Division Re-alignment (and # of games)

[shamelessblazer]

There are major divisional problems in the NBA. Obviously there are more people on the east coast than west so teams out here have to travel more, that's just going to be a given, but honestly Minnesota and OKC in the NW division? The NBA has talked of re-alignment for next season already, and it's very necessary. But part of the reason the travel schedule is so eccentuated is the grind of games played. Now I understand more games = more money, but I think that many are burnt out on the NBA by the time it's over or are still in football mode when it starts. It kind of feels like the NBA is a lot of people's second sport.

NBA games can offend times seem sloppy, and it's noticeable that players are tired at times. A positive step the league has taken is the limiting of players to 19 as I feel the average rookie is more prepared to contribute than beforehand, but I think another good move would be to shorten the season a little bit and re-align it.

One thing comical about the current setup is that teams being in your own division really doesn't mean anything at this point so there's no extra rivalry whatsoever between "division" rivals. I think more should be on the line personally, and by consolidating the league to 2 conferences, 4 divisions a lot of restructuring could take place.

This may also be one of the only ways to correct the ridiculous imbalance in West/East that's plagued the league for the past eight years.

I think it could breakdown something like this:

Western Conference

Far West: Denver, Golden State, Lakers, Clippers, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, Utah
just the 8 furthest teams west for the most part

Mid-West: Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Milwaukee, Minnesota, San Antonio, Indiana, Oklahoma City
a very vertical conference with a lot in the South and North clumped, but not a bad thing

Southeast: Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, Wash DC, Memphis, NO, Houston
Everyone's together for the most part except DC, but it's not an extremely terrible travel schedule for them

Northeast: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, NJ, NY, Philly, Toronto
self-explanatory

I really think while the Texas triangle is split up and DC is in the South the travel schedule for those teams doesn't end up that bad overall, while Minnesota, Portland, and OKC divisions make a TON more sense.

With the two divisions I think the top 3 from each division and at large two remaining should go to the playoffs. This makes the division games much more intense and if one is truly stronger than still five of the eight teams will go. Teams should play divisional games 4X and all others (including conference) just twice. With this type of schedule there'd be 70 games in a season.

I think the benefits of a 70 game season:
fresher legs, a little more spaced out, higher division rivalries (w/playoff implications), and bad teams don't have to play 82 games in misery. I'd even challenge to say the playoffs should go to 5-5-7-7. This would mean better scouting, players giving their all, less games missed due to injuries, AND
The league could line up the games for better ratings, plus with 70 games (and playoffs) would they really lose out on any TV revenue? The league could still fill all the TV time IMO as it only broadcasts (nationwide) on Wed/Thu/Fri anyways.

I just think the games would be better prepared for and harder played if the players got more rest in between them and the coaches had more time to prepare which would result in more competitive games and higher TV ratings.

 

[BalancedMan]

I doubt the owners would reduce the games. However, I can see re-alignment. It needs to be Portland and the four California teams. Group all the rest of the others (Phoenix, Minn, OKC, Utah, Denver) together.

 

[BlazersBlood]

They would never reduce the number of games. Revenue is too important to the owners.

I don't think they should only have 4 divisions. 6 is ok, but I think they need division rivals to play each other 6-8 times. It would make more sense. THen the other western conference teams they'd only play 2-3 times each. Then the eastern vs. western games would stay the same at one home and one away. By playing the teams within your division more, it would make rivalries more intense.

 

[BalancedMan]

They would never reduce the number of games. Revenue is too important to the owners.

I don't think they should only have 4 divisions. 6 is ok, but I think they need division rivals to play each other 6-8 times. It would make more sense. THen the other western conference teams they'd only play 2-3 times each. Then the eastern vs. western games would stay the same at one home and one away. By playing the teams within your division more, it would make rivalries more intense.

Won't happen for parity's sake. What happens when 4 of the best 8 teams in the Western Conference are in the same division. Or even 5 of the best 8? As it currently stands it allows pretty much all teams a fair shot of getting into the playoffs even if their conference is loaded.

 

[BlazersBlood]

Won't happen for parity's sake. What happens when 4 of the best 8 teams in the Western Conference are in the same division. Or even 5 of the best 8? As it currently stands it allows pretty much all teams a fair shot of getting into the playoffs even if their conference is loaded.

That's true, but the way they have it set up, divisional games don't matter anymore than conference games. Sure the divisional winner gets an automatic bid, but there are basically 5 wild card spots.

24 games=6 games against divisional opponents
30 games=East vs. West games
28 games=Same conference out of division games

There would still be plenty of parity with 5 non-division winners getting into the playoffs.

 

[alex42083]

Yeah, I doubt no one would agree to the 70-game season after the NBA already switched the first round playoff series from five to seven games, which makes upsets a lot less frequent.

But I do like the idea of going back to two divisions per conference. It made a division title more special, and rivalry games were aplenty and more games were meaningful. And it made Laker games that more special when the Pacific Division title was up for grabs in the early 90's.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think a better way is to go back to the 4-division alignment, and expand to 32.

That gives you "natural" and "geographic rivalries the make sense.

For instance...a "West" or "Pacific" of Portland, the 4 Cali teams, Phoenix, Utah and the expansion (either LV or Seattle...outside shot at Vancouver).

A "Midwest" of Denver, OKC, the 3 Texas teams, NOH, Minny and the Expansion KC team

A "Central" of CHI, DET, MIL, CLE, IND, ATL, MEM and TOR.

An "Atlantic" of the 5 Northeast teams, CHA, and the 2 FL teams.

If CHA moves to KC (and 2 west teams join), then you just add ATL to the Atlantic, Utah to the MW, NOH to the Central.

You play 4 games against your division foes (28), 3 against conference foes (24), 2 against other conference (32). Since that leaves 84 games, you either increase the season by two, or set up a 2 rotating game every two years that's home-and-home to get to 82.

And then, it sets up fairly easily for 8 team expansion (4 team China/Far East, 4 team Europe)