A lot of fans, commentators, and players have argued that the NBA should take the Top 16 seeds instead of the Top 8 for each conference. It looks like in the last 15 years, there's been a good 12-13 seasons where the lowest seed in the East wouldn't have made the playoffs on the West. In some cases, they would have needed 6-8 more games for that last seed.

How do you feel about it, or do you care either way?

Poll question: NBA Playoffs: Pick the Best 16 overall seeds vs. Top 8 from each Conference

Poll result (9 votes) They should pick the Top 16 overall seeds (3 votes) Vote They should keep it the same, Top 8 for each Conference (5 votes) Vote Other (I will explain) (1 votes) Vote

Western conference pelicans and rockets

i don't see why a division winner needs to be guaranteed a top 4 slot

I think there should be some incentive to winning your division, and one playoff series with home court advantage is the least you could ask for

don't have home court advantage

Well. I think that's stupid.

I mean like the Raptors are in a SUCK ass division and Portland's aint much better. I dont mind the Blazers not having home court. I wouldnt have even guaranteed them the seed. I don't get that.

but as it stands, I still think there should be a reward for winning your division. the counterargument is that some wildcards have better records, but oh well, win your division if you want home court. when most of the league makes the playoffs it's tough to argue that things aren't fair for the wildcards. plus hypothetically you could end up with a worse record than a wildcard team because you have a great division where everyone beats each other up and they have a shitty division (outside of the winner) that they get to beat up on. that's unlikely in basketball, but it could happen.

it's not like the NFL where your divisional schedule is 6/16 games. it's not even close to that proportion, it's not even a quarter of your total schedule.

so what does it matter?

i mean look how bad the atlantic is this year, i could foresee a year where in a division like that the winner only has to get about 42 wins and that's with the benefit of playing crappy teams an extra 1-2 times versus the rest of the league.

i don't think the raptors and blazers deserve any special treatment this year because they won their division. i would seed and do homecourt based solely on record in the NBA, even though in other sports i am inclined to take your position of valuing the divisions a bit more.

there should be a reward for winning your division.

>it's not like the NFL where your divisional schedule is 6/16
>games. it's not even close to that proportion, it's not even a
>quarter of your total schedule.

i'm aware, that's why i said my scenario was unlikely.

>i don't think the raptors and blazers deserve any special
>treatment this year because they won their division. i would
>seed and do homecourt based solely on record in the NBA, even
>though in other sports i am inclined to take your position of
>valuing the divisions a bit more.

but why should other teams get special treatment when they DON'T win their division? If you have divisions set up and then say "syke! that didn't really mean shit." in April, then what's the real incentive for those first 82 games?

Some realignment could help too as Memphis, Okc and New Orleans could all be in the East. Not sure who you could send West though. Maybe do like hockey and just ignore geography altogether.

Let some free agents come east and we"ll see a shift

I used to oppose a top-16 system figuring the conferences would even out naturally in time and also considering travel. I have changed my position. At worst you would have to go to a 2-3-2 setup to minimize travel and even that I don't think is necessary. Like right now most teams have considerable travel as it is, particularly in the West. Is there really a difference between Golden State playing San Antonio or Chicago? Between the Clippers playing Memphis or Atlanta? No. And if the conferences were to even out not after 15+ years of lopsidedness, well, that would take care of itself, wouldn't it? The travel thing would regain some validity there--why have the same 16 teams but with more awkward travel?--but we'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

I mean this is disgusting, in any given year there could be *zero* interesting first-round series. This year I think there is a maximum of three and really the number is more like one, which is pitiful.

You have interconference play so it's not like interleague baseball (which sucks a fat one even during the regular season), I don't see any purist argument against.

What I would prefer is a 12-team playoff, actually. Two top teams in each conference get byes, the next best eight records leaguewide go into a new-style first round. I would also make the Finals a best-of-nine series.

and ratings drop on the East Coast because games are tipping off at 10pm

I mean San Antonio vs Detroit and San Antonio vs New Jersey had favorable setups for TV back East--an eastern time zone team versus a central one--and they got AWFUL ratings. Meanwhile if Chicago played L.A., people would watch that shit for sure despite the unfavorable TV setup. Lakers always get ratings, the late start time doesn't seem to matter much and they also move them up to 5 or 6 wherever possible to get them on prime time back East.

So you get to actually call someone out and say "I want these dudes"

Thatd instantly build that rivalry that conferences have created over time.

Some teams would pick worst team or a team you dominated during the regular season. An old team like SA my pick based on worst team/geography (not having to travel far).

Not happening but thats my Silver instant fun injection system

Golden State.... we comin for you nigguh!! (c) Booker T

I'm not just saying this as a lowly Nets fans, they did not deserve to make the playoffs, I get that...

But the NBA lets more teams in then anyone anyway (or equal with hockey) You got 82 games, if 8 teams are better then you, you don't deserve to get in anyway imo... I feel the same way about bubble teams in the ncaa tourney... if you are a bubble team you probably aren't that good to begin with...

People crying for OKC, they had a 2.5 game lead with less than 2 weeks to go... too bad

Of course I personally prefer seeing them and Westbrook play than Boston or Brooklyn, that's no question. BUT, their record wasn't Top 8 worthy in the West, no matter how much they would have won against the East.

but that ain't how it works, so too bad for them, we all get screwed out of see them maybe take GState to 6 games, THE HORROR


@rob_starrk