The NBA in 1947

In 1947 the BAA became the newest attempt to create a pro-basketball league in the US. A year or two down the line it changed its name to the NBA.

At that time there were two playoff models to follow in American sports: the baseball/football model and the NHL model. In MLB and NFL at that time there were two division/leagues. The champion of each division/league met in the World Series or the NFL Championship game. That was it, the entire playoffs in a week pitting the clear winners of two subgroups against each other. If their was a tie for first a playoff games was held. Within your division/league you played a totally balanced schedule in baseball (22 games a piece against the other seven teams) while you tried to play all of your divisional rivals twice.In the NHL, which was down to the Original Six teams by then, the top four teams made the playoffs and competed in two seven game rounds to award the Stanley Cup.

Both systems were simple and in their own ways, fair. Baseball and football wanted to determine a champion while the Stanley Cup had always been determined through playoffs.

The NBA wanted the best of both worlds and cam up with this freak show of a format: (Ties were broken with playoff games if necessary)

1. The two division champions met in a best of seven "semi-final" series. The winner went to the NBA finals, the loser was done.

2. The second and third place teams in each division played best of three crossover "quarterfinals" (E2 v W3, etc). The winners of those series met in a best of three "semifinal"

3. The winners of the two semifinals--one best of seven between the two best teams and other a best of three between quarterfinal survivors played in the best of seven NBA Finals.

The NBA's shotgun marriage of its "two options" created a system where the best teams could not possibly meet in the championship if they were in different divisions and where lower ranked teams had an easier shot to make the finals than teams that had beaten them over the course of the year.

Maybe this should serve to inspire (myself included) those who simply want to mash a little of this and a little of that together to "improve" the MLS. You can't simply take the EPL's regular season and the NBA's playoffs to make the perfect match. The MLS needs to evolve its own system--something that even it isn't doing.

 

You are of course free to disagree with me, but constant tinkering is not evolution. Admitting that what you have doesn't work and trying to fix it is one thing and I will give MLS credit for that. But after so many different playoff systems--best of three, first to five, 2-1-1, 1-2-1-1--in less than 20 years, I think its fair to say that evolution isn't happening. Evolution is something that evolves naturally.

Although I don't like its overly long playoffs and its horrid scheduling of the playoffs, aside from expanding the first round to seven games the NBA hasn't changed in format since what the early 80s? The NHL has made one real non-scheduling change to its playoffs since it went to all seven game series around '87 or so. They have their systems and only make minor adjustments to them.

That's my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

Really? I didn't realize that it had been that long. We need an egg on my face or foot in my mouth icon. I might not like the 2-1-1, in fact I think its entirely stupid, but I guess after nine years I can't complain that it's just another attempt by MLS to rejigger the playoffs.

My bad.

 

I'd like to see all rounds be the same length--whether that length be one game, two games or three games.

In defense of home and home, it does give the better team a better shot of advancing, rather than whoever happens to be the better team on one particular day.

 

I didn't say that I thought that it gave the higher seed a better chance. You are right, it doesn't. What I said, at least what I meant to say, was that it gave the better team--who would not necessarily be the higher seed-- a chance to recover from a fluke first 90 minutes--an opportunity it does not have under one and done.

For example, in one and done games, the 10th seed can theoretically draw four straight games and win the cup on penalties in every round. At the same time, the number seven and then the number one seeds are gone on penalties when they weren't even beaten in 90 minutes.

Although this would be unlikely, having the 10 seed do the same thing over two legs four times would be even more unlikely.

 

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree. Like I said, my main preference is for all rounds to be equal. I still prefer home and home series, but I don't think it is necessary.