Why doesn't the NBA just take the top 16 records and seed them 1-16 based upon their W-L records? Then have a March Madness like tournament where #1 plays #16 and so on. That way the 2 top teams like the Spurs and Golden State don't have to meet in the Conference Finals. Just a seems more equitable to me. Often wondered this.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Pretty sure it has to do with who you are playing.

If the 8th seed in a conference is below .500, and the 9th place in the other conference is above .500, I'd have them play a one-game playoff to get that spot.

It alleviates the problem, but doesn't completely turn the system upside down. And you'd very rarely get a Finals with two teams from the same conference.

Edited for clarity.

The whole problem with this idea is that over the last 20 years if you would have use this method, after the first round there would be only one team or 2 teams from the east still in it after round 1. Then you're playoffs loses national Appeal pretty quickly. That's not good for the game

I don't think it is that big of a deal. Even when the west is loaded like the previous 10 years or so the 6-9 teams aren't really contenders for the title just like the bottom teams in the east. They may pull off an upset in round 1 or push a team to a tougher series but it's really the top 3-4 from each league that have any real chance. Or top 1-2 from the east. I would rather them limit the games between east and west during the regular season and play more division games.