2-3-2-format

[Mephisto]

Hey guys, someone enlighten me on why the finals format is 2-3-2 and otherwise it's 2-2-2-1. I know it's been like that for years but anyone know why it's like that? To me it conveys more of an advantage to the team without the home court advantage compared to 2-2-2-1. So I'm guessing it is a format to make the Finals more competitive thus more games on TV and less 4-0 sweeps??

In this series, I felt that it was much more critical for SA to take the first game than for Det, and even in the second game I still think it's important for SA because if they go into Det 1-1 with the momentum swung to Detroit would be difficult in my opinion for them to do anything better that 1-2 over those games in Detroit so they'd be 2-3 coming back to SA for gms 6 and 7 with Det only having to win one of those.

I actually think Pop is smart enough to pound this into his players so i'm kind of liking SA for a small amt on the ML tomorrow. You will remember that Pop said that they were in a must win situation when they were up 3-0 against Pho, and he was talking about momentum swings.

 

[soul train]

to cut down on the traveling and for television purposes.
since the format was put in place in 1985,no home team has swept the 3 middle games.

 

[Mephisto]

When you say for TV purposes are you saying the same thing that I was guessing, that is to increase TV revenue by making the home court advantage not as significant so there will be more games? If so maybe the reason that it's not in the other rounds is to diminish the chance of a very good team getting eliminated in an early round?

Also thanks for the info on no home sweeps in the 3 middle games. I'm not totally surprised because it's probably unlikely you'd be in the Finals with the better record without being a pretty good road team.

 

[snoopol]

to cut down on the traveling and for television purposes.
since the format was put in place in 1985,no home team has swept the 3 middle games.

What about the Pistons last year???? They won all three home games.

 

[soul train]

What about the Pistons last year???? They won all three home games.

my fault,sorry

 

[soul train]

i was checking out the format on nba.com and it only has it up too 2003

*home team wins 1st 2 games*
2002,2000,1999,1997,1996,1989,1987,1986

*teams split 1st 2 games*
2003,2001,1998,1994,1992,1991,1990,1988,1985 (lets put in 2004)

*road team wins 3 middle games*
2001,1991,1990

*road team wins 1st 2 games*
1995,1993

*home team wins last 2 games*
1994,1988

*road team wins last 2 games*
none

*home team wins middle 3 games*
none(updated 2004 detroit) tks

interesting is the road team has won the middle 3 games 3 times and the home team only once.
to lazy too put the team names and series winners
nba .com got all the info

 

[ivabign]

I THOUGHT IT WAS 2-2-1-1-1 (OTHER THAN FINALS)

 

[Mephisto]

Yes, I should have written 2-2-1-1-1. thanks.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Only 4 times in 2-3-2 has the team without homecourt won the series. Itr is a horrible disadvantage put in place for tv.

 

[Mephisto]

Still beating this dead horse...the difference in these formats is switching game 5 and 6 sites. Everything else is the same. So yesterday I went back from '85 to see what happened in these Finals games (reviewing the past 20 series Finals) and here's what my research turned up.

Game 5 Finals game- the record straight up of the team without the home court advantage in the series and presumably the weaker team (and the team playing at home) is 9-8. (there were three times when the series was a sweep so no game 5).

Game 6 Finals game-that same team now playing on the road (again, this is the team without the home court advantage in the series) was only 3-9. (8 times when the series didn't go at least 6 games).

Of the past 20 years with this format there were 4-0 sweeps 3 times, 4-1 series wins 5 times, 4-2 wins 10 times, and 4-3 wins only 2 times. The team with the home court advantage won the series 15 times and lost the series 5 times.

Anyway, putting aside my conspiratorial theory of TV revenue, I think it's reasonable to conclude that because of this format fairly matched teams (and i do think these teams are pretty close) will more likely go 6 games than either 4,5, or 7 with the home court advantage team winning. FWIW, the Spurs to win in exactly 6 games at pinnacle is +231.

 

[Mephisto]

Still beating this very, very dead horse.

Excerpted from the local SA paper:

Fair format? Is the 2-3-2 format ? two games at the site of the team that had the best regular-season record, three at the other site, and two more, if necessary, back at the original site ? the league adopted in 1985 really fair to the team that worked all season to gain home-court advantage?

The Pistons went into Sunday's Game 5 on their home court secure in the knowledge they had become the first lower seed in NBA Finals history to sweep all of the "middle three" games last year.

"The whole momentum of a series can shift, as you've seen in this series, during those three home games your opponent has," said Pistons forward Darvin Ham, who was on Detroit's 2004 title team. "It's really hard, because on the road you really have to focus in and overcome a lot."

The format was changed, from 2-2-1-1-1, after the Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics played three-straight championship series (1982, 1983 and 1984) in the days before teams had their own charter planes to make travel easier.
---------------
By the way, if SA wins tomorrow, they will be the home court advantage team that won in 6 games. Hmmmm

 

[snoozer]

I talked to my ticket rep at the palace and asked him this same question. He said the reason the other series are 22111 are because it is all teams in the same conference, therefore, the traveling is not as long. With the potential of a Boston/Seattle matchup going 7 games, that would be a lot of traveling for the team (aka $$$).

 

[Mephisto]

Thanks Snoozer, and Soul Train also mentioned that and that's basically what this article said too. I was trying to put more of a conspiratorial spin to it (and still not sure that's not part of it, i.e. to try to turn series that might have ended in five games to six or more for more TV revenue), but cutting out one or two of the coast to coast trips does make a lot of sense.