The current format for NBA playoff series is 2-2-1-1-1, with the first two games and the final game of a series being played at home by the team with the advantage.  No doubt, this format is preferred for at least these two following reasons.  

First, this format allows a severe underdog an opportunity to play at least two games at home, where theoretically it  will have an opportunity use its home court advantage to steal no less than one game and extend the series.  No doubt that is mostly a strategic argument, but there is a strong element of economic motivation there: simply, more games, equals more advertising, equals more revenue all around.  

The second argument, related to the first, involves an element of fairness for the visiting franchise as a severe underdog.  If a team is facing a sweep, there is a possibility that the franchise would only have the opportunity to play one game at home; they would only sell tickets for one game, and their fans, in many cases, would only have the opportunity to watch one game live.  Where this reason involves only the economic loss of a franchise, and not the NBA, I still see it a largely economic stance.   

The following  is an argument, as the title suggests, for a change to a 3-3-1 Playoff system in the NBA.  I will concede here that I have no experience with the financial matters involved, and no league administration experience to base this on, but I am going to make the argument none-the-less; please feel free to pound me into oblivion with your more-informed counter arguments.

An aside.

To begin, there is a side argument that I will address, and then abandon quickly: a 2-3-2 playoff series would possibly address some of the arguments about to be brought up, while simultaneously addressing both of the arguments brought up above.  Again, I am not going to spend much time here.  I don't like a 2-3-2 system for one reason, and one reason alone:  A non-home-court-advantage team should never be given this big an opportunity to win three games at home, and then return to the advantage team's home with two chances at one game elimination.  That there is a mouthful, but it is what it is.  Feel free to discuss this more below, but that is all I am going to say about it here.

The argument for a 3-3-1

While my argument is not in any way scientific, I am going to use quasi scientific jargon in my argument for a 3-3-1, because it think it makes me sound smarter and adds credibility to my case.  I will arrange my argument by the following three factors: The vacuum effect, adjusting for noise, and the law of averages. 

First, the vacuum effect.  

Hypthetically, if two teams play four games in a vacuum, the better team should win those four games, and thus win the series.  To offer the team with the better record (or the tie breaker, or the tie-breaker tie breaker) no home court advantage for those four games is a short sale.  Giving the advantage team three games at home, would be a big swing in home court advantage at the front end of a series.  

Some will like this, and some will think it is too big.  This may be the love it or hate it element of the entire argument for many people.  I will say right now, that I love it.  If an advantage is going to be had, it should be had by the deserving team, and it should be had in abundance.  

Next, adjusting for noise.  

The above hypothetical made an assumption based on playing a series in a vacuum.   This argument is based on the reality that no sports are played in a vacuum, and there will be unpredictable elements and x-factors in every single series.  

The switch to a 3-3-1 format would allow a team (completely neutral and hypothetical here, no reference to any specific team... I promise) to go out on opening night, drop a stunner game 1, and not necessarily lose home court advantage.  Two teams which are very evenly matched may be relying on home court advantage more than any other factor in a series.  In a 3-3-1 system, home court advantage would neither be won or lost by the more deserving team from a fluke performance.  In order to steal home court a team would have to win not one, but two games on the road, making a shift in advantage significantly more than just one bad night by a home team, or one exceptionally good night by a visiting team.  It is this last point that brings me to the final part of my argument

Finally, the law of averages.

I would argue that in any three games straight where teams are separated by little other than home court advantage, the home team is likely to win 2 of three.  This theory is what my argument is hinged on, and I am not going to base it on any statistical analysis or actual calculation of averages (although I would love it someone had the gumption; any baseball fans out there?), rather it is just based on my own personal common sense.  Home court advantage is going to be  a major factor in many series, so to lose it so easily before either team has an opportunity to develop a solid game plan makes no sense to me.  

Game one is the first time either team will have an opportunity to view one-another's playoff lineups and rotations.  The x-factors based on that alone are too numerous too count.  This combined with the fact that there will nearly always be at least one significant player on either bench that has little to no playoff basketball experience make this first game so uncertain that the idea that there is any sort of advantage to be had by playing the first game at home  is seriously dubious (like I said, this is totally hypothetical).  Giving each team the opportunity to play three games straight at home would alleviate many of the possible x-factors that are involved in the shift of advantage.  

Further, this theory, if accepted, eliminates the economic issues raised by the status quo side.  The likelihood of a team losing three straight games in an opposing team's home court is low enough that only the most serious under-dogs are going to be disadvantaged by this rule.  If a team can't win 1 of 3 at an opposing team's home, do they really deserve two games at their own?  An argument could be made that if both teams are winning 1 of three on the road, then just as many, if not more, series are going to go to a game seven blockbuster.  The possible momentum swings would arguably be even more exciting.

To close, that is my piece, there is a ton of stuff that I didn't mention (less travelling expenses, games closer together), because I simply don't know enough about how those things would really play-out: please discuss below if you have any thoughts on any of that stuff.

Everett