72-game NBA schedule and other ideas.....

[PhilSimms11]

--Realign to 5 divisions of 6 teams.
--No conferences.
--Play division opponents 4 times each (20 games).
--Play the other four divisions twice each (48 games).
--Games 69-72 can be a 4-game home-and-home positioning "round" for the playoffs (1st v 2nd, 3rd v 4th, 5th v 6th.....29th v 30th, etc.).
--Playoff teams would be seeded 1-16. If you want fewer than 16 playoff teams I'm on board with that. How about 12? 14?
--2-2-3 playoff format (5 home games for the higher seed and 2 for the lower in a best-of-7). Makes getting homecourt much more important. Perhaps there'd be less "load management"...?

Pacific--GS, LAC, LAL, PHX, POR, SAC
Midwest--DAL, DEN, HOU, OKC, SA, UTA
Central--CHI, CLE, DET, IND, MIL, MIN
Southeast--ATL, CHA, MEM, MIA, NO, ORL
Atlantic--BKN, BOS, NY, PHI, TOR, WAS

 

[msgkings322]

--Realign to 5 divisions of 6 teams.
--No conferences.
--Play division opponents 4 times each (20 games).
--Play the other four divisions twice each (48 games).
--Games 69-72 can be a 4-game home-and-home positioning "round" for the playoffs (1st v 2nd, 3rd v 4th, 5th v 6th.....29th v 30th, etc.).
--Playoff teams would be seeded 1-16. If you want fewer than 16 playoff teams I'm on board with that. How about 12? 14?
--2-2-3 playoff format (5 home games for the higher seed and 2 for the lower in a best-of-7). Makes getting homecourt much more important. Perhaps there'd be less "load management"...?

Pacific--GS, LAC, LAL, PHX, POR, SAC
Midwest--DAL, DEN, HOU, OKC, SA, UTA
Central--CHI, CLE, DET, IND, MIL, MIN
Southeast--ATL, CHA, MEM, MIA, NO, ORL
Atlantic--BKN, BOS, NY, PHI, TOR, WAS

Lotta good ideas here (not all of it), but like every other dramatic realignment suggestion, it will never happen. EVERYONE wants less regular season games, except the people who actually run the league, because money.

 

[tlance]

--Realign to 5 divisions of 6 teams.
--No conferences.
--Play division opponents 4 times each (20 games).
--Play the other four divisions twice each (48 games).
--Games 69-72 can be a 4-game home-and-home positioning "round" for the playoffs (1st v 2nd, 3rd v 4th, 5th v 6th.....29th v 30th, etc.).
--Playoff teams would be seeded 1-16. If you want fewer than 16 playoff teams I'm on board with that. How about 12? 14?
--2-2-3 playoff format (5 home games for the higher seed and 2 for the lower in a best-of-7). Makes getting homecourt much more important. Perhaps there'd be less "load management"...?

Pacific--GS, LAC, LAL, PHX, POR, SAC
Midwest--DAL, DEN, HOU, OKC, SA, UTA
Central--CHI, CLE, DET, IND, MIL, MIN
Southeast--ATL, CHA, MEM, MIA, NO, ORL
Atlantic--BKN, BOS, NY, PHI, TOR, WAS

Hard pass.

Especially the playoff part. Best of 7 is essential. No reason to take away playoff games.

 

[DJ]

Lotta good ideas here (not all of it), but like every other dramatic realignment suggestion, it will never happen. EVERYONE wants less regular season games, except the people who actually run the league, because money.

This.

 

[logic]

I don't want fewer regualr season games; they are the only Pistons games

Lotta good ideas here (not all of it), but like every other dramatic realignment suggestion, it will never happen. EVERYONE wants less regular season games, except the people who actually run the league, because money.

 

[dtgold88]

Hard pass.

Especially the playoff part. Best of 7 is essential. No reason to take away playoff games.

Maybe I read wrong, but didn't he say all best of 7 (just different format with higher seeded getting 5 home game)?

Either way, didn't like that.

 

[tlance]

Maybe I read wrong, but didn't he say all best of 7 (just different format with higher seeded getting 5 home game)?

Either way, didn't like that.

Yeah, I read it wrong. You are correct.

Honestly though, 5 home games is an even worse idea.