Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sportsnet Raptors Preview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vykis
    replied
    minks77 wrote: View Post
    If it were up to me I'd shorten preseason by 2 games, regular season by 8 but stretched over the same time period. I'd switch the 1st round to 5 games and the finals 2/2/1/1/1.

    I think a season with less games would improve the on court product by increasing the value of each game and by reducing wear and tear on the players. That being said, I think lottery slots should be determined by a playoff of sorts, say a 3 round, one n done system with the winners getting first pick. Seeding would be teams with the closest records vs each other unlike playoffs where it's the most dissimilar teams facing off.
    I agree about shortening the season, but the lottery playoff round is just bullshit, the shitty teams wouldnt win anything and they would be shitty for much longer because they couldnt get a high pick, IMO get rid of the lottery and just do a NFL style draft

    Leave a comment:


  • minks77
    replied
    If it were up to me I'd shorten preseason by 2 games, regular season by 8 but stretched over the same time period. I'd switch the 1st round to 5 games and the finals 2/2/1/1/1.

    I think a season with less games would improve the on court product by increasing the value of each game and by reducing wear and tear on the players. That being said, I think lottery slots should be determined by a playoff of sorts, say a 3 round, one n done system with the winners getting first pick. Seeding would be teams with the closest records vs each other unlike playoffs where it's the most dissimilar teams facing off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miekenstien
    replied
    Fuchan wrote: View Post
    It is a huge advantage, but it makes getting a higher seed all that much more important
    i think the finals should be as fairly set up as possible. they battled 3 rounds to get there, let the best team win

    Leave a comment:


  • ReubenJRD
    replied
    From watching both Washington and New York play, I can honestly say those that are optimistic should be proud. Although, Toronto without Lowry, New York with Stoudemire, Washington without Nene & Wall.

    I would expect with Stoudemire out, Carmelo would easily take things over. Well.... Oh, and Jason Kidd plays like he's 60, and Felton just sucks.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    ebrian wrote: View Post
    This just happened. Both 8th seeds (Philly and Utah) were above .500. Last time it happened in an unshortened season was the 2009-2010 season. Not as rare as you thought, right?
    I went as far back as 99-00 and until 03-04 all 8 seeds were .500 or better in the east.

    03-04 Celtics 36 wins
    04-05 Nets 42 wins
    05-06 Bucks 40 wins
    06-07 Magic 40 wins
    07-08 Hawks 37 wins
    08-09 Pistons 39 wins
    09-10 Bulls 41 wins
    10-11 Pacers 37 wins

    So in the last 8 regular length seasons, only two 8th seed teams have been .500 or better in the east.

    Looking at the west is incredible for the last 8 regular length seasons.

    03-04 Nuggets 43 wins
    04-05 Grizz 45 wins
    05-06 Kings 44 wins
    06-07 Warriors 42 wins
    07-08 Nuggets 50 wins
    08-09 Jazz 48 wins
    09-10 Thunder 50 wins
    10-11 Grizzlies 46 wins

    There was a time when the east was actually more dominant but we'd have to go back to the 90's. In fact we'd have to go all the way back to 96-97 and the Bullets (not Wizards, kids!) for a time when the east had an 8th seed above .500 with 44 wins while the west had an 8th seed below .500 in the Clippers with 36 wins.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snizzoop
    replied
    That is surprising.

    Leave a comment:


  • ebrian
    replied
    Snizzoop wrote: View Post
    I fully agree.

    When was the last time this was the case in the east?
    This just happened. Both 8th seeds (Philly and Utah) were above .500. Last time it happened in an unshortened season was the 2009-2010 season. Not as rare as you thought, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • Employee
    replied
    The finals format is complete garbage. Didn't they create it that way back in the day so they didn't have to move TV crews around as much? I really don't get it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nilanka
    replied
    Fuchan wrote: View Post
    It is a huge advantage, but it makes getting a higher seed all that much more important
    But it's the lower seed that gets the advantage of 3 games in a row

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    40 wins for this roster seems incredibly optimistic. I hope they are right. I don't see any chance they get there without major contributions from Valancunias and Ross or a real breakout year for Derozan. I don't think either scenario is likely.

    Leave a comment:


  • CalgaryRapsFan
    replied
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    I prefer the 7-game first round too, simply for consistency's sake.

    But what I do hate is the 2-3-2 format for the finals, while each of the previous rounds are 2-2-1-1-1. I realize they do this to minimize travel between East and West coasts, but giving any team 3 home games in a row is too big of an advantage for my liking.
    I agree. I think that format actually favors the underdog. If you assume teams will split the first 2, then the home teams takes 2 of 3, that forces the favored team to comeback and sweep games 6 & 7 to win. I much prefer the 2/2/1/1/1 format.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuchan
    replied
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    I prefer the 7-game first round too, simply for consistency's sake.

    But what I do hate is the 2-3-2 format for the finals, while each of the previous rounds are 2-2-1-1-1. I realize they do this to minimize travel between East and West coasts, but giving any team 3 home games in a row is too big of an advantage for my liking.
    It is a huge advantage, but it makes getting a higher seed all that much more important

    Leave a comment:


  • p00ka
    replied
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    I prefer the 7-game first round too, simply for consistency's sake.

    But what I do hate is the 2-3-2 format for the finals, while each of the previous rounds are 2-2-1-1-1. I realize they do this to minimize travel between East and West coasts, but giving any team 3 home games in a row is too big of an advantage for my liking.
    Totally agree with your point about the finals format! I'd much rather they minimize the effects of East/West travel by adding an extra day off at that point.
    Also agree on keeping the first round at 7 games, but more toward the fairness of a 7 game vs 5 game, rather than consistency. Any team can have a couple of bad games, but the good ones that deserve a fair shot to go further can easily bounce back in a 7 game series, where having to win 3 in a row is a much tougher chore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nilanka
    replied
    I prefer the 7-game first round too, simply for consistency's sake.

    But what I do hate is the 2-3-2 format for the finals, while each of the previous rounds are 2-2-1-1-1. I realize they do this to minimize travel between East and West coasts, but giving any team 3 home games in a row is too big of an advantage for my liking.

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    I actually like the 7 game first round.. the chance for an upset would be greater in a 5 game series (bad team only has to win 3 times instead of 4). What I hate is all those preseason games. They really should cut back on those, but as Fuchan pointed out - it's all about money.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X