I know this has probably been explained before, and it doesnt matter because of playoff matchup, but I dont understand why we are behind Utah as a 5th seed? 1. Spurs 42-17 (1st in SW) 2. Fakers 43-18 (1st in Pacific) 3. Hornets 41-19 (2nd in SW) 4. Jazzholes 40-22 (1st in NW) 5. Rockets 40-20 (3rd in SW) Shouldnt the Jazzholes be the 3rd seed because they are winning the division??
The 3 division winners are guaranteed a top 4 seed, but they are not guaranteed home court advantage. It used to be they were guaranteed a top 3 seed but the league changed it so that the top two seeds are not going to meet in the conference semi finals. So if the season ended today Utah would be the offical 4th seed and Houston 5th, but Houston would have home court advantage...just like last year. So effectively we are 4th. DD
But why do the Hornets get to leapfrog Utah? Just doesn't make sense to me. It should be top 8 teams based on overall record then head to head.
Remember Utah won their div last yr and was 4th seed and we were 5th seed, and we had home court advantage. remember that, right? since last yr, the NBA changed to the rules so that the three division winners and a 4th team with the best remaining record are seeded 1-4 based on their record. The 5-8 teams are ranked as usual. And home team advantage is always (always has been) given to the team with the best record between each bracket matchup.
Hornets have a better record? Aren't you contradicting what "makes sense to me" btw: there is no major US sport that does what you suggest. Division winners are always rewarded with good seeded, independent of overall record. in the NBA, a division winner is gauranteed no worse than a 4th seed. make sense?
I still think the system is flawed. A division winner should automatically get a playoff spot (1-8), but shouldn't get a top 4 seed.
dont forget the NBA is a business, they want to include as much of the country as possible. Imagine if only the southern part (the best teams) in the west went to the finals, then the west and midwest would not be fully interested in watching, there by generating less ratings and money from sponsors, this way people in the midwest could atleast root for the Jazz in the finals even if their team doesnt make it.
As far as I know that was to award one team that may have a better record than the third division winner. As of last year(?) they get to play 6th instead of 5th. If we get over the hornets we take third, simple as pie. That's why the southwest is so hard, we occupy 4/8 spots. Getting rid of division standings would be bad, you might as well throw out divisions entirely, and that would kill some of the rivalry. I mean it's great hating on the jazz knowing they may get a higher seed because they're in a crappy division. Makes it all the more worth it when we kick their butts this year.
If they just get a playoff spot, that's pretty much not necessary. I don't think there's ever been a division winner who hasn't had a top 8 record in their conference. This year is as close to that as its ever been, and it would still require Portland to overtake Denver and Utah in the standings.
Just curious, is #3 better than #5 this year? #5 faces Utah and #3 faces the Suns or Mavs. I would imagine #5 is more attractive?
I say get rid of the divisions and go with the Western Conference top 8 and everybody play each other the same amount of games if possible. We would play each team in the west (14) about 4 times. This excludes the home/away games with the leastern conference teams (30 games)
there is no pro sport that does it this way. the NBA has 3 division leaders and 5 wildcards. The best wildcard and the 3 division leaders are seeded 1-4 based on record. That's a normal system of seeding for pro sports. Are there still people out there who don't think division leaders should get rewarded? That argument is so tired.
I'll be completely honest. After years of this format, I get annoyed when people still don't understand how it works. /mini rant
Me. It is mathematically possible for a division leader to not even be good enough to make the playoffs. Wasn't the Atlantic division leader barely good enough for 8th seed in the Leastern Conference not long ago? The "tired argument" is the one supporting these silly rules which muck up conference standings in order to reward a division leader. The argument is: "hey, this is how it's done. Everybody does it." Uh... okay. A division leader doesn't deserve to be "rewarded" more than a team that has a better record than them. So the team with the better record gets home court- then why do this silly crap anyway? Are the division leading Jazz patting themselves on the back, saying, "yeah, we're number four seed even though we have the fifth best record and wouldn't have home court. I feel rewarded."\ Good to see you posting more, HP. Missed ya.
If we get the homecourt over a 4th seed...then, back to you Nolen, what difference does it make? I think people who scream about this seeding structure don't know that the 5th seed can have homecourt advantage over a division leader 4th seed. So, it doesn't really matter until there are *3* wildcards with better records than a division winner...or when one division has teams carrying the best 3 records in the conference (ie., 2 wildcards from one div better than both the other two div leaders). The league decided that division leaders will get rewarded in those rare circumstances.
Under the current system the four teams with the best records will get home court in the first round...sounds fair to me.
