Jalen Bluntson wrote:nykballa2k4 wrote:Fury wrote:
I kind of dig it. Reminds me of the old MLB when you'd only play teams from the same league, made stronger rivalries and when the World Series came, it felt like it meant more.
Honestly think going that route could help the NBA. More divisional games, and play games in a series format. Sort of replicate the NFL in a way because if you clump, say, 3 games into a weekend (3 games in 4 nights same two opponents) then it really has the power to shift the standings and makes the games more meaningful. Also adds a strategy (do I want to rest a player in that b2b or not?)
We need to eliminate the back to backs entirely. It is pointless and not really fair to the team playing them. Especially if there is travel involved like we have seen plenty of this year. You want back to backs? Then both teams should be playing in them and it should be in one building every time.
I don't mind the idea of more division games though. Why bother having divisions if you play every team basically the same amount of games? Does winning the division even matter anymore towards playoffs?
I think we actually agree here.
Example: We play Celtics 6 times
first set: 2 home (b2b) 1 day trave, 1 road game.
second set 2 road games (b2b) 1 day travel, 1 home game.
4 division rivals, that's 4*6 so 24 of your games against your own division. 30 games out of conference. that's 54 games. Remaining balance of 28 games spread between the fugazee tourney and other in-conference opponents.
I would possibly even do more in-division (so like 8 per rival) but 6 is an incremental step. the big change is adding the b2b or series factor. Think it would make it more exciting. Like an event.

































