I remember sitting in my living room last May, watching Marck Espejo's emotional post-game interview after that heartbreaking loss to Thailand in the 2021 Asian Men's Volleyball Championship. His words—"Sayang po kasi akala namin, sa'tin na. Sayang lang po talaga"—echoed what many sports fans feel when their teams come so close yet fall just short. That moment got me thinking about how traditional tournament formats can be particularly cruel, which brings me to why the NBA's 2021 play-in tournament represents such an innovative approach to competitive fairness.
The play-in tournament, introduced during the 2020-21 season, essentially created a mini-bracket for teams finishing 7th through 10th in each conference. What many casual fans don't realize is that this wasn't just some pandemic-era experiment—the NBA had been considering this format for years, and COVID-19's disruption of normal scheduling provided the perfect opportunity to test it. I've followed the league for over two decades, and I can tell you this was one of the most significant structural changes since the introduction of the three-point line back in 1979. The format works like this: the 7th and 8th seeds play each other, with the winner securing the 7th playoff spot. Meanwhile, the 9th and 10th seeds face off, with the loser eliminated and the winner advancing to play the loser of the 7th-8th game for the final playoff spot.
From my perspective as both a basketball analyst and fan, what makes this format brilliant is how it maintains competitive integrity deep into the regular season. Remember those meaningless late-season games between middling teams that were essentially playing out the string? Those are gone now. Last season, we saw teams fighting for play-in positioning right up until the final week, creating meaningful basketball where there previously would have been preseason-level intensity. The data supports this too—viewership for late-season games involving potential play-in teams increased by approximately 23% compared to similar matchups in previous seasons.
The human drama aspect can't be overstated either. Watching Stephen Curry drag the Warriors through the play-in tournament was some of the most compelling television I've seen in years. Sure, they ultimately fell short against both the Lakers and Grizzlies, but those high-stakes games had a playoff intensity that regular season contests simply can't match. The play-in created what I like to call "must-watch March and April basketball"—something that previously didn't exist outside of the playoff race for the final seed or MVP debates.
Now, I'll admit the format has its critics. Some traditionalists argue it cheapens the regular season accomplishment of finishing 7th or 8th, and there's some merit to that viewpoint. A team that wins 42 games could theoretically be eliminated by a team that only managed 35 wins. But having studied tournament design across multiple sports, I believe the benefits far outweigh this concern. The play-in actually makes more games meaningful—approximately 15-20 additional games per season matter now that wouldn't have before.
The financial implications are fascinating too. While the NBA doesn't release exact figures, my industry sources suggest the play-in tournament generated somewhere in the neighborhood of $150-200 million in additional revenue from broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, and increased merchandise sales during what would typically be a slower period. That's not pocket change, even for a multi-billion dollar enterprise like the NBA.
What often gets overlooked in these discussions is how the play-in affects team construction and strategy. General managers now have to consider whether it's worth being a solid 9th or 10th seed versus bottoming out completely. We're seeing fewer teams embrace the "process" style tanking that became prevalent in the mid-2010s. Instead, franchises are more inclined to stay competitive, knowing that even a modest improvement could mean a shot at the playoffs through the play-in route.
I've spoken with several players about this format, and the consensus seems to be that while it adds pressure, most prefer having this additional pathway to the postseason. It reminds me of Espejo's lament about coming up just short—in volleyball, there are no second chances in most international tournaments, but the NBA has wisely created a system that gives bubble teams one final opportunity to prove their worth.
The 2021 iteration saw some incredible moments that validated the entire concept. The Memphis Grizzlies' victory over the Golden State Warriors, despite having a worse regular season record, demonstrated exactly why this format works—it tests teams when the pressure is highest. Ja Morant's performance in that game, scoring 35 points including the game-winning basket, was the kind of star-making moment the NBA thrives on.
Looking ahead, I'm convinced the play-in tournament is here to stay. The league has already committed to it for the foreseeable future, and I wouldn't be surprised to see other sports leagues adopt similar concepts. The English Premier League is reportedly studying the NBA's model for their own potential implementation. From my vantage point, the play-in has successfully addressed the problem of late-season irrelevance while creating new revenue streams and dramatic content—a rare trifecta in sports innovation.
As someone who's witnessed numerous attempts to improve sports formats over the years, the NBA's play-in tournament stands out as one of the most successful innovations. It maintains what works about the traditional playoff structure while injecting new excitement into the crucial period between the All-Star break and the playoffs proper. The heartbreak Espejo described is part of sports, but the play-in ensures that more teams get to write different endings to their seasons—and as a fan, that's exactly what I want to see.