This format is a shock to the system

The Ten Commandments get a lot of play, but not so much the 11th.

It all could be Moses's fault. He might not have been into sports enough. Or perhaps we can blame Cecil B. DeMille, who provided previous generations with their basic understanding of this whole business with his 1956 epic movie, which he cleverly named "The Ten Commandments."

But there was, in fact, an 11th Commandment, and I bring it up because NBA commissioner David Stern also has chosen to ignore it, at his peril.

The 11th commandment, of course, is "Thou Shalt Preserveth the 2-2-1-1-1 format in every playoff series."

Throughout most of its first four decades, the BAA/NBA put on a championship finals as the Good Lord intended. The team with the home-court advantage got Games 1, 2, 5, and 7 at home. The opponent was home for Games 3, 4, and 6. In other words, commissioners Maurice Podoloff, Walter Kennedy, and Lawrence O'Brien didn't mess with the natural order of things.

Life was fair.

Life was good.

Few complained, even when the league went west.

There were some exceptions. For reasons I cannot tell you, the NBA Finals in 1949 (Minneapolis-Washington), 1953 (Minneapolis-New York), 1954 (Minneapolis-Syracuse), and 1955 (Syracuse-Fort Wayne) were conducted on a 2-3-2 basis. In 1956, Podoloff must have had a spell. The format for the Philadelphia-Fort Wayne finals was 1-1-1-1-1-1-1, although it came to a merciful end when the Warriors won Game 5 to clinch the series. From what I hear, getting to Fort Wayne by train wasn't very easy.

So I'm guessing Mr. Podoloff was paid a visit by some celestial agent whose basic message was "Ahem, Maurice, the Big Guy told you it was supposed to be 2-2-1-1-1, remember?" Order was restored for the 1957 Celtics-St. Louis Hawks series. It went a raucous, feisty, and thoroughly exhilarating seven games, (culminating in a memorable double-overtime Celtics triumph in Game 7), all played in the proper venue in the proper sequence. And that's the way it was for the next 27 years, with the exceptions of 1975 and 1978, when arena availability problems in San Francisco and Seattle, respectively, forced the league into a messy 1-2-2-1-1 situation.

The 2-2-1-1-1 format is the only way to go. You play two games in one place, which is just enough. You move to the other guy's gym, where the fans are almost always more jacked up than the people were in the original site. And then, God willing, it's 2-2 and now Game 5 becomes a mini Game 7.

The team with the home-court advantage should have the home court for Game 5. It may be the most important game. By that time everything has been established. We have seen the adjustments, and the adjustments to the adjustments. The dynamics of Game 5 are different than the dynamics of Games 1 through 4.

You go back to the other guy's place for Game 6, where the fans are even more jacked up than they were in Games 3 and 4, because they're either screaming their lungs out so their team can save the season or screaming their lungs out because their team might actually win it, right here, and save that dreaded trip back for Game 7.

Game 7 speaks for itself.

What makes it all work is the movement, the transition. The bingada-bangada-bingada feel of Games 5, 6, and 7 increases the drama. My place, your place, my place. That's the fun. That's the romance. That's the buzz.

You don't get that in 2-3-2. So why is it 2-3-2?

There is no good reason. Oh, the commissioner will tell you that the 1984 LA-Boston seven-game series was some kind of breaking point. Too much travel. Too much movement.

Stern claimed last night that Red Auerbach played a part in the 2-3-2 implementation, citing the '84 travel.

But really, few were complaining.

Few complained when we had coast-to-coast 2-2-1-1-1s in 1962 (Boston-LA), 1963 (Boston-LA), 1964 (Boston-San Francisco), 1965 (Boston-LA), 1966 (Boston-LA), 1967 (Philadelphia-San Francisco), 1968 (Boston-LA), 1969 (Boston-LA), 1970 (New York-LA), 1972 (New York-LA), 1973 (New York-LA), 1976 (Boston-Phoenix; OK, a near coast-to-coaster), 1977 (Philadelphia-Portland), 1979 (Washington-Seattle), 1980 (Philadelphia-LA), 1982 (Philadelphia-LA), 1983 (Philadelphia-LA) and certainly not in 1984 (Boston-LA).

Yesterday was the 24th anniversary of the Heat Game. Game 5, 1984. Ninety-seven degrees Fahrenheit at the uncooled Boston Garden. Boston 121, LA 103. Larry Bird: 34 points, 17 rebounds and 15-for-20 shooting. It was one of a handful of greatest events ever staged in Boston. And it never would have happened in a 2-3-2. We'd have been in LA for a third straight game. La-de-da.

I never heard one person complain about the format.

But the commissioner changed it to the current 2-3-2 a year later. What have we learned?

We've learned that what 2-3-2 does is increase the chances of a six-game series, which is all ABC (or whomever is the carrier du jour) cares about. They need six games to make money.

In the 26 years before the current 2-3-2 there were three sweeps, six five-game series, nine six-game series, and eight seven-game series.

(For the record, 1975 was a four-game sweep for Golden State, and 1978 was a seven-game triumph for Washington).

In the past 23 years, we have had four sweeps, five five-games series, 11 six-game series, and only three seven-game series.

If I were a network executive, I'd be asking Stern why he has installed a format that dramatically reduces the chances of a seven-game series. If six is good, is seven not even better?

We've learned that being in one place for a week isn't good for anybody. You would think it would be a great thing to have three straight games at home, but the reality is there have been as many road sweeps - two - as home sweeps.

The big casualty is Game 5, the mini Game 7, when it's a 2-2-1-1-1. From 1952 through 1984, there were 14 times a team came home tied at 2-2. The home team won 12, and the only one to win Game 5 at home but then lose Game 7 at home was the 1969 Lakers. With the 2-3-2, Game 5 is just another game. The road team has won 10 of the 19 Game 5s since the permanent institution of 2-3-2.

The travel between Games 5, 6, and 7 imposes minimal hardship on the players and staff, who all benefit from the luxury of charter flights. And anyone who loves the game understands that the rhythm of 2-2-1-1-1 is far superior to that of 2-3-2.

One more question: if 2-3-2 is so great, why isn't it in place for the Conference finals? After all, you could get some pretty good hauls there, too. New Orleans-Portland would be four-plus hours by air. San Antonio-Golden State would be pretty good. In the East, Boston-Miami and Boston-Atlanta are three-plus hours. What's another couple of hours?

Remember: "Thou shalt preserveth the 2-2-1-1-1 in all series." I wouldn't want to be in David Stern's shoes when he is face to face with his maker.