Help me flesh out my Realignment/Playoff idea.

funkatron101 · Post #1 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 9:25 pm

I posted some of my ideas in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=993184

Here is the new Realignment. No more East and Western Conference, just 5 Divisions. (Right click and hit "View Image" to see the whole map.)

Vs. the current divisional map.

Top 16 teams advance to the playoffs. No more weak Eastern conference teams getting in.
--------------------
Q. What would be the point of divisions if just the top 16 teams move on?
A.
1. To continue to establish rivalries, and with the realignment, create new rivalries that should always have been there. Vikings and Packers are a huge rivalry, Wolves and Bucks should be.
2. To keep team, league and fan morale up by crowning Division champions.

Q. What happens if one division is much stronger than another? How can you accurately have a top 16 seeding?
A. Perhaps there could be a point system based not only on record, but strength of division based on team success outside of the division?

Q. What happens to the All-Star game?
A. USA Vs World. I think the league has come close to having enough foreign talent to make this a competitive game. Plus it creates intriguing storylines of team-mate vs team-mate.

Foye · Post #2 » by **Foye** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 9:46 pm

Send it to Mr. David Stern. It's way better than the current system.

Post #3 » by **Klomp** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 9:51 pm

I understand your concept and the reasoning beind it, however, it is not realistic.

What can happen is a division realignment. Move Portland to the Pacific, Phoenix to the Southwest, and Memphis to ours (Yes, I know, Memphis is closer to the southeast than the northwest). This is our best case realistic scenario.

funkatron101 · Post #4 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 9:55 pm

Klomp wrote:I understand your concept and the reasoning beind it, however, it is not realistic.

What can happen is a division realignment. Move Portland to the Pacific, Phoenix to the Southwest, and Memphis to ours (Yes, I know, Memphis is closer to the southeast than the northwest). This is our best case realistic scenario.

Why is it not realistic?

Foye · Post #5 » by **Foye** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 9:58 pm

funkatron101 wrote:
Klomp wrote:I understand your concept and the reasoning beind it, however, it is not realistic.

What can happen is a division realignment. Move Portland to the Pacific, Phoenix to the Southwest, and Memphis to ours (Yes, I know, Memphis is closer to the southeast than the northwest). This is our best case realistic scenario.

Why is it not realistic?

Probably because the current system is proven. I can't see them changing it either.

funkatron101 · Post #6 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:03 pm

Foye wrote:
funkatron101 wrote:
Klomp wrote:I understand your concept and the reasoning beind it, however, it is not realistic.

What can happen is a division realignment. Move Portland to the Pacific, Phoenix to the Southwest, and Memphis to ours (Yes, I know, Memphis is closer to the southeast than the northwest). This is our best case realistic scenario.

Why is it not realistic?

Probably because the current system is proven. I can't see them changing it either.

The current system is broken, prevents truly weak teams from improving, increases travel expenses for smaller market teams, and creates lack-luster playoffs.

It's proven that it is not an ideal system.

Biff Cooper · Post #7 » by **Biff Cooper** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:05 pm

Scheduling for your system - assuming 82 game schedule needs to remain
Home and Away games against the 24 teams not in your division = 48 games
3 Home and 3 Away games against the 5 teams in your division = 30 games
Four additional non-divisional games pre-determined based on record the previous year = 4 games

Is this what you had in mind?

Krapinsky · Post #8 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:07 pm

Something needs to be done, but I think the answer is more minor tweaking then this 5 division wackiness.

Stern has a good rebuttal for why the USA/Int'l all star game is a bad idea. Only 20% or something of the NBA are international, so it's unfair to american NBAers.

funkatron101 · Post #9 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:08 pm

Biff Cooper wrote:Scheduling for your system - assuming 82 game schedule needs to remain
Home and Away games against the 24 teams not in your division = 48 games
3 Home and 3 Away games against the 5 teams in your division = 30 games
Four additional non-divisional games pre-determined based on record the previous year = 4 games

Is this what you had in mind?

Yes. Thanks! Can anyone think of any issues with this schedule?

funkatron101 · Post #10 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:11 pm

Krapinsky wrote:Stern has a good rebuttal for why the USA/Int'l all star game is a bad idea. Only 20% or something of the NBA are international, so it's unfair to american NBAers.

That is a good point. Something to consider.

jade_hippo · Post #11 » by **jade_hippo** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:19 pm

re-allignment is a great idea, but redoing the system like that isn't really a good idea. i think changing where the division winner is only going to get a playoff birth and not top 3 seed is a huge step to fixing that. Maybe something as slight as conferences like the NHL had long ago, increase division games to promote rivalries and cut down on travel

Bill Curly Confrence
Cold Division:
Wolves, Bucks, Bulls Nuggets, Jazz
Git'r Done Division:
Hornets, Hawks, Bobcats, Heat, Magic
Yankee Division:
Celtics, Knicks, 6'ers, Nets, Wizards

Oliver Miller Conference
Beach Bum Division:
Blazers, Warriors, Kings, Clips, Lakers
Tortilla Division:
Suns, Thunder, Mavs, Spurs, Rockets
Lebron's Division:
Raps, Pistions, Cavs, Pacers, Griz

funkatron101 · Post #12 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:30 pm

Here is a wacky, outside the box idea.

The top two winningest coaches by mid-season get elected to create there own "Dream-Team," draft style, for the All-star game. This rewards the coaches by being able to select their "ideal" team. Creates interest as to "Who get's the nod, who gets the snubbed" by people who are qualified to determine talent, and eliminates stupid fans picking guys like Iverson and McGrady.

shrink · Post #13 » by **shrink** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:52 pm

I like the whole system. If only we knew someone from the Board of Governors ...

Krapinsky wrote:Stern has a good rebuttal for why the USA/Int'l all star game is a bad idea. Only 20% or something of the NBA are international, so it's unfair to american NBAers.

Yeah, but its a pretty great 20%, especially for bigs Off the top of my head, they'd field a team of:

Duncan, Yao, Bogut, Okur
Pau Gasol, Marc Gasol
Dirk, Deng, Kirilenko, Turkoflu
Ginobili, Diaw
Nash, Parker

I'm sure I'm missing some. Seems like it'd be great for international marketing, and I think US fans would prefer to see this than the hokey, artificial "East vs West" showboat.

Krapinsky · Post #14 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 10:57 pm

shrink wrote:I like the whole system. If only we knew someone from the Board of Governors ...

Krapinsky wrote:Stern has a good rebuttal for why the USA/Int'l all star game is a bad idea. Only 20% or something of the NBA are international, so it's unfair to american NBAers.

Yeah, but its a pretty great 20%, especially for bigs Off the top of my head, they'd field a team of:

Duncan, Yao, Bogut, Okur
Pau Gasol, Marc Gasol
Dirk, Deng, Kirilenko, Turkoflu
Ginobili, Diaw
Nash, Parker

I'm sure I'm missing some. Seems like it'd be great for international marketing, and I think US fans would prefer to see this than the hokey, artificial "East vs West" showboat.

If you have a few injuries then that team is decimated.

Even if healthy, is it fair to run them up against Paul/Lebron/Wade/Bosh/Kobe/Anthony/Howard?

Post #15 » by **revprodeji** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 11:02 pm

We lose so much money off travel a year. The NBA needs to arrange teams near natural rivals. We should hate Chicago, Detroit, Wisc, but in basketball we do not due to the alignment.

About the playoffs. That would be an issue. Simply because 16 and 5 are not friendly numbers. Maybe the top 2 teams from each division and the remaining 6 are based on record? (That way you have division winners, but also a stronger division is rewarded if they are simply better)

But it is too much work and will never happen. The NBA is more concerned with not rocking the boat then they are with real basketball. If they cared about real basketball they would.

1. Limit the games to something in the 60s. We have too many games to matter

2. Truly develop a minor league system with pro team control. (example give the wolves a minor league team where they have the rights to the players playing. This would allow teams to invest in talent and attempt to develop them at a lower level. We can then do call-ups.)

3. Get rid of the defensive rules. Real basketball fans are moving to college where the game is authentic. The fact that you cannot touch a wing player is destroying defense. Defensive 3 seconds is destroying the game. (If you want zone, then give zone, or get rid of all of it). This combined with the 82 games is creating lazy defense and it drives me crazy. Players need to have an incentive to win.

/rant...

funkatron101 · Post #16 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 11:08 pm

revprodeji wrote:About the playoffs. That would be an issue. Simply because 16 and 5 are not friendly numbers. Maybe the top 2 teams from each division and the remaining 6 are based on record? (That way you have division winners, but also a stronger division is rewarded if they are simply better)

Well, you would still be rewarding teams simply because they play in a division, like it is done now with conferences. As I said, the divisions would simply be a tool to boost morale with Division champions and create better rivalries. Nothing more.

Biff Cooper · Post #17 » by **Biff Cooper** » Mon Mar 8, 2010 11:22 pm

Keep in mind. The Wolves by far put on more miles than any other team in the NBA. We are nowhere near any other Western Conference team and we play 52 of our 82 games against Western Conference teams. Anything that can be done to help this situation would be a better system.

Edit - Checking miles by air, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Toronto, Chicago, Indiana, and Detroit are all closer to MSP than any team in the west. That is just wrong, and to top it off the NBA schedules all our back-to-backs Home-Away or Away-Home.

Jade Hippo's idea would also be better than the current system.

cpfsf · Post #18 » by **cpfsf** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 12:17 am

imagevader.com resized imaged to 640x480 (dont need to become a member)

horaceworthy · Post #19 » by **horaceworthy** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 12:50 am

Pacific: Blazers, Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Kings, Jazz, Nuggets, Suns
South: Thunder, Mavericks, Spurs, Rockets, Hornets, Hawks, Grizzlies
Atlantic: Bobcats, Magic, Heat, Celtics, Knicks, 76ers, Nets, Wizards
Midnorth: Timberwolves, Bucks, Bulls, Raptors, Pistons, Cavs, Pacers

skorff26 · Post #20 » by **skorff26** » Tue Mar 9, 2010 1:38 am

The 6 divisions of 5 teams makes the most sense; and other then our division, every other division is organized fairly well, and if they keep it 6 divisions of 5 teams... there really isn't anything better

Portland, GS, Sac, LAC, LAL
Pho, Utah, Den, OKC, SA
Dall, Hou, NOH, Mem, Atl

Mia, Orl, Cha, Wsh, Phi
MN, Mil, Chi, Ind, Det
Cle, Tor, NY, NJ, Bos

-but then you split up the Texas teams, and the SE and SW divisions are more spread out...