A losing record and still make the playoffs in the NBA

Michigan · April 14, 2008 10:54PM

Atlanta 37-43
Philadelphia 40-41

I'm sure it has to do with how the conferences are structured but this seems ridiculous.

stown · April 14, 2008 11:00PM

While GS has at least 48 wins and doesn't get in.

Another reason why the NBA sucks donkey testies.

Jamericon · April 14, 2008 11:36PM

It is definitely the disparity between conference strengths- the West is just so dominant.

I was looking at the standings over the weekend, and the 9th team in the West had a better winning percentage than the 4th through 8th teams in the East.

WinPitcher · April 15, 2008 12:17AM

Yes I noticed that. Too bad, the best teams should make it regardless of conference.

Steve

PSASAP · April 15, 2008 3:50AM

There's a proposal on the table that would change the playoff structure. Instead of an equal number of playoff teams from the East and West, the six division winners would get in, and the remaining 10 slots would be taken up by the teams with the best records. Would make for a much more interesting postseason.

kcballboy · April 15, 2008 5:44AM

16 teams is ridiculous for a playoff. How can you not have crappy teams get in every year? I know jack about basketball because I don't find it entertaining at all, but how often do the #8 seeds even make it out of the first round?

Michigan · April 15, 2008 5:55AM

<< <i>16 teams is ridiculous for a playoff. How can you not have crappy teams get in every year? I know jack about basketball because I don't find it entertaining at all, but how often do the #8 seeds even make it out of the first round? >>

It's all about $$$$$$ of course, an extra round of playoffs for some teams that don't deserve to be there. blah.

dirtmonkey · April 15, 2008 6:35AM

<< <i>16 teams is ridiculous for a playoff. How can you not have crappy teams get in every year? I know jack about basketball because I don't find it entertaining at all, but how often do the #8 seeds even make it out of the first round? >>

16 is probably a bit much, but 8 doesn't really seem like enough IMO. And I think the only thing wrong with the NFL is only having 6 teams per side. It seems kind of silly to have byes in the first round for the top two division winners, when that benefit should be an award for all division winners or none at all.

I'm not sure how many 8 seeds have advanced in the playoffs in the NBA. In the NHL, I know two eight-seeds have made it to the finals in the last 3 years though, so it's not impossible in hockey.

MajorDanby · April 15, 2008 8:34AM

<< <i>I'm not sure how many 8 seeds have advanced in the playoffs in the NBA >>

someone correct me, but i believe 3. Denver beat Seattle and then lost to utah in 95 (?). Then in 99 (?), the knicks made that improbable run to the finals before losing to the spurs. Of course, there were last years GS warriors, beating the mavs in 6 before bowing out to utah in the western semifinals.

so, for the most part, 8 seeds will lose to 1 seeds.

if basketball was as popular as football or even baseball...then most people would support such a system (more games to watch). at it's zenith of popularity (80's and early 90's), no one really complained about the playoff system. it just so happened that in those years the nba was more balanced between the two conferences. with basketball not as popular, not many people really care about the 1 v 8 and 2 v 7 matchups (except this year in the west...and even that doesnt garner as much attention because most casual fans do not get excited about the playoffs till the conference finals).

A losing record and still make the playoffs in the NBA

Comments