There’s a growing push to change the NBA’s playoffs to a 1 through 16 seeding format. Here are five reasons why that’s an awful idea.
A variety of media outlets, fan groups and even Commissioner Adam Silver have suggested that a 1-16 seed NBA playoffs format is an idea worth serious consideration.
It would be in the interest of entertainment, the argument goes. Unfortunately, such a format would not improve the league’s entertainment value.
Here are five problems with a 1-16 seed playoff format.
Problem 1: Scheduling
In order to create fair schedules in a conference-less NBA, the league would have to radically change its scheduling. Assuming divisions are also abolished — which would seem likely, since division crowns are already diminished in value — every team in the NBA would need to play each other the same number of times.
More from Rip City Project
- Blazers News: Portland signs FIBA WC standout center
- Blazers News: Portland re-signing failed lottery pick
- 8 Do-overs the Portland Trail Blazers Wish They Had During Last Decade
- Portland Trail Blazers NBA 2K24 team, player ratings
- Woj: Blazers, Lillard ‘fully prepared’ for star to be with team in training camp
The most likely solution to this problem would be for all 30 teams to play every other team in the league three times, creating an 87 game season. This would be problematic; the NBA has no interest in lengthening its already extensive regular season.
The other possible solution is to maintain divisions. In this case, division teams could play each other four times each and play every other NBA team two or three times, creating a schedule of either 66 or 91 games, respectively.
Neither of these scenarios is plausible, since 66 games is likely not enough games for TV networks and owners, and 91 games is too many.
Problem 2: Travel
This is the most obvious problem a league without conferences would face.
Commissioner Silver and the NBA estimates that a 1-16 seeded playoff would add 40,000 miles to the NBA playoffs. This would be a huge detriment to the NBA on an entertainment and player-injury level.
Travel issues would be even more difficult with the regular season, since every team would have to visit every NBA city an equal number of times.
Travel is already a major problem for some teams, especially those on the West Coast. A 1-16 seed playoff format would make these issues worse.
Problem 3: Entertainment Level
Do you love watching NBA playoff upsets, such as Portland over Houston in 2014, Cleveland over Golden State in 2016, or New Orleans over Portland in 2018? (Ok, maybe not that last one, Rip City.)
Playoff upsets are exciting, but would likely disappear in a 1-16 format, which puts weaker seeds against the best teams in the league.
Liked (4) Cleveland vs. (5) Indiana in the first round? Get ready for (7) Portland vs. (10) Indiana and (6) Cleveland vs. (11) New Orleans.
Like rooting for LeBron’s Cavs over the hated Warriors in the NBA Finals? This would’ve been a second-round matchup in the proposed playoff format.
A 1-16 format would also lead to an increase in sweeps, since the top teams will play even weaker teams than they already do in the current format.
Problem 4: NBA Finals Weakened
A 1-16 seed format will greatly weaken the integrity of the NBA Finals.
In the current format, fan bases will often root for their conference’s representative in the Finals, in order to say that their team’s conference is the league’s best. In a 1-16 seed format, this would no longer exist. Conference pride is real and is important for the integrity of the Finals.
The current format also allows for a competitive Finals, even if the top seed in a conference is eliminated. If the top seed in the 1-16 seed format is upset, the best that side can provide is the fourth seed. This could severely hurt the competitive nature of the Finals.
Problem 5: Small Markets
Finally, a 1-16 seed playoff format will hurt small market teams.
In a 1-16 seed format, superstar players will no longer have to worry about being the third seed in the tougher conference, facing a tough route to the Finals. If conferences no longer exist, however, players won’t have to worry about this. This will give teams like the Lakers, Spurs and Warriors huge bargaining power over smaller market teams like Cleveland, Indiana and Milwaukee.
Why would a player choose to play in Cleveland over the Lakers if playing for the Cavs doesn’t also come with an easier route to the Finals?
The NBA does not have a new competitive problem. The NBA has been driven by dynasties since its inception in 1947. In every full decade of NBA play, except for the 1970s, an NBA team has won at least four championships.
Next: How has Wade Baldwin IV played in Summer League?
Dynasties and so-called “Super Teams” are a part of sports and the NBA in particular. Conferences have existed in some form or other since the inception of professional basketball in the United States. And to my knowledge, these teams have not been called into question until now.
Every major sports league in America has conferences.
Conferences are fun — and necessary — for a league to succeed.