Steve Kerr said he thought the 2-2-1-1-1 format was more fair to the teams.?

Question

What do you think?

Answer 1

This debate will go nowhere, because the reason behind the current finals format make no sense.

Most people say it is because of travel and the players need the rest etc.

I see this working if you are a West Coast team (Lakers, Sonics etc.) playing a East Coast team (Knicks, Heat etc.) because the distance is extremely far.

However, in this case it is stupid because the distance between San Antonio and Cleveland is only about 1,400 miles. It is actually farther for the Spurs to travel to play the Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Blazers, and Sonics and all of those series would be 2-2-1-1-1.

It is really unfair for the fans of the team with home court if they win in five games. They don't get game five at home, they don't celebrate on their home floor and lose the revenue for that game.

Answer 2

I totally agree. The 2-3-2 format takes away the most critical game in a seven game series (Game 5) from the home team, and also makes it imperative that the team with "home court advantage" win their first two games, or else run the risk of not returning home for games 6 and 7.

This began with the 1985 finals, and was another marketing brainstorm by David Stern to increase television revenues. The 2-3-2 format increases the liklihood of the series going 6 or 7 games, which is when fan interest and advertising dollars are at their highest.

These days, almost all teams have private jets, stay in first class hotels, and have an extra day off between games, which they didn't back in the 1980's.

The idea that the 2-3-2 format will make them fresher is false. It's all about the money.

Answer 3

I think Steve Kerr should be fired as the GM of the SUNs
and be the GM of Spurs so he could mess them up.

Kerr has no clue, the point is if you are good enough to
be the champion you win on the road, after all SPURs
beat the Suns on their floor twice, which means home
court is over rated. Also Dallas last year in game 3 was
up 9 with 2 min left, before Dork Nowinzki started missing
shots, inturn Miami closed them out in Dallas.

So if you the better team you have to win on the other
teams court. Lakers beat the Celtics in the Garden,
Pistons beat the Lakers in the Forum. Kerr is just
a bench player that has no clue, ask Barkley what he
thinks, he wouldnot make excuses like Kerr.
Come to think of it I really hope they fire Kerr, only
reason he has the Job is because he is friends with
the Suns owner which is not even from phoenix but
Tucson, a small town next the mexican border....

FIRE KERR!!!!!!

Answer 4

I like the 2-3-2 format for the finals. I think it shows who the best team really is. I think that home court advantage is such a big advantage when it gets down to game 7 that the format 2-3-2 is perfect.

For example - The Spurs did their job and won it's 2 home games. Just for the sake of my example, let's say the Cavs then go home and win all 3 of their games. Now the Spurs have to prove they are the best and seal up those 2 games at home with their back against the wall but using home court to their advantage.

Personally I think it's a flawless format..

Answer 5

It is more fair. Take, for instance, the 2003 finals when the Lakers lost to the Pistons in 5. The Lakers had home court advantage, but because of the 2-3-2 format they played only two games in L.A. and three in Detroit. How would things have been different had they played game five in L.A.? I don't know, but i can't help but think it would have been fair to have the team with home court play more games in a series on their homecourt than the team without homecourt. It's just one of the many reasons the NBA is crooked though, hooray...hooray not being fair to the better teams!!!!!!!

Answer 6

I think the 2-3-2 format is appropriate for the finals

First of all, in the finals it is a west vs. east matchup instead of an intraconference matchup so it saves airplane mileage.

Second of all, the regular season records aren't going to necessarily dictate the better team. Since west teams and east teams play different schedules during the regular season (3-4 times against teams within conference, 2 times against teams in other conference), the records really just compare to how they fared against other teams in their respective conferences. Because of this, I don't think you can really judge which team was better in the regular season. Right now, we all know the western conference is way better than the eastern conference, but if there was more parity between the two conferences it is really a toss up on whose the better team because the regular season records are against different opposition. The 2-3-2 format is perfect for the finals because it gives advantage to the team with the better record by giving them an extra home game and it gives advantage to the road team by giving them a chance to go up 3-2 (assuming home team wins through first 5 games).

Answer 7

Yes the 2-3-2 isn't always fair, but this year it's a moot point as the Spurs will win two of three in Cleveand to win the title.
But in other years, if a team splits on the road in the first two games, they have a great chance to win two of three at home, or even sweep three at home like Detroit did to the Lakers a few years ago.

Answer 8

Steve Kerr is completely right.

The team with the worst record/disadvantage gets 3 Consecutive home games as well as 3 of the first 5 games at their home court.

This is unfair to the team that supposedly 'earned' the home court advantage.

Answer 9

2-2-1-1-1 is a better format...a team earns the right to have home court advantage, but if they have a bad game at home during the first two games then they have to win one on the road just to get back home.

Answer 10

I think 2-3-2 takes away home court. It seems like a long time to be in one place. Look at the Spurs / Utah series, when the Utah fans started throwing things at the Spurs. Who'd want to come back to that court 2 more time?