Ok, if I were in charge, here's what I'd do:

- All 16 teams get lumped in one big bracket.

- The six division winners are the top six seeds based on records. Best record is #1 overall seed and so on. The #1 seed would play the #16 ranked team.

- After the six division winners, it is the next 10 teams with the ten highest records that make the playoffs (based on record.) The team with the 16th best record in the league would be the #16 seed going into the playoffs.


Presto! Simple as that! Thoughts?

Anyone else got any ideas?

Alright, since no one else has responded yet, I will give my two cents.

I am against that idea, because I like the division in conferences and some of the rivalries/matchups involved. Every pro sport seperates their playoffs by conference, and there is good reason for it. To eliminate that would be a big mistake, IMO.

For example, everyone is already hyped for the Celtics/Pistons playoff matchup this year. They are bigtime conference rivals, and with your idea, there is a good chance they would not meet in the playoffs, and even if they did, it would not be under the same pretense as it will be this year - to see who truly is the top dogg in the Eastern Conference.

Also, if a team can't even finish in the top 8 of a 15 team conference, how bad are we to feel for them really? I mean, if you can't even finish in the top half of your freaking conference, don't tell me you are getting robbed of the fair chance to compete for a championship...try finishing in the top HALF of your conference! Only 4 teams from each league in baseball make it, and only 6 in football make it in each conference. It's not like the NBA is unincluding championship calibur teams - over half of all teams make the playoffs already.

BonK wrote:
Very true...nice post man!!

Also people need to realize that there are ebbs and flows to the power of the conferences...for now the West reigns supreme...but just a few years ago it was the East with the Bulls, Pacers, Nets and Knicks were tough...

I say leave it alone...they already messed things up when they created all of the difference divisions...IMHO

BonK wrote:

So you are honestly telling me with a straight face that three sub .500 teams in the East (Washington, Atanta, Philly) that would currently be in the playoffs, are ALL BETTER (and more deserving) than Golden State, Denver, and Portland. Btw, two of those three teams will not make the playoffs. Also, GS or Denver could miss the playoffs with 50+ wins.

That's absurd.


Are there really rivalries in today's NBA??? Not like it was in the past. What's the big deal about Celtics-Pistons? That hasn't been relevant since they late 80's. Just because the Celtics are good this year? I don't agree.

I want the best 16 teams to make it period.

KG4LVP wrote:

A few years ago??? Maybe like 10+ years ago...

College Wolf wrote:
Well look at the Celtics of years back...from 1957-1969 they won 11 championships...and here is something from Wikipedia about the NBA Championships from the past...it looks to me that it is pretty balanced out with the one's in bold as Eastern Conference champions...I am not sure about some of the older, more obscure teams like the St. Louis Hwks, etc...

It is just that right now the West is reiging supreme, but the power is slowly shifting back to the East...

Championship leaders
Team Championships Winning year(s)
Boston Celtics 16 1957, 1959-66, 1968-69, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986
Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers 14 1949-50, 1952-54, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987-88, 2000-02
Chicago Bulls 6 1991-93, 1996-98
San Antonio Spurs 4 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007
Philadelphia/Golden State Warriors 3 1947, 1956, 1975
Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers 3 1955, 1967, 1983
Detroit Pistons 3 1989-90, 2004
New York Knicks 2 1970, 1973
Houston Rockets 2 1994-95
Baltimore Bullets (now defunct) 1 1948
Rochester Royals/Sacramento Kings 1 1951
St. Louis/Atlanta Hawks 1 1958
Milwaukee Bucks 1 1971
Portland Trail Blazers 1 1977
Washington Bullets/Wizards 1 1978
Seattle SuperSonics 1 1979
Miami Heat 1 2006
(taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association)

The point of my idea is that it doesn't matter WHERE the power is.... because the best (and most deserving) Top 16 teams make the playoffs. I don't really get where you are coming from in regards to who wins the title.

College Wolf wrote:
Don't patronize me.

My original post speaks for itself, I see no need to expand on it.

BonK wrote:

Ummm... ok? I'm just trying to have a discussion.

So it's just \"tough luck\" to a 50 win WC team that doesn't make the playoffs because their conference is infinitely superior to the East? Meanwhile, one or more teams from the East will make the playoffs that has won LESS than half their games.

I'd take playoffs with the best 16 teams any day of the week. It would be more competitive. I guess that's just my opinion.

College Wolf wrote:
The old addage \"Anything can happen in the playoffs\" would be dead...I like the thought of a 1 going against an 8 seed with the possibility of a major upset aka Golden State last year vs the Mavs...

Keep it the way it is....

KG4LVP wrote:

That's no different in my proposal. Last year GS was actually worthy of making the playoffs. Teams with sub .500 records are not. That's a joke that they can even get in.

KG4LVP wrote:
Doesn't the \"best 16 teams\" idea create the larger possibility for major upsets? As it stands, I doubt we'll see much surprise us in the first round in the east. If it was top 16 teams, a 16 seeded Portland team has a much better chance of beating the Pistons or Celtics than let's say the Bulls...
I don't like either idea though...CW, combine the two and give me a middle of the road alternative. I'm not smart enough to do it myself.

Let me say it one more time: If you aren't good enough to even finish in the top half of your conference, I don't think you have too much legitimate beef about not getting into the playoffs. The regular season needs to mean something.

Also, I just read an article that was written a few days ago where a guy proposed your EXACT idea, so I am assuming that is where you got this idea, even though you didn't cite a source.

When I said \"don't patronize me\" I was alluding to the part where you said can you \"tell me with a straight face\", followed by an obnoxious amount of question marks...

I whole heartedly agree that it would be a mistake to kibosh the conferences. The dynamic of these Dallas, and Pheonix teams that can't get by San Antonio and the Kings team that couldn't get by the Lakers a few years ago, and the Cavs teams that couldn't beat the Jordan era Bulls is half the fun. And it might just be me but I couldn't care less that the middle of the road Western Conference teams get the shaft compared to the East. Life isn't fair and neither are the NBA playoffs.

Personally I have a major problem with the NBA playoffs but it has nothing to do with the uneven West and East. My problem is the scheduling. I guess that it must be so much better for the networks to space it out, but I know I watch significantly less games because of it. I'd like a schedule just like MLB with all the back to backs.

For a few years now I've watched more of EVERY first round series than I do of the finals. a 7 game series should not have multiple 5 game breaks. That just stinks.

The best idea I've heard that is a significant change is the idea of a playoff for the 8th seed. Bill Simmions has brought this up. I've never completely agreed with his exact implementation though...

I'd love two 8 team playoffs (single elimination) that are are played 1 day on 1 day off with the East and West playing on alternating days so it gets done in a week. The team with the better record is the home team.

As I see it this kills two birds with one stone. The excitment leading into the NBA playoffs would be greatly increased AND you've just given every team a reason to play hard until the last day of the season.

At the same time the extra revenue gained here could allow the nba to fix the scheduling disaster that is the conference finals and nba finals.