Division then Conference - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

MavsFanFinley · 04-06-2006, 12:27 AM

This is taken from the SA express notebook.

Not such an edge:

If the Spurs lose to Dallas on Friday, they wouldn't enjoy as large a tiebreaker advantage as thought.

When the NBA released its standings last week, it listed conference record as the second divisional tiebreaker behind head-to-head record. A league spokesman, however, says that was an error: The correct second tiebreaker is division record.

The change is important because the Spurs have a 37-9 conference record while the Mavericks are 33-12. If the Spurs lose to Dallas on Friday, the season series would be split and the Mavericks would have a 12-3 division record to the Spurs' 11-3.

The Spurs have two division games remaining after Friday: Sunday against Memphis; and a trip to Houston on April 19. Dallas has one: Saturday against New Orleans.

The NBA changed its tiebreakers after Charlotte joined the league before the 2003-04 season, but the switch was not highly publicized. In previous years, conference record was the second tiebreaker regardless of whether the teams were in the same division.

The Spurs and Mavericks finished the 2002-03 season with 60-22 records. Dallas had a better Midwest Division record, but the Spurs received the conference's top seed because they had the better conference mark.

The league itself has had trouble keeping track of the change. For part of the season, the NBA Web site listed the old tiebreaker rules.

Of course, none of this will be relevant should the Spurs win Friday — they then would have a 3-1 advantage in the teams' four meetings — or if they finish ahead of Dallas in the standings.

mary · 04-06-2006, 12:40 AM

Thank you for posting this - clears up alot of confusion around here

shaw-xx · 04-06-2006, 01:41 AM

Thanks for clearing up. DMoore once explained it on DMN's Inside the Mavs and I thought he was wrong....

Quote:

MOORE: We’ve received a lot of e-mails on this in the past two weeks, so much that it deserves to be addressed again.

As of Feb. 14, the Spurs and Mavericks did own the same record (40-11). The Mavericks were listed as the No. 1 seed and San Antonio No. 4.

That is correct. The Mavericks and Spurs have split their two games so far this season. The next tiebreaker in this scenario is division record. The Mavericks were 8-2 in the division vs. 6-2 for the Spurs, giving Dallas the edge.

A lot of people have written to say that we’re wrong on this, that NBA.com and other Web sites list the Spurs ahead of the Mavericks. I can assure you we’ve talked to the NBA office, and we’re not wrong. In fact, if you check on the NBA Web site today, you will find the Mavericks with the No. 1 seed.

After head-to-head, conference record is the first tiebreaker to determine the playoff position of two or more teams outside the division. But the division has to be determined first, which gives division results a greater weight than conference record.

island_dude · 04-06-2006, 09:29 AM

Two-Team Tie-breaker
1. Better record in head-to-head games
2. Higher winning percentage within division (if teams are in the same division)
3. Higher winning percentage in conference games
4. Higher winning percentage against playoff teams in own conference
5. Higher winning percentage against playoff teams in opposite conference
6. Higher point differential between points scored and points allowed

http://www.nba.com/spurs/tickets/playoff_info_2005.html

Drbio · 04-06-2006, 10:01 AM

http://www.nba.com/Spurscansuckit.html

(not an actual site)

Murphy3 · 04-06-2006, 10:35 AM

The Mavs need to take care of business and hope that the Grizz can knock them off....

MFFL · 04-06-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

The Spurs and Mavericks finished the 2002-03 season with 60-22 records. Dallas had a better Midwest Division record, but the Spurs received the conference's top seed because they had the better conference mark.

I can understand that logic. The top team in the conference is the top seed.

But it makes more sense for the top seed to be the division winner with the best record since the division winners have always been the top 2 (and now 3) seeds. And the division winner SHOULD be chosen by record in division first.

So the league finally got it right.

MFFL · 04-06-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaw-xx

Thanks for clearing up. DMoore once explained it on DMN's Inside the Mavs and I thought he was wrong....

The reason I thought he was wrong is that he never made reference to a time when the format changed. The SA article did and that makes all the difference.

xraided199 · 04-06-2006, 08:40 PM

i cant believe this, it makes so much more sense now...thank you so much for this

Dortmund · 04-06-2006, 09:20 PM

Alright I have another question...

How are games seeded in the 2nd round? Why will Mavs and Spurs play for sure? What if Grizzlies knock of Denver? Wouldn't that make the #1 seed (mavs or spurs) play the grizzlies in the second round since the grizzlies would have the worst record of the remaining teams? Are people assuming that there will be no "upset" in the first round and therefore Mavs play Spurs or does it work some other way?

chumdawg · 04-06-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MFFL

I can understand that logic. The top team in the conference is the top seed.

But it makes more sense for the top seed to be the division winner with the best record since the division winners have always been the top 2 (and now 3) seeds. And the division winner SHOULD be chosen by record in division first.

So the league finally got it right.

Yeah, but that would be an ad hoc sort of thinking.

I fondly remember the '04 season. There was a decent chance, with three or four games to go in the season, that four teams (Minny, Spurs, Lakers, Kings) could end up tied at 57-25. Once you determined the division champs and placed them as the 1 and 2 seeds, you then pitted the second-place division teams against each other to determine the 3 and 4 seeds. There was a way it could have happened--I forget the details--where the 4 seed would have had home court over the 1 seed in the second round, due to the way the tiebreakers worked differently in different matchups. Now that would have been an interesting scenario! The conference champ would NOT have home-court advantage throughout the conference playoffs. Go figure.

Bottom line is, funny things can happen year by year. Mostly it all plays out like it should, though.

Murphy3 · 04-06-2006, 09:22 PM

They don't re-seed. So, they'd stay in the same bracket... The winner of the 1-8 matchup would face the winner of the 4-5 matchup in the second round regardless of what happens in the other half of the Western Conference draw.

Dortmund · 04-06-2006, 09:24 PM

Sorry but that is retarded.

dude1394 · 04-06-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MFFL

I can understand that logic. The top team in the conference is the top seed.

But it makes more sense for the top seed to be the division winner with the best record since the division winners have always been the top 2 (and now 3) seeds. And the division winner SHOULD be chosen by record in division first.

So the league finally got it right.

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.

birdsanctuary · 04-06-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dortmund

Sorry but that is retarded.

I agree, the NBA should reseed after the first round and every subsequent round. This would be the fairest method...

MFFL · 04-07-2006, 12:30 AM

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.