The Play-In Tournament Needs To Go

Like real basketball, as well as basketball video games? Talk about the NBA, NCAA, and other professional and amateur basketball leagues here.

The Play-In Tournament Needs To Go

Postby Andrew on Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:08 pm

Image

There's no way of saying this without sounding like a grumpy "old head", clinging to the past on the flimsy justification that "that's how we've always done things". Or, for that matter, a salty fan whose team has been taken out of the Playoffs because of it. To the latter point, that's not the case, as the Bulls remain my favourite team and they made the top six. As for the former point...well, maybe I'm drifting in that territory.

Still, the Play-In Tournament needs to go. At least in its current approach. That it has its supporters is kind of bewildering to me.

My view of the Playoffs is that if you're not in the top eight in either conference after 82 games, you haven't earned a spot. Even if that's the result of misfortune such as injuries, that's the way it goes. Sometimes the playing field will be even, sometimes one conference will be more competitive than the other. If you want to secure a Playoff berth and contend for the championship, you need to be one of the top teams in the league, start to finish. In a league where more than half of the teams make the postseason, we don't need to punish the seventh and eighth seeds by rewarding the ninth and tenth; especially those that are over ten games under .500.

Indeed, that's what puzzles me about support for the Play-In Tournament. For a long time, fans have opined that too many teams make the Playoffs. Under this format, twenty teams - or two thirds of the league - have a chance at being in the postseason when the regular season draws to a close. While the Play-In hasn't changed the initial result too much - I believe the Atlanta Hawks have just become the first team to knock out a seventh or eighth seed - it shouldn't have that opportunity in the first place. It's a system that punishes teams that played well enough to be in the top eight while rewarding teams that fell short, and in some cases, were painfully mediocre at best and lousy at worst. I don't like that approach at all.

It made sense when the pandemic shutdown ended up shortening the 2020 and 2021 seasons. It gave teams a chance to emulate the final push that they might've otherwise made in a regular 82-game season. Now that the schedule is back to normal, there's no need for it, at least in that format.

I will say that I don't dislike the idea of a Play-In Tournament to act as a tiebreaker for the eighth seed. While I'm fine with the numerical tiebreakers - they've worked fine for years - it might be fun to instead settle it with a one-off, winner takes all game between teams that are tied for eighth place. I could get behind that, as it's a sensible change that decides things on the court. I don't think it's absolutely necessary, as I still believe that if you want to solidify your place in the postseason, you need to be good enough and consistent enough to be in the top eight outright when the regular season ends. Ties will occur though, so it's an idea to consider at the very least.

Letting the ninth and tenth seeds get one more shot at the postseason, especially when there are no ties, and they may be several games back and well under .500? That's punishing success and rewarding failure in my book. It's little more than a gimmick, and the league doesn't need those. I've said it before, but it feels like Adam Silver is trying to put his stamp on the NBA with stuff like this, when keeping what's working would frankly be a much better legacy.

I know, I know, we have to be open to change, and there were plenty of changes that led to the NBA being what it was in the era I liked better. And yes, nostalgia goggles can be distorting. As Sam Viviano (the art director of MAD) once said, "MAD was at its best whenever you first started reading it". I'm sure there were criticisms of the changes to the NBA that were just the way of things by the time I started watching, and many of them probably turned out for the best. I'd suggest it's because they followed some sound logic though, just as there were changes that happened after I began watching which were likewise improvements. The Play-In Tournament isn't one of them.

Ideas like the Play-In Tournament, and Adam Silver's suggestion of a midseason tournament, just feel unnecessary; attempts to fix what isn't broken. Like changing the jersey nomenclature, it's making these sweeping changes while failing to address bigger problems, such as flopping, inconsistent officiating, the referee's inability to make quick decisions on instant replays that are clear as day, and so on. They give the illusion of leadership and innovation, when a lot of the problems with the game - plus new ones, like the style of play becoming an impromptu three-point shootout - remain. It's like repainting a leaky roof instead of fixing the holes. There's a superficial improvement, but the bigger issue hasn't been resolved.

When the late David Stern talked about ambitious ideas like expansion into Europe, or changing the game ball without consulting with the players first, he was criticised and scoffed at. We recognised that expansion into Europe wasn't a necessary step for a US-based league, and the fact that it was an ambitious and out-of-the-box idea didn't automatically make it a good one. Now, I get the impression that the wildest ideas Adam Silver may suggest will be considered visionary and brilliant, no matter how little sense they may make, or how unnecessary such a change would be.

In all things, we do need to consider change and move forward. But in considering change, we evaluate the necessity, the feasibility, and the pros and cons. Sometimes, the new idea isn't better; at least not in its first form. That's the Play-In Tournament as it currently stands. Under this format, mediocrity can be rewarded at the expense of others' success. Second chances are awarded to teams that had months to make their mark. It's a safety net for teams that had bad luck, but in turn, it's throwing teams that had better fortune under the bus.

By all means, revamp the Play-In Tournament as a tiebreaker that's used when necessary. In its current form though, it sucks, and it needs to go.
User avatar
Andrew
Assist Enthusiast
Administrator
 
Posts: 113903
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: The Play-In Tournament Needs To Go

Postby Kenny on Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:10 am

The play-in tournament has kind of grown on me. Now, this might be based on my team narrowly missing it and ranking 6th, but after the long slog of the regular season, it adds a bit of excitement before the playoffs.

Down the line, it might also add more competition throughout the season for those top 6 spots and stop teams from getting complacent throughout the season. I know load management is a bugbear for a lot of older fans out there, but teams now have to do that at their own risk. Conversely, it might lead to more teams in the 9-10 region to tank if they think a higher pick is worth more than a chance to play in.

Despite being for it now, my opinion is more along the lines of "we didn't need this, but I don't hate it now it's here". But you know me - I guess I'll play devil's advocate here. :lol:

My view of the Playoffs is that if you're not in the top eight in either conference after 82 games, you haven't earned a spot. Even if that's the result of misfortune such as injuries, that's the way it goes. Sometimes the playing field will be even, sometimes one conference will be more competitive than the other. If you want to secure a Playoff berth and contend for the championship, you need to be one of the top teams in the league, start to finish. In a league where more than half of the teams make the postseason, we don't need to punish the seventh and eighth seeds by rewarding the ninth and tenth; especially those that are over ten games under .500.


While I think this argument has validity, I'd argue that 7- and 8-seeds probably don't deserve an automatic playoff spot either. There were also seasons where terrible Eastern Conference teams were making the playoffs while West teams that had better records didn't. Although the play-in tournament doesn't necessarily solve this problem directly, it would somewhat ensure that teams in the stronger conference have a better crack at the playoffs, while the teams in the weaker conference really have to work for it.

Furthermore, it's not like there aren't any advantages to finishing 7 and 8. The winner of that game gets to go through and the loser gets a second chance. If you lose two games in a row to a 7- and 9-seed, or worse, an 8- and 10-seed, I don't see how you deserve to make the playoffs in the first place.

Indeed, that's what puzzles me about support for the Play-In Tournament. For a long time, fans have opined that too many teams make the Playoffs. Under this format, twenty teams - or two thirds of the league - have a chance at being in the postseason when the regular season draws to a close.


I honestly think this is a marketing move more than anything. Having four extra teams in contention means you have potentially four additional markets engaged in playoff basketball, even if two aren't going to make it. It gives the games more meaning for the fans in these markets and could potentially lead to higher crowd attendance since it's a playoff-style game before the playoffs even begin - albeit with lower-quality teams.

Ideas like the Play-In Tournament, and Adam Silver's suggestion of a midseason tournament, just feel unnecessary; attempts to fix what isn't broken. Like changing the jersey nomenclature, it's making these sweeping changes while failing to address bigger problems, such as flopping, inconsistent officiating, the referee's inability to make quick decisions on instant replays that are clear as day, and so on. They give the illusion of leadership and innovation, when a lot of the problems with the game - plus new ones, like the style of play becoming an impromptu three-point shootout - remain. It's like repainting a leaky roof instead of fixing the holes. There's a superficial improvement, but the bigger issue hasn't been resolved.


I more or less agree with this and it's kind of what 2K has done in recent years as well. It's like "hey, we have Idris Elba in our MyCAREER story... oh, what's that about clipping and skating in the gameplay? Never mind that."

I just wanted to add that the thing I think needs to be addressed the most is defence taking fouls when the other team is on the fastbreak. That shit will forever take me out of being immersed in the NBA because it's negating the spontaneous plays that made me become a fan of basketball. I'm sure you've seen me rant enough on Twitter about that, but I thought I'd throw that in here as well.

I guess the TLDR of my post for those who just wanted to skim this: I don't think the NBA needs the play-in tournament, but I don't hate it.
User avatar
Kenny
Thon Maker's Biggest Fan.
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Play-In Tournament Needs To Go

Postby Andrew on Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:05 pm

That's fair. You know me; I'm not a fan of change for change's sake, and I'm big on tradition. I do think the Play-In is very problematic, though.

Down the line, it might also add more competition throughout the season for those top 6 spots and stop teams from getting complacent throughout the season. I know load management is a bugbear for a lot of older fans out there, but teams now have to do that at their own risk. Conversely, it might lead to more teams in the 9-10 region to tank if they think a higher pick is worth more than a chance to play in.


True, it does potentially incentivise teams to be competitive all year long, knowing that the 7th and 8th spots aren't guaranteed. Although, supposedly the Play-In is intended to discourage tanking, so it would be ironic if teams in 9th and 10th began tanking because they didn't want that shot at the postseason, and the teams below them began tanking as well to avoid moving up. As long as finishing with a worse record gives you a better chance at getting a top rookie the next season, I don't think they can truly ever curb tanking.

While I think this argument has validity, I'd argue that 7- and 8-seeds probably don't deserve an automatic playoff spot either. There were also seasons where terrible Eastern Conference teams were making the playoffs while West teams that had better records didn't. Although the play-in tournament doesn't necessarily solve this problem directly, it would somewhat ensure that teams in the stronger conference have a better crack at the playoffs, while the teams in the weaker conference really have to work for it.

Furthermore, it's not like there aren't any advantages to finishing 7 and 8. The winner of that game gets to go through and the loser gets a second chance. If you lose two games in a row to a 7- and 9-seed, or worse, an 8- and 10-seed, I don't see how you deserve to make the playoffs in the first place.


I see what you're saying, and the existing format could absolutely be unfair in that way. The top contenders are generally also top four seeds. However, if the Playoff format is going to be East vs West, and 16 teams of the 30 are going to be involved - eight from each conference - I'd say that 7th and 8th have earned their spot by the structure of the brackets. They've certainly earned it more than a 9th and 10th seed that are several games back of them.

I also see your point about being good enough to not lose two games in a row, but by the same token, you could say that you don't deserve to be in the Playoffs if you can't get into the top eight after 82 games. cavs4872 put it best in another thread: it's placing more emphasis on two additional games at the end of the year, rather than the 82 that came before them. That's what bugs and puzzles me about the concept. For years we've grumbled about bad teams making the Playoffs because of the format. Now the Play-In has introduced a format that gives bad teams a second chance at the end of the year, rendering the previous 82 games moot.

For me, it's not that the traditional format is without fault. It's that the Play-In feels so gimmicky, rewarding teams for finishing 9th and 10th with a second chance, while punishing teams for finishing 7th and 8th by making them defend the spot that they finished in fair and square. Like I said though, I do like the idea as a replacement for numerical tiebreakers in the event that the 8th and 9th place teams are tied. That'd be more exciting, and fair, than deciding the tie based on wins that happened in November, or results against other teams, or any of the other numerical tiebreakers that do work, but lack the drama of on-court competition.
User avatar
Andrew
Assist Enthusiast
Administrator
 
Posts: 113903
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: The Play-In Tournament Needs To Go

Postby [Hyperize] on Sun Oct 09, 2022 7:45 am

I was so beyond pissed when the Cavs got bounced by the Hawks. They overachieved, got injured and then had their earned 8th seed taken from them. And now what I wanted to see (how the 3 7-footer frontcourt could do in a playoff series) will never be realized.

LeBron said it's stupid too... it needs to go. It's a horrible bubble invention.
User avatar
[Hyperize]
 
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:30 am
Location: Cleveland, OH


Return to NBA & Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 27 guests