I can tell you why they change to 2-3-2. Studies show that a 2-2-1-1-1 gives the home team more of an advantage. This is most likely due to the fact that in a 2-3-2 series, all the away team has to do is split the first 2, then they have a great chance of taking control of the series with 3 consecutive home games. More pressure on the home team to sweep the first two, thus balancing out the series better. In the NBA, they want to give stronger incentive to be a top seed in conference play, so they go with 2-2-1-1-1. However, when it gets to the Finals, they don't want as much weight being given to 'top seed', since it's harder to determine that fairly between teams from different conferences. I personally don't like either approach. Have I ever told you about my 1-2-2-2 theory? You'll have to bring it up with me on a podcast sometime.
Hey, what happened to the Buster podcast? You'd BETTER not tell me it was lost! I'm a little worried since you had several chances to mention it on this podcast but you didn't... you better have it, fool!
I'm not sure if you're being serious with your explanation or not...
The reason they do the 2-3-2 is money, pure and simple. You're right that it essentially eradicates the advantages of having home court, thus the Finals, in theory, should be a longer series (aka more money). Also, travel time is a factor involved in the decision too. It's easier and more lucrative to do this format. Still, I think it's a dumb format...
Travel time doesn't explain why 'the Finals' (sorry I can't write it in their trademarked prissy cursive font) is treated differently than the rest of the playoffs.
I was serious but given how little I know about basketball at all, it is probably the right route for you to take it as a joke...
Thanks for not responding to the podcast questions... now I know the answer is that you lost it! Dang it!!!
It's not the entire reason, but travel is a big part of it. Given the amount of media coverage for the Finals, the logistical problems of doing 2-2-1-1-1 are eased by doing 2-3-2.
I can tell you why they change to 2-3-2. Studies show that a 2-2-1-1-1 gives the home team more of an advantage. This is most likely due to the fact that in a 2-3-2 series, all the away team has to do is split the first 2, then they have a great chance of taking control of the series with 3 consecutive home games. More pressure on the home team to sweep the first two, thus balancing out the series better. In the NBA, they want to give stronger incentive to be a top seed in conference play, so they go with 2-2-1-1-1. However, when it gets to the Finals, they don't want as much weight being given to 'top seed', since it's harder to determine that fairly between teams from different conferences. I personally don't like either approach. Have I ever told you about my 1-2-2-2 theory? You'll have to bring it up with me on a podcast sometime.
ReplyDeleteHey, what happened to the Buster podcast? You'd BETTER not tell me it was lost! I'm a little worried since you had several chances to mention it on this podcast but you didn't... you better have it, fool!
I'm not sure if you're being serious with your explanation or not...
ReplyDeleteThe reason they do the 2-3-2 is money, pure and simple. You're right that it essentially eradicates the advantages of having home court, thus the Finals, in theory, should be a longer series (aka more money). Also, travel time is a factor involved in the decision too. It's easier and more lucrative to do this format. Still, I think it's a dumb format...
Travel time doesn't explain why 'the Finals' (sorry I can't write it in their trademarked prissy cursive font) is treated differently than the rest of the playoffs.
ReplyDeleteI was serious but given how little I know about basketball at all, it is probably the right route for you to take it as a joke...
Thanks for not responding to the podcast questions... now I know the answer is that you lost it! Dang it!!!
It's not the entire reason, but travel is a big part of it. Given the amount of media coverage for the Finals, the logistical problems of doing 2-2-1-1-1 are eased by doing 2-3-2.
ReplyDelete