---

Editor's note: The following is the view of the writer, and not necessarily that of Inside Hoops. I personally enjoy the extended first round.

As the first round of the 2004 NBA playoffs come to a close, only one series has the potential of actually going the full seven games: Miami vs. New Orleans. Every other series has ended in four or five games, showing the vast disparity between the top seeds in each conference with the bottom-tier teams.

Did the NBA make a mistake last year in changing the first round from a best-of-5 to a best-of-7? Quite possibly.

A best-of-7 first round is bad for the league. The first round now takes over two weeks to complete, so there is no true fluidity to the series because of so much time off between games.

Also, with a best-of-7 first round series, the better team in each series usually wins. So the chances of any surprise upsets are less likely in a longer series, which is what draws fans into sports. This is what makes the NCAA tournament so great; it's the thrill of rooting for an underdog to pull off a shocker against a heavily favored team. Less games make each game more important, and the chances of an upset or two increases.

Finally, the longer first round series diminishes the meaning of each game, which helps a higher seed. In a best-of-5, each game is extremely vital, because it's a short series. If the road team wins one of the first two games, the pressure falls squarely onto the higher-seeded team because they could be staring at elimination with another loss. Now, in the first round, with a longer series, the favored teams can afford to throw away a game because they know that one game doesn't mean as much in a seven game series.