dudleysghost

I still have yet to hear a good explanation on what possible motive the league would have to unfairly eliminate the most popular team in the association (The Phoenix Suns). Suns = high ratings. Spurs = nobody cares. Why on Earth would Stern not want the Suns in the Finals?

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

Blazer Ringbearer

Very cool. Not sure if anybody read the linked article, but it's a fairly elegant solution.

Similar to the NFL setup except better...

3 Conferences - West, Central, East
2 Divisions in each conference
Play 2 games against non conference teams (40)
Play 4 games against non division conference teams (20)
Play 5 games against conference rivals (20)
80 games total
Division winners make the playoffs
Rest of spots go by record
Seeding is 1-16 best record to worst record.

I like it.

dudleysghost

As Blazer fans, which playoff matchup sounds more exciting: Blazers vs. Lakers, or Blazers vs. anyone in the East?

What time would you prefer to have weekday playoff games on: 6-7PM or 4PM?

For those reasons, they aren't going to change the present conference system, and I'm happy about that.

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

c_note

Given the recent state of affairs, Blazers vs. Anyone period.

ProudBFan

Double-post.

__________________

ProudBFan

I like the idea. Kinda like the NFL commish saying they were considering pulling playoff seeds from NFC teams who, in his opinion, weren't holding up their end of the bargain. A little less heavy-handed than that example, but it accomplishes pretty much the same thing.

The thing I like about it is the WAY the conferences are cross-pollenated in this model. There is still predefined seeding/matchup arrangement, which *should* eliminate conspiracy claims by first-round losers (which you would get if the matchups were determined more along the lines of the March Madness Selection Committee).

Any thoughts on how the West became so dominant in the NBA? I think it starts with the top - owners/GMs back East on average not getting the job done while those in the West were. And now that the West has the (pretty convincing) upper hand, they aren't likely to give it up any time soon. My point?

BOY HOWDY it feels good to have KP at the helm.

PBF

__________________

dudleysghost

I wonder about that as well. Part of it, the recent championship differential, I think is attributable to Tim Duncan being in West and Shaq formerly being in the West. Those have been the two most dominant players of the post-Jordan era, and just the effect of those two players being West makes a difference.

But even if we removed their teams from consideration, we'd still have a significant differential between EAst and West. Part of it is ownership. The West has both of the Internet billionaires who spend megabucks on their teams, in addition to the Maloof's, who made money in other speculative industries. It also seems to have fewer of the super cheap groups who run their teams as a business rather than a hobby. We have Sterling, who was very low budget until recently. The East has Shinn, Bob Johnson, Wyc Grousbeck and HErb Kohl, they don't seem very willing to spend. Also Chicago and Orlando have been run cheap during their rebuilding phase, although they look primed to potentially break out.

Finally, the East just seems to have the most idiots in GM positions. Who are the worst GMs in the league? McHale, Isaiah, King, Knight, Kupchak and Bird are, IMO, and four of those six are in the East. Who are the best ones? RC Buford, Dumars and Colangelo, and until recently two of those three were in the West.

Or maybe it's like a player said recently in an intereview, that the weather is just generally nicer in the West, so good players want to go there.

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

Coatesvillain

Eastern GMs have had this unbelievable fear of trading within the conference. So when it comes time to move their best players they always send them out West in order to not hurt themselves.

__________________
Phinally!

KingSpeed

The East has won two of the last three championships. The Pistons KILLED the Lakers in 04. And the Heat marched over the Mavs with 4 straight wins. The one time the West won in the last three years? It took the Spurs SEVEN games to pull it off. He is overreacting. Besides, the Cavs might still win and that would make it 3 of 4. After all, it was the Mavs who led 2-0 last year at this time. And the Spurs had a commanding 2-0 lead over those loser '04 Lakers and then blew it- lost in 6. Leave it East vs West.

PLUS-- even if the Cavs DO get swept, why change anything? No matter how you change the brackets, sometimes teams sweep and there's nothing you can do about that.

I Own 2 Microwaves

Suns do not get high ratings, (surprising yes) but

their is no significant differance between the Suns, Spurs, and Mavs in the ratings

the only team that spikes ratings are the Lakers

dudleysghost

Do you have a link for this information? I'm talking about nationwide ratings, not local markets. In any case I would find it very hard to believe if someone said that having the Suns in the Finals instead of the Spurs wouldn't draw more nationwide viewers. I just don't believe that at all.

But even if the numbers would be the same, it still offers no explanation of why Stern would choose to favor the Spurs over the Suns.

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

wizmentor

One of the unintended consequences of the system is that
rivalries decrease, since teams won't regularly meet in the
playoffs.

Another, related item, is that divisions mean less, and
conferences mean less.

crandc

I think there are a lot of factors and many have been touched on: 6 (soon probably to be 7) championships won by the 2 teams with dominant players, better GMs, owners willing to spend, better weather, all have a part. There is some luck, like Portland and Seattle now and San Antonio in the past getting the pingpong balls. In fact, the Blazers and Sonics may well skew things further to the West. But plenty of Eastern teams got lucky picks. But I wonder if there is some sort of cultural difference between East and West? Most of the "storied" franchises, except the Lakers, are in the East. Could that breed a conservatism that, maybe, makes them reluctant to dump a GM or go for the blockbuster deal? Choose the "safe" player over the higher risk higher reward guy?

Yes, Miami and Detroit have won recent titles (would not bet on the Cavs this year). But overall, the quality of teams in the West is clearly better and the gap is widening.

__________________

ebott