Buoyed by the popularity of the All-Star Game reform, many have called for the NBA to make a similar change to the NBA playoffs. Recently, two plans for changing the postseason have come to light. We’ll take a look at both of them and assess some of the pros and cons of each.
Analyzing Potential NBA Playoffs Format Changes
1-16 Seeding
The day before the All-Star Game, NBA commissioner Adam Silver held a press conference in which he addressed a wide variety of issues, including NBA playoff reform. An idea he mentioned would have the top eight teams in each conference still make the postseason. They would then be seeded 1-16 overall, rather than remaining divided into conferences.
Adam Silver hinted at the potential of 1-16 seeding in the playoffs down the road.
Here's what it would look like if the regular season ended today. pic.twitter.com/GuKa8e7hVP
— ESPN (@espn) February 18, 2018
The big positive with this plan is it would allow the two best teams to meet in the Finals, rather than the Western Conference Finals. This would not only make more sense for pure enjoyment, but it would also be good financially. The Finals is when the NBA gets the most viewers, especially among people who don’t normally watch basketball. If the two best, most exciting teams faced off in a highly competitive Finals, the league could make a huge amount of money.
However, there are some logistical issues with this format. The teams would need to travel more, meaning the players would not be as well rested in the playoffs. In addition, the regular season schedule would need to be changed. Right now, teams play far more against other teams in their conference, which would make seeding unfair.
In addition, the erasure of the conferences would make it unlikely that any two teams would meet multiple years in the postseason. This would mean fewer rivalries. However, there aren’t any big rivalries in the NBA right now, other than the Warriors versus basically every team.
Play-in Tournament
On Thursday, ESPN’s Zach Lowe reported that the league is seriously considering adding a play-in tournament to the NBA playoffs. The event would have three games featuring the seventh through tenth seeds. The seventh seed would play the tenth seed, and the winner would take the place of what is currently the seventh seed in the playoffs. The loser would face the winner of the eighth versus ninth seed game. The winner of this final game would earn the eighth seed in the playoffs.
This change is unlikely to occur in the next few years, if ever. In order to be implemented, it would need to be approved by the supermajority of 23 NBA teams and by the competition committee. It would also have to be agreed upon with the players union.
The proponents of this idea say that it could help deter tanking by giving the ninth and tenth seeds a chance to make it into the NBA playoffs. In reality, this is rather unlikely. If teams want to go for a draft pick, they would just try to lose even more games. This could lead to an even more intense form of tanking as teams aim to finish last in the standings.
Good and bad of the tournament
This change is modeled similarly to the MLB’s wildly successful wild card game. These games are incredibly exciting and bring in a great deal of revenue. However, the issue in copying the MLB’s model is that the NBA is a different league. In baseball, the wild card team actually has a chance to win it all, due to the high-variance nature of the game. In contrast, only one eighth-seeded team has ever even reached the NBA Finals. Sixth is the lowest seed to win a championship (the 1994-95 Houston Rockets).
On the other hand, there is a good chance that these games would bring in revenue. If they made enough money, this could allow the league to cut back on the number of regular season games. With the massive amount of injuries this year, it would be great if the NBA could find a way to reduce games and fatigue for players.
Main Photo:
Embed from Getty Images
