There has been some “behind-the-scenes momentum” within the NBA for introducing a postseason play-in tournament to determine the bottom two playoff seeds in each conference, league sources tell Zach Lowe of ESPN.
While Lowe cautions that the idea falls behind addressing one-and-done for college players – and possibly reseeding the playoffs – on the NBA’s list of priorities, he reports that two specific proposals are circulating “at the highest levels” within teams and the league office.
As Lowe details, the proposal that has generated the most discussion would see the 7-10 seeds in each conference involved in a play-in tournament at season’s end for the seventh and eighth playoff spots. The tournament would look like this:
- No. 7 team hosts No. 8 team. Winner gets No. 7 seed.
- No. 9 team hosts No. 10 team. Loser eliminated.
- Loser of first game hosts winner of second game. Winner gets No. 8 seed.
According to Lowe, an earlier proposal would have seen the 8-11 seeds battling in a tournament for the No. 8 spot, but opponents of that plan argued that a team seeded as low as No. 11 in its conference shouldn’t have a shot to make the playoffs. Those in favor of the 7-10 plan outlined above point out that it rewards the higher seeds by giving them two opportunities – including at least one at home – to earn one of the final two playoff spots.
The other proposal being discussed, which has been endorsed by at least one “prominent” general manager, would be a single-elimination tournament that pits No. 7 vs. No. 10 and No. 8 vs. No. 9 for the final two playoff spots in each conference. However, that plan is probably too radical to gain widespread approval, says Lowe.
There’s some debate over how much interest a play-in tournament would generate, since the top six teams in each conference wouldn’t be involved. Still, the NBA believes the idea has some appeal since it would create another anti-tanking incentives — the teams in the 11-13 range in each conference wouldn’t be as inclined to race to the bottom, while clubs in the 5-6 range would avoid selective end-of-season tanking for seeding purposes (to gain a more favorable postseason matchup).
One complication for such a tournament would be how it would affect the draft lottery, Lowe notes. If a team finished the regular season 10th in its conference but earned a playoff spot in the play-in tournament, would that club remain in the lottery or would it be replaced by the higher seed it knocked out? According to Lowe, some officials would be in favor of also including the seventh and eighth seeds in the lottery to address that issue.
While nothing is imminent on this front, it’s interesting that the NBA is willing to seriously discuss major changes to its playoff format. We’ll see if these discussions intensify in the coming years.
I like this idea, but it doesn’t really matter who the eighth seed is. Only twice has the eighth seed beat the top seed.
Exactly though. This is pointless as the winners of the 7th and 8th seed are still useless positions. There should only be 6 playoff teams to begin with. We already sometimes see 500 or below teams make the playoffs. Now we’ll just see it more often.
Dumb.
The league is discussing this idea ONLY because it would generate more revenue for the league, owners and players. I agree absolutely that the 7th and 8th seeds do not really figure in the final rounds of the playoffs. It’s all about the dollar!
But they can. Philly made it to the conference finals as a #8 seed and nearly made the finals a year before they created their whole tanking “process.” The #7 and #8 seeds might not win often, but they can. The #9 and #10 seeds have NEVER won in the playoff because they don’t get there.
??? Sixers did win as #8 seed vs Bulls team in 2011-12 playoffs ONLY AFTER D-Rose tore his ACL at the end of game 1 (which the Bulls won). They did manage to push the Celtics to game 7 in the next series, but never made it to the conf finals that year or the year before… that 2010-11 team lost in the first round in 5 games to LBJ and the Heat.
Its not the worst idea, as it would definitely give teams more of a reason to be competitive near the end of the season instead of just tanking. In theory, it could work out similar to how the MLB has fared since adding the second wild card team; more teams are looking to add at the trade deadline and there’s more suspense as the season starts to end. In regards to seeding for the lottery, the two teams who make the playoffs (regardless of their ranking in the conference) aren’t in the draft lottery. Not a fan of thinking that teams that are just at .500 or even below .500 have a chance at making the playoffs though.
Horrible idea. They just finished playing 82 games to decide standings and now a team that finished 2 spots ahead of can take their spot in a single game? ANY team can win a single game. Golden State lost a home game to Sacramento earlier this year. Single game results are completely arbitrary.
So let’s make the regular season even more pointless by adding teams that lose more than they win. And reward them for getting hot in a “play-in” game. And then watch them get destroyed in the next round by a top seeded team in a longer series.
That’s what you watch anyways when the 7 and 8 seeds play 1 and 2 seeds anyways so why not make some more money, provide some more entertainment, and give teams a reason not to tank.
they should have a play out tournament. last 2 teams in league play a best 2 out of 3 with loser relegated to G league.
geez
Lmao this is a good comment
I do believe they should relegate teams that miss the playoffs for three consecutive seasons. That would stop the tanking. Yes that would drastically alter the value of an owner’s team, but it is not the league’s responsibility to maintain the value of a specific team.
Wonderful,
Yes, Let’s relegate the Chicago Bulls and the Atlanta Hawks out of the NBA and replace them with the Fort Wayne Mad Ants and the Maine Red Claws.
I think punishing teams for missing three years of playoffs is the too harsh when championship contenders who traded away a bunch of picks and decided to rebuild(Nets). I would suggest the last 2 seeds from each conference have a playoff series and winners of each round are eliminated. The ultimate loser have their first round pick moved to 30.
Doing something to benefit the 8 vs 1 matchup is a reason by itself.
If the 8 had just won play-in games to get there, that might give them momentum to have more ambition than just bruising up the 1. (Celts vs Cavs 2 yrs ago)
The 8 vs 1 series should be reduced from best of seven. It’s rubbishball. Play-in games would make up for the reduction of revenue, and give worthy teams a break.
Players on top teams would not need to breaks late in the season if they knew they had a break coming up while the lesser teams clash.