Adam Silver: NBA might eliminate division winners

[AlbertPullhoez]

I don't see what doing the top 16 would solve or fix. I like Silver's idea but nah to that other shyt.

You still gonna have 39, 40, 41 win teams still sneaking in those final playoff spots like there is now

 

[mastermind]

Top 16 teams....fukk a conference

you have to make sure all the teams play each other an equal amonunt of times

 

[FTBS]

the reason i brought it up is to show it's not a viable option when people scream that get rid of conference shyt....if they didnt do the shyt when it was like that before, why would they do it now?.....alienating your potential viewership base is never an option....which could happen if 2 teams from the same region/coast make the finals....

anyway, speaking of fair, how is getting rid of conferences gonna make shyt fair? are all teams gonna play the others an equal amount of times?...if not, that shyt aint fair....

....they can improve the setup of the conferences, but getting rid of it all together aint gonna happen, so people need to stop acting like it will....

So basically your argument is "they been doin it", not that it's fair or makes sense but "they been doin it" . What do we do when certain regions/coast don't make the playoffs now? Should we do like NCAA and give automatic bids to ensure certain regions are represented? Then again they ain't been doin that so that's not an option . The highest rated Finals involved Chicago and fukkin Utah. The Knicks (biggest market) were involved in 2 of the 3 lowest rated Finals of the 90s. All this nonsense over needing certain teams/areas is just that. Stars bring viewers and interest, period.

Seeding 1-16 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to fair than having 38 win squads make the playoffs while 45 win squads don't. There is no legitimate argument for allowing shyt like this to go on but yet nikkas stay trying to defend bullshyt because they are used to it or wanna go against the grain.

 

[Guess Who]

The conferences will stay for scheduling and traveling reasons.

 

[lutha]

So basically your argument is "they been doin it", not that it's fair or makes sense but "they been doin it" . What do we do when certain regions/coast don't make the playoffs now? Should we do like NCAA and give automatic bids to ensure certain regions are represented? Then again they ain't been doin that so that's not an option . The highest rated Finals involved Chicago and fukkin Utah. The Knicks (biggest market) were involved in 2 of the 3 lowest rated Finals of the 90s. All this nonsense over needing certain teams/areas is just that. Stars bring viewers and interest, period.

Seeding 1-16 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to fair than having 38 win squads make the playoffs while 45 win squads don't. There is no legitimate argument to allowing shyt like this to go on but yet nikkas stay trying to defend bullshyt because they are used to it or wanna go against the grain.

naw, that aint my stance, but nice try at trying to make a point by making up shyt....my stance is come up with realistic options, but instead of that, cats stating shyt that aint gonna happen like 'get rid of conferences'...as for the other attempts at jokes and trying to be a smartass, no need for that shyt...you wanna have a convo, just have one.....

you're right, stars bring viewers to the finals, but what does that have to do with getting rid of conferences?...you went straight to the end game to try to prove something, without factoring in getting there.....also, you still haven't said how getting rid of conferences is fair or good for business.....it's shyt like that that has to be thought about before they can 'get rid of conferences' just cause some fans feel they need to...i'll ask a simple question that would have to be addressed: how many games in a season with no conferences?...

 

[FTBS]

naw, that aint my stance, but nice try at trying to make a point by making up shyt....my stance is come up with realistic options, but instead of that, cats stating shyt that aint gonna happen like 'get rid of conferences'...as for the other attempts at jokes and trying to be a smartass, no need for that shyt...you wanna have a convo, just have one.....

you're right, stars bring viewers to the finals, but what does that have to do with getting rid of conferences?...you went straight to the end game to try to prove something, without factoring in getting there.....also, you still haven't said how getting rid of conferences is fair or good for business.....it's shyt like that that has to be thought about before they can 'get rid of conferences' just cause some fans feel they need to...i'll ask a simple question that would have to be addressed: how many games in a season with no conferences?...

I absolutely abhor tradition arguments. Either something makes sense or it doesn't. How long it's been going on is immaterial. The logistics in terms of changing it is immaterial. I'm not an owner or an exec. It's not my job to worry about all that. My only concern is the product and my entertainment experience.

IMO leaving shyt how it is for the regular season and just seeding the top 16 teams is a reasonable, simple option that doesn't require a great deal of change or alter business that much. Feel free to enlighten me as to where I am wrong.

 

[Skooby]

Warriors(1)/Celtics(16)
Hawks(2)/Bucks(15)
Rockets(3)/Thunder(14)
Clippers(4)/Pelicans(13)
Grizzlies(5)/Wizards(12)
Spurs(6)/Raptors(11)
Cavs(7)/Mavericks(10)
Trailblazers(8)/Bulls(9)
I think I got it

Your first list left off Portland.

 

[3Rivers]

Your first list left off Portland.

Yeah I noticed after it was you who quoted me

 

[Mr. Jack Napier]

That's stupid. What would be the point of playing one team 4 times and another 3 and another 2?

Exactly, I like the division matchup. Just shorten the 1st round back to 5 games. Everything else is good as is.

 

[Rigby.]

Everybody outside of Cleveland and Chicago and maybe Miami will be decimated

 

[nieman]

1st Round best of 5 is the most important thing. Of course it's not gonna happen but the argument for is everyone loves a David trumping Goliath story. Next, I would go with going back to the 4 divisions (2 in each conference 1 & 2 seed) everything else a free-for-all, like other posters mentioned.

The top 16 doesn't change the problem. Y'all are only thinking the Top 16 teams based on everything else remaining as is. You would do away with conferences and divisions, so you have to balance the scheduling. It's the most logical step. It would still produce the same amount of 35-41 win teams trying to make it into the playoffs.

They could do top 8 in each conference, regardless of winning division but then you don't reward the division winner, which every sport does. Okay, here's my listing:

1. 1st Round Best of 5
2. Finals 2-2-1-1-1
3. Conf Semis & Finals 2-3-2 - Get these ishes over ASAP for boring series. If you steal one, you have potential to win in 5. Home court holds, takes it to 7. Leaves room for potential upset and rids of unnecessary games.
4. East vs West, 4 Divisions, #1 guaranteed home court, #2 guaranteed spot, seeding based on record. They can do this with the 6 divisions but I wouldn't have #3 a guaranteed spot. I guess you sort of have to though...but that's why you only have 2.
5. Televise the actual ping pongs. No more of that closed "secret" envelop ish.
6. As for the lottery - EVERY team has a shot at #1 breakdown as (worst-best record order)
Bad Teams 1-6 = 6% chance at #1 (36%), 7-10 = 5% (20%), 11-14 = 3% (12%), Playoff Teams 15-30 = 2% chance at #1 Pick (32%). Helps some of the middle-of-the-pack teams out. Discourage tanking. Of course the trades and conditional ish remains.

 

[T.he I.nformant]

Having divisions in the NBA was pretty much pointless

Disagree, it's created some rivalries

 

[intruder]

It'll just be the best 8 in the east and the best 8 in the west getting ranked in that order for the playoffs.

They not gonna change any hack-a-shaq rules just yet, though.

I like it.