For the NBA playoffs, wouldn’t it make sense to just take the top 16 teams in regardless to their division?
Instead of taking the top 8 teams in the East and West, they should just take the top 16 regardless to their geography. It would make the playoffs more challenging and there’d be more competition. Lets face it, the East (especially the atlantic division) has some really sh*tty teams and the west should have to suffer because they’re not in the east. Take the 2002 NBA Finals as an example. The Nets got swept by the Lakers even though there were other western teams (some that didn’t make the playoffs) that could’ve easily beaten the Nets as well. That’s just messed up, they should just take the top 16 regardless to geography. I know that the league is just doing this for the profits but I don’t think it’s fair to the west.
Anyone else agree?
“Sure the other Western conference teams could have easily beaten the NJ Nets but they have to go through there conference first. ”
That’s exactly the point. You play the best teams regardless to division and that makes the games more challenging. And in the end we won’t have 1 really crappy team (like the Nets) go against a powerhouse like the Lakers.
PS. You obviously have never played tennis.
“To me that makes no sense because even if it was the top 16 teams the same teams would have made the finals. ”
Nope, the Nets wouldn’t have made it.
“And to end this whole argument I will finally say that notice you said in the finals were the Nets and the Lakers, THE BEST OF EACH CONFERENCE. That’s what the Finals are about the best of each conference. Those other western teams that didn’t make the playoffs weren’t the best of there conference and did not deserve to be in the Finals nor the playoffs. ”
So your argument is that it doesn’t matter how good you are, if you’re in the right conference, you deserve to be in the finals even though there are teams in the league who would beat you in 4? I’m sorry but that’s a very poor argument, IMO.
agree
why have divisions if it doesn’t matter. they r geographically designed for a reason. and the fact divisions play more games against each other it should impact the seedings.
I don’t agree and that’s my opinion. I’ll tell you why by explaining your silly(censored word) example. “Take the 2002 NBA Finals as an example. The Nets got swept by the Lakers even though there were other western teams (some that didn’t make the playoffs) that could’ve easily beaten the Nets as well.” To me that makes no sense because even if it was the top 16 teams the same teams would have made the finals. Sure the other Western conference teams could have easily beaten the NJ Nets but they have to go through there conference first. Saying that, if you let the top 16 teams in all you’re doing is letting the bad teams that have no chance against the top 8. If want to get into the playoffs then earn your spot, you shouldn’t be complaining that there isn’t enough room. The playoffs are for the elite to go at, its not for the struggling or the inconsistent. Now if you want to complain that some of the eastern teams (bad ones) should trade sides with some of the western teams (average or decent ones) to level the difficulty in the playoffs then that’s a different subject. And to end this whole argument I will finally say that notice you said in the finals were the Nets and the Lakers, THE BEST OF EACH CONFERENCE. That’s what the Finals are about the best of each conference. Those other western teams that didn’t make the playoffs weren’t the best of there conference and did not deserve to be in the Finals nor the playoffs.
It all evens out in the end….you could say the same thing for the Eastern conference during the Jordan years or during the Celtics dynasty, plus when you put teams into categories such as divisions and conferences it allows for people whose team isn’t in the hunt to root for someone and watch the playoff games despite their team not playing