I don't get it. The lakers are the 2 seed. It would seem if the spurs lose, the lakers (highest seed) should play the lowest seed remaining (which would be the griz, again if they win)

D-

reseeding is stupid

I don't know. It's stupid. Mavs should be playing OKC or Memphis/SA, not LA.

brackets

lespaul:

Stick to the guitar.

It occurs to me that SA got shafted with the seeding (beyond just the fact that Memphis turned out to be a ridiculous matchup issue).

Like someone else mentioned in another thread, that punishes a Memphis for taking out the top seed. They shouldn't be forced to play the top dog in every round, especially if they take out #1 at the start.

If you're going to win the whole thing you're going to have play the top teams at some point anyway. It shouldn't really matter when. If I was Dallas, I'd be happy to catch L.A. when they're not exactly hitting on all cylinders (not to mention avoiding OKC who looks pretty darn good right now.)

Only aggravated that this BS policy has cost Dallas a home series that it earned in the regular season by having a better record than both Memphis and OKC.

Maybe SA will win 2 more and render all this moot.

Because they both won their first round series.

It's actually the same reason the Celtics are playing the Heat and the Bulls are playing the Hawks.

Also, I believe both the NFL and the NHL re-seed their playoffs in the 2nd round.

quote:

---

Also, I believe both the NFL and the NHL re-seed their playoffs in the 2nd round.

---

The NFL does, although I don't know that it has always been that way. And who cares what the NHL does?

The NFL also rewards draft position tanking and penalizes celebration. Not exactly the best policy maker.

quote:

---

They shouldn't be forced to play the top dog in every round, especially if they take out #1 at the start

---

I disagree. You are the 8th seed. You are lucky to be in the playoffs. You had the worst record of the playoff teams, you should have the toughest road in the playoffs. It's motivation to not be the 8th seed.

^agree , but then again who isn't scared of The Black Mamba

Having the best record comes with benefits but sometimes it also comes with Memphis...

NHL reseeds. The other sports don't, although the NFL has divisional matchups based on who won in the wild card round, USUALLY focused on keeping division foes from meeting, if possible.

2 schools of thought:

1. Reseeding isn't fair to the team that beat a higher seeded team, and the winning team should now go into the shoes of the higher seed since they earned it. The problem with this theory is that it ignores reasons why the lower seed won -- injuries to key players, etc. The other problem is that another lower seed benefits by having to play, say, the 8th seed instead of the top seed in the second (or later) round.

2. Reseeding makes the regular season mean more, and in series like basketball, hockey, and baseball, isn't what we are after is finding the best overall team? The problem with this theory is that you can only reseed to an extent -- in the NBA, for example, reseeding would only be done by conference and if the 2 best teams in the NBA are in one conference or another, that's too bad -- but it largely defeats the purpose.

I keep going back and forth on this. If Memphis wins tonight, you have a 4/8 series, and a 2/3 series. Memphis would deserve a big break for beating the Spurs, but don't the Lakers and Dallas deserve something for having a better regular season and (probably) being a better overall team?

If the NBA would ignore the East/West divisional playoffs and just go to a 16 team tournament (even IF you left in 8 teams from the East and 8 from the West), then reseeding would make a little more sense. Otherwise, leave it alone. For the most part, it works out OK.

I heard this on the radio and I like it.

The top four teams get to pick up they play. #1 picks first, then #2, then #3, and finally #4. Be interesting if they did that format throughout the playoffs.