NBA Finals not living up to standard

Another NBA Finals is history, and here are my thoughts:

1. The Finals, as an event, has an identity problem. The Finals are too much about the individual. It’s always, can Kobe win without Shaq. Or can Kevin Garnett get the ring. It’s never focused on the team or franchise.

The Super Bowl isn’t that way. The World Series isn’t that way. But the NBA Finals are. Not since Detroit in 2003 has the NBA championship been about a team winning the crown, though you could argue San Antonio isn’t mired in the individual morass that plagues the sport.

I love the NBA playoffs and have written about that extensively. But the Finals are a different story.

2. Here’s an example of the Finals’ slump. In the last 21 years, we’ve had exactly two NBA Finals that went seven games. Two out of 21. And neither were exactly memorable: 2005, San Antonio over Detroit; and 1994, Houston over the Knickerbockers. Those Game 7′s weren’t duds, but neither were they classics. The Spurs beat the Pistons 81-74, and the Rockets beat New York 90-84. The NBA could use a great Finals.

3. There seemed to be minimal talk this year about an unfair format, which is good. There is nothing wrong with the 2-3-2 format. Heck, I’d use it for all the series. The idea that it’s too difficult for a team to win three straight at home is silly, on two fronts.

For one thing, the team that gets three straight at home is not the superior team, based on the regular season. So there’s no reason to think that team is routinely capable of winning three straight.

But more importantly, the main reason teams don’t win three straight is that teams rarely win TWO straight. In the 25 Finals played since the 2-3-2 format was adopted, only once has the team without homecourt advantage won the middle three games — the 2006 Miami Heat.