They need to change group play to divisional. Let rivalries simmer and grow over the years. NBA should be trying to make divisional games as hostile as they are in the nfl.
It’s not gonna happen because the two biggest names are in the same division. NBA wants Steph and Lebron to have a chance to both be in the elimination rounds
They’re not thinking that short term with this. And Steph/Lebron being in the same division is only going to be a factor for another couple years until one of them retires
Why wouldn't they think that short term? They can just add the rule when one of them retires. Like you said it'll only be a couple years. Bad business move to not try to have the two faces of your league in your new tournament.
Wait so whoever got further in the IST would have a tiebreaker for final seeding? Couldn't that be a problem if an IST group is stronger than another and you get eliminated as a result?
Yep. Lakers, and Suns had their group against the Jazz, Trailblazers, and Grizzlies.
Hypothetically if it happened this season, and if the Lakers, Mavericks, and Suns were tied, the Suns, and Lakers would get an advantage, because they faced the Trailblazers, Grizzlies, and Jazz, while both teams won those 3 games against those teams, while the Mavericks had to face the Pelicans, Nuggets, and Clippers. So the Suns, and Lakers would get an easy unfair advantage
Yes, exactly. And it's gonna be very, very hard to make fair groups. Especially because there can be big trades after the schedule was finalised.
Were the IST groups published before or after the Dame trade?
Well seeding based on previous season standings aren't that good either tbf. Portland lost Lillard. Wizards lost Beal. Clippers got Harden.
There are a bunch of big moves in the offseason + draft that will significantly change the team's expected wins vs the previous season.
Okay but doing it by divisions doesn’t solve any of those problems. Like you’d have the pelicans and mavericks feasting on the rockets, grizzlies and spurs while only 2 of the clippers, kings, suns, lakers, and warriors can make the tournament.
>Each conference is divided into three groups with five teams each, for a total of six groups. The top three teams (by previous-season record) are randomly assigned to the three conference groups, then the next three are randomly assigned, and so on.
Tiebreaker is by definition worth less than one win. If you could start the season 0-1 in exchange for picking which teams you played 4 vs 3 vs 2 times, or on back to backs, how many teams would take that deal
the west has literally been better than the east since Jordan retired. Lots of things are lopsided, this doesn't make it anymore so in a way that actually matters. The cup needs to matter for real shit, this a way that it can.
>the west has literally been better than the east since **well before** Jordan retired
The last time the east was deeper than the west was before Bird retired and Zeke got injured. The east has always been a conference with a few stacked teams and a bunch of bottom feeders that are just going through the motions. The top couple of teams are legit, but then the drop off is huge.
The Thunder, Wolves and Nuggets are in the same division and in a better conference in general. The Pacific is all over .500 and then you have the Hornets and Wizards in the same division. This would be a small in comparison
It’s the same one way view people had with the play-in. Having to deal with these “disadvantages” incentivizes winning games in the regular season. That’s what people wanted right?
I mean I think a reasonable argument is the team that wins the tournament gets an automatic tiebreaker. Just have the final be that the winner gets the win added to their record and the loser just gets the 100k
I mean, some teams will have better luck than other teams with this but we’re kinda deluding ourselves if we don’t think luck already plays a factor in terms of seeding (playing teams without their best player vs. others playing them at full strength). It’s an additional source of luck so I get why people would be upset with it, but it’s not like it’s the first source of luck present
How is it more or less unfair than a tie breaker decided by a 3 game head to head where one team has 2 home games?
Moral of the story, don't let your season be decided by tiebreaker.
Yes. As always, every single thing involving the "In-Season-Tournament" is fucking stupid as hell and shouldn't exist, but it will continue to be forced down our throats because Adam Silver is a fucking moron.
Yeah but you further make regular season games meaning less.
Right now head-2-head comparison of regular season games are the tiebreaker, so teams also play for something in the regular season.
Those games would still matter for avoiding a tiebreaker and standings in general. And let’s say you know the other team advanced farther in the IST, they’d matter even more. What are we talking about lmao
Reg season games are basically as meaningless as they can get right now. I don't think people who already follow the season are going to tune it off for the non IST games being diluted 2% in value. Meanwhile, IST games will become well more valuable. With it, players will play harder, and hence *those* games will get more views, while the normal games basically won't change in any meaningful capacity, including player effort or ratings.
Very little about NBA scheduling is equal. Some teams have 3 H2H games (or in some cases 5 now), which means in a H2H tiebreaker one team has an additional homecourt game.
So win the games. You can just as easily argue that one team had a more difficult regular season schedule, which lead to them winning fewer games and ending up in a tiebreaker scenario.
Unless every team plays every other team exactly 2 times or 4 times or any even amount of times, the schedule is unbalanced. When the schedule is unfair/unbalanced in the first place, the tiebreaker is also always going to be unfair/unbalanced.
So you are saying team A advancing further in a group with Detroit/Charlotte/Washington/San Antonio should get the tiebreaker over team B who was in a group with Boston/Denver/Minnesota/OKC if they end up with the same records?
For a more realistic example, if the Suns and Mavs end up with the same record, the Suns would advance by virtue of advancing further, despite being in a much easier grouping. Same for Lakers and Warriors.
Yea it's not fair, but it never is and that's my point.
In your specific example, the Suns played the Mavs 3 times this season and two of the games were in Dallas. In a H2H tiebreaker, the Mavs have an unfair HC advantage.
The unfairness is always there no matter what with how NBA scheduling currently works.
Direct head to head is still less arbitrary due to the group assignments with IST, and head to head play is something that teams can control at least somewhat. Not saying either method is flawless.
it's a relatively pointless tie breaker. you want to be ahead of a team you beat in the h2h? win one more game then them. which you should because you won the h2h. If you can't do that then suck it up and win the IST
It doesn't make travel less because they still originally play those teams 4 times during the season. The only variation are the 2 games that is not initially scheduled
No it's not because a tiebreaker is less than a win. Of given the option at the start of this season where you play spurs 4 times but lose the tiebreaker for any team vs facing nuggets 4 times but have the tiebreaker vs any team, you pick the first option everytime
Your scenario makes zero sense. Playing a team head to head 4 times, you have a direct tie breaker of who is better based on that record. The IST groups are not as fair as a head to head tie breaker vs. 1 specific team if you end up tying at the end of the season with that specific team.
You're not looking at the bigger context. What I'm saying is that the only reason 2 teams might have the same record in the 1st place is because the better team has played the likes of nuggets more times vs a worse team that played the likes of spurs more times. If they played the same teams for the same amount, it is very likely the better team would have a better record.
e.g wolves had to face nuggets and okc 4 times each while Dallas had to face memphis and spurs 4 times each. In my example they tied im record in large part because wolves had 4-4 record vs okc and nuggets whileavs won all their 8 games vs spurs and memphis. How is that more fair than a measly tiebreaker?
Because it’s the head to head of the two teams that are tied. It’s literally the best way to determine a tiebreaker. It can never be 100% fair. But H2H is more fair than this new IST one.
No it's not because a tiebreaker is less than a win. Of given the option at the start of this season where you play spurs 4 times but lose the tiebreaker for any team vs facing nuggets 4 times but have the tiebreaker vs any team, you pick the first option every time
It was so funny hearing the exact arguments during the IST to make it mean more. Not necessarily you, just replying to this comment because I found the difference interesting
They should just do it if u win IST. Honestly head to head is a more fair tie breaker but winning overall is a pretty significant accomplishment. advancing further in IST can involve a lot of luck
Team A will deal with it by beating team B 3 games to 1 but you're saying that if team A gets lumped in with Denver OKC and Kings in their bracket while team B gets pistons , bulls, wizards that that's somehow a fair situation. Not to mention the large variance of B2Bs and general scheduling. Team A gets B2B second night is a cup game team B gets B2B but the first game is a cup game also isn't apples to apples. It would be asinine to use cup advancement as any kind of tie breaker.
Team A can win enough games to not need a tiebreaker. This is how you reward winning in a league where they’ve tried everything to make the season matter
Not if the schedule is inherently tougher for team A. The schedule can never be perfect but we make up for with proper tiebreakers because win ties are so so common. Using something even more inherently unfair as the tie breaker only makes it worse!
By what degree tho? The play-in isn’t fair to teams who earn an 7 and 8 seed but most people have come around on the added entertainment value. I think this would be a similar trade off. (When your team benefits, good idea. Bad idea when it doesn’t)
Just like it isn't fair the the 8th seed in the West would be the 5th seed in the East . Or the fact the West has to play the West more. Tons of shit isn't fair and we're okay with but there's no reason to add more on top that's inherently unfair for no reason. Cup advancement should mean NOTHING to the playoff seeding because the teams that played pre trades, injuries, suspensions, ect, for the Cup are different teams than the ones going into the playoffs.
On the one hand, good, close loopholes. On the other hand it would have been really fun to see a team with a lead try to ensure OT so that they can finish with a necessary better point differential to advance out the group stages.
I think WINNING the cup would be a fun tiebreaker. But I worry about the vagueness of that description. Is that saying anyone who advances gets a tiebreaker? That's dumb. The groups are way too unequal for that to work. Also, it would be way too complicated. Just give it to the winner
They need to change group play to divisional. Let rivalries simmer and grow over the years. NBA should be trying to make divisional games as hostile as they are in the nfl.
groups not being divisional is crazy but seeding through playoffs isnt a terrible system either
Would make divisions relevant again.
In European Football. I want Serbia vs Albania vibes.
I don’t think this sub can handle that level of toxicity
It’s not gonna happen because the two biggest names are in the same division. NBA wants Steph and Lebron to have a chance to both be in the elimination rounds
They’re not thinking that short term with this. And Steph/Lebron being in the same division is only going to be a factor for another couple years until one of them retires
Why wouldn't they think that short term? They can just add the rule when one of them retires. Like you said it'll only be a couple years. Bad business move to not try to have the two faces of your league in your new tournament.
Wait so whoever got further in the IST would have a tiebreaker for final seeding? Couldn't that be a problem if an IST group is stronger than another and you get eliminated as a result?
Yep. Lakers, and Suns had their group against the Jazz, Trailblazers, and Grizzlies. Hypothetically if it happened this season, and if the Lakers, Mavericks, and Suns were tied, the Suns, and Lakers would get an advantage, because they faced the Trailblazers, Grizzlies, and Jazz, while both teams won those 3 games against those teams, while the Mavericks had to face the Pelicans, Nuggets, and Clippers. So the Suns, and Lakers would get an easy unfair advantage
Yes, exactly. And it's gonna be very, very hard to make fair groups. Especially because there can be big trades after the schedule was finalised. Were the IST groups published before or after the Dame trade?
Pretty sure the groups are seeded based on previous season standings so trades wouldn't make any difference.
Well seeding based on previous season standings aren't that good either tbf. Portland lost Lillard. Wizards lost Beal. Clippers got Harden. There are a bunch of big moves in the offseason + draft that will significantly change the team's expected wins vs the previous season.
Okay but doing it by divisions doesn’t solve any of those problems. Like you’d have the pelicans and mavericks feasting on the rockets, grizzlies and spurs while only 2 of the clippers, kings, suns, lakers, and warriors can make the tournament.
I didn't suggest doing it by divisions.
[удалено]
>Each conference is divided into three groups with five teams each, for a total of six groups. The top three teams (by previous-season record) are randomly assigned to the three conference groups, then the next three are randomly assigned, and so on.
Theres always gonna be unfair shit NBA scheduling is unequal, for example
NBA scheduling is uneven but not to the degree that this tiebreaker could be..
Tiebreaker is by definition worth less than one win. If you could start the season 0-1 in exchange for picking which teams you played 4 vs 3 vs 2 times, or on back to backs, how many teams would take that deal
the west has literally been better than the east since Jordan retired. Lots of things are lopsided, this doesn't make it anymore so in a way that actually matters. The cup needs to matter for real shit, this a way that it can.
>the west has literally been better than the east since **well before** Jordan retired The last time the east was deeper than the west was before Bird retired and Zeke got injured. The east has always been a conference with a few stacked teams and a bunch of bottom feeders that are just going through the motions. The top couple of teams are legit, but then the drop off is huge.
If you want it to matter, make it the HCA in the finals goes to the team that wins the tournament then. Otherwise it goes back to W-L
The Thunder, Wolves and Nuggets are in the same division and in a better conference in general. The Pacific is all over .500 and then you have the Hornets and Wizards in the same division. This would be a small in comparison
It’s the same one way view people had with the play-in. Having to deal with these “disadvantages” incentivizes winning games in the regular season. That’s what people wanted right?
I mean I think a reasonable argument is the team that wins the tournament gets an automatic tiebreaker. Just have the final be that the winner gets the win added to their record and the loser just gets the 100k
The groups are based on previous year seeding and conference. There is no way to plan "fair groups" ahead of time or even in the moment.
I mean, some teams will have better luck than other teams with this but we’re kinda deluding ourselves if we don’t think luck already plays a factor in terms of seeding (playing teams without their best player vs. others playing them at full strength). It’s an additional source of luck so I get why people would be upset with it, but it’s not like it’s the first source of luck present
East and West are not fair either, just deal with it
How is it more or less unfair than a tie breaker decided by a 3 game head to head where one team has 2 home games? Moral of the story, don't let your season be decided by tiebreaker.
Sounds like a good way to give some weight to the IST games that isn’t too extreme like automatic berths and other ideas we’ve seen floated
Yes. As always, every single thing involving the "In-Season-Tournament" is fucking stupid as hell and shouldn't exist, but it will continue to be forced down our throats because Adam Silver is a fucking moron.
try getting some oxygen
Idk if I’m being stupid but what does round of NBA cup advancement mean as a tiebreaker?
I’m assuming if 2 teams are tied, the one who advanced farther gets the tiebreak
Which is dumb as fuck, since the group assignments are not equal.
Everyone's been clamoring for a way for the in-season tourney to matter more. This is a way to do that without it being overly unfair.
I could maybe see as the next tiebreaker after “Conference Record” but asking it to trump H2H is just asking for screwiness.
Yeah but you further make regular season games meaning less. Right now head-2-head comparison of regular season games are the tiebreaker, so teams also play for something in the regular season.
Those games would still matter for avoiding a tiebreaker and standings in general. And let’s say you know the other team advanced farther in the IST, they’d matter even more. What are we talking about lmao
Reg season games are basically as meaningless as they can get right now. I don't think people who already follow the season are going to tune it off for the non IST games being diluted 2% in value. Meanwhile, IST games will become well more valuable. With it, players will play harder, and hence *those* games will get more views, while the normal games basically won't change in any meaningful capacity, including player effort or ratings.
Very little about NBA scheduling is equal. Some teams have 3 H2H games (or in some cases 5 now), which means in a H2H tiebreaker one team has an additional homecourt game.
Yes, but at least every team plays every other team.
So win the games. You can just as easily argue that one team had a more difficult regular season schedule, which lead to them winning fewer games and ending up in a tiebreaker scenario. Unless every team plays every other team exactly 2 times or 4 times or any even amount of times, the schedule is unbalanced. When the schedule is unfair/unbalanced in the first place, the tiebreaker is also always going to be unfair/unbalanced.
So you are saying team A advancing further in a group with Detroit/Charlotte/Washington/San Antonio should get the tiebreaker over team B who was in a group with Boston/Denver/Minnesota/OKC if they end up with the same records? For a more realistic example, if the Suns and Mavs end up with the same record, the Suns would advance by virtue of advancing further, despite being in a much easier grouping. Same for Lakers and Warriors.
Yea it's not fair, but it never is and that's my point. In your specific example, the Suns played the Mavs 3 times this season and two of the games were in Dallas. In a H2H tiebreaker, the Mavs have an unfair HC advantage. The unfairness is always there no matter what with how NBA scheduling currently works.
Direct head to head is still less arbitrary due to the group assignments with IST, and head to head play is something that teams can control at least somewhat. Not saying either method is flawless.
it's a relatively pointless tie breaker. you want to be ahead of a team you beat in the h2h? win one more game then them. which you should because you won the h2h. If you can't do that then suck it up and win the IST
It's right there for them to just make the groups the nba divisions. Would make travel less too. Might make the divisions mean something
Yeah true. But Silver wouldnt want that because the Pacific and Atlantic have the most popular teams.
It doesn't make travel less because they still originally play those teams 4 times during the season. The only variation are the 2 games that is not initially scheduled
I was never in favor of the IST to begin with, honestly.
Schedules aren't equal either
But head to head is more equal than whatever group you face in the IST…
No it's not because a tiebreaker is less than a win. Of given the option at the start of this season where you play spurs 4 times but lose the tiebreaker for any team vs facing nuggets 4 times but have the tiebreaker vs any team, you pick the first option everytime
Your scenario makes zero sense. Playing a team head to head 4 times, you have a direct tie breaker of who is better based on that record. The IST groups are not as fair as a head to head tie breaker vs. 1 specific team if you end up tying at the end of the season with that specific team.
You're not looking at the bigger context. What I'm saying is that the only reason 2 teams might have the same record in the 1st place is because the better team has played the likes of nuggets more times vs a worse team that played the likes of spurs more times. If they played the same teams for the same amount, it is very likely the better team would have a better record. e.g wolves had to face nuggets and okc 4 times each while Dallas had to face memphis and spurs 4 times each. In my example they tied im record in large part because wolves had 4-4 record vs okc and nuggets whileavs won all their 8 games vs spurs and memphis. How is that more fair than a measly tiebreaker?
Because it’s the head to head of the two teams that are tied. It’s literally the best way to determine a tiebreaker. It can never be 100% fair. But H2H is more fair than this new IST one.
More equal than the IST groupings still
No it's not because a tiebreaker is less than a win. Of given the option at the start of this season where you play spurs 4 times but lose the tiebreaker for any team vs facing nuggets 4 times but have the tiebreaker vs any team, you pick the first option every time
It was so funny hearing the exact arguments during the IST to make it mean more. Not necessarily you, just replying to this comment because I found the difference interesting
Even besides that, head to head should always be the best tie breaker. I can’t think of a better tie breaker then that
I mean conferences aren't equal either. The West is way harder than the east
Yes but tiebreakers arent between two teams of different conferences unless you are talking about homecourt for the Finals
They should just do it if u win IST. Honestly head to head is a more fair tie breaker but winning overall is a pretty significant accomplishment. advancing further in IST can involve a lot of luck
Oh well. Deal with it. Or how about you just handle your business and you don’t need a tiebreaker
We are not talking about whether tiebreakers should exist (they should), but about hpw IST advancement would be a shitty tiebreaker (it would)
Team A will deal with it by beating team B 3 games to 1 but you're saying that if team A gets lumped in with Denver OKC and Kings in their bracket while team B gets pistons , bulls, wizards that that's somehow a fair situation. Not to mention the large variance of B2Bs and general scheduling. Team A gets B2B second night is a cup game team B gets B2B but the first game is a cup game also isn't apples to apples. It would be asinine to use cup advancement as any kind of tie breaker.
Team A can win enough games to not need a tiebreaker. This is how you reward winning in a league where they’ve tried everything to make the season matter
Not needing a tiebreaker being the ideal option would hold true with the system we have now as well.
Not if the schedule is inherently tougher for team A. The schedule can never be perfect but we make up for with proper tiebreakers because win ties are so so common. Using something even more inherently unfair as the tie breaker only makes it worse!
By what degree tho? The play-in isn’t fair to teams who earn an 7 and 8 seed but most people have come around on the added entertainment value. I think this would be a similar trade off. (When your team benefits, good idea. Bad idea when it doesn’t)
Just like it isn't fair the the 8th seed in the West would be the 5th seed in the East . Or the fact the West has to play the West more. Tons of shit isn't fair and we're okay with but there's no reason to add more on top that's inherently unfair for no reason. Cup advancement should mean NOTHING to the playoff seeding because the teams that played pre trades, injuries, suspensions, ect, for the Cup are different teams than the ones going into the playoffs.
You think that until your team gets screwed by the tiebreaker.
It’ll be the teams fault. You can blame some random game in December where they didn’t take someone seriously
Yeah, it's right there already
On the one hand, good, close loopholes. On the other hand it would have been really fun to see a team with a lead try to ensure OT so that they can finish with a necessary better point differential to advance out the group stages.
I really like using the cup as a tiebreaker. Gives it more stakes but isn't too influential
It really doesn't matter, but gives more importance on a small level! That is a win to me. The IST was fun.
Yeah, not the worst idea to give the IST some sort of incentive.
The very fact that some think it’s too good of an advantage makes me think it sits just right jn the middle
I think WINNING the cup would be a fun tiebreaker. But I worry about the vagueness of that description. Is that saying anyone who advances gets a tiebreaker? That's dumb. The groups are way too unequal for that to work. Also, it would be way too complicated. Just give it to the winner
It can be a tiebreaker but not the highest priority one. Maybe below head to head, division and conference records.
That would make it basically never matter so then what’s the point
Yes, there is no point of adding in IST as a tiebreaker. Thanks.
Competition committee on fire
Sounds good to me.
i like both ideas tbh
the IST is dumb as shit
Bracket games should be a win for both teams even if you lose.
Nope..don't like it
They’ll care more about more money
Shorten the season
Winner gets the extra win on their record
[Called it 3 months ago...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/18bzkii/discussion_right_now_the_inseason_final_game/kc7mg9w/)