Hoops

Should NBL Finals be Top 5 now?

I think keep top 4 even if they go to 10 teams. 1v4, 2v3 (as is). Don't reward "mediocrity" or a do-or-die sudden death. (Even though, under a top 5 scenario, the Hawks would've had 2 more visits to the finals in last 10 years!)

If you want more games, best of 5 series, but don't drag it out too long.

I'm not so much opposed to the idea of 5 teams making the play-offs, as I am any final-5 format.

IMHO you need an even number.

Stick with top 4.

They sure did. Cannons and Pirates spirit lives on in the Lion City.

The lowest point in NBL history?
* A losing record got you into the playoffs
* Wethers was MVP
* Clint Dogg was a game night emcee

I don't like to put down the NBL, but when I put it down oh yes I do

Luuuc: That's a very fair argument to make.


#786309 - Last year: Brisbane 4th: 14-14; Adelaide 5th: 14-14

Is that really "harder to miss than to make it?"

Bring in the elimination match-up!

Doesn't the NBA have greater than 50% of teams making playoffs (16 teams out of 30)? So why not in the NBL too?

The lowest point in NBL history?
* A losing record got you into the playoffs
* Wethers was MVP
* Clint Dogg was a game night emcee

I don't like to put down the NBL, but when I put it down oh yes I do

I don’t think there’s much between 4th/5th in the league, makes for a good matchup.

1st would face the winner, as expected in the 1v4/2v3 scenario so no diluting

KET it was an exciting game but the aftermath was an easier path in the semis for whoever faced the lower seed winner thus diluting the playoffs.

The top-eight system was even worse than that actually.


Top four got a first-round bye. 5v8 and 6v7 in sudden death matches.

Winners advanced to face 3rd and 4th, also in sudden death matches.

Winners of those got to lose to the top two in a best-of-three semi.

Massive waste of time for all involved.

Perthworld that sounds like the type of thing i'd love to see in the NBL - elimination game where anything can happen and upsets can occur!

The Brian Wethers MVP season.

Hunter Pirates!

KET it was an example of how a team can get lucky in a one-off, that's why the example of Rillie's record haul was used. In a series he doesn't do that again in a second or third match. Also I was at the game in full view of Homicide's antics post-game (as if he was the one who hit all those shots) so it is an easy one to recall.

Who was the luckiest 8th place in NBL history?

Didnt the Wildcats once make finals in 8th spot out of 11 or something?

Yes cats were eighth but don’t tell that to cats fans, there have been finalists for twenty two decades, back in the Roman times.

Didnt the Wildcats once make finals in 8th spot out of 11 or something?

Top 5 has more negatives than positives IMO,
unless the cats were looking likely to finish in 5th spot.

I’m on the fence.


It has some advantages, but my issue would be the timing- OK, have an elimination game mid week. But then the home fans (and the management of each club) don’t know whether there will be a home game to attend a few days later? That’s not ideal.



Incidentally, I’ve long thought the AFL should do an 8 vs 9 elimination, and maybe a 7 vs 10 too, in the new bye round on the eve of finals.

LMAO your reasoning for no is because your team lost once in that scenario?

The point of a match up is someone needs to lose, if we desire for the favoured team to win every time then why don't we skip the pretense and give it to the team that finished top of the regular season? Boring.

I don't think a single wildcard elimination game between 4th and 5th would "add an extra week". Couldn't it be on a Wednesday night or something a few days before Semis?

I don't think a single wildcard elimination game between 4th and 5th would "add an extra week". Couldn't it be on a Wednesday night or something a few days before Semis?

Usually 4th/5th comes down to percentage or like 1-2 games. I don't think it would reward mediocrity in a 9 team comp. If/when Tasmania do come in to make it a 10 team comp, the format can be retained.

How long do finals usually go for?

Wed: 4th v 5th Elimination game
Thu: 2nd v 3rd Semi Final Game 1
Fri: 1st v Winner of Elim Game 1
Sat: 3rd v 2nd Semi Final Game 2
Sun: Winner of Elim v 1st Game 2

Wed: 2nd v 3rd Semi Final Game 3 if required
Thu: 1st v Winner of Elim Game 3 if required

Highest seeded receives home court advantage in GF:

Sun: Grand Final Game 1
Fri: Grand Final Game 2
Sun: Grand Final Game 3
Thu: Grand Final Game 4 if required
Sat: Grand Final Game 5 if required

Has to be an even number of teams in the finals, no one should get a week off advantage, playing a lower ranked side is enough of an advantage. If you're in first you should take care of your opponent in the allotted amount of games with home ground advantage, if you don't then you're out as it should be.

On the subject of mediocrity (by including 5th/6th teams).

Agree, in general! But looking at this season, if the finals were right now, I would be pleased to see all teams, apart from Hawks, Bullets and perhaps SEM, fight it out. The other 6 would be, at least, entertaining.

But, I repeat, "this season". A lot of years, most perhaps, that would not be the case.

"The 4 vs 5 elimination addition is worth considering"

I disagree.
It basically adds a week to the playoffs for no great benefit.
And the winner gets to play a rested no.1 team

^ or Adelaide.

Top 5 for this season would be the only way melbourne united would make the finals

Should just be all 5 game series even Semi’s. But still only top 4.

83% chance that Sydney or Perth win the championship. I'm happy with that.
Providing they both stay top two.

1 game eliminations have been done. It’s awesome in a March madness format, big league basketball it’s it’s doesn’t work as well. You get to the playoffs, you play a series. Create a storyline, not all over in a flash.

No to anything that dilutes the quality of finals, such as including below average teams.

Finals are meant to be the cream competing for the right to be crowned champion. Teams who can't manage a winning record in the regular season have never been close to being the cream of the NBL. Teams that finish in the bottom half of the table at the end of the regular season almost never have a winning record.

In 42 completed seasons, 35 champions have come from the top 2 regular season ladder positions. Five have come from 3rd placed teams. Only 3 champions have come from below 3rd place at the end of the regular season and their regular season records showed why they were capable of winning it all:

1988 - Canberra - 4th of 13 teams - 16 wins:8 losses
1990 - Perth - 5th of 14 teams - 17W:9L
2001 - Wollongong - 4th of 11 teams - 21W:7L

They all still finished in the top third of the regular season.

Including a team ranked in the bottom half of the ladder in finals will dilute the quality and, as others have posted, allow a below mediocre team to say "Hey, we made finals, how good are we".

About the team finishing top not getting rewarded enough for that achievement, recall that the NBL is a league with a strong home team advantage and with no neutral venues in playoffs.

Home teams are 30%-50% more likely to win than away teams. That has been the case for the last 8 seasons at least. This season is no different, with home teams thus far winning 46% more games than away teams.

I'd argue that makes home court advantage throughout the playoffs a big enough reward for finishing first at the end of the regular season.

"Yes, but the comp being tight gives teams something to fight towards."

If you had a top 5, there would still be a lot of teams fighting for it.

The 4 vs 5 elimination addition is worth considering.

Yes, but the comp being tight gives teams something to fight towards.

Besides, an uneven number is crap, there is no good format.

I would THINK about a top 6 when we have 10 teams, but honestly would prefer to leave it for 11 or 12.

In 2008 we had a Top 8 finals format for a 13 team comp.

I would keep it at 4.
Anything more than 50% rewards mediocrity.

No.

Make semis into a five game series for a longer playoffs.

Going on the responses it would seem that is a no for next season.

But it will have to happen the season after next when the new Tassie team comes in you can't have a Top 4 finals format with a 10 team comp.

If United end up 5th LV might appreciate it.

Certainly not with 9 teams. MAYBE something to think about with 10.

Also, "top 5" is a shit format and drags on forever, and you end up with repeats.

Bsides, top team gets a HCA final series against the weakest finalist, so thats a big enough advantage.

I know that some people like to bang on about the "Minor Premiers" not getting a big enough reward. But the problem is that if you reward them too much, it makes the play-offs a farce.

I'm with a 4 v 5 playoff followed by semi's and grand final.
The #1 seed is already rewarded with home advantage throughout playoffs.

That’s a no from me.

4-9 teams (now) 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3.
4-10 teams (21/22 season)
6-12 teams (within next 5-6 years surely) 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5.
6-14 teams (beyond 10 years)

If the NBL gets to 10 teams a final 5 would be reasonable.

Not a bad idea, 4 v 5 wildcard 1 game elimination hosted by #4 seed; then 1v4/5; 2v3 best of 3; then winner v winner, higher seeded gets home advantage

4 vs 5 should be a one game wild card match

There's a couple of good options for 5 team formats, the new BBL format being one of them

I'm not opposed to it, and I don't think it rewards mediocrity

But, I like the drama of 3 and 5 game series, and more teams means shorter series. That's the best reason to keep it Top 4.

Nope. Can’t have over half the teams make it. Imo.