Josh -- that's a feature, not a bug.  Home-field advantage is earned by superior regular-season play.  The Celtics earned the right to that extra home game because they were the better team over the course of 82 games.  That should matter for something.  Keeping 2-3-2 for the finals makes sense because the difference in quality between conferences makes it harder to argue that the team with the better record deserves as large a leg up.

"...it's incumbent upon the league to do whatever it can (within reason, of course) to give lower-seeded teams a leg up."

Why?

I disagree.  Home field advantage is a reward for good play in the regular season, especially in conference.  Moreover, making it 2-3-2 places the crucial game 5 (I think something like 80% of the time in a 2-2 Series the winner of Game 5 wins the series, but don't quote me on that) in the hands of the team with the inferior regular season record.  Besides, the possibility of getting the 3 game roll isn't that likely.  Only twice in the history of the 2-3-2 Finals Format has the home team won all three games (in 2004 and 2006) and thrice the road team has (1990, 1991 and 2001).  2-3-2 is good in the Finals, but unneeded in the conference games.

"First, I hope we can all agree that it's imperative the Hornets pull out a win over San Antonio in Game 7 tonight, in order to save us all from the sheer horror of a set of conference finals consisting of (ugh) the Celtics, Pistons, Lakers, and Spurs."

We cannot all agree to that.  I'd say it's imperative that the Spurs win so we're spared a "Kobe vs. Paul: Who's the REAL MVP?" western conference finals.  (Full disclosure, I'm from San Antonio.)  I, for one, would look forward to another San Antonio/Detroit finals that rewards teams that have built up their teams over the long haul, not signing two hall-of-famers in the offseason (Boston) or stealing the franchise player from a team conveniently owned by a former player (LA).  Of course, only San Antonio and Detroit fans would want this finals, which is perfectly fine with me.

I second the others. Given that the Celtics have won seven more games than the Pistons, why shouldn't Boston have home-court advantage? From a pure entertainment standpoint, there's something to be said for unpredictability, but if you think one important purpose of the playoffs is to determine the league's "best" team, then it's perfectly reasonable to make regular-season standings count for something. If we wanted to be really egalitarian, or just make things wild, the NBA could give the lower-seeded team home-court advantage, but I think the patent unfairness of such a system would erode more fan support than the resulting wacky upsets would engender.

SPORTS - BORING

Not that this blog should be all politics all the time. But why not something interesting like music? Why are sports the one non-political topic?

"...it's incumbent upon the league to do whatever it can (within reason, of course) to give lower-seeded teams a leg up."

Gotta disagree with that.  The quest for home-court is really all that's keeping the regular season from becoming totally irrelevant.  Remember the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, and lately, the Spurs, basically coasting through the regular season, knowing that as long as they made the playoffs they were set.  In fact, if there was a reasonable way to give an even stronger advantage to the team with the better regular season record, I'd be all for it.

2-2-1-1-1 is the fairest, for the reasons crock notes.  I'm pulling for New Orleans just because it will give John Paxon (the Bulls GM) a bit more of a lesson on the dangers of hubris (see: trade of Tyson Chandler for nada).  

Josh,

I think the general consensus on playoff series scheduling is that 2-2-1-1-1 is easier than 2-3-2 for the underdog.  In a 2-3-2 series you have to hold home court 3 games in a row, which is tough to do when playing a higher seeded opponent.  I'm pretty sure that the 2-2-1-1-1 scheduling is there to not only stretch out the series for TV, but to actually make it easier for the underdog.

Josh's proposal would have an additional benefit of decreasing travel, which adds to the players' fatigue, which lowers quality of play, turning the last couple rounds into endurance tests where everyone waits for some star to get legs and gain his team an edge--exciting in its way, but not team sport at its best. But the arguments for redeeming the regular season through homecourt advantage are granted.

However, the original post may also be valuable for raising the issue of homecourt advantage, which is underdeveloped. Why don't announcers factor homecourt- or crowd-influenced calls into their analysis of replays of fouls?

Connecting this to the superstars issue, on TV last week a panel with John Salley (I think) repeatedly noted that the non-star, workaday players perform better at home, with the implication that the superstars can turn it on anywhere.

Back to the original question, I grant the symbolism of rewarding regular season play with more homecourt advantage, but the playoffs like the NCAA tournament create their own little world. For the quality of the game being played there and then, 2-3-2 improves for me.

Bigfish- I know you're largley kidding, but, just off the top of my head: Rasheed, Billups, and Richard Hamilton were all aquired by trade (as were Garnett and Ray Allen, of course).  And your Spurs only have Duncan due to David Robinson being hurt the previous season, thus bringing their record down, and also due to the unholy machinations of the NBA's Draft Lottery system (there's a chance I'm bitter because the Celtics had the best odds of getting the #1 pick that year, but ended up with Ron Mercer and... Chauncey Billups instead of the greatest PF of all time).

There are a few reasons, most of them mentioned already, why 2-2-1-1-1 is the best (not necessarily most fair) method of running the playoffs.

Most importantly, as jmurph79 has already mentioned, in a League where more than half of the teams make the playoffs one of the few incentives for putting forth effort most of the 82 nights of the regular season is the reward of home court advantage in one or more rounds of the playoffs.  That advantage, as your post acknowledges, is somewhat greater in a 2-2-1-1-1 format.  If that provides even a littlte extra drama to the regular season that's probably a good thing for the NBA.

Johnalthousecohen: Hear hear. Music and/or art.

On 2-2-1-1-1 and travel: Given the early rounds, where there's something like 8 and 4 series going on at once, 2-2-1-1-1 is good because it spreads the travel days around, so there's a few games a night, every night.  Also, until you get the East-West final, Travel shouldn't be a huge burden on the team.  Most of these series (Boston-Cleveland, San Antonio-New Orleans, LA-Utah) aren't huge travel burdens, and there isn't a transcontinental leap like there would be in a Boston-LA or Detroit-LA final.  I guess the exception would be LA vs San Antonio or New Orleans in the West Final, but that's the function of the Western Conference reaching from the Mississippi to the Pacific.  Boston-Detroit's not a huge flight though.

jmurph, although a lot of what I said was knowingly partisan toward my hometown team, I was actually being pretty serious.  'Sheed, Hamilton, Billups and Prince have been Pistons for quite a while.  Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili have always been Spurs (at least in the NBA).  This contrasts to Garnett, Allen, and Gasol.  Kudos go to the front offices of the Lakers and Celtics, but they got great deals on players who were already all-stars.  Also, I'll grant that the Spurs were lucky to get Duncan, but Parker and Ginobili weren't taken extremely high in the draft, so it's partially a good scouting/development system by the Spurs organization that made the Spurs what they have been for the past few years.

I wouldn't mind a Celtics/Spurs finals, though.  TD/KG matchups rarely fail to entertain.

FYI to all the elite pointy heads here, basketball is the game played by men in shorts

Gregstolhand: I happen to like basketball and I enjoy playing it. You belong over at Pat Buchanan's rag.

It was a joke, lighten up Francis

I haven't cared about the NBA since Dominique Wilkins was still with the Hawks.  That said, if the home team is going to win every game what is the point of playing the series at all?  Just do the math and hand the trophy to whoever has the best regular season record and have done with all this hot air.

The Spurs are a great franchise, and can be a lot of fun to watch.  But Chris Paul has- along with Deron Williams and the almost comically great Lebron- made me enjoy the NBA again.   I am actually watching the play-offs and getting excited.  I would love to be able to watch CP go against Kobe and the Lakers.   I like Parker as well, and his game 4 duel with Paul was the best part of the play-offs until Lebron and Pierce yesterday, but as a casual fan, I have to go with the Hornets.  

However, bigfish, the TD/KG match-up is something I hadn't really thought about.  THat would make for a good series.

Sports!  

greg, you can joke about my politics, my religion, and even my family.  But never NEVER joke about my sports!

boneill, "almost comically great Lebron" is one of the more apt descriptions I've heard.  He's so good, even when the Spurs play against him, he does something that should be impossible over and over again, and all I can do is just laugh and think "Well, if my team can 'limit' him to 'only' 25 points and 10 rebounds, it'll be good defense."  And yes, Paul and Williams are pretty dern good too.

Even if we agree that Garnett and Allen traded into a good spot, Paul Pierce has been a Celtic his whole career, and unlike some stars hasn't demanded trades or pouted because the team wasn't good, he stuck it out and this season could be a great reward, ensuring when he's done he'll end up in the rafters with Bird, Russel, Havlicek, Cousy, Cowens and Co.  As for the Spurs, I can't get rid of them fast enough:  A team full of floppers, Tim "I've never fouled in my life" Duncan, an offense that consists almost entirely of running Parker and Ginobli off screens into the paint to get foul calls or layups and a defense that's devolved from physical to intentionally harsh.  I'd much rather see Paul vs. Kobe in the finals, let Detroit-Boston be the defensive grinder.

Gregstolhand: A joke, I know, but one that seems like it was wrapped around an elbow.