What if the NBA realigned and....

[PhilSimms11]

went from 6 divisions to 5? That would also eliminate conference affiliation. I'd be all for it. I came up with 5 divisions of 6. Play your division foes 6 times each (30 games) and the other 24 teams twice each (48 games). That's a total of 78 games, 4 fewer than they normally play, but it would work. Many think they play too many games any way. I was listening to 'The Herd' a little bit and Colin said if LeBron goes to the Lakers ALL of the power would be in the West basically leaving the East in the dust. The TV people spending X millions of dollars wouldn't tolerate taking a bath for low ratings because of the lack of star power in the East and so on. That, according to Colin, would force the hand of the powers that be to alter the playoff structure and go to a seeding format of 1-16....something he says is long overdue anyway. I'd like to see it, albeit probably far fetched. 5 division winners and 11 best records after that. Hell, if you wanted to cut it down to 12 playoff teams I wouldn't argue.

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

 

[bksballer89]

Divisions in the NBA is pointless so adding another division, I would not be a fan of. Playing teams 6X in a year is ridiculous.

 

[WiggyRuss]

its hard to get teams to break with tradition.

any kind of restructing would require 2/3rds of owners

getting 2/3rd of the owners---- who are so different, and often have conflicting interests- is near impossible

its why i doubt lottery reform is accomplished either.

it just goes in cycles- east/west etc.

 

[MHSL82]

If you had everyone play their division five times, there would always be a tiebreaker but there would probably be few situations that it really mattered. In most situations, you would still make the playoffs as one of the other 11 teams and if not, there would not likely be a tie between the top two anyway. It would then be hard to get to a number of close to 82 that isn't an odd number. But then again, if you played 77 games, no one would have a tied season. They would have a winning or losing one every time.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Divisions in the NBA is pointless so adding another division, I would not be a fan of. Playing teams 6X in a year is ridiculous.

Who's adding a division? I went from 6 to 5 with my restructure. Teams already play division opponents 4X each. Why would 6 be ridiculous?

 

[Mebert]

went from 6 divisions to 5? That would also eliminate conference affiliation. I'd be all for it. I came up with 5 divisions of 6. Play your division foes 6 times each (30 games) and the other 24 teams twice each (48 games). That's a total of 78 games, 4 fewer than they normally play, but it would work. Many think they play too many games any way. I was listening to 'The Herd' a little bit and Colin said if LeBron goes to the Lakers ALL of the power would be in the West basically leaving the East in the dust. The TV people spending X millions of dollars wouldn't tolerate taking a bath for low ratings because of the lack of star power in the East and so on. That, according to Colin, would force the hand of the powers that be to alter the playoff structure and go to a seeding format of 1-16....something he says is long overdue anyway. I'd like to see it, albeit probably far fetched. 5 division winners and 11 best records after that. Hell, if you wanted to cut it down to 12 playoff teams I wouldn't argue.

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

I would be all for a change that makes it so we can stop pretending that Minny should be in the west.

 

[CitySushi]

Who's adding a division? I went from 6 to 5 with my restructure. Teams already play division opponents 4X each. Why would 6 be ridiculous?

Playing a team 6 times in a year is a huge benefit to a team in a weak division and further penalizes teams in tougher divisions. Look at the divisions you set up.

A team like Portland who's fighting for a playoff spot would have 18 games against clearly inferior opponents in the Suns, Kings and Lakers. Then you take a look at Denver who would also be fighting for a playoff spot. They have to play OKC, SA, HOU and Utah a total of 24 times.

6 games is ridiculous in that the amount of times you may have to play tougher teams is a huge disadvantage. Then if you reduce the number of games overall and also reduce the playoff spots, you'll have a ton of really good teams missing the playoffs because inferior teams were able to capitalize on a weak division.

 

[tducey]

I think we only see NBA realigment if expansion happens (Which seems doubtful right now). I think if that happens you go to 32 teams with 8 4 team divisions.

 

[tlance]

went from 6 divisions to 5? That would also eliminate conference affiliation. I'd be all for it. I came up with 5 divisions of 6. Play your division foes 6 times each (30 games) and the other 24 teams twice each (48 games). That's a total of 78 games, 4 fewer than they normally play, but it would work. Many think they play too many games any way. I was listening to 'The Herd' a little bit and Colin said if LeBron goes to the Lakers ALL of the power would be in the West basically leaving the East in the dust. The TV people spending X millions of dollars wouldn't tolerate taking a bath for low ratings because of the lack of star power in the East and so on. That, according to Colin, would force the hand of the powers that be to alter the playoff structure and go to a seeding format of 1-16....something he says is long overdue anyway. I'd like to see it, albeit probably far fetched. 5 division winners and 11 best records after that. Hell, if you wanted to cut it down to 12 playoff teams I wouldn't argue.

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

Divisions and schedule don't have to change. Just seed 1-16 and do away with conferences.

 

[logic]

Divisions and schedule don't have to change. Just seed 1-16 and do away with conferences.

This is only fair if you also balance the schedule so that east and west play each other more, which requires more travel.

 

[trojanfan12]

18 games against clearly inferior opponents in the Suns, Kings and Lakers.

You watch your dirty whore mouf. Lakers going to the playoffs. Lavar's gonna speak it into existence.

 

[CitySushi]

You watch your dirty whore mouf. Lakers going to the playoffs. Lavar's gonna speak it into existence.

Is it too late to join team @WiggyRuss ?

 

[tlance]

This is only fair if you also balance the schedule so that east and west play each other more, which requires more travel.

Very true.

I think teams should play some extra regional games. I know the schedule will never be completely balanced, and that is okay. The NFL isn't close to balanced schedule and they seem to do just fine.

So, I guess what I am saying is that seeding 1-16 with an unbalanced schedule is still more fair than the conference with all the talent beating up on each other while some average team gets to go through the East.

 

[logic]

Very true.

I think teams should play some extra regional games. I know the schedule will never be completely balanced, and that is okay. The NFL isn't close to balanced schedule and they seem to do just fine.

So, I guess what I am saying is that seeding 1-16 with an unbalanced schedule is still more fair than the conference with all the talent beating up on each other while some average team gets to go through the East.

My philosophy on realignment is that it really doesn't matter. The bottom teams in both conferences are about 0.500 and have an absolute 0 chance of winning. Only the top 3 teams in each conference have any statistical chance of taking home the trophy. Realignment may move one or two teams out of the top 6, but it is not going to drastically change the outcome. The only change currently would be you would lose all your east coast viewers when the finals is both west coast teams and the games don't start until 9-10pm, which will cost ad revenue which is the base of what gets everyone paid.

 

[tlance]

My philosophy on realignment is that it really doesn't matter. The bottom teams in both conferences are about 0.500 and have an absolute 0 chance of winning. Only the top 3 teams in each conference have any statistical chance of taking home the trophy. Realignment may move one or two teams out of the top 6, but it is not going to drastically change the outcome. The only change currently would be you would lose all your east coast viewers when the finals is both west coast teams and the games don't start until 9-10pm, which will cost ad revenue which is the base of what gets everyone paid.

It kind of does matter now though. Literally 5 of the 6 best teams in the NBA are in the same conference. If LeBron goes West, it could be the top 6. That is crazy. Not permanent, but still crazy.

 

[logic]

It kind of does matter now though. Literally 5 of the 6 best teams in the NBA are in the same conference. If LeBron goes West, it could be the top 6. That is crazy. Not permanent, but still crazy.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

 

[tlance]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

Top 4 (in no particular order)

Warriors
Spurs
Rockets
Cavs

Next group:

Thunder
Wolves
Celtics
Nuggets?

Maybe the Celts are ten best of this group, but maybe not. There certainly isn't anybody else in the East worthy of being placed in that tier right now.

 

[logic]

Top 4 (in no particular order)

Warriors
Spurs
Rockets
Cavs

Next group:

Thunder
Wolves
Celtics
Nuggets?

Maybe the Celts are ten best of this group, but maybe not. There certainly isn't anybody else in the East worthy of being placed in that tier right now.

I think the Wiz and Celts will be better than you think. I think the Rockets will struggle more than expected. The Wolves have talent, but still need to put it together.

 

[tlance]

I think the Wiz and Celts will be better than you think. I think the Rockets will struggle more than expected. The Wolves have talent, but still need to put it together.

So do the Celtics.

The Wiz and Celts may very well end up with better records, but they will also play a much easier schedule.

But, I do appreciate your optimism for the Wizards!

 

[PhilSimms11]

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

Try this...

-5 divisions of 6 = 30 teams
-Play each division foe 4 times = 20 games (5 teams x 4)
-Play another division 4 times = 24 games (6 teams x 4)
-Play the other 3 divisions twice = 36 games (18 teams x 2)
-80 total games

The division you play 4 times each could be done on a rotating basis...similar to what the NFL does. It'd be nice to have the ultimate balanced schedule by playing everyone the same number of times, but that wouldn't be possible without making the schedule too short or too long. If you played everybody twice that'd be 58 games...everyone 4 times would equal 116 games. It has to be an even number of games. Playing a team 3 times would also be a negative.