Stating the obvious (at length)

Drum roll, please...

The 3-division format in each NBA conference stinks out loud. See? Told you it was obvious. If it isn't so obvious, you probably follow one of the teams scamming a division title and high seed it doesn't deserve or you hate all that is fair and good in the world. Most likely, it's both.

For those who don't study the topography of the league closely, as of last year, each conference has three 5-team divisions, and the winners of those divisions are guaranteed the top 3 seeds in the playoffs, regardless of record. As before, in a specific match-up of 2 teams, whoever has the better overall record will get home court advantage, but the switch from 2 divisions to 3 has dramatically increased the odds of a team getting screwed. How? Allow me to explain.

Prior to the addition of the 3rd division last season, division winners were guaranteed the top 2 seeds. If the team with the 2nd-best record in the conference played in the same division as the team with the best record, the worst seed the runner-up could get would be #3. While that meant the runner-up would have to face off against the 6th seed in the 1st round, in the 2nd round they would still match up with the same team they would have faced had they secured the 2-seed. And since home-court advantage in an individual series is decided by overall record instead of seed, that runner-up would still have home court in the 2nd round. So, sure, they play #6 instead of #7 in the first round, but, functionally, that's all they lose.

Things are different now. If the team with the 2nd-best record in the conference played in the same division as the team with the best record, that team would now be relegated to the 4th seed. This means they face off against the 5th seed in the first round instead of the 7th, and often that 5th seed is a much tougher match-up than a team that eked into the playoffs as #6 or #7. Even if they win that series, the team with the 2nd-best record in the entire conference will now have to face off in the second round against the team with the best record. Instead of waiting until the conference finals for the premier match-up in the conference, that battle will occur prematurely. And since the loser will now bow out a round earlier than they otherwise might, the season will be perceived as a bigger disappointment.

Given the marathon that is the NBA regular season, this seems an unfair burden. Unlike the NFL, each team plays each other team in the conference at least 3 times, and usually 4. And they will all play teams in the other conference twice. In other words, if you have a better record than someone else in your conference, you clearly earned a seed higher and ought to be rewarded with it.

So why would the NBA push this format? Well, the guess here is that the league assumes that if more teams are in the hunt for a "divison title," more fans will remain interested in the regular season down the stretch. Unfortunately, that logic is deeply flawed. The only change that increased interest in the MLB regular season was the promise of more postseason berths (another divison winner and a wild card team). But the NBA still allows 8 and only 8 teams to make the playoffs. We have yet to see a race in which a team that otherwise would not make the playoffs is in the hunt for a division title. If we ever do, does the team that wins a division with a record so bad they otherwise would have missed the playoffs really deserve the #3 seed? I don't think so.

Moreover, the league laments the drop-off in playoff ratings, but by potentially pushing up the ideal conference match-up to the second round, they increase the odds of a mismatched and under-watched conference final series.

The likelihood of a team being seriously effed over by the process isn't small, either. In the West alone, only once in the last 11 seasons would a team from each division actually have earned the top 3 seeds by record. So a team that would have legitimately earned the 2nd or 3rd seed in prior years is now jammed into the 4-spot and forced to face the best prematurely. It follows, then, that the large majority of NBA fans should be up in arms over the issue. Year in and year out, a team or two is likely to be unfairly disadvantaged, yet there is almost no momentum behind changing this flawed system.

As a Mavs fan forced to watch them duke it out with the Spurs for either the #1 or #4 seed this year, I'm frustrated. The Mavericks are only a game back of the Spurs. Minnesota is a full 5 games back of Dallas but would still get the 3rd seed ahead of them if we ended the regular season today. Should the Mavs remain the second-best team in the West, they will be thrown into a probable first-round matchup with the Suns (and the fresh-legged Amare Stoudamire). If they survive that, the Spurs will be waiting in round 2. Meanwhile, the T-Wolves or Clips or Lakers will likely stroll into the conference finals and a "more successful season" than Dallas. Grrrrr.

Team history can be powerfully altered by an early exit. In 2002, Dallas faced the Spurs in the conference finals. Each team won 60 games and San Antonio won the tiebreaker. The Mavs received the 3rd seed in the playoffs, defeated the 2nd-seeded Kings in a 7th game in Dallas (as they had the better record), and made their deepest push into the playoffs in almost 15 years. Had that same regular season unfolded this year (and it might), the Mavs would have been knocked out in the second round by the Spurs, and every subsequent playoff run would be filled with questions about why they've never been able to advance past the 2nd round.

Go back to two divisions, Stern. It's better for the league, the teams, and the fans.