Fixing the playoffs

If you're excited by waiting 3 days to watch the Hawks again, then
move on.

Otherwise:

1. Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference. Bill
Simmons has gone on at length about this. Wouldn't it be better to
watch Golden State than Atlanta? Don't they deserve the playoffs
more?
One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
travel.

2. Play every other day. Who wants to be watching in July?

3. What is with this TV coverage? The other night we're forced to
watch the 1st period of Suns/Spurs while the Orlando/Toronto game is
going down to the wire. So cut away and let us see the few minutes,
and then send it back.

4. Of course, when they started with a best-of-five, things got done
quicker. But no sport is going to cut back on games. I'd much rather
see a quick tournament than these endless best-of-sevens.

My main point is the lack of imagination on the part of Stern and the
PR guys. If the NFL thinks of a new way to make things more exciting,
they do it.

"cowznofsky" <jhcorey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41bd0763-e5de-4995-ba3b-6131421fe63e@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> If you're excited by waiting 3 days to watch the Hawks again, then
> move on.
>
> Otherwise:
>
> 1. Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference. Bill
> Simmons has gone on at length about this. Wouldn't it be better to
> watch Golden State than Atlanta? Don't they deserve the playoffs
> more?
> One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
> travel.
>

doing that makes a mockery of the regular season.
there are conferences so play by conferences.

On Apr 25, 2:51*pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
> "cowznofsky" <jhco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:41bd0763-e5de-4995-ba3b-6131421fe63e@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If you're excited by waiting 3 days to watch the Hawks again, then
> > move on.
>
> > Otherwise:
>
> > 1. *Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference. *Bill
> > Simmons has gone on at length about this. *Wouldn't it be better to
> > watch Golden State than Atlanta? *Don't they deserve the playoffs
> > more?
> > * * *One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
> > travel.
>
> doing that makes a mockery of the regular season.
> there are conferences so play by conferences.

Better yet: 60 game regular seson. 8 to 12 teams in playoffs.

Andre

At first I thought this was another conspiracy post based on the title...

cowznofsky wrote:
> 1. Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference. Bill
> Simmons has gone on at length about this. Wouldn't it be better to
> watch Golden State than Atlanta? Don't they deserve the playoffs
> more?
> One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
> travel.

Not a real problem IMHO. Especially if they go to 2-3-2.

>
> 2. Play every other day. Who wants to be watching in July?

Well, it won't go to July, but I am with you. Another problem is that
the dates of the Finals are fixed in advance.

>
> 3. What is with this TV coverage? The other night we're forced to
> watch the 1st period of Suns/Spurs while the Orlando/Toronto game is
> going down to the wire. So cut away and let us see the few minutes,
> and then send it back.

Why would you shell out for NBA TV then?

>
> 4. Of course, when they started with a best-of-five, things got done
> quicker. But no sport is going to cut back on games. I'd much rather
> see a quick tournament than these endless best-of-sevens.

Personally, I think they should eliminate the first round and make the
season more meaningful.

>
> My main point is the lack of imagination on the part of Stern and the
> PR guys. If the NFL thinks of a new way to make things more exciting,
> they do it.
>

Another thing the NFL realizes is that less (games) can be more (money).

Ray

--
All generalizations are wrong.

"Andre" <ANDREJANSSENS1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ed314493-e062-4bec-9b2a-573d1a2a9a59@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 25, 2:51 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
> "cowznofsky" <jhco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:41bd0763-e5de-4995-ba3b-6131421fe63e@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If you're excited by waiting 3 days to watch the Hawks again, then
> > move on.
>
> > Otherwise:
>
> > 1. Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference. Bill
> > Simmons has gone on at length about this. Wouldn't it be better to
> > watch Golden State than Atlanta? Don't they deserve the playoffs
> > more?
> > One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
> > travel.
>
> doing that makes a mockery of the regular season.
> there are conferences so play by conferences.

Better yet: 60 game regular seson. 8 to 12 teams in playoffs.

Andre

************
Very well said. I would settle for a 72 game regular season but 60 would
be even better basketball.

More important is making the playoffs have only 12 teams again with the
first round series only the best of 3 or 5 games. 2 teams from each
conference would get first round byes. So, teams like SA wouldn't coast as
much during the regular season since they would want the first round bye.

These changes would make the regular more important. It appears now that in
many, if not most years the regular season isn't that important. Their
could also be less back to back games during the regular season so teams
would play harder and not be as tired from traveling.

And the playoffs should rarely only have more then one day off between
games.

These changes won't happen since in the short term the nba would lose
revenue. I do these changes might have people watching more regular season
nba games. David Stern and most of the owners appear to be more about
maximizing short and intermediate term revenue and not with making moves
that actually attracts more genuine fans over the long term.

Football is a cash cow and do much better then the nba in television ratings
and a part of this success is that the nfl regular season has more meaning
then the regular season in basketball.

And football has games on cable but they haven't pretty much sold out their
sport to cable television.

"cowznofsky" <jhcorey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41bd0763-e5de-4995-ba3b-6131421fe63e@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> If you're excited by waiting 3 days to watch the Hawks again, then
> move on.

2 days would be better, but to be honest, the most entertaining series by
far has been San Antonio/Phoenix.

> Otherwise:
>
> 1. Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference.

I've heard this discussed in the media as well. I think it's a foolish
idea. Having conferences adds a dimension to the game. Taking the top 8
teams from each essentially guarantees you've included the "best" team that
year.

> Bill
> Simmons has gone on at length about this. Wouldn't it be better to
> watch Golden State than Atlanta?

No.

> Don't they deserve the playoffs
> more?

No, they don't. They didn't finish in the top 8 in their conference.

> One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
> travel.

Like they do in the finals?

> 2. Play every other day. Who wants to be watching in July?

I agree here, to a point. I'd give only one day between games when staying
in the same city and 2 days when traveling. That said, I'd go to a 2-3-2
format like they do in the finals. I'd also move round one back to 5 games.

> 3. What is with this TV coverage? The other night we're forced to
> watch the 1st period of Suns/Spurs while the Orlando/Toronto game is
> going down to the wire. So cut away and let us see the few minutes,
> and then send it back.

Buy a sports package.

> 4. Of course, when they started with a best-of-five, things got done
> quicker. But no sport is going to cut back on games.

I'm not so sure. I think they might just do that in a few years (and
should).

> I'd much rather
> see a quick tournament than these endless best-of-sevens.
>
> My main point is the lack of imagination on the part of Stern and the
> PR guys. If the NFL thinks of a new way to make things more exciting,
> they do it.

Taking the top 16 overall teams makes things less exciting, imo.

On Apr 25, 1:51 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
> "cowznofsky" <jhco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:41bd0763-e5de-4995-ba3b-6131421fe63e@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If you're excited by waiting 3 days to watch the Hawks again, then
> > move on.
>
> > Otherwise:
>
> > 1. Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference. Bill
> > Simmons has gone on at length about this. Wouldn't it be better to
> > watch Golden State than Atlanta? Don't they deserve the playoffs
> > more?

of course they do.
the problem stems from having too many cross-conference
or even cross division games. atlanta has a sub-.500 record.
however....

> > One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
> > travel.
>
> doing that makes a mockery of the regular season.
> there are conferences so play by conferences.



......look up Plan 9 [tm].....

- nate

Raymond DeCampo <nospam@twcny.rr.com> wrote in news:4812588a$0$20177
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> At first I thought this was another conspiracy post based on the title...
>
> cowznofsky wrote:
>> 1. Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference. Bill
>> Simmons has gone on at length about this. Wouldn't it be better to
>> watch Golden State than Atlanta? Don't they deserve the playoffs
>> more?
>> One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
>> travel.
>
> Not a real problem IMHO. Especially if they go to 2-3-2.

2-3-2 is garbage, if the underdog team is to hold its serve, it has to win
3 games in a row on top of it all - it seems nearly impossible.

It'd be ok this year though I suppose...


--
"Al Jefferson is a scientist." - Mark Jackson

"chak daddy dollar$" <normoline@yahoo.com.jaundice> wrote in message
news:Xns9A8CE6DEDF09chakdaddy@207.115.33.102...
> Raymond DeCampo <nospam@twcny.rr.com> wrote in news:4812588a$0$20177
> $4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>> At first I thought this was another conspiracy post based on the title...
>>
>> cowznofsky wrote:
>>> 1. Seed the whole field of 16 teams, not just by conference. Bill
>>> Simmons has gone on at length about this. Wouldn't it be better to
>>> watch Golden State than Atlanta? Don't they deserve the playoffs
>>> more?
>>> One admitted problem with this would be the coast-to-coast
>>> travel.
>>
>> Not a real problem IMHO. Especially if they go to 2-3-2.
>
> 2-3-2 is garbage, if the underdog team is to hold its serve, it has to win
> 3 games in a row on top of it all - it seems nearly impossible.
>
> It'd be ok this year though I suppose...

cute.

The underdog will have to win at least 1 on the road no matter what format
you use. 2/3/2 makes it easier on the teams and allows to get the games
closer together. Seems to be a much more reasonable format that flying back
and forth over and over again.

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:iz%Qj.84946$TT4.15201@attbi_s22:


>
> The underdog will have to win at least 1 on the road no matter what
> format you use. 2/3/2 makes it easier on the teams and allows to get
> the games closer together. Seems to be a much more reasonable format
> that flying back and forth over and over again.

The question to me is whether winning games 3,4, and 5 at home is more
difficult than winning games 3,4, and 6 at home. With all the adjustments
and momentum shifts in a 7 game series - I really think it is harder to win
3 in a row.


who the hell cares right now though, this is horrible.


--
"Al Jefferson is a scientist." - Mark Jackson