After much speculation and debate, the NBA has decided to change the way teams are seeded when it comes time for the NBA Playoffs. Instead of reserving the top three seeds to division winners, the NBA will now seed the top eight teams in each conference solely by record and division winners be damned.
Last year’s division winners — Atlanta, Cleveland, Toronto, Golden State, Houston, and Portland — will be the last division winners to enjoy the advantage of winning a division in the NBA — something that has been meaningless, in my opinion, since the NBA went to six divisions in the 2004-2005 season. Winning a division with seven teams is a far more daunting and impressive task than winning one with five teams in it. This is especially true in a day and age where there’s a good chance one or more teams in your division just aren’t any good.
Detractors of the decision — the minority — point out that the move will all but kill divisions in the NBA.
Good.
When was the last time that a fan felt genuinely amazing that a divisional banner was raised to the rafters. When has there ever been a parade for winning an NBA Divisional Title — or a Conference Title for that matter. The divisional banner should be treated as nothing more than a “participatory trophy”.
You made the playoffs, but you didn’t win the NBA Finals or the Conference Finals, but you won your division, so here’s a little something for showing up. Meanwhile, if you’re the San Antonio Spurs last year, you have to watch the Portland Trail Blazers — who had a worse record — get blasted by the Memphis Grizzlies. What was the Spurs reward for a 55-27 record last year? A seven-game grind of a series against the Los Angeles Clippers that they lost.
The Clippers and head coach Doc Rivers were some of the loudest supporters of this new move to seed by record and say to hell with the division winners in playoff seeding. Seven games against the Spurs is one thing, but having to do that followed by seven games against the Houston Rockets is a little too much for any team to overcome. (Ok. I’m still a little upset because we were all robbed of the potential for an epic clash between the Clippers and the Golden State Warriors in the Western Conference Finals.)
If the new seeding rules were used in last year’s playoffs, only two series would have changed. The Clippers would have gotten a Portland Trail Blazers team that had lost Wesley Matthews for the season with an Achilles injury, and a team in turmoil because of the uncertainty around LaMarcus Aldridge.
The other series you would get would be Spurs/Grizzlies … in ROUND ONE!
Dear, NBA. I’d like to order seven games of that right now. Here’s my credit card information.
As great as Spurs/Clippers in round one was last year, Spurs/Grizzlies would’ve been just as good if not better. With the way those two teams were playing at the end of the year, that was also a Western Conference Finals series in the first round. Tim Duncan and his 38-year-old crafty veteran savvy banging against Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol who utilize just brute strength.
Seven games. Gimme.
With the reseeding rules, NBA fans could possibly see better match-ups in the playoffs — unless you’re watching the 7 or 8-seed go up against Cleveland or Atlanta. That’s just a four-game sweep that you don’t even need to waste time on. (With all due respect to the Brooklyn Nets, you weren’t beating Atlanta last playoffs. It just wasn’t happening. You looked frisky for a second, but … no.)
Overall, this is a good thing for the NBA. You may not get 100 percent better match-ups from series to series, but those one or two match-ups that will change make the overall playoff product better. What would absolutely make the playoff product better is seeding 1-16 regardless of conference, but that move probably won’t be happening any time soon.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
