If the best record gave you the chip, how many 70-win teams would there be?

[The American]

Let's say the NBA never had playoffs, it was like the EPL where the team with the best record is champ.

Would 80s Laker or Celtic teams have won more games since it was more important? Or other 90s Bulls or Shaq Lakers?

 

[Damnshow]

certain teams would not have a longevity that they currently have

for example spurs would be forced to go all in in their season without resting their key players for too much, a player like tim duncan would not have such a long career.

I can see younger teams winning it all because of them having fresh legs, for injury prone players it would be ugly though

 

[Based Lord Zedd]

I don't think there'd be any more teams hitting 70 wins. It's rare to even see a team hit 65 now.

It'd raise the competition level across the board, since wins would be more valuable to each team.

 

[Jesus Is Lord]

I like this thread/idea.

Imagine the competition throughout the year, the threat of being eliminated by a much lesser team. I think the pressure would be pleasantly (fan-wise) overwhelming. I don't think they'd be any 70 win teams, like most seasons.

 

[Savior]

I don't think there'd be any more teams hitting 70 wins. It's rare to even see a team hit 65 now.

It'd raise the competition level across the board, since wins would be more valuable to each team.

Throw in relegation and tanking wouldnt exist....top record would probably be high 50's, low 60's wins since every game would be like a playoff atmosphere. Both systems got their pros and cons when u think about it

 

[FTBS]

for the non-reactionary, agenda and dikk riding free thread

70 wins is still a tall order no matter what. Guys are still gonna get hurt...probably even more so with the regular season meaning so much more. That said, I think a couple Celtic/Lakers teams wouldve pulled it off over the years. We certainly wouldn't have guys taking games off for rest today.

 

[Based Lord Zedd]

Throw in relegation and tanking wouldnt exist....top record would probably be high 50's, low 60's wins since every game would be like a playoff atmosphere. Both systems got their pros and cons when u think about it

Mix the two. Reduce the playoff field, and add in relegation.

Less playoff spots = wins matter more for top teams. Relegation = wins matter more for bottom teams.

I wish one major US sport had a relegation system.

 

[Romey Rome]

Dope thread. I can't wait for more ppl to chime in.

Somebody put together a list of teams with the best record each year to see who would've had championships this way.

Would Derrick rose n Steve Nash have a ring with this ?

Would the Malone/ Stockton jazz still not have rings ??

Would Barkley still be ring less?

Nah but I'm not saying if the rule was best record wins the championship back then, I'm asking looking back at the records right now would those great 90s squads have rings or were the Bulls getting the best record every season back then also ?

 

[QuarterCenturyLegend]

So you're telling me Cleveland would've won a championship? #66

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I don't think there'd be any more teams hitting 70 wins. It's rare to even see a team hit 65 now.

It'd raise the competition level across the board, since wins would be more valuable to each team.

I like this thread/idea.

Imagine the competition throughout the year, the thread of being eliminated by a much lesser team. I think the pressure would be pleasantly (fan-wise) overwhelming. I don't think they'd be any 70 win teams, like most seasons.

If there's no postseason, there's nothing for the majority of teams to stay in the hunt and be competitive throughout the course of the season for the chance at winning a title. It would be basically 2-3 teams a season who would be in the running, and once it was mathematically impossible or improbable for all the other 27 teams to win a title - it would have an effect on their desire to remain competitive. Now I'm abstaining from mentioning Master P's label image here, but if the lottery still played out as it did, you'd basically have 90% of the league losing games to stay away from ending up with a top 8 record in their conference.

Games would be less competitive in general, and you would see more teams with 70+ wins simply because there would be fewer and fewer teams fighting to win a title as the season went on.

 

[Based Lord Zedd]

If there's no postseason, there's nothing for the majority of teams to stay in the hunt and be competitive throughout the course of the season for the chance at a title. It would be basically 2-3 teams a season which would be in the running for a title, and once it was mathematically impossible or improbable for all the other 27 teams to win a title - it would have an effect on their desire to remain competitive. Now I'm abstaining from mentioning Master P's label image here, but if the lottery still played out as it did, you'd basically have 90% of the league losing games to stay away from ending up with a top 8 record in their conference.

Games would be less competitive in general, and you would see more teams with 70+ wins simply because there would be fewer and fewer teams fighting to win a title as the season went on.

There would have to be some change to the lottery format for it to work, I agree.

 

[The American]

Throw in relegation and tanking wouldnt exist....top record would probably be high 50's, low 60's wins since every game would be like a playoff atmosphere. Both systems got their pros and cons when u think about it

Relegation to the D-League

 

[stepbackj34spud]

07-08 Celtics could've won 70

 

[No..Money..Mo..Problems]

Every year there's a team that wins 65ish games it wouldn't take alot for them to take 5 more games seriously knowing there's no playoffs to save your energy for.

 

[MJ Truth]

07-08 Celtics could've won 70

I think they could've done it that next year but Garnett got hurt. I may have my years mixed up though.