Long overdue. Committee just agreed

I don't like this. The other format helps the underdog.

You won't have to worry about this change for awhile, but thanks for posting

It would be cool if game 7 was played in Waco at the golden boob

It should happen immediately. 2-3-2 is ****ing retarded.

I understand why they had the 2-3-2 (reduce cross-country travel between the east and west coast teams). However, with them now giving teams 2-3 days between games, 2-2-1-1-1 makes sense.

Agreed. Times have changed. Time to switch back.

quote:

---

I don't like this. The other format helps the underdog.

---

This is absolute horse****. The "underdog" has won all middle three home games just three times since 1985! And if you don't win all three of those, you're close to boned. Remind me again how the favorite having both games 6 and 7 at home helps the underdog again?

Expecting a team to win 3 in a row in the NBA is just retarded. Doesn't matter where the games are being played. It is near impossible to win three games in a row when the two best teams are playing. The 2-3-2 format means the underdog is "supposed" to win all 3 games in a row. It just doesn't happen that way.

2-2-1-1-1 is much more fair and should have been re-installed a long time ago.

Ive completely changed my opinion about the Finals Format.

For a long time I used to think the 2-3-2 was stupid and that 2-2-1-1-1 was the obvious way to go.

Being a Mavs fan....i still believe that the Mavs would have won game 5 of the 2006 Finals if it was at home. Once the Heat had the momentum from winning three in a row they closed it out in Dallas in game 6.

The Ironic thing is that we did the exact same thing in 2011. Im not sure if the Mavs win game 5 if its in Miami.

Here is the reason why Ive changed my mind and I now think 2-3-2 is ultimately the best way to do it.

2-2-1-1-1 works in the conference playoffs because it is rewarding the higher seeded team with HCA, and the ability to have the very critical Game 1, 5 and 7 at home.

That makes sense and is a reward for having a better regular season record.
Teams in the same conference play each other at least 3 or 4 times a year, and all play the other teams in their conference.


When you get to the Finals the West Champion and East Champion have only played each other two times and haven't really played the same schedule.

I now favor the 2-3-2 format because it doesnt really give any team an advantage.

Lets take the 2011 Finals for an example. Miami had HCA by virtue of a 58-24 record vs the Mavs 57-25 record.

The Eastern conference isnt as horrible as it was, but one could argue that the Mavs would have won more then 57 games if they played in the East and didnt have to play the Lakers, Spurs, OKC multiple times in the regular season.

If Miami and Dallas haven't played the same competition then why should Miami be rewarded with having Game 1, 5 and 7 at home????

That works in the Conference playoffs because teams from the same conference have played the same schedule.

Should San Francico have had home field advantage over Baltimore in the Super Bowl because of a better regular season record?

The 2-3-2 has advantages for both sides.

For the team with HCA you get the first two games at home as well as game 7.

For the team without HCA you get games 3 and 5, as well as playing three in a row at home. If you can steal one of the first two games on the road you have the chance to end it on your home court ala the 2004 Pistons.

I think the 2-3-2 format keeps any team from having a distinct home court advantage.

i prefer 1-1-5

What are the basic stats on this? What percentage of lower seeded teams win the 2-3-2 finals? Since 2-3-2 was implemented what percentage of lower seeded teams won the 2-2-1-1-1 conference finals?

I want 1-1-1-1-1-1-1!