Boston Celtics: Implications of top-16 playoff seeding

A change in the playoff format could change how teams build for the future. A new seeding system could benefite the Boston Celtics.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver has hinted at changing the playoff seeding system in the future to match up teams based on a top-16 system instead of the best eight teams from each conference.

If the playoffs started to today with that system, the fourth-seeded Boston Celtics would play the 13th-seeded Portland Trail Blazers in the first round. In the current system, dictated by conference standings, they would match up against the Philadelphia 76ers instead. A re-worked system would be great for basketball, but would it be good for the Celtics?

The primary concern for switching up the format is the extra travel that could come from East coast/West coast matchups. Boston, the Eastern-most NBA city, is about a six-hour flight from Portland, whereas a flight to Philadelphia would only take about two hours.

Of course, one round0trip flight isn’t too back-breaking, but the current 2-2-1-1-1 series format could make for even more travel, assuming the seeding changes successfully created a more competitive playoff environment.

A full seven-game series between Boston and Portland would entail four cross-country flights, with no promise that the victor would travel any less in the second round, especially in a timeline where the Los Angeles and New York teams reemerge as playoff participants in the near future.

More from Boston Celtics

Perhaps the league will consider reverting to the 2-3-2 format, which was originally instated because of how often the Celtics and Lakers would meet in the Finals. But then, of course, you go back to a system that’s unfairly punishing for a higher-seeded team that loses one of their first two homes games, and then has to play the next three on the road. If you’re the higher-seeded, far-East Celtics, it might be difficult to advocate for one system over the other.

Instead, we might see the league reduce the length of the regular season to offset the extra travel. I’m not sure how much difference that will make, but I can tell by the traction it’s getting from fans, players and the media that it’s a change that will be spoken into existence one way or another. As a fan, I’d be fine with fewer games if it gets rid of sloppy back-to-backs, where teams might even hold out certain players, like Joel Embiid, because the workload is simply too much for somebody with his size and injury history.

For the young Celtics, it could be a welcome change. They were running on fumes leading into the London game and All-Star weekend because of their schedule and inherent lack of stamina for being such a young team. The veteran teams of the league would benefit as well, because they won’t have to rest players and essentially throw games away when the schedule gets tough.

The most important thing is that the NBA recognizes what isn’t perfect, and there are always opportunities to do better. Professional sports have a lot of room for growth, but also a lot of traditionalists who don’t want change because they want the game to resemble what it looked like in during their inaugural era of basketball.

Next: 2017-18 Week 19 NBA Power Rankings

In my heart, I would like things to stay the same, too, because it allows players to compete under the same conditions as many of the all-time greats, but in my mind, I know better. I’ve seen enough torn ACLs, strained backs and mangled feet to know that the NBA could benefit from easing the workload on their players a bit, so everybody involved can watch higher quality basketball in the long run.

Home/Boston Celtics