http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2015/story/_/id/12809419/gregg-popovich-san-antonio-spurs-coach-wants-nba-change-playoff-seeding-procedure

Basically said there is no reason for Portland to get the 4 seed when there were multiple teams better than Portland.

I kind of like what Simmons said to do long ago and get rid of the conference seeding and just seed things like March Madness.

Beat the Knicks and hang on to beat the Cavs (game was in the bag but couldn't hit FTs) and the Spurs would have been the #2 seed.

As long as there are divisions, there has to be a reward for winning the division imo

Is it possible to win the division and not have a top 8 record?

No conferences

quote:

---

Is it possible to win the division and not have a top 8 record?

---

It would be really weird, but I guess technically possible

I don't understand why a division winner is guaranteed a "4" seed, even though they may not get home court advantage against the 5 seed. Why not just change it to "the lowest you can be seeded if you win your division is the 5 seed"? What is the purpose of calling them a 4 if they get treated like a 5?

Insert sour grapes pic

I know that it may come across as bitterness since he just lost the series a couple of days ago, but that could have easily been the Rockets who got screwed into the 6th seed instead of the Spurs, and I would have been pissed if that ended up being us.

Maybe Pop isn't the best spokesman for the cause at the moment, but it still is an issue that needs to be addressed, IMO

quote:

---

Right now every team in the West plays every other team in the West the exact same number of times.

---

Incorrect. 4 teams are played 3 times. The rest are played 4 times.

I stand corrected, but the point remains .. There are 10 conference teams that you play exactly the same number of times. Picking 5 of them to be in a "division" is arbitrary when trying to make a division.

It worked out for my Rockets this season, but it is a dumb setup. I'd like to see the teams from the same division playing each other more than any of the other conference opponents. This makes it a true division and makes winning that division more meaningful. In that case, I don't have a problem rewarding a team for winning a division because its possible their record is worse because the division they were in was so much tougher.

Right now, a worse record just means you were a worse team. It should not be rewarded.

It seems really dumb to guarantee a top 4 seed for division winners but not home court.

quote:

---

I know that it may come across as bitterness since he just lost the series a couple of days ago, but that could have easily been the Rockets who got screwed into the 6th seed instead of the Spurs, and I would have been pissed if that ended up being us.

Maybe Pop isn't the best spokesman for the cause at the moment, but it still is an issue that needs to be addressed, IMO

---

Pop said it before he lost the series and Doc agreed with him if that helps.

Clippers were better than Portland, too.

So it should have been
1. Golden State
2. Clippers
3. Rockets
4. Memphis
5. Spurs
6. Portland
7. Dallas
8. New Orleans

quote:

---

quote:

---

The timing is not a coincidence. He also mentioned it before the series. But that's not what you want to hear.

---

And Doc Rivers said it was stupid, too. But don't lets facts get in the way of hate and ignorance.

---

Rivers said it because he had to play SA...

Pop's timing or not, it's a pretty ridiculous rule that should be changed.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The timing is not a coincidence. He also mentioned it before the series. But that's not what you want to hear.

---

And Doc Rivers said it was stupid, too. But don't lets facts get in the way of hate and ignorance.

---

Rivers said it because he had to play SA...

---

Also because it is kind of ridiculous that teams get a higher seed for winning their division when they have the same basic schedule as everyone in their conference. It isn't like the NFL when winning your division actually means something.

So add division games and remove in-conference games or make the division winners meaningless.

When they first changed the conference to three divisions, the three division winners got the first three seeds automatically. Then the Mavs won 60 games and finished second behind the Spurs at 63 and got a 4 seed rather than a 3 seed, which went to the 44-win Denver Nuggets, who were tied for 8th in the conference.

Kind of ridiculous for a 60-win Mavs to be seeded lower than the 8th best team in the conference. Just like it is ridiculous for the Clippers and Spurs to be seeded lower than the Blazers.

For a change like this, does anyone know what type of majority vote needed? Is it just simple majority like 16 owners, or is it a 2/3rds (20) or 3/4th (23) vote?

If I was in a weak division why would I vote for this?

quote:

---

If I was in a weak division why would I vote for this?

---

Because just because your division is weak this year, doesn't mean it will always be weak.

I highly doubt Pop would have said anything if they had won the series. instead he lost and has lots of free time now, so he's crying and wants daddy silver to change the rules.

Just make them two big conferences - east and west. Top 8 in each go to the playoffs. Seed by record. Tie breakers may have to get interesting, but it just doesn't seem like a difficult problem.

Like I said, I highly doubt he would have said that after the series was over if he had won. instead he lost, so he's being a whiny baby crying about changing rules.