DLeethal wrote:

Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bull**** that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.

One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.

Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.

Panos wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bull**** that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.

One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.

Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.

Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

Panos wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bull**** that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.

One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.

Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.

Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.

oh yeah, I like that.

Incentive for teams at the cutoff to play games at end of season? Or disincentive to drop out of chase while missing out in the incentive to play for the 10 spot?

Point remains the play-in generates huge importance to regular season games (especially late ones) that didnt exist prior and for good reason. Bottom line is this format has significantly improved the quality of the product, because games are more meaningful and the match up watching is exciting.

Agree on a team like Atl but feels like a small price for the overall juice to these games

The way Phili grinded to get out of the play in spot for example. All these middle teams jockeying... its been fun.

Not having Randle hurts and knowing he's back next year adds juice to anything that happens... but the Nova trio and OG also never lose. Like ever. Gonna be a fun test

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/wojespn/status/1780240763286347959

DLeethal wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

Panos wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bull**** that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.

One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.

Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.

Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.

oh yeah, I like that.

Incentive for teams at the cutoff to play games at end of season? Or disincentive to drop out of chase while missing out in the incentive to play for the 10 spot?

keep it.. it's working. There's parity and 20 teams making the post season. There's gonna be some less than interesting teams at those bottoms, especially with the East being very bottom weak.

Point remains the play-in generates huge importance to regular season games (especially late ones) that didnt exist prior and for good reason. Bottom line is this format has significantly improved the quality of the product, because games are more meaningful and the match up watching is exciting.

Agree on a team like Atl but feels like a small price for the overall juice to these games

The way Phili grinded to get out of the play in spot for example. All these middle teams jockeying... its been fun.

Not having Randle hurts and knowing he's back next year adds juice to anything that happens... but the Nova trio and OG also never lose. Like ever. Gonna be a fun test

I would keep it too. But I do think the play-in is at it's best when it's competitive teams in it. And once you get big drop-off it loses it's luster. Everyone is amped for the West play-in and the 7/8 in the East and nobody could care less about Bulls/Hawks. They don't belong in the same bracket as the other 6 play-in teams. Not worth changing but I get the point they are making. Why make Philly and Miami duke it out and put their season on the line to give ATL who is 10 games under .500 a chance?

As for 9-10... this year's West is perfect example of how this looks when it's working right. As for the East it generated a lot of late urgency with the 2-6 tier because of how close those play in teams were getting. I mean Phili almost did it

fishmike wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

Panos wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bull**** that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.

One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.

Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.

Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.

oh yeah, I like that.

Incentive for teams at the cutoff to play games at end of season? Or disincentive to drop out of chase while missing out in the incentive to play for the 10 spot?

keep it.. it's working. There's parity and 20 teams making the post season. There's gonna be some less than interesting teams at those bottoms, especially with the East being very bottom weak.

Point remains the play-in generates huge importance to regular season games (especially late ones) that didnt exist prior and for good reason. Bottom line is this format has significantly improved the quality of the product, because games are more meaningful and the match up watching is exciting.

Agree on a team like Atl but feels like a small price for the overall juice to these games

The way Phili grinded to get out of the play in spot for example. All these middle teams jockeying... its been fun.

Not having Randle hurts and knowing he's back next year adds juice to anything that happens... but the Nova trio and OG also never lose. Like ever. Gonna be a fun test

I would keep it too. But I do think the play-in is at it's best when it's competitive teams in it. And once you get big drop-off it loses it's luster. Everyone is amped for the West play-in and the 7/8 in the East and nobody could care less about Bulls/Hawks. They don't belong in the same bracket as the other 6 play-in teams. Not worth changing but I get the point they are making. Why make Philly and Miami duke it out and put their season on the line to give ATL who is 10 games under .500 a chance?

because the play in is something to be avoided. It heavily favors the 7-8 seeding but makes those scenarios wildly undesirable vs. being 6

As for 9-10... this year's West is perfect example of how this looks when it's working right. As for the East it generated a lot of late urgency with the 2-6 tier because of how close those play in teams were getting. I mean Phili almost did it

Agree that overall, the play-in is a huge W for the league. Silver has the magic touch with these enhancements over the years. Just needs to get the All Star break right now.

All star game is for ****, same and dunk contest, but you gotta replace it with SOMETHING. Loved the mid season tourney so lets do a second one, but it's just division based.

AND, those games count towards season record but NOT the draft. This eliminates the tanking aspect of maybe like a month's worth of games where teams only travel in their region.

Couple weeks of games against each other to set up division seedings, then playoffs games. Something.

Winners get something like a 5 slot boost in draft for their pick that year or something. It's make it so that teams hesitate to trade their pick or something wild.

martin wrote:Now about this idea, a mishmash of mid season tourney and division based rivalries.

All star game is for ****, same and dunk contest, but you gotta replace it with SOMETHING. Loved the mid season tourney so lets do a second one, but it's just division based.

AND, those games count towards season record but NOT the draft. This eliminates the tanking aspect of maybe like a month's worth of games where teams only travel in their region.

Couple weeks of games against each other to set up division seedings, then playoffs games. Something.

Winners get something like a 5 slot boost in draft for their pick that year or something. It's make it so that teams hesitate to trade their pick or something wild.

I feel like they should let players opt out of ASG if they don't want to play. Eventually they will settle on rosters that want to be there and compete. I don't think incentives will work. And not sure USA vs "World" will work either since it never worked for the competitiveness of the rising stars game.