BuzzerBeater Forums

This effectively would kill the point of conference rivalries, a key component of BB.

Dude, this ain't soccer.

NBA is like that, go fishing.

Go fishing yourself.

Dude, this ain't soccer.

NBA is like that, go fishing.

Don't be rude.

rudeness apart...
the nba system of seeding is not clever at all; no reason to imitate it.
In fact I'm in a division with the 3 strongest teams of the conference, and I'm the third, it's not amusing to see teams that you beat regularly playing one or two home games in the p.o. meanwhile I had to go home in the first turn without playing at home at all.

It's a problem that nba really knows, but they are too oldish to do something to fix (even if ESPN commenters are battling -for a good two years now- against this unequilibrate and unfair system).

We play 22 games, so let's seed 1-4, 2-3 regardless of division... Why not?

Last edited by Francy at 9/29/2008 9:20:19 AM

I would like to go even further and remove the conference system altogether. Is the conference rivalry system really a key component of BB as someone said earlier? From a personal standpoint, I can say that it adds nothing for me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I would really like to see the number of teams per division reduced and the conference system removed. I think this solves a few things:

1) Less teams means you can get to know your division mates better. Then we can say that division rivalries are a key component of BB. ;-)
2) Every team has a better shot of promoting (instead of 1/16, 1/12).
3) The top 6 make the playoffs, the bottom two relegate and the remaining 4 battle it out for the last 2 demotion spots. You wouldn't have a 5th place team in no-man's land (it is actually better to finish 6th than 5th in the current format - you get revenue and more training)
4) The division will equilibrate faster. The worst teams will demote while the best stay in the division. Right now, with an unbalanced conference, the worst teams often stay up.
5) The draft is messed up. I could finish 8th in my conference and demote with a 8-14 record, for example. Meanwhile, a guy in the other conference finishes 5th with a 7-15 record. He drafts ahead of me but he is staying up.

Just look at Naismith in Canada. I would love to see Toroo and Molson play head-to-head with the Sculpins more often. It would make things much more interesting for them. I would go down to division II, but the competition would be much more interesting for me, too.

Finally, it would force the higher level teams to spend their money and max out their salaries. It makes everything more competitive faster. If you don't spend your money, you'll get left behind.

1) Less teams means you can get to know your division mates better. Then we can say that division rivalries are a key component of BB. ;-)

less change in league let to know your rivals better ;)

2) Every team has a better shot of promoting (instead of 1/16, 1/12).

that would be fine, but i don't know if it worth it, because the "season of change" becomes pretty chaotic.

3) The top 6 make the playoffs, the bottom two relegate and the remaining 4 battle it out for the last 2 demotion spots. You wouldn't have a 5th place team in no-man's land (it is actually better to finish 6th than 5th in the current format - you get revenue and more training)

first i won't say that 6 place is better then 5 place ;)

second, how you play a play off with 6 teams???

4) The division will equilibrate faster. The worst teams will demote while the best stay in the division. Right now, with an unbalanced conference, the worst teams often stay up.

for my league, i could the system works and last season it was a bit unbalanced.

Finally, it would force the higher level teams to spend their money and max out their salaries. It makes everything more competitive faster. If you don't spend your money, you'll get left behind.

if i don't spend my money i was left ebhind today too ...

To respond to your points:

1) There is still 1 team promoting and 4 teams going down. No change there. However, instead of having 7 rivals you would have 11.

2) Many people, like me, see promoting as a very daunting task at the moment. And like I said in #1, the change in terms of # of teams is the same.

3) I personally would want to avoid finishing 5th like the plague. 4th is MUCH better. I can see your point about 6th if you are not certain you could win the qualifier. Let's just say that 5th place is kind of no mans land at the moment.

As for the playoff, that's easy. The top 2 teams get a bye through the 1st round. I don't know what the implications would be for normal/CT... However, I would like to see normal/CT removed for the playoffs, anyways. I can't see many situations where a normal would be prudent in the playoffs at present.

4) I don't know what you mean here - it sounds like you are in agreement on this point but I may be misreading you.

5) I can't really argue this too much - it was really just a guy feeling of mine.

1. for me the teams from other division are rivals too, and i know my league rivals better because more teams stay in my division, i think must people can remember more then 12 persons ;)

2. but in the first season not,because you had to smaller the divisions, which is pretty chaotic

As for the playoff, that's easy. The top 2 teams get a bye through the 1st round.

don't you get a a new "5th place"

4. maybe i agree a bit, but the actual system is not that bad ;) Because in pretty unbalanced division, the top division get only one demotion, the other one 3.