Three Changes to NBA Playoffs I'd Like to See
There's no denying that the NBA playoffs have gotten a little stale in recent memory. With a sub-par Eastern Conference, dominance by the Golden State Warriors, and more series sweeps than any other time in history, many are calling for the NBA to step in and change the way things are done with the playoffs. The voices at the top have listened and are working on proposals to change multiple aspects of the NBA playoffs in order to create a more enjoyable product come playoff time.
First reported by ESPN's Zach Lowe here the NBA has been looking into creating a play-in tournament that would allow for the ninth and tenth seeded teams to make the playoffs by winning games against the seventh and eighth seeded teams. The most compelling criticism of this proposal is that the play-in teams still have little chance of beating a vastly superior one or two seed. Sure, the 8 vs. 1 upset has happened in the past, but it has only happened five times and most recently in 2012 when Philadelphia upset a Derrick Rose-less Chicago team.
Below are the changes I believe would benefit the league and make the playoffs far more appealing both to the casual fan and the hardcore NBA junkie. I'm not the first to come up with these ideas by any means, but a combination of some or all of my proposed changes would create a better product for the NBA, which is really what it all comes down to.
Change #1: No More Conferences
This is an idea that has been circulating the league for years, but has recently gained more steam with a ravaged Eastern Conference and the emergence of the Houston Rockets as a potential foil to the Golden State Warriors. With this change, the playoffs would instead take the top 16 teams regardless of conference and seed them 1-16. Not only would this mean that teams would be rewarded for their higher level of play regardless of conference, it would also likely pit the two best teams of the season against each other in the Finals as opposed to the conference finals or earlier.
For example, it's pretty safe to say that Houston and Golden State are the two best teams in the league this season. Under the current format, the latest that these two could match up is the Western Conference Finals with the winner then taking on a lesser opponent from the East in the Finals. With the new format, Houston and Golden State would meet in the NBA Finals (barring an upset) on the biggest of stages. This would make for the best NBA product with the most eyes watching.
This change would also ensure that the top teams make the playoffs. This isn't as apparent this season as it has been in year's past, but let's go back to 2014 where a 48-win Phoenix team missed out on the playoffs due to the West being an absolute bloodbath. Had the Suns been in the East, they would have been tied for the third seed! Having one of the best twelve teams in the NBA miss out on the playoffs simply because of their geographical location is ridiculous.
The best argument against getting rid of conferences is the travel issue. The reformatted system looks great until we have a Miami vs Portland series and guys are gassed simply from traveling six hours every day. I understand this issue and I agree that it could potentially cause a problem and water down the product, I have a couple thoughts to throw out there. First off, New Orleans and Minnesota are already in the West and both are not THAT much further in terms of travel time from Portland. The second solution is my next change so we will get to that in a minute, but I still don't think that in this day and age of private planes and incredible scientific leaps that "travel" can simply be used as an excuse to not change the broken NBA playoffs system.
Change #2: The first round is best three of five
This actually used to be the way things went. The first round of the playoffs was best three of five. People didn't like it back then because it led to good teams getting beat by lesser opponents simply because the lower seed would win one of the first two games and then have home court. The home court advantage evaporated in these series quickly and it hurt the playoff product.
Here's why it would work now. First off, travel is far better these days so going back and forth in terms of home courts would be far easier. The sequence for the higher seed would be Home-Away-Home-Away-Home, which would maintain the home court advantage better than the 2-2-1 format from before. I'm sure there would be detractors of lower-seeded teams that would fight against not having a guaranteed two home games in the playoffs for revenue reasons, but if fans believe that the one home game the lower seed gets could be the final game of the season at home, you know fans will flock to see that game.
This also could potentially leave the door open for giving the top two seeds on each side of the bracket four home playoff games in the first round, or even all higher seeds would get this luxury in the first round. There's a lot that could be tweaked with this proposal and I think that allows for experimentation to find the right balance.
Change #3: A Play-In Tournament
I mentioned this at the top as a proposal that the NBA is actively looking into currently, but I want to take things a bit further. I want the final four teams to play in for the 16th seed in the playoffs. Basically, this would mean that teams 16-19 in the league would play a single-elimination tournament to determine the final team that makes the playoffs. Sure, they would be up against the top team in the league, but it would be an entertaining as hell couple games to determine that final playoff spot. We already see it in baseball and it works great, so why not give it a try in the NBA.
The biggest issue here is to find incentives for these teams to actually compete to make the playoffs in this tournament. This would likely mean tweaking the existing draft lottery numbers so that teams 17-19 would all have the same odds in the lottery so there wouldn't be any incentive to losing a game. The winner of the tournament would also receive some other compensation, whether that's in the form of a small increase in revenue share, a trade exception, or the first pick of the second round of the draft. There has to be something that incentivizes winning the tournament.
Hell, I wouldn't even be opposed to making it eight teams with potentially the top two teams making the playoffs. There's a ton that can be done with this proposal, but I think it really hinges on finding a way to keep the incentives of the organizations participating and the league aligned.
Those are the three changes that I would like to see implemented and honestly, none of them are too difficult or change too much to be considered in the near-term. While it sounds like the play-in tournament has gotten the most buzz from the league office, I think that reseeding the playoffs to be 1-16 is the one that would increase the value of the brand the most without hurting the teams or players involved. The NBA is an international brand so it seems uncharacteristic to have arbitrary geographical divides. I think that the East vs West is simply something that has been around so long that we forgot to evaluate the reason it is in place. We've already seen the East vs West format of the All-Star game fall by the wayside, so it's only natural that the playoffs follow the same path.
I would love to hear your thoughts!
I truly hope you enjoyed reading this article as much as I did writing it. Please follow 