Why best of 7?

[spacejammer]

Hi guys in my years watching the NBA whilst I enjoy the playoffs I have never understood why they decide to play a best of 7 series in order to determine a winner?

In UK Sports we're use to settling things in one off games usually like the FA Cup Final and playing finals in neutral venues like Wembley Stadium.

I mean the best of 7 can be interesting although I sometimes think it can lead to players getting injured early on and missing out due to a high amount of intense games.

[robh92]

I think it's something to do with doing their best to remove the "randomness" of the result. In a one-off game a team can shoot the lights out and you can have a really strange result.

There was a study done with how many times a game can be played to ensure the "right" result, but I think it's well over 100. I believe they (along with the NHL and MLB) experimented with different lengths of series, but three or five left too much to chance so seven became the amount of games they settled on.

[D44]

To favour the higher seed so that the largely pointless 80 game regular season doesn't quite seem as stupid.

[SamH]

I do miss the old first round best of 5s they used to do, where you had more chance of an upset and also more chance of a deciding game being played. But the playoffs would be pretty short if they only did best of 1s. NCAA do it though, its a straight knock out I believe for March Madness.

Of course the NBA has now introduced the in-season tournament which includes a knock-out format for the final 8 teams, but it's group stage before that. And it did lead to a rather random Lakers-Pacers final.

[hayesboy]

Money pure and simple. With the distances involved and the general lack of away supporters as well I am sure that also was a factor to start with.
It is a well established format now and I cannot see it changing and probably would not want it to.

I would not mind seeing a little more jeopardy introduced in the first round by going back to best of five! Money talks though and this way minially guarantees both teams 2 home play-off games.

The better question is why is the regular season so long and that is what needs really looking at. Will the NBA and its team owners ever come to the conclusion that a higher quality, less is more, product will be beneficial in the long run? For me the gap in intensity between the regular season and the playoffs seems bigger now than ever. It was like watching a different sport when the playoffs started. Actual defence being played!! PLayers contesting rebounds. It was quite startling to my eyes.

I think the regular season would need to be reduced by around 25% to create more rest, training, preparation and intensity. I cannot see it happening...

[SamH]

Yes I'd prefer a 58 game season, one game home and away vs each other team. If the league expands to 32 teams in the future (hoping for Seattle and Vegas!), then that would become 62 games, not so far off the 82 they already have. The 2020-21 season was only 72 games and I dont think it made any difference to the standings really. I saw some analysis once that showed by about 45-50 games, very little changes in the standings between that point and 82 games, and why would it? 50 games is a big enough sample size for teams to fall where their ability dictates they should. Obviously you get the occasional team that has a late run, or a late collapse, usually due to injuries or people returning. But it's pretty rare. 82 games doesn't even add up at the moment, so teams play other teams in their conference only 3 times instead of 4 and that could potentially mean some teams get a slightly easier or harder schedule depending who they get 3 times. It just doesn't really work! But yes, they would never want to take away so many games and all the revenue they generate with the TV deals and ticket sales...