. I think everyone hear has laid on the table the pros and cons to the different formats. And I can definitely see an argument for both sides at this point. I've certainly been trained from other sports that reg. season rank should carry through whole playoffs. Maybe I'm wrong. But when I see a missed opportunity of avoiding the Heat in the 2nd round I feel so right hahahahaha.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

To me its much easier to have a great set (or bad set, depending on whos perspective) of 4-7 games then it is to earn your rank over the course of an 82 game season. I think the true ranking bears more over an 82 game season which is why I think it should hold more weight in the playoffs.

also in a 7 game series, stylistically you can end up against a team that is just a tougher matchup against you despite their rank.

The bold doesn't really make much sense though. Regular season schedules aren't balanced and certain teams will have much easier schedules than other teams. I get that the regular season determines who makes the playoffs and who gets the easiest route to the championship.

I don't understand how a team like Atlanta shouldn't be rewarded for upsetting the #1 team, who was supposedly getting the easiest route to the finals. Plus, why should a loss by Indiana benefit Miami, by giving them an even easier route to the playoffs (on paper, of course, given Atlanta just upset the #1 seed)? Or conversely, why should another team get a harder route to the playoffs, even though they did what they were supposed to and beat the weaker team they were matched up against?

The regular season sets the brackets. Once the playoffs start, it's really up to each team to prove themselves worthy of their regular season record. Teams grow and improve and adapt throughout the season and into the playoffs, especially in a 7-game series style playoff. The teams that are able to win in the playoffs should absolutely be rewarded.

Saying to Atlanta: "Hey, we all thought you'd miss the playoffs, then figured you'd get swept. Congrats on the impressive upset win against top-seeded Indi. As a result, the next best regular season team gets a shot at you, because you still barely made the playoffs. Again, congrats on that remarkable upset series win, but it's utterly meaningless. Good luck in the second round." is just dumb and goes against the spirit of winner-take-all elimination competition.

[CashGameND]

On the flip side, if they did have reseeding, then maybe the refs would have called our series more fairly knowing there's a slight chance that even if they give the series to Brooklyn, they still might not face Miami in the next round.

But that just makes me sound like an all-paranoid-conspiracy-theorist, which I'm not. Moving on..

hahaha. cracked me up. It is a part of reseeding that is nice too. You don't neccessarily know who plays who in the 2nd round until all is said and done. Like I said, I had my eyes pealed on that Pacers series because I thought it had massive implications on who the raptors face next round.

[CashGameND]

You can think I'm crazy all you want. That's not a valid argument. Obviously I don't think Atlanta is the better team as Indy has forgotten how to play basketball, but traditionally beating a #1 seed involves playing great basketball. That needs to be rewarded.

Completely disagree that a strong regular season is harder than upsetting a #1 seed. Atlanta got lucky to play a great team that's under performing at the wrong time. Look at the CHA/MIA series. That's generally how hard it is to upset in the playoffs when you're ranked near the bottom.

To me its much easier to have a great set (or bad set, depending on whos perspective) of 4-7 games then it is to earn your rank over the course of an 82 game season. I think the true ranking bares more over an 82 game season which is why I think it should hold more weight in the playoffs.

also in a 7 game series, stylistically you can end up against a team that is just a tougher matchup against you despite their rank.

[CashGameND]

Just wondering, but how do you find the time? There's 162 Blue Jays games per year, and each of them is about 3+ hours long. That's ~500 hours devote to watching baseball. On top of that, the Raptors and Leafs, ~80 each and 16 games of Chiefs?

That is a lot of time spent glued to a television set man, and if not on TV, then that's a ton of commute time as well going to and from games. Wow, I can't even imagine doing 25% of that.

pvr my friend. I never watch commercials, and i put in fastforward mode if a game gets out of hand until there is a comeback or pivotal moments that might be the start of a big comeback (ie:2men on base in a ball game); and for most pitchers, not named buerhle, you can actually skip pitch to pitch with no break in action. I don't watch foul shots in the reg. season of NBA, and skipping ahead in the final 3 minutes of a half saves soooooo much time. You can watch pretty much every sport in 1-2hours most. Even hockey I skip ahead during 15 second breaks between play.

however... i do spend way too much of my life right now watching sports. I am definitely by far the biggest sports fan I know... I just cant stop.

[psrs1]

whaaa? Clearly you don't know what I mean by reseeding.

it means that in round 2 they reseed the matchups based on their rankings. Instead of forcing the matchups through the set brackets from the beginning.

example:
winners of round 1: - 1Heat, 3Raptors, 5Wizards, 8Hawks.
RESEEDING WOULD BE: 1heat vs 8hawks (thus giving the team with the best record in the regular season the biggest advantage in the 2nd round, which in my mind makes the most sense). 3raptors vs 5wizards
NBA / NON-RESEEDING FORMAT: 1heat vs 3raptors / 5wizards vs 8hawks

Which is fairer? Maybe we can start a petition to get the rule changed by this Sunday...lol.

[Nilanka]

There exists the point of view that using 82 games to decide home court advantage in the 1st round only, makes 6 months of basketball somewhat meaningless.

Congratulations! You just killed yourself through a marathon. Now come up here and claim your prize....a bright, shiny, chocolate coin!

[Fanchie]

What I don't understand is why the regular season should influence anything more than the first round, which it already does. Once the playoffs start, reseeding completely ignores the merits of playoff success.

To me, maintaining the playoff brackets (which are themselves determined completely be regular season results) seems like a good balance of rewarding both regular season and playoff results.

+1

Plus, since when do high seeds need to be helped? If you look at the past Finals:

Heat (1) - Spurs (2)
Heat (2) - Thunder (2)
Mavs (3) - Heat (2)
Lakers (1) - Celtics (4)
Lakers (1) - Magic (3)
Celtics (1) - Lakers (1)
Spurs (3) - Cavs (2)
Heat (2) - Mavs (4)
Spurs (2) - Pistons (2)
Pistons (3) - Lakers (2)
Spurs (1) - Nets (2)
Lakers (3) - Nets (1)
Lakers (2) - Sixers (1)
Lakers (1) - Pacers (1)

So since the 1999 lock-out season and the #8 seed Knicks trip to the Finals (taken down by the #1 Spurs), there hasn't been any team ranked lower than #4 in the Finals.

#1 : 10 trips to the Finals (6 titles)
#2 : 11 (4 titles)
#3 : 5 (4 titles)
#4 : 2 (no title)

Thanks for them, but I think they're already doing fine without reseeding.