Friday, June 15, 2007
NBA divisions (no ultimate content)
A lot of talk from various sports columnists about how to fix the NBA. When the lottery happened a lot of people wrote about how to improve it (this was my favorite idea although it's too kooky to ever get implemented). Now the in-vogue idea is to re-seed the playoffs 1-16. That way the west/east imbalance (which, amazingly, looks like it is going to get worse before it gets better) is not an issue.
I actually like this idea, however, if you're going to do away with the conferences for seeding, why not trash them altogether? Let's look at it:
current NBA: 6 divisions of 5, 4 games against each team in your division, 3-4 against other teams in your conference (randomly determined), 2 games against the out of conference teams. Division winners are guaranteed to be a top 4 seed in their half of the playoffs.
my proposal: 5 divisions of 6, 6 games against each team in your division, 2 against every other team, except an extra game against the 4 teams that finished the same place last year in their division (so, if you win your division, you play 3 games against the other four division winners next year). 5 division winners are guaranteed a top 8 seed.
Both are 82 games. 6 game sets against your division rivals brings rivalries back to the NBA. Realigning to 5 divisions allows for more geographically reasonable divisions:
Pacific: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State, LA, LA
Southwest: Utah, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio
Midwest: Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland
Atlantic: Toronto, Boston, New York, New Jersey, Philly, Washington
Southeast: Memphis, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, New Orleans
Seriously, look at the current map and tell me that setup doesn't make more sense. Minnesota plays Portland and Utah twice as often as they play Chicago and Milwaukee? Dumb.
The only issue there is that the new SW div is insanely stacked (the top six seeds in the western conference playoffs!), but with 1-16 seeding, this can still work out.
I actually like this idea, however, if you're going to do away with the conferences for seeding, why not trash them altogether? Let's look at it:
current NBA: 6 divisions of 5, 4 games against each team in your division, 3-4 against other teams in your conference (randomly determined), 2 games against the out of conference teams. Division winners are guaranteed to be a top 4 seed in their half of the playoffs.
my proposal: 5 divisions of 6, 6 games against each team in your division, 2 against every other team, except an extra game against the 4 teams that finished the same place last year in their division (so, if you win your division, you play 3 games against the other four division winners next year). 5 division winners are guaranteed a top 8 seed.
Both are 82 games. 6 game sets against your division rivals brings rivalries back to the NBA. Realigning to 5 divisions allows for more geographically reasonable divisions:
Pacific: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State, LA, LA
Southwest: Utah, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio
Midwest: Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland
Atlantic: Toronto, Boston, New York, New Jersey, Philly, Washington
Southeast: Memphis, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, New Orleans
Seriously, look at the current map and tell me that setup doesn't make more sense. Minnesota plays Portland and Utah twice as often as they play Chicago and Milwaukee? Dumb.
The only issue there is that the new SW div is insanely stacked (the top six seeds in the western conference playoffs!), but with 1-16 seeding, this can still work out.
# posted by Tarr : 6/15/2007 07:18:00 AM
