Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dude1394
It "sorta" makes sense. What is the point of having a midwest division winner if they don't win the division when you have a better division record than the other team??
Wasn't there two divisions and the winners of the division got 1st, 2nd? If so it still didn't make a lot of sense.
|
It did make sense in a weird way. If two teams are tied then the team that is the best in the conference should be the #1 seed for the conference. Division winners were not very important back when we had two conferences since the best record was always the #1 seed and the other division winner was the #2 seed. And since the #2 seed might not have the 2nd best record, it was at least the 3rd best record so it wound up in the other bracket from the #1 seed. Assuming that the #2 seed had the 3rd best record, it was in the bracket with the team that had the 2nd best record (and the #3 seed). The team with the 2nd best record had home court so it didn't really matter whether they were the #2 or #3 seed.
Although I would have liked to see the Mavs win the division back then it was unimportant in the grand scheme of things. We still made it to the WCF and gave the Spurs a hell of a series.