An integrated playoff structure has become a conversation topic in recent years, and it’s worth revisiting after the NBA’s eight first-round playoff series all began over the weekend.
The entry point of this discussion is that the Eastern Conference displayed more — and better — depth than in past years.
The East’s 8 seed had a better record than the West’s 8 seed for the first time this century. The argumentative momentum behind an integrated 1-16 seeding structure, with the conference distinction removed from the equation, came from the past few seasons. The West’s 8 seed won 45 games in 2015, and an eye-popping 49 in 2014. A 48-win team in the West was left out of the 2014 playoffs (Phoenix), while the 38-win Atlanta Hawks got in through the back door in the East. This began the drumbeat for a playoff field in which conference identity took a back seat to overall quality.
With the East regaining its footing to a certain extent in 2016, you’ve heard less about the need for an integrated playoff format.
However, the 8-seed issue was just one out of many. The case for an integrated 1-16 playoff bracket goes far beyond the 8 seeds in each conference, and the 2016 season illustrates this contention on multiple fronts.
Let’s start in the present moment with the first round before considering the later playoff rounds in May and June.
If we had a 1-16 playoff format, what would the matchups have been?
1-16: Golden State-Chicago.
The Bulls would have gotten in ahead of Houston (42 wins to 41). Chicago would have remained 16th in a three-way tie with Dallas and Memphis due to a poorer head-to-head record in that cluster of teams. Chicago and Memphis split this season, but the Grizzlies beat Dallas while the Bulls did not.
2-15: San Antonio-Memphis
Alas, the revised format would still create some dud first-rounders, and this would have been one of them.
3-14: Cleveland-Dallas
These teams played two dead-even games during the regular season, but with Dallas’s injuries, it’s clear that Detroit represents a tougher first-round foe for the Cavs.
We still haven’t seen any benefit to the revised system in terms of quality matchups in the first round, but that’s about to change…
4-13: Toronto-Portland
The Trail Blazers were swept by Detroit. Since both teams finished with 44 wins, the Blazers would have moved here.
You wish this series could have taken place, right?
5-12: Oklahoma City-Detroit
The Reggie Jackson Series would have been a helluva lot more interesting than Thunder-Mavericks.
6-11: Los Angeles Clippers-Indiana
We’ll see if Portland finds its footing against the Clippers. Meanwhile, we’ll see if the Pacers remain formidable and flinty against the Raptors.
7-10 and 8-9: Miami-Charlotte and Atlanta-Boston, just like the actual pairings.
The four-way tie among these teams would have applied regardless of playoff format this year.
*
That’s one piece of the puzzle with an integrated playoff format. However, that’s just the beginning.
Instead of having the locked-in bracket which currently exists — the 2-7 winner must play the 3-6 winner, the 1-8 winner must play the 4-5 winner — why shouldn’t the NBA adopt what the NHL did (and then abandoned, because Gary Bettman…)?
The reality of a bracketed tournament should allow for the ability to reseed with each round. The highest remaining seed plays the lowest seed, and the other teams fill in the middle.
Forget the NBA Finals for a moment: What the 1-16 format would achieve in the second round would be of value to the league. Golden State, as the 1 seed, would very likely play a team with fewer than 50 wins in the second round. A 1 seed is supposed to get the best possible draw and the most possible protection, so this format would provide more bracket integrity.
San Antonio, having won 67 games, would not have to play Oklahoma City in the second round, another source of increased bracket integrity. The Spurs would be rewarded more for what they did during the season.
Oklahoma City Thunder’s Kevin Durant soars in to dunk against the Toronto Raptors during second half NBA basketball action in Toronto on Monday, March 28, 2016. (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press via AP)
A possible 4-versus-5 matchup in the second round would be Toronto-OKC. The Raptors won 56 games this season, the Thunder 55. This brings up the important point that under an integrated 1-16 format, every team has maximum incentive to win as many games as possible. Without being confined to one conference, teams know they’d have to rise as high as they could in the seeding structure to avoid tougher matchups (or playing on the road) in the second and third rounds.
Speaking of the third round… we’d no longer have a conference finals under this format, which would mean that the Spurs and Cavaliers would be bracketed to meet. This would accordingly make it possible for the Warriors to play the Spurs in the NBA Finals and not the West Finals.
These would rate as substantial improvements for the playoffs in 2016. Cleveland would not get safe passage through the East, but would instead have to beat the second-best team in the league in order to get a crack at the best team (Golden State) in the NBA Finals.
The 1-16 playoff format is not just about the 8 seeds, everyone.
From the first round to the Finals, this format creates a better and fairer bracket with — on balance — more high-quality matchups. That can’t be a bad thing for the league.
Why not adopt this system going forward? The conversation should continue, even though the East’s 8 seed outclassed the West’s 8 seed this season.
