- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NBA realignment
Posted on 1/21/11 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 1/21/11 at 10:32 pm
A few years ago, Golden State won 49 games and didn't make the playoffs. Of course, I found it annoying when Mark Cuban lamented this on behalf of the Warriors; if you can't finish in the top eight of 15, boo hoo.
But, if we're going to have a 16-team playoff structure, it's obviously best to do whatever reasonable/possible to make sure that the 16 best teams are in.
So here goes:
Eliminate the Eastern and Western conferences, and divide the NBA into five divisions of six:
Midwest: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota
Northeast: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington
Pacific: Golden State, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento
Southeast: Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando
Southwest: Dallas, Denver, Houston, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Utah
Play all division opponents four times each (20 games), all teams in two divisions (on a rotating basis) thrice (36 games), and the other two divisions twice (24 games). That's 80 games. To fill it out to 82, you take the divisions you're playing twice, and play the two teams who placed the same as you in their division last year a third time (just like the NFL SOS way) (You'd get three Lakers/Heat games next year instead of just two, for example).
Take the five division winners, and seed them 1-5. Take 11 wild cards, and get it on as usual. The playoffs are spread out enough that travel won't become tiresome, especially if they were to go to a 2-3-2 format for all series.
But what do we do with the All-Star game? This is the best part. Take the coaches of the top two teams in the NBA, and make them the All-Star coaches. Pick the 24 All-Stars, and have the coaches literally pick their teams right before the tip-off. As the coaches take turns picking teams, each player, when picked, puts on the appropriate jersey (two are made for each player--a home jersey and an away jersey). The All-Star Game is played almost like a pick-up game, and this would add a little something unpredictable to the game; players who are on the same team could be playing against each other in the All-Star game.
Thoughts?
But, if we're going to have a 16-team playoff structure, it's obviously best to do whatever reasonable/possible to make sure that the 16 best teams are in.
So here goes:
Eliminate the Eastern and Western conferences, and divide the NBA into five divisions of six:
Midwest: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota
Northeast: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington
Pacific: Golden State, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento
Southeast: Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando
Southwest: Dallas, Denver, Houston, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Utah
Play all division opponents four times each (20 games), all teams in two divisions (on a rotating basis) thrice (36 games), and the other two divisions twice (24 games). That's 80 games. To fill it out to 82, you take the divisions you're playing twice, and play the two teams who placed the same as you in their division last year a third time (just like the NFL SOS way) (You'd get three Lakers/Heat games next year instead of just two, for example).
Take the five division winners, and seed them 1-5. Take 11 wild cards, and get it on as usual. The playoffs are spread out enough that travel won't become tiresome, especially if they were to go to a 2-3-2 format for all series.
But what do we do with the All-Star game? This is the best part. Take the coaches of the top two teams in the NBA, and make them the All-Star coaches. Pick the 24 All-Stars, and have the coaches literally pick their teams right before the tip-off. As the coaches take turns picking teams, each player, when picked, puts on the appropriate jersey (two are made for each player--a home jersey and an away jersey). The All-Star Game is played almost like a pick-up game, and this would add a little something unpredictable to the game; players who are on the same team could be playing against each other in the All-Star game.
Thoughts?
This post was edited on 1/21/11 at 10:38 pm
6
Posted on 1/21/11 at 10:34 pm to xiv
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/3/23 at 11:01 am
Posted on 1/21/11 at 10:35 pm to xiv
quote:
Midwest: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota
and thats weak
Posted on 1/21/11 at 10:37 pm to xiv
quote:
Eliminate the Eastern and Western conferences, and divide the NBA into five divisions of six:
Midwest: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota
Northeast: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington
Pacific: Golden State, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento
Southeast: Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando
Southwest: Dallas, Denver, Houston, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Utah
Like this
quote:
Take the coaches of the top two teams in the NBA, and make them the All-Star coaches. Pick the 24 All-Stars, and have the coaches literally pick their teams right before the tip-off.
Like this, but let's not make it right before the game. Let the fans vote on each starting line up.
The rest of your idea I'm not really sold on.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 8:31 am to xiv
quote:
But, if we're going to have a 16-team playoff structure, it's obviously best to do whatever reasonable/possible to make sure that the 16 best teams are in.
this from the same guy that argued on behalf of Seattle getting in and having home field a few weeks ago. WOW.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 9:28 am to Michael J Cocks
quote:No. This isn't from a guy who argued on behalf of Seattle getting in and having home field a few weeks ago. Even if it was so, it would have nothing to do with this idea (I'll add "inability to understand the effects of dependent clauses" to the long list of disabilities you have).
this from the same guy that argued on behalf of Seattle getting in and having home field a few weeks ago. WOW.
I have asked you repeatedly to stop responding to my posts. You're the worst I've ever seen on this board. Once again, please just leave me alone.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 9:42 am to xiv
quote:
No. This isn't from a guy who argued on behalf of Seattle getting in and having home field a few weeks ago. Even if it was so, it would have nothing to do with this idea (I'll add "inability to understand the effects of dependent clauses" to the long list of disabilities you have).
I'm pretty sure you were saying they deserved to be in and all this other bullshite..now you are saying the NBA needs to be realigned so the BEST teams get in.
quote:
I have asked you repeatedly to stop responding to my posts. You're the worst I've ever seen on this board. Once again, please just leave me alone.
I'm really sorry brah, when I see retarded shite getting spewed I have to call it out. Unfortunately it's you that's always saying retarded shite.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 10:25 am to Michael J Cocks
The formula to get the best 16 teams into the postseason isnt MORE divisions...its LESS divisions. Go back to just Eastern and Western conferences and that eliminates any fluke teams making the postseason. In an East/West format the overall records are the actual standings unlike now where we have wildcards hosting teams with better overall records then division winners. Why is that soooooooo hard to understand?
This post was edited on 1/22/11 at 10:34 am
Posted on 1/22/11 at 10:30 am to Buckeye Backer
quote:Well, the five divisions I propose are fewer than the six divisions we currently have.
The formula to get the best 16 teams into the postseason isnt MORE divisions...its LESS divisions.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 10:33 am to xiv
I know, i was just pointing out that the way to go is less not more....not saying you proposed more divisions. 
Posted on 1/22/11 at 10:41 am to Buckeye Backer
Also, the NBA doesn't really let "fluke" teams get in a la 11-5 Patriots sent home while 8-8 Chargers go to the playoffs and host a home game. It is virtually impossible for a team to win its division without having one of the top eight records in its conference.
It is clear to me--and I see no viable solution--that the biggest problem in the NBA is that there are too many playoff slots, meaning that the elite teams (namely the Lakers, who have admitted this) can coast through the regular season and then flip the switch in the playoffs. When you have so many playoff spots that you can have teams half-arse the entire regular season, that is a huge problem. Why does Joe Blow want to pay money for a ticket to a game when he knows that one of the teams isn't trying its best to win? It makes no sense.
At least in my idea above, you get more of those marquee matchups. Three Lakers/Heat games instead of two; three Celtics/Spurs games instead of two; three Timberwolves/Nets games instead of two. See? Marquee matchups.
The perfect solution imho--and it won't happen because the NBA risks losing money (maybe)--is to have four playoff spots in each conference. One for each division, and one wild card. That prevents the elite teams from coasting (at least until the final five games or so if they've built a huge lead). If you make it harder to make the playoffs, your money-making teams play harder. Sure, the Blazers get mathematically eliminated a bit more quickly, but how many Blazers games have you watched in the past seven years?
It is clear to me--and I see no viable solution--that the biggest problem in the NBA is that there are too many playoff slots, meaning that the elite teams (namely the Lakers, who have admitted this) can coast through the regular season and then flip the switch in the playoffs. When you have so many playoff spots that you can have teams half-arse the entire regular season, that is a huge problem. Why does Joe Blow want to pay money for a ticket to a game when he knows that one of the teams isn't trying its best to win? It makes no sense.
At least in my idea above, you get more of those marquee matchups. Three Lakers/Heat games instead of two; three Celtics/Spurs games instead of two; three Timberwolves/Nets games instead of two. See? Marquee matchups.
The perfect solution imho--and it won't happen because the NBA risks losing money (maybe)--is to have four playoff spots in each conference. One for each division, and one wild card. That prevents the elite teams from coasting (at least until the final five games or so if they've built a huge lead). If you make it harder to make the playoffs, your money-making teams play harder. Sure, the Blazers get mathematically eliminated a bit more quickly, but how many Blazers games have you watched in the past seven years?
This post was edited on 1/22/11 at 10:42 am
Posted on 1/22/11 at 1:43 pm to xiv
The Nets are still on Market Street in Newark. Premature to say brooklyn.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:23 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:All my realignment ideas are concocted two years in advance.
The Nets are still on Market Street in Newark. Premature to say brooklyn.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:34 pm to xiv
quote:
xiv
Where do you find the time to write up these great threads that you know will likely never happen in reality?
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:36 pm to xiv
quote:
2-3-2 format for all series.
except the 2-2-1-1-1 format is the greatest 7 game series format
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:39 pm to WDChizik
quote:I take this as both a good-natured compliment as well as a sick burn.
Where do you find the time to write up these great threads that you know will likely never happen in reality?
+ 
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News