Is NBA owners' decision to change final format to 2-2-1-1-1 the right one?

Beginning with the 2014 finals, the higher seeded team heading into the finals will host Game 1, 3, 5 and 7 while the lower seeded team hosts the remaining games, following the NBA format used in the other round of the Playoffs.

The change was made when the NBA owners gathered one last time to bid adieu to the outgoing commissioner David Stern after he served the post for 30 years.

The owners unanimously voted to return the 2-2-1-1-1 format so that it favors the higher seeded team in the Finals.

David Stern introduced the 2-3-2 format in his first full year as a commissioner and his intentions were more on the grounds of publicity and business rather than basketball. You can’t blame him for doing so.

With the Celtics and Lakers meeting almost every spring in the 1980s Stern made the change in format to ease the number of cross-country flights the teams had to take. Also in those days the newspaper was the predominant network of coverage and the flights were expensive thus proving to be quite a hassle for the reporters to cover the games.

When the finals format was changed to the 2-3-2, Stern often stated he acted upon the advice or complaints about the travel from legendary Celtics coach Red Aeurbach. So taking everything into account it can be safely stated that Stern did everything in his hands to reach out to the people.

Years rolled by and many advancements were being made in the means of travel and coverage of the game. Yet, nobody asked any questions and the 2-3-2 format endured, mostly out of habit.

However at the NBA owners meet in New York, Commissioner in waiting Adam Silver raised the question-“why are we still doing it this way?”

Following the query the NBA owners were presented with a proposal to bring back the previous format and rest as you know is history.

It was a simple, common sense decision and one which was probably long overdue.

Simply because the basis on which the 2-3-2 format was introduced by Stern doesn’t hold good anymore.

Every team presently in the NBA travels by private charter or their own airline and commercial flights are also a lot cheaper now. The 2013 NBA Finals between the Miami Heat and the San Antonio Spurs were broadcasted to a record 215 countries.

To put it in short the 2-3-2 format, long ago outlived its usefulness.

Another major factor behind all owners backing the 2-2-1-1-1 format is it favors the higher seeded team. For example, take any of the following two cases
- Split one of the first two games and you might not suit up in front of your home crowd once again.
- Split the first four games and the higher seeded team faces a pivotal game 5 on the road.

Both these cases, possible in any Finals series, make it extremely unfair to the better team.

Although no championship victory or loss was determined by the 2-3-2 format, the format’s ineffectiveness to hand the better team a better chance to win the title prompted the change.

In the conference finals, which have long been played under the 2-2-1-1-1 structure, the team with home court has won 69 percent of the series. In other words, in the NBA postseason, the better team usually wins, no matter where the games are played.

Moreover, only three teams have swept the middle three games at home under the 2-3-2 format, which seems to disprove the notion that the better team was imperiled by the format.

So the debate on who benefits and who is harmed could go on for days.

NBA’s Commissioner in waiting Adam Silver

Despite the lack in evidence this is what Silver had to say about the change “There was certainly a sense from the basketball people that it was unfair that you didn’t have home-court advantage for a pivotal Game 5.”

The League officials along with the coaches and players have preferred to have a consistent format throughout the post-season. Of course the Silver’s business sensibilities are displayed by replacing the 2-3-2 format as it is statistically shown that 2-2-1-1-1 is more likely to produce a Game 7.

It was Silver who urged the NBA’s competition committee—a nine-person panel of coaches, general managers and owners—to reconsider the Finals format, according to multiple people involved in the process.

Of course, changes would be made to the Finals schedule but none the players and team management would be against. Although the number of flights would double from two to four between Game 2 and a game 7, an extra day off between game 6 and game 7 should address the concern.

It would be interesting to see in the next couple of years how this format plays out in this new era of the league.