The Play-In: Should it Be Permanent?

[wizenheimer]

the NBA is entertainment, and I have to say the play-in has made the last 2-3 weeks pretty damn entertaining

should the NBA keep it? I'm thinking yes but maybe there's something I'm not considering....?

in fact, I'm thinking not only keep the play-in but use it to expand entertainment value in the lottery. Even out the odds a little bit and have a full lottery for all 10 teams that don't make the play-in. Draw lottery balls for all 10 slots. Then take the 8 teams that made the play-in and have a second 'even-odds' lottery for slots 11-18. Hell, make it even more interesting and hold a another even-odds lottery for all 12 playoff teams and slots 19-30

this would even make trading draft picks more entertaining

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think it should, unless they change it so that a team has to be within shouting distance. If the 9th and 10th teams are absolute shit and have horrible records, they have no business being in the playoffs.

 

[Hoopguru]

the NBA is entertainment, and I have to say the play-in has made the last 2-3 weeks pretty damn entertaining

should the NBA keep it? I'm thinking yes but maybe there's something I'm not considering....?

in fact, I'm thinking not only keep the play-in but use it to expand entertainment value in the lottery. Even out the odds a little bit and have a full lottery for all 10 teams that don't make the play-in. Draw lottery balls for all 10 slots. Then take the 8 teams that made the play-in and have a second 'even-odds' lottery for slots 11-18. Hell, make it even more interesting and hold a another even-odds lottery for all 12 playoff teams and slots 19-30

this would even make trading draft picks more entertaining

Anytime the NBA see's an opportunity to increase revenue and audience, it will get serious consideration. Its a marketing driven business targeting all aspects of fandom. It would surprise me a bit if the play-in becomes an annual event. The players union would have input too.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

I like it. Gives many tweener teams incentive to compete late and adds playoff games. For the 7th and 8 seeds, that is potentially two more playoff games. As a season ticket holder, those are gold.

 

[handiman]

I don't think it should, unless they change it so that a team has to be within shouting distance. If the 9th and 10th teams are absolute shit and have horrible records, they have no business being in the playoffs.

They're not in the playoffs, they're in the play-ins. And if they're as bad as your premise, they pose little threat to the 7th and 8th place teams.

I think it adds interest overall. The only negative I can see is increased injury risk. Teams go hard during the playoffs, with guys playing through stuff they would have sat out during the regular season, and use the last couple weeks of the season to rest up for that as much as possible. With the play-in format, lower seeded teams can't do that and higher seeded teams have to think twice about it if their opponent suddenly has more to play for.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Lets see how it goes, but I am warming up to it. If the 7th or 8th place teams are ones that have been slipping due to an injury, it might be best to have them removed from a 7 game series. Plus if I am a fan of one of those teams, the lottery is not a bad option.

 

[tiredhunter]

It is creative, so I hope they keep it around, if only to keep iterating on it. Parity between east/west was relatively good this year, but if we run into multiple sub-500 teams making the playoffs again, the play-in format makes less and less sense, unless it is conference agnostic.

 

[Haakzilla]

Mods: can you change the first part of the title to "The Special Zion Play-in Tourney" (even though they failed to account for just how bad the Pelicans would be again) maybe next year ALL teams will make it into the pre-playoff tournament.

 

[Shaboid]

Mods: can you change the first part of the title to "The Special Zion Play-in Tourney" (even though they failed to account for just how bad the Pelicans would be again) maybe next year ALL teams will make it into the pre-playoff tournament.

They should just make the whole regular season the play-in tourney.

 

[RR7]

I don't think it should, unless they change it so that a team has to be within shouting distance. If the 9th and 10th teams are absolute shit and have horrible records, they have no business being in the playoffs.

I think that it should be permanent, but I agree that there should be some sort of qualifier like there was last season. If the 7 seed is like 5 or more games above 8, they shouldn't have to play in. And if 9 or 10 is so far away, they shouldn't get the chance to play either.

 

[wizenheimer]

They should just make the whole regular season the play-in tourney.

essentially, it already is

 

[Shaboid]

essentially, it already is

Yeah, that was sort of my point. For that reason I think the play-ins are kind of stupid. They do provide a bit more excitement towards the end of the season though, so I'm in for whatever the NBA decides.

 

[wizenheimer]

I think that it should be permanent, but I agree that there should be some sort of qualifier like there was last season. If the 7 seed is like 5 or more games above 8, they shouldn't have to play in. And if 9 or 10 is so far away, they shouldn't get the chance to play either.

not sure how that would work..?

I guess it could be if the 7th seed is x number of games above the 8th seed, it's an automatic 7th seed, which in turn, eliminates the 10th seed? Or just a 3-team play-in for 8th seed?

 

[riverman]

The playin sort of makes tanking less appealing to 4 bottom feeders in the league and makes lower seeds keep playing to the end instead of resting starters. I have a problem with teams being rewarded for having losing records in the regular season...this is my biggest issue with the playin or playoffs..

 

[RR7]

not sure how that would work..?

I guess it could be if the 7th seed is x number of games above the 8th seed, it's an automatic 7th seed, which in turn, eliminates the 10th seed? Or just a 3-team play-in for 8th seed?

I think if 7 is far ahead, then 9 and 10 play, winner faces 8. And maybe 8 has to lose twice to be eliminated, but only has to win once, similar to last year's?
And something similar, like if 10 is too far back, then maybe it's just 8 versus 9, and winner faces 7.

If you go back just like 2 years ago, 7 and 8 in the west were tied, but then 9th place was 9 games behind them, and 10th was 11 games out.

 

[Tince]

It depends what the ultimate goal is.

Arguments for yes:

• More teams competing for playoff spots
• More difficult for top seeds to jocky for matchups
• Might result in less teams resting guys to end the regular season
• Better TV ratings (money)

Arguements for no:

• Diminshes the value of an 82 game season
• One bad game, injury, etc. could cost a team a playoff spot

 

[Graduate32]

What I like about it is that it prioritizes the low end playoff teams that are playing the best (and are healthy) at the end of the season. It makes for more interesting 1-8 and 2-7 matchups in my opinion.

Though I like Zach Lowe's idea of having the top seeds (1-4) choose their opponent from the bottom seeds 5-8)... at least for the first round.

While we're at it, I propose that we replace the all-star game with a giant one-on-one tournament between all selected all-stars. Just think about the storylines, the street cred, and the rivalries that would be born. The union would agree, right? Right?

 

[Fogojam]

I like the potential for a March Madness-type 10th seed Cinderella, as unlikely as it may be in the NBA.

 

[Strenuus]

What I like about it is that it prioritizes the low end playoff teams that are playing the best (and are healthy) at the end of the season. It makes for more interesting 1-8 and 2-7 matchups in my opinion.

Though I like Zach Lowe's idea of having the top seeds (1-4) choose their opponent from the bottom seeds 5-8)... at least for the first round.

While we're at it, I propose that we replace the all-star game with a giant one-on-one tournament between all selected all-stars. Just think about the storylines, the street cred, and the rivalries that would be born. The union would agree, right? Right?

Might as well call it SBA and count me out as a fan. Already hard enough to watch the NBA as it currently is.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think so. I like it.

 

[tlongII]

Fuck no. You’re either in or you’re out. It’s dumb.

 

[blazerkor]

It depends what the ultimate goal is.

Arguments for yes:

• More teams competing for playoff spots
• More difficult for top seeds to jocky for matchups
• Might result in less teams resting guys to end the regular season
• Better TV ratings (money)

Arguements for no:

• Diminshes the value of an 82 game season
• One bad game, injury, etc. could cost a team a playoff spot

For me I think the play-in tournament is pure bullshit. The post above says if you're in, you're in. I think both of us are change averse and we will get used to it... but I don't like it.

That being said they should definitely keep doing it. It keeps markets more engaged for longer. It keeps less teams from tanking. It just keeps competition going which makes the product better overall. Most of all is that last argument you made for doing it and that is the only thing that matters. The NBA is a business and this thing makes it more money... so they have to keep doing it. It's their fiduciary duty to the owners.

 

[PCmor7]

I like this.

 

[GDiama]

As an NBA fan I like it much better because there is more teams with motivation. Look at the Wizards for example, they went on a crazy good run while the previous seasons they would be one more tanking team. Or the Bulls traded for Vucevic. It backfired, but they did something to win and not just try to lose more games. I don't see the downside in that.

Maybe they can impose some restrictions like 4 games back max. I check the standings and Wizards are 1 game back from 8th place. Spurs are 4 games back. I would say that should be the max. If it's only 1 team making the cut then have them play against 8th team and 7th goes to playoffs directly.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Isn’t the normal 82 game regular season the play in tournament?

asinine

 

[illmatic99]

Yes.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

I have to admit less teams are resting players. On the other hand we always have a number of teams trying to get into the playoffs or fighting for position at the end of the season.
What i don't like is the extra 4 days rest teams 1-6 will get over the 7 and 8th seed. That was never the case before.

 

[Road Ratt]

No. There should be no mini-playoff for a team just to be able to make the playoffs. It should remain as it was before. No team should have their playoff hopes dashed by playing well enough all year to make the playoffs just to miss them by some stupid play-in tournament.

 

[handiman]

What i don't like is the extra 4 days rest teams 1-6 will get over the 7 and 8th seed. That was never the case before.

I was toying with the idea of the best balance being the top-4 teams also play for seeding, but that seems like a bloodbath that no one would support. It would address your concern, though.

 

[THE HCP]

Fuck no. You’re either in or you’re out. It’s dumb.

I have a great reply to this........ unfortunately you will have to DM me of you want to see it. Have bills I need to pay and don't want to lose my job. Sorry.