Play-In to Playoff

When the NBA was making its plans to come back with its bubble in 2020, one of the ideas they came up with was a "play-in tournament" for the final playoff seeds.  There was no guarantee that there would be a play-in tournament.  It was designed more as a fail-safe if a team was one or two games out of the top eight seeds when the season ended.  And, in fact, they only needed it in the Western Conference that year.

The idea of a play-in tournament definitely gained traction, though.  So much so, in fact, that the NBA made it a permanent thing last season.  And they don't have that qualifier, either.  The play-in tournament is teams 7-10 in each conference, regardless of their record.  And it looks like it's here to stay, too.

At first, I thought the very idea of the play-in tournament was one of the stupidest things I'd ever heard!  It was just another gimmick that was gonna further water down the already watered-down NBA Playoffs.  But I've since come around.  I actually kinda like the NBA play-in tournament.

Now, don't get me wrong.  Do I think the play-in tournament is necessary?  Absolutely not!  Do I think 20 teams (out of 30) deserve to make the playoffs, even if two of them will only play one game?  Also, no.  Do I think it's a blatant money grab?  Of course!  But, with all that being said, I'm not totally opposed to the concept.

March Madness consumes the country for three weeks precisely because every game is an elimination game.  Yes, there's the Cinderella teams like Saint Peter's everywhere, and the idea that the mid-majors can go toe-to-toe with the powerhouses is part of the fun.  Anybody can play anybody and anybody can beat anybody.  And, yes, it's also the win-or-go-home thing 67 times that makes March Madness so compelling.

Meanwhile, the NBA Playoffs take forever!  Or at least it seems like it!  They go on for two months and there's very little suspense.  More often than not, the best team's going to win (which is how we got four straight Warriors-Cavs Finals).

There's nothing wrong with that.  That's the whole point of playing best-of-seven series.  So that the better team wins.  Anybody can beat anybody once.  But if Saint Peter's-Kentucky was a best-of-seven, how many of those games would Saint Peter's have won?

It's the same thing in the pro game.  If the NBA Playoffs were single-elimination, they'd be a lot more unpredictable.  But, with four rounds of best-of-seven, you know there's only a handful of teams capable of winning the championship.  Which is actually pretty boring.  Enter the play-in tournament, which is anything but predictable.

With the play-in tournament, they've added a March Madness element while not affecting the integrity of the playoffs proper.  It still takes 16 playoff wins, not including the play-in tournament, to win the championship.  And the regular season still means plenty, too, since the top six teams go directly to the playoffs.  Yes, it opened up the "playoffs" to an additional four teams, making the record you need to get in worse.  But those teams also need to win just to get into the playoffs, so they'll definitely have earned their spot.

And, with the way the playoffs are set up, the winners of the play-in round will be the two lowest seeds in the first round, meaning they'll be playing the two best teams in the conference.  Which, assuming the seventh- and eighth-place teams win the play-in round, is exactly what the matchups would've been anyway!  The only difference is that seven and eight had to win their way in, and the one- and two-seeds will be more rested than their opponents.

But they've also added the must-win, single-elimination element that's normally reserved for a Game 7 (of which there are very few in the NBA) and put it right at the beginning!  It gives you a reason to watch right away.  The way they set it up was smart, too.  The 7- and 8-seeds get two shots to win one game, knowing that they'll get to play at home.  Nine and 10, meanwhile, have to win twice, with at least one of those games on the road.

You can argue about whether you think the play-in tournament is fair or not all you want, and some of those criticisms would definitely be warranted.  That argument has two sides, though.  No, the 36-46 team that finished 10th in its conference doesn't deserve a chance to get into the playoffs over a 7-seed that went 44-38.  But, it's great that they're giving the 43-39 team that finished ninth on a tiebreaker a chance to earn their way in instead of watching the playoffs from home.

Perhaps there's a way to fix some of the flaws in the format.  It seems unlikely since they set it up for TV to have three nights of doubleheaders for the play-in tournament, but the original plan from the bubble where it's based on the number of games separating the teams could be an option.  Likewise, I think the whole point of structuring the play-in tournament the way they have is so that they're all single-elimination games, so a best-of-three series would defeat the purpose.

Those flaws are pretty minor, however.  And they're not enough to say the play-in tournament isn't worthwhile.  I give the NBA credit for trying something new, too.  So, yes, as crazy as it sounds, I like the NBA play-in tournament and I'm glad it's here to stay.