Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:18 pm Post subject:
wolfpaclaker wrote:
Since we were a pretty good road team this year, I actually like this. I do not think the Lakers played particularly better at home than road. In fact, opposite. I thought they were more focused on the road.
This is all about us peaking at the right time now. Whichever team is at its peak will make a run.
But the pandemic is the real wild card. Someone gets sick on your team, you are without a player for at least 2 weeks of the playoffs and many more on the team could be ruled out.
It will certainly be an * season similar to the Spurs 99 run, but I am fine with this. Just watching UFC is not enough. We need sports.
I think that injury will also play a big role. These guys have basically had a full offseason only without the ability to train. Getting up to game shape in 8 games might be a lot to ask. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
I got an idea on how to implement the HCA without any gimmicks. Make the playoff series the best of 5 for the team with HCA, and the best of 7 for the other team. In other words, the team with HCA only has to win 3 games to win the series, while the opponent has to win 4 games to win the series. Maybe not for the conference finals and NBA finals, but at least for the first playoff round.
Basically, what you're saying is play a 7 game series, but give the team with the HCA an automatic win in game #1.
That's way too much.
The advantage the team gets in the first round is they get to play the worse team in the playoffs. That's enough to me. If the Bucks or Lakers need a HCA to win, they don't deserve to be champions.
No, that's not what I was saying. What I meant is that if the team with HCA first reaches 3 wins, the series ends, but if the opponent first reaches 3 wins, the series continues until someone wins 4 games. Does it make sense?
That's effectively giving the team with HCA an automatic win in game 7 then.
So it's really a 6-game series, where the team with the HCA has to win 3 out of 6 games to be the victor and the team without the HCA has to win 4 out of 6 games to be in the winner.
There is literally no way to get to a game seven.
Look at this would how this might aly out. After 5 games, the team with HCA is behind in the series 2-3. They win game six and are declared the winner of the series because it's 3-3.
That's just anticlimactic and wrong.
I see what you're going for. It's just that it gives the team with HCA a huge advantage.
I got an idea on how to implement the HCA without any gimmicks. Make the playoff series the best of 5 for the team with HCA, and the best of 7 for the other team. In other words, the team with HCA only has to win 3 games to win the series, while the opponent has to win 4 games to win the series. Maybe not for the conference finals and NBA finals, but at least for the first playoff round.
Basically, what you're saying is play a 7 game series, but give the team with the HCA an automatic win in game #1.
That's way too much.
The advantage the team gets in the first round is they get to play the worse team in the playoffs. That's enough to me. If the Bucks or Lakers need a HCA to win, they don't deserve to be champions.
No, that's not what I was saying. What I meant is that if the team with HCA first reaches 3 wins, the series ends, but if the opponent first reaches 3 wins, the series continues until someone wins 4 games. Does it make sense?
That's effectively giving the team with HCA an automatic win in game 7 then.
So it's really a 6-game series, where the team with the HCA has to win 3 out of 6 games to be the victor and the team without the HCA has to win 4 out of 6 games to be in the winner.
Look at this would how this might aly out. After 5 games, the team with HCA is behind in the series 2-3. They win game six and are declared the winner of the series because it's 3-3.
That's just anticlimactic and wrong.
I see what you're going for. It's just that it gives the team with HCA a huge advantage.
Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly. In the scenario that you described there will be game 7 played. The team with HCA doesn't get an automatic win. The team with HCA will only win the series after 3 wins, if that team reaches the 3 wins first; otherwise, the series will be played until one of the teams wins 4 games.
Example: Suppose the series is tied 2:2. If the team with HCA wins the next game, the series is over at 3:2. But if the team without HCA wins the next game, then the series will continue until either team wins 4 games, which will give a chance to the team with HCA to come back and win the series by winning the next 2 games.
I got an idea on how to implement the HCA without any gimmicks. Make the playoff series the best of 5 for the team with HCA, and the best of 7 for the other team. In other words, the team with HCA only has to win 3 games to win the series, while the opponent has to win 4 games to win the series. Maybe not for the conference finals and NBA finals, but at least for the first playoff round.
Basically, what you're saying is play a 7 game series, but give the team with the HCA an automatic win in game #1.
That's way too much.
The advantage the team gets in the first round is they get to play the worse team in the playoffs. That's enough to me. If the Bucks or Lakers need a HCA to win, they don't deserve to be champions.
No, that's not what I was saying. What I meant is that if the team with HCA first reaches 3 wins, the series ends, but if the opponent first reaches 3 wins, the series continues until someone wins 4 games. Does it make sense?
That's effectively giving the team with HCA an automatic win in game 7 then.
So it's really a 6-game series, where the team with the HCA has to win 3 out of 6 games to be the victor and the team without the HCA has to win 4 out of 6 games to be in the winner.
Look at this would how this might aly out. After 5 games, the team with HCA is behind in the series 2-3. They win game six and are declared the winner of the series because it's 3-3.
That's just anticlimactic and wrong.
I see what you're going for. It's just that it gives the team with HCA a huge advantage.
Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly. In the scenario that you described there will be game 7 played. The team with HCA doesn't get an automatic win. The team with HCA will only win the series after 3 wins, if that team reaches the 3 wins first; otherwise, the series will be played until one of the teams wins 4 games.
Example: Suppose the series is tied 2:2. If the team with HCA wins the next game, the series is over at 3:2. But if the team without HCA wins the next game, then the series will continue until either team wins 4 games, which will give a chance to the team with HCA to come back and win the series by winning the next 2 games.
It's a novel approach. I just think it's too complicated and gives the team with HCA too much of an advantage.
If they end up giving the HCA team any advantage, I think it will be something much less complicated and dramatic, like one additional coach's challenge per game.
Personally, I don't think they should give the HCA team anything. I wouldn't give a team a tangible benefit because they lost out on whatever the intangible benefit that HCA might bring.
I got an idea on how to implement the HCA without any gimmicks. Make the playoff series the best of 5 for the team with HCA, and the best of 7 for the other team. In other words, the team with HCA only has to win 3 games to win the series, while the opponent has to win 4 games to win the series. Maybe not for the conference finals and NBA finals, but at least for the first playoff round.
Basically, what you're saying is play a 7 game series, but give the team with the HCA an automatic win in game #1.
That's way too much.
The advantage the team gets in the first round is they get to play the worse team in the playoffs. That's enough to me. If the Bucks or Lakers need a HCA to win, they don't deserve to be champions.
No, that's not what I was saying. What I meant is that if the team with HCA first reaches 3 wins, the series ends, but if the opponent first reaches 3 wins, the series continues until someone wins 4 games. Does it make sense?
That's effectively giving the team with HCA an automatic win in game 7 then.
So it's really a 6-game series, where the team with the HCA has to win 3 out of 6 games to be the victor and the team without the HCA has to win 4 out of 6 games to be in the winner.
Look at this would how this might aly out. After 5 games, the team with HCA is behind in the series 2-3. They win game six and are declared the winner of the series because it's 3-3.
That's just anticlimactic and wrong.
I see what you're going for. It's just that it gives the team with HCA a huge advantage.
Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly. In the scenario that you described there will be game 7 played. The team with HCA doesn't get an automatic win. The team with HCA will only win the series after 3 wins, if that team reaches the 3 wins first; otherwise, the series will be played until one of the teams wins 4 games.
Example: Suppose the series is tied 2:2. If the team with HCA wins the next game, the series is over at 3:2. But if the team without HCA wins the next game, then the series will continue until either team wins 4 games, which will give a chance to the team with HCA to come back and win the series by winning the next 2 games.
It's a novel approach. I just think it's too complicated and gives the team with HCA too much of an advantage.
If they end up giving the HCA team any advantage, I think it will be something much less complicated and dramatic, like one additional coach's challenge per game.
Personally, I don't think they should give the HCA team anything. I wouldn't give a team a tangible benefit because they lost out on whatever the intangible benefit that HCA might bring.
My HCA advantage suggestion would be to give the "home team" the ball possession at the start of each quarter, instead of rotating possession. This would give home team 2 extra possessions per game. This gives a little advantage to home team but not too much, I think similar to having the home crowd advantage back.
Among the ideas that have been discussed are the following:
Higher seeds getting the ball at the beginning of the second, third and fourth quarters.
Higher seed being allowed to choose one player who would be allowed seven personal fouls instead of six.
Higher seeds being granted an extra coach's challenge.
Higher seeds getting preferential hotel selection at Disney.
Higher seeds being allowed to transport their actual hardwood courts to Disney to recreate the feel of home-court advantage.
Among the ideas that have been discussed are the following:
Higher seeds getting the ball at the beginning of the second, third and fourth quarters.
Higher seed being allowed to choose one player who would be allowed seven personal fouls instead of six.
Higher seeds being granted an extra coach's challenge.
Higher seeds getting preferential hotel selection at Disney.
Higher seeds being allowed to transport their actual hardwood courts to Disney to recreate the feel of home-court advantage.
Imo, the “home” team should be allowed to replicate crowd noise for defense, etc. from this year’s games. It will feel somewhat like home court where communication for the opponent is a little more challenging than an empty gym.
Realistically, the odds of any HCA Advantage being put in is unlikely. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the owners as well as the players union. So basically, you would need the teams that would be disadvantaged from this to agree to put it in, and I don't see why they would.
I mean, if you were a player or the owner of a borderline playoff team, would you vote Yes on a proposal that said if you made the playoffs your opponent would get the better hotel to stay in than you?
The best and easiest way to do HCA is to allow the team’s family members to sit in the arena to cheer on the team.
They can sit 2-3 rows apart, and 6-7 seats apart and be forced to wear masks. Doesn’t elevate risks at all if they are at the game bc the families are obviously spending time with the players anyway, and the players are all on the court together _________________ Billions Billions Billions
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:47 am Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
Realistically, the odds of any HCA Advantage being put in is unlikely. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the owners as well as the players union. So basically, you would need the teams that would be disadvantaged from this to agree to put it in, and I don't see why they would.
I mean, if you were a player or the owner of a borderline playoff team, would you vote Yes on a proposal that said if you made the playoffs your opponent would get the better hotel to stay in than you?
Look at MLB, crazy and outlandish ideas are one thing, agreement is totally different. If a higher seed needs charity then they shouldn’t be a higher seed. Don’t turn this into a joke. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Any mention on 1-16 seeding? Or are we sticking with conferences? _________________ Author of James Harden and the Strip Club
"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding. We are swimming in the former. We are desperately lacking in the latter." - Malcom Gladwell
Joined: 19 Nov 2001 Posts: 17657 Location: Orlando
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:59 am Post subject:
I live right next to Disney World, about 3 miles from Magic Kingdom. This is going to be weird having the Lakers play so close to me but not be able to see it live.
Realistically, the odds of any HCA Advantage being put in is unlikely. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the owners as well as the players union. So basically, you would need the teams that would be disadvantaged from this to agree to put it in, and I don't see why they would.
I mean, if you were a player or the owner of a borderline playoff team, would you vote Yes on a proposal that said if you made the playoffs your opponent would get the better hotel to stay in than you?
Look at MLB, crazy and outlandish ideas are one thing, agreement is totally different. If a higher seed needs charity then they shouldn’t be a higher seed. Don’t turn this into a joke.
I don't mind all the brainstorming. It's reasonable to debate whether there should be an artificial HCA in the playoffs and whether they should do things like pump in crowd sounds. Ultimately, the stuff that gets implemented tends to be much more conservative than what fans talk about -- no different than speculation on trade deals and other things.
Always easier to go wild on ideas when you don't need to get others to agree with you and you don't have to live with the consequences.
Ultimately we'll all adjust to whatever changes, or lack of changes, they make.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:18 pm Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Realistically, the odds of any HCA Advantage being put in is unlikely. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the owners as well as the players union. So basically, you would need the teams that would be disadvantaged from this to agree to put it in, and I don't see why they would.
I mean, if you were a player or the owner of a borderline playoff team, would you vote Yes on a proposal that said if you made the playoffs your opponent would get the better hotel to stay in than you?
Look at MLB, crazy and outlandish ideas are one thing, agreement is totally different. If a higher seed needs charity then they shouldn’t be a higher seed. Don’t turn this into a joke.
I don't mind all the brainstorming. It's reasonable to debate whether there should be an artificial HCA in the playoffs and whether they should do things like pump in crowd sounds. Ultimately, the stuff that gets implemented tends to be much more conservative than what fans talk about -- no different than speculation on trade deals and other things.
Always easier to go wild on ideas when you don't need to get others to agree with you and you don't have to live with the consequences.
Ultimately we'll all adjust to whatever changes, or lack of changes, they make.
Agree, discussing things are part of the fun. I just hope that the league doesn’t do anything to make it an * season. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
