[OT] A realignment proposal

by manzell on Apr 8, 2009 11:51 AM PDT Comment 18 comments

I was goofing around today and came up with this:

Division A: "Mountain League"

Portland
Sacramento
Golden State
Utah
Denver

Division B: "Sun League"

LA Lakers
LA Clippers
Phoenix Suns
San Antonio Spurs
That Other Team

Division C: "Gulf League"

Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
New Orleans Hornets
Orlando Magic
Miami Heat

Division D: "Mason-Dixon League"

Memphis Grizzlies
Indiana Pacers
Atlanta Hawks
Charlotte Bobcats
Washington Wizards

Division E: "Great Lakes League"

Minnesota Timberwolves
Milwaukee Bucks
Chicago Bulls
Detroit Pistons
Cleveland Cavaliers

Division F: "Northeast League"
Toronto Raptors
New Jersey Nets
Philadelphia 76ers
New York Knicks
Boston Celtics

If you had to break this up into East and West conferences, ABC would be west and DEF would be east; you could do North/South (AEF/BCD), or even revolving conferences each year.

You could also do THREE conferences of two divisions each. I imagine the top two teams from each divison would advance to groups of 4 teams and have a "group phase" playoff where each team in a pool plays each other twice; the winners of the group and one wild-card team advance to a 4-team playoff bracket or whatever.

Anyyyyywhoo. Just thought I would share that.

3 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

this idea has one flaw: it uses logic and makes sense, david stern doesn't like that

i like the idea

Truth never was or can be propagated by fire and sword - Albert Gallatin

Read This

by Zaron5551 on Apr 8, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I like your thinking here

Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards

by 22baylor on Apr 8, 2009 12:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What's the reasoning though?

1. I don’t like changing the playoff system so I’m ignored that part.

2. I like your new divisions, they make more sense, but I’m looking for a why? Is it change just because? Does the travel difference make much difference? Better rivalries?

I like the thesis statement, but would like some reasoning behind it. :-)

by Zaig on Apr 8, 2009 12:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

not sure how moving Miami and Orlando to the West helps travel.

I’m in favor of doing something different, and I’ve actually kicked around many ideas myself,but I have yet to find one I feel good about proposing, because either they are A) too revolutionary, or B) too unlikely to happen. Or both of course.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Apr 8, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Move Miami to Seattle

And Orlando to Vegas. Problem solved!

by Zaig on Apr 8, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Mason-Dixon division would be godawful

by KitIsh on Apr 8, 2009 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

at least based on this year

that being said I would rather play Memphis and Minnesota 4 times a year than Miami and Orlando.

UDOKA!

by CLRNCE. on Apr 8, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice effort, though I think this would be easier:

(I’m not going to mess with division names)

WEST
Blazers/L*kers/Warriors/Clippers/Kings (farthest trip PDX-L.A., 812 air miles)
J*zz/Nuggets/Bulls/Wolves/Bucks (SLC-Chicago, 1259 miles)
Suns/Rockets/Mavs/Spurs/“Thunder” (Phoenix-Houston, 1047 miles)
(farthest trip within conference: Portland-Houston, 1839 miles)

EAST
Hornets/Griz/Magic/Heat/Hawks (Memphis-Miami, 941 miles)
Cavs/Pistons/Wizards/Pacers/Raptors (Washington-Indianapolis, 492 miles)
Celtics/Sixers/Knicks/Bobcats/Nets (Boston-Charlotte, 688 miles)
(farthest trip within conference: (Boston-Miami, 1258 miles)

True, this system is not perfect, but because of the out-of-the-way locations of a teams (Portland, Miami, Utah, Denver), really there’s no perfect system. But I think this addresses the travel issues with the least number of changes and fewest impacts on historical rivalries. For example, the Hornets used to be in the East and long ago the Bulls and Bucks were in the West.)

Hit it. Yes he did. Ohhhh yeah.

by Badalona Baddie on Apr 8, 2009 1:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Gulf League is stacked

by Eventine on Apr 8, 2009 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So is the South West Division now

by Norsktroll on Apr 8, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the bigger issue is putting the Florida teams in the West.

The Blazers would have to make the Florida trip twice a year?

Hit it. Yes he did. Ohhhh yeah.

by Badalona Baddie on Apr 8, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think some schedule changing would be in order

either playing them twice in the same trip kinda like a mini series or playing every other team twice and division rivals 4 times

Truth never was or can be propagated by fire and sword - Albert Gallatin

Read This

by Zaron5551 on Apr 8, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

More accurately

the west is stacked, in the ABC conference format.

We lose Minny and Memphis, and pick up Miami and Orlando. Ouch.

by Royster on Apr 8, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Teams in the East will never agree to move into the West

Baseball has the same problem. It means moving too many games into the Pacific time zone, which is the kiss of death for a team in the central time zone. Granted, teams like Minnesota are stuck. But Miami and Orlando would never agree to this.

I say….two fifteen team conferences, end of story. Forget the divisions.

by chnews on Apr 8, 2009 2:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree, divisions are meaningless

Unbalanced schedules are dumb. I get why we play division foes four times per year, but why should we play the Spurs four times this year and the Kings only three times?

I understand why we have an unbalanced schedule (the hellbent desire to stay at 82 games) but why not give every team in the same conference an identical conference schedule? I say make every team play conference foes four times. This leaves 26 games for cross-country teams, 11 of whom you play twice, 4 once.

Make the schedule predictable against your own conference, and if it absolutely has to get weird somewhere, make it in the opposite conference since those are the oddball “interleague” games already.

by Twith on Apr 8, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No sport does this. Period.

Look at the NFL, you play 6 games against 3 teams and 10 games against 28 teams.
Baseball you play 12,000 games against 4 teams and 0 against 10 teams.
Hockey you play your division rivals like 8 times.

The NBA’s is actually more standard than most. You get every East team 2x, every division team 4x, and the other 2 divisions in West is the only variance.

by Zaig on Apr 8, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

But just to clarify, you really need to look at baseball as series, not individual games (12,000 LOL), since they don’t travel between every game. The Mariners actually travel much less than the Blazers, since they play 52 series every year.

I agree with your point that the NBA is easier to understand compared to other sports. The best part about the NBA schedule is that every team plays in every city, every year.

by unblindloyalty on Apr 8, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like it

Doesn’t need to be East/West at all, could easily be done the same way Football and Baseball do AFC/AL vs NFC/NL.. Travel and scheduling is really not a huge issue for people getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the job.

"Brian (Outlaw is Rejector) is now on the fan saying he put this on to see what would happen " - 123_G.O._RipCity

by Outlaw is Rejector on Apr 8, 2009 2:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs