Why are the NBA Finals so boring these days? How can they change it up?

@Chapman15 (1492)
United States
June 20, 2007 12:14am CST
Did Cleveland even have any business being in the Finals? Were they even close to being the second best team? I was personally tired of the playoffs as soon as the Western Conference Finals were over. We've had much better teams in the West for nearly a full decade; in eight of the past 10 seasons, the best two teams played before the Finals. Umm, if that's not a major flaw in the system tell me what is? I’m sure Stern is looking into that right away, no wait, he has way too much pride to change that. It took him half the season to change the ball back even after two time MVP Steve Nash constantly complained. It’s truly bad for a sport when there is more talk about Kobe wanting to be traded, and how the lottery will make the West even more dominant for the next ten years (assuming Oden and Durant go 1 and 2) than actually talking about the blowouts going on for the F***ing Championship! Sure the conferences make sense during the regular season to cut down on travel, save expenses, and to keep the players healthier. My question is why don’t the best 16 teams get into the playoffs? There is an unfortunate predictability in the playoffs these days, which is the polar opposite of March Madness, and isn’t unpredictability supposed to be the exciting part. What made many people love the Warriors-Mavericks series was the coming out of nowhere factor. They were the George Mason of the NBA. Are we destined to see a Western Conference team dominate the winner between the Cavs, Bulls, and Heat every year for the next ten years? There are ways to fix this, but most likely these types of changes are always ignored! My solution is simple, we need brackets! So, in my theory the 2006-07 season 12 of the best 16 teams happened to reside in the west. You seed everyone based on record, so the best possible match-ups don’t happen until later in the playoffs. This would also force teams like Cleveland to get tested by a good team early. Like this year they would have had to play Denver in the first round as a 7 vs. 10 match-up. After that, they would’ve had to play either Phoenix or Washington. Most likely Phoenix, and do you think that LeBron could beat both those teams by himself? They made it to the Finals by beating one good team, Detroit, a so-so New Jersey, and a Butler/Arenas less Washington. No way in hell! There’s a large debate about how to make things better in more sports than basketball, like in crowning a National Championship for College Football. I just believe that the NBA would have such a better test on a Championship run if it was truly the best two teams making it through the “best” teams on their way. Who knows, maybe one day I’ll want to watch the Finals again!?!
1 person likes this
5 responses
@petqwe (2)
• Hong Kong
11 Jul 07
OK, Cleveland, as the 'best' of the eastern conference, does not have the the same attraction as Dallas or Phoenix. Also, the Spurs having monopoly nowadays also makes Basketball more conservative and defensive. Without good offense, the game IS boring.
@Chapman15 (1492)
• United States
11 Jul 07
Definitely agree! Do you have any good suggestions on how to spice it up?
@Psychosis (356)
• United States
21 Jun 07
The NBA Finals are so boring because the best defensive teams are constantly making it to that level. The only way the NBA could change it up would be to tell the referees to make calls in favor of the offensive powerhouses.
1 person likes this
@Chapman15 (1492)
• United States
21 Jun 07
Very good point! I think we need to change some of those flopping rules too. I can't stand watching people flop, maybe it's because all these foreigners are coming into the league and they're used to it from soccer!
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
20 Jun 07
My suggestion would be to ban the Spurs and the Pistons from the Finals (I find both teams boring). But some people have a somewhat more practical solution: since the West teams are always stronger, change the playoff matchups so that it doesn't end up being East vs. West in the Finals, but the two best teams. I guess you'd do the playoff seedings according to best overall record in the NBA, not the best in each conference. Of course, East fans like me may not like this too much since probably very few East teams would make the playoffs at all. But maybe it's worth a try.
1 person likes this
@Chapman15 (1492)
• United States
21 Jun 07
Hmmm, I never really thought about how it would impact the fans of those teams... I doubt that we'll have to worry about the Pistons much longer, there team will break up this summer. If not my solution, maybe they should make it more like baseball, as they have American League and National League. Then they could shift some of the better teams to the "weaker" conference. I honestly just was hoping for a descent match-up in the finals and there hasn't been in a long while. And isn't that what a Championship of a league is supposed to show, the best two teams?
21 Jun 07
well i think they should set it up like the NHL...the worst team plays the best team so therefore phoenix and san antonio play in the western conference finals and detroit and cleveland play in the eastern conference finals
@Chapman15 (1492)
• United States
29 Jun 07
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but at least you restated part of my point
• United States
20 Jun 07
David Stern, the commishioner of the NBA, really has an impact on the teams that make the NBA Finals. The Cavaliers got preferential treatment from the referees, and The Spurs deserved the NBA Title.
1 person likes this
@Chapman15 (1492)
• United States
21 Jun 07
What!?! Did you read what I wrote? Didn't think so, because I want to hear your solution on how the NBA can make the finals actually interesting! On a side note, how can you say the Cavs got preferential treatment? I guess you're a Detroit fan...