What if the NBA playoffs were not Conference affiliated

[Jack of Arcades]

You don't think Dallas/SA would've been bigger if they had met in the finals three times? Would Boston/LA have been bigger if they were fighting to see who would go to the finals?

Furthermore, the league has an interest in promoting these finals. Think of all the matchups in recent history between two big rivals to see who would go on - Yanks/Red Sox, DAL/SA, NE/IND come to mind. The finals were anti-climactic compared to those series.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think Dallas/SA would've been bigger if they had met in the finals three times?

[/ QUOTE ]

No question.

[ QUOTE ]
Would Boston/LA have been bigger if they were fighting to see who would go to the finals?


[/ QUOTE ]

Here I disagree. Their meeting in the finals is what made that series huge (as well as the players).

At the end of the day, good rivalries are made by good basketball (or whatever sport you're playing). In the NFL, for example, the Pats and Colts. It doesn't matter when these two teams play, it's going to be a great game (Manning v. Brady, etc).

I agree that pushing the best match-ups 'til later would help some; add a little extra "weight" to the games. But really, what the NBA needs is parity, not a different playoff structure (with the exception of the seeding issues).

EDIT: JoA, do me a favor and pretend I'm not a total idiot that misread what you were replying to. This wasn't directed at you.

Cody

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's have some more fun with this idea. how about you have to prove that you can win 4 out of every 7 games against 'random' opposition. That would mean 57.1 win percentage.

[/ QUOTE ]you just lost 99.5% of basketball fans

[polkaface]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think Dallas/SA would've been bigger if they had met in the finals three times? Would Boston/LA have been bigger if they were fighting to see who would go to the finals?

Furthermore, the league has an interest in promoting these finals. Think of all the matchups in recent history between two big rivals to see who would go on - Yanks/Red Sox, DAL/SA, NE/IND come to mind. The finals were anti-climactic compared to those series.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the finals were anti-climactic compared to the previous series, but you can't guarantee that that they get to the finals each year. That's my main argument. When you throw 30 teams into a hodgepodge and hope the best teams shake out and play each other (like the NCAA tournament) upsets happen (GS vs Dallas) and then you end up where you were anyway.

If Dallas were to play Miami in Round 1 or 2 of the playoffs (in this new scenario) would it be an intriguing matchup, I think it would because of the recent history. yes they met in the finals last year and that adds to some of the intrigue, but it is more intriguing the year after one knocked the other out, than it would be in the first meeting.

Again I say that familiarity (between good teams) breeds intrigue and interest more so than where they meet in a playoff structure. Would the finals be better if it were Suns/Spurs this year, sure, but then you are just sacrificing a good conf. semi-finals series for a good finals series. It's just an even swap. I don't think the ratings would be helped or hurt anymore if these two series were flip flopped.

The only way around this is a constant re-seeding in every round. Or just put the top two teams in the finals (and that doesn't even involve the Spurs this year). You can't make upsets not happen.