NBA Playoff Format question?

Question

Home and Away question: the first three rounds are 2-2-1-1-1 but the finals are 2-3-2. This seems ridiculous to me, anybody have an idea why this is?

Answer 1

It IS ridiculous! Another "great" David $tern marketing idea.

It all started with the 1984-85 finals ( Celts vs. LA). The reason given was that, yes, it would cut down on the cross-country travel, so players would be fresher.

The REAL reason was that it, in all likelihood, would increase the chance of the series going to 6 or 7 games. That is when fan interest was greatest, and advertising dollars were at their highest.

It also makes it imperative for the team with home court advantage to win the first two games, or run the risk of not returning home for games 6 and 7.

I never did like that change. I feel teams with home court advantage should play games 5 and 7 on their court.

Answer 2

The cross-country trips can get a little tiring. Think of Boston and Los Angeles - 2-3-2 saves a couple of 3,000 mile trips.

Besides, let's say Boston and L.A. split the first two games, and the Lakers win Games 3 and 4. Los Angeles still has a chance to win the series at home, but it's in Game 5 instead of 6.

Answer 3

the playoff format was 5 games, 7 games, 7 games, and 7 games for the nba finals, and no it wasnt 16 teams. there were 12 teams( 6 in each conference) the #1 and 2 seeds got byes just like the nfl. they went to the 16 team format because the NBA expanded to more and more cities. for instance Toronto, memphis, charlotte, miami, and orlando are many of the cities that didnt have frachises back then.

Answer 4

Just to cut back on the travel i guess.
I don't like that format, and I wish they would make the finals 2-2-1-1-1.

Answer 5

To save more on travel; I wish all four rounds were 2-3-2!