First-Round Best Of Seven...Why?

[JoeSchmo]

Am I the only one that thinks that having the first round changed from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven has been a detriment to the playoffs? When the playoffs were a best-of-five series, the top teams in the league couldn't afford to sleepwalk. They lose one of their home games, and at best they're in for a dogfight just to get HCA back. They lose both home games, and they go on the road in Game 3 facing elimination. That format produced some great upsets over the years, like #6 Houston knocking off #3 Utah in 1995 and #8 Denver upsetting #1 Seattle in 1994.

Seems to me the only thing expanding the first round did was stretch out an already tedious playoff schedule, make most of the first-round matchups virtually a foregone conclusion and thus boring at times. I think the playoffs could benefit with some excitement over a best-of-five first round. Imagine #3 Miami vs. #6 Milwaukee or #2 Phoenix vs. #7 Lakers in a best-of-five. Thoughts?

[bnwhuxley]

Stretching it to 7 does have the effect of giving the 7th and 8th seeds basically no chance.

But it has also resulted in some extra competitive and exciting 4th-5th and 3rd-6th matchups.

Last season saw three very competitive series in the first round. Dallas-Houston went 7 games, so did Boston-Indiana, and Chicago-Washington was decided in game 6 by an Arenas gamewinning shot.

The season before saw an excellent Heat-Hornets series that went 7 games.

In the 03 season, there was the crazy Dallas-Portland series that went 7 games.


Look for excitement in the first round at those 3rd-6th and 4th-5th matchups.

[Trdi]

Best of seven is better than best of five.

[jesterbobman]

its all about $$$$$$$$$$$

[Jason R]

Dude I'll take as much basketball as I can get.

[JoeSchmo]

Originally Posted by jesterbobman

its all about $$$$$$$$$$$

I thought about that. The playoff change was made back in 2003 when Sacramento was near a top seed and the Lakers were stinking it up. Not to go Oliver Stone on you guys, but my thoughts were that the league was hoping they would get the Sac-LA conf finals rematch from the previous year and cash in on another ratings bonanza in the playoffs. But there was a problem with that. While Sacramento were the favorites, the Lakers lost The Diesel to injury in the preseason and were expected to be near the bottom of the playoff standings. Fearing that the Lakers wouldn't recover to at least be second to Sac, they were hoping they could salvage a possible 7-game series between the two in the first-round. The funny thing about this change was that it wasn't made in the offseason. It was done about 20 games into the season, and there was no protests or questions from anybody in the league. Not even Cuban!

[Rzarector7]

Originally Posted by JoeSchmo

Am I the only one that thinks that having the first round changed from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven has been a detriment to the playoffs? When the playoffs were a best-of-five series, the top teams in the league couldn't afford to sleepwalk. They lose one of their home games, and at best they're in for a dogfight just to get HCA back. They lose both home games, and they go on the road in Game 3 facing elimination. That format produced some great upsets over the years, like #6 Houston knocking off #3 Utah in 1995 and #8 Denver upsetting #1 Seattle in 1994.

Seems to me the only thing expanding the first round did was stretch out an already tedious playoff schedule, make most of the first-round matchups virtually a foregone conclusion and thus boring at times. I think the playoffs could benefit with some excitement over a best-of-five first round. Imagine #3 Miami vs. #6 Milwaukee or #2 Phoenix vs. #7 Lakers in a best-of-five. Thoughts?

It helped us out against Phoenix in 03 so hey!!!!!! I mean I knew after the first loss and said to my boy well atleast it's 7 and not 5 or we were in trouble, if you drop the first two which we almost did then you are done and out basically. The damn game 7 first round is more bball and fun IMO.

[spurs000001]

Best of Seven is awesome, Either Charles Barkley or Kenny Smith said it best.
In a best of 7 series, the Best Team wins.

in a best of 5 ,8th seeds still had a chance by getting lucky a game or two
can't in a 7 game series

[abmccray]

A best of 5 three years ago and the Pistons lose to Orlando, Tayshaun is never proven, and we probably don't win the Finals the next year

Go, best of 7s!

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally Posted by jesterbobman

its all about $$$$$$$$$$$

Yup

Originally Posted by SA Spurs 2005

Best of Seven is awesome, Either Charles Barkley or Kenny Smith said it best.
In a best of 7 series, the Best Team wins.

in a best of 5 ,8th seeds still had a chance by getting lucky a game or two
can't in a 7 game series

Don't you think that can be worse for basketball though? I looked at last year's bracket and picked the winners in every round before so much as a game was played. The only reason a lower seed even won a series is because the Atlantic was so weak. It has become predictable. I still remember Denver beating Seattle as an 8 vs a 1 and I thought it was exciting. I remember the Knicks getting the 99 Finals shorthanded. A 7 game series eliminates the underdog, and I think it hurts basketball.

[ro_50]

Stern wanted best of seven so he can extend the series and more TV time for the NBA.

[crospur]

The best basketball is played in the playoffs so I don't mind couple of extra two games. Altought it's true that it's all about $$$.