Why is Eastern Conference great when there teams get into the playoffs without a winning record?
All the western Playoff teams are above five hundred an have to scrap to get in but the Eastern Conference teams don’t even have above five hundred recorders and make the playoffs. Do you think there should be a rule change.
I’m for a rule change and like you, I’ve wondered about the inequity in determining the 8 finalists in each conference. Western teams that are well over .500 don’t get to the playoffs, while Eastern mediocre teams (below .500) get in. Need some expert opinions here.
Yes, I think the NBA should revisit the playoff issue.
The top 4 in East are strong, but in West all teams are mostly over .500, which means West has better teams if you compare it to East.
References :
but i know 3 teams in the east who could beat any west team(besides lakers) magic, cavs, boston the west has only one team who beat those three teams
References :
I’m for a rule change and like you, I’ve wondered about the inequity in determining the 8 finalists in each conference. Western teams that are well over .500 don’t get to the playoffs, while Eastern mediocre teams (below .500) get in. Need some expert opinions here.
Yes, I think the NBA should revisit the playoff issue.
References :
The east is not great.The west is better overall………..
References :
West>East When it comes to life in general………..
It is because the West has very very weak teams year in and year out that everybody beats up on, while the bottom of the East (Besides the Nets this year) has been decently competitive.
For example. look at the records of the Bobcats and the Bulls versus the 5th-8th seeds in the West:
Bulls: 4-2
Bobcats: 3-4
That shows the teams can compete with their Western counterparts, even though they have worse records. I feel it is caused more by the balance of the East than a lack of skill on the teams part.
References :