Jump to content

Simple Simon

2-2-1-1-1 vs. 2-3-2

Recommended Posts

The NBA finals went to a 2-3-2 (2 home, 3 road, 2 home) format in 1985. Have the Conference Semifinals and Conference Finals always been the 2-2-1-1-1 format or were they ever 2-3-2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the Conference Semifinals and Conference Finals have always been the 2-2-1-1-1 format as long as they've been 7 games.

I think the 2-3-2 is extremely unfair in the Finals and makes no sense, giving way too much of an advantage to the team with the better record, because the team with the worse record has to win 3 straight games (Games 3-5) to maintain home court. These are supposed to be the two best teams in the league, so one team shouldn't have THAT much of an advantage.

I think they should go to a 1-2-2-1-1 format.

Therefore, the higher seed gets Game 1 at home, but also a chance to close out at home in Games 4, 5, & 7. Since they are the higher seed they should get some advantage, but the lower seed doesn't have to win 3 games in a row to maintain home court. And doesn't have to win Games 6 AND 7 on the road.

It's not like its a 1 vs. 8 seed; these two teams should be relatively rewarded for making the NBA Finals, not just one team gets rewarded because they had a better REGULAR season record.

So it'd be

Game 1: MIA@DAL

Game 2: DAL@MIA

Game 3: DAL@MIA

Game 4: MIA@DAL

Game 5: MIA@DAL

Game 6: DAL@MIA

Game 7: MIA@DAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the Conference Semifinals and Conference Finals have always been the 2-2-1-1-1 format as long as they've been 7 games.

I think the 2-3-2 is extremely unfair in the Finals and makes no sense, giving way too much of an advantage to the team with the better record, because the team with the worse record has to win 3 straight games (Games 3-5) to maintain home court. These are supposed to be the two best teams in the league, so one team shouldn't have THAT much of an advantage.

I think they should go to a 1-2-2-1-1 format.

Therefore, the higher seed gets Game 1 at home, but also a chance to close out at home in Games 4, 5, & 7. Since they are the higher seed they should get some advantage, but the lower seed doesn't have to win 3 games in a row to maintain home court. And doesn't have to win Games 6 AND 7 on the road.

It's not like its a 1 vs. 8 seed; these two teams should be relatively rewarded for making the NBA Finals, not just one team gets rewarded because they had a better REGULAR season record.

So it'd be

Game 1: MIA@DAL

Game 2: DAL@MIA

Game 3: DAL@MIA

Game 4: MIA@DAL

Game 5: MIA@DAL

Game 6: DAL@MIA

Game 7: MIA@DAL

Not a bad idea, but I think it puts way too much emphasis on Game 1; it becomes a virtual must-win for the higher seed, especially for teams who don't play well on the road. If not, you're looking at the possibility of a 3-0 deficit before you ever step back on your home court, and while I don't have the numbers right in front of me, I'd say that Game 1 is a team's best chance to steal home court in a series (thinking back to MIA-DET last year, LAL-DET in 04, NJ-MIA this year, etc).

A big reason I think it would never happen, though, is because I think that the 2-3-2 format was created so that the teams only have to travel twice. Given that there is the strong possibility that one team will be in the Pacific (or whatever California is) time zone and one will be in the Atlantic (whatever New York is) time zone, I think they want to decrease the jet lag that the players would experience in the 2-2-1-1-1 by going, for example...

Game 4 - Thursday in Detroit

Game 5 - Sunday in LA

Game 6 - Tuesday in Detroit

Game 7 - Thursday in LA

Your 1-2-2-1-1 would cut down on that a bit, but it would still force travel days before Games 6 and 7, and, as I said, I think it gives too much of an advantage to the lower seed. Just my opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt the 2-3-2 format screwed the team that worked all season to get the better record. If the team with homecourt splits the first two games, they now have to play 3 straight in the other teams building. This is the Finals, and chances are, the teams are probably pretty good at home.

It was created, as previously mentioned, for travel purposes. If it was any other format, it would not only be ridiculously expensive for each team, but the Finals would have to take 3 weeks if it went 7 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a big disadvantage to the team that has to play the 3 home games in a row. With the quality of opponent you will face in the finals, it is very hard to beat them 3 games straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they should go to a 1-2-2-1-1 format.

Therefore, the higher seed gets Game 1 at home, but also a chance to close out at home in Games 4, 5, & 7. Since they are the higher seed they should get some advantage, but the lower seed doesn't have to win 3 games in a row to maintain home court. And doesn't have to win Games 6 AND 7 on the road.

It's not like its a 1 vs. 8 seed; these two teams should be relatively rewarded for making the NBA Finals, not just one team gets rewarded because they had a better REGULAR season record.

So it'd be

Game 1: MIA@DAL

Game 2: DAL@MIA

Game 3: DAL@MIA

Game 4: MIA@DAL

Game 5: MIA@DAL

Game 6: DAL@MIA

Game 7: MIA@DAL

Now that's quite an idea. Never heard of this before, but that's a pretty interesting concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is a big disadvantage to the team that has to play the 3 home games in a row. With the quality of opponent you will face in the finals, it is very hard to beat them 3 games straight.

isn't Detroit on '04 the only team to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isn't Detroit on '04 the only team to do this?

1990 Detroit also did it, I think they were the only other team

Game 3 (1990-06-10 at POR) DET 121, POR 106 DET leads 2-1

Game 4 (1990-06-12 at POR) DET 112, POR 109 DET leads 3-1

Game 5 (1990-06-14 at POR) DET 92, POR 90 DET wins 4-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only team to win Games 3-5 at home were the 2004 Pistons. The 2005 Pistons of course nearly did this, but Robert Horry hit that wide open 3 pointer in Game 5.

I took a look at the series outcomes since the 2-3-2 format was introduced. Only 24% of the teams that had to play Games 3-5 at home won the Finals:


Year Home 3-5 Opponent # of Wins Champion? Deciding Game
1985 [B]LAL[/B] BOS 2 Y 6
1986 [B]HOU[/B] BOS 2 6
1987 [B]BOS[/B] LAL 2 6
1988 [B]DET[/B] LAL 2 7
1989 [B]POR[/B] DET SWEEP 4
1990 [B]POR[/B] DET 0 5
1991 [B]LAL[/B] CHI 0 5
1992 [B]POR[/B] CHI 1 6
1993 [B]CHI[/B] PHO 1 Y 6
1994 [B]NYK[/B] HOU 2 7
1995 [B]HOU[/B] ORL SWEEP Y 4
1996 [B]SEA[/B] CHI 2 6
1997 [B]UTA[/B] CHI 2 6
1998 [B]CHI[/B] UTA 2 Y 6
1999 [B]NYK[/B] SAS 1 5
2000 [B]IND[/B] LAL 2 6
2001 [B]PHI[/B] LAL 0 5
2002 [B]NJN[/B] LAL SWEEP 4
2003 [B]NJN[/B] SAS 1 6
2004 [B]DET[/B] LAL 3 Y 5
2005 [B]DET[/B] SAS 2 7
2006 [B]MIA[/B] DAL 3 Y 6
27.27%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isn't Detroit on '04 the only team to do this?

As LBH said, the 90 Pistons did it as well. The 90 Pistons actually did all 3 games in Portland, which is simply amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As LBH said, the 90 Pistons did it as well. The 90 Pistons actually did all 3 games in Portland, which is simply amazing.

Actually no, the only team to win all three games (3-5) at home were the '04 Pistons.

The '90 Pistons, the '91 Bulls, and the '01 Lakers won all three games (3-5) on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually no, the only team to win all three games (3-5) at home were the '04 Pistons.

The '90 Pistons, the '91 Bulls, and the '01 Lakers won all three games (3-5) on the road.

I never said they were the only team to do it, just that they did it. But thanks for pointing out the Lakers and Bulls, I figured some more teams had done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...