Division Realignment

Rocky5000 · Post #21 » by **Rocky5000** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:15 pm

What about moving the Southwest division into the eastern conference and pushing the central out west? I'd rename them Gulf, and Midwest divisions. It'd really balance out things from east to west. The west gets Detroit and Cleveland, and the east gets a huge infusion from the Southwest.
It'd look something like this, so I don't think travel would be any worse than it currently is. If seattle move to OKC it doesn't matter.

Post #22 » by **dockingsched** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:28 pm

farzi wrote:I don't think its a good thing to break up the current NW division. Every team except denver is young and has either a talented core, or a few really good players with a high draft pick.

It should become one of, if not THE best division in 2-4 years

the talent level on a team is never taken into consideration.

Tiggo Bitties · Post #23 » by **Tiggo Bitties** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:34 pm

I like this idea. Blazers and Lakers should be in the same division IMO.

farzi · Post #24 » by **farzi** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:07 am

dcash4 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

the talent level on a team is never taken into consideration.

Obviously, and nor should it.

I'm just saying it would suck from a fans perspective.

skones · Post #25 » by **skones** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:23 am

Screw Divisions, just go with two conferences.

giberish · Post #26 » by **giberish** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:39 am

Or if you really want to get crazy, divide into 4 divisions

West - Portland, GSW, Sac, LAL, LAC, Phoe, Utah, Den
South - OKC, Hou, SA, Dallas, NO, Memphis, Atl
East - Mia, Orlando, Char, Washington, Philly, NYK, NJ, Bos.
North - Toronto, Cleveland, Indy, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Minny

Then rotate which two divisions are paired together each year (one year West+South/North+East, next year West+East/North+South, 3rd year West+North/East+South). This would give an interesting variety of playoff scenarios.

Or if you want really intense rivalries you could just take the top 4 teams per division into the playoffs and have the 1st two playoff rounds within the division. If there are 2-3 good teams in a division they would meet in the playoffs all the time.

Texas Longhorns · Post #27 » by **Texas Longhorns** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:43 am

Southwest would still own, I don't think the Hornets can repeat another season like this.

Dtown84 · Post #28 » by **Dtown84** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:09 am

Texas Longhorns wrote:Southwest would still own, I don't think the Hornets can repeat another season like this.

Considering how young CP3 is I don't see why not, a Southeast division with them would be immensely entertaining. CP3, Arenas, Wade, and Dwight Howard in one division. Nice.

L-Burna89 · Post #29 » by **L-Burna89** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:57 am

skones wrote:Screw Divisions, just go with two conferences.

That's basically what it already is. Divisions don't really mean anything, because teams from the same conference still play each other four times every year, regardless of what division they're in(except each team has to play a couple of them only three times, due to the number of games in the season).

UNLVNugsFan · Post #30 » by **UNLVNugsFan** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:35 am

1 conference - 30 teams.

Problem solved!

Post #31 » by **Klomp** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:53 am

shrink came up with a geniously nerdy post on the Wolves board: http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 78&start=0

Dtown84 · Post #32 » by **Dtown84** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:04 am

klomp44 wrote:shrink came up with a geniously nerdy post on the Wolves board: http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 78&start=0

While the numbers are cool I'm not sure you could have five divisions, without just saying f*ck it and having one conference with 16 playoff teams. Of course that's been getting a lot of support anyway...

Warspite · Post #33 » by **Warspite** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:43 am

Im in favor of 4 divisions and a weighted schedule. If you want rivialries then you need to play the teams in your division 6 times. Something like

24 division games
24 Conferance games
32 East vs West

80 game schedule with maybe 50% less travel.

MalReyn · Post #34 » by **MalReyn** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:57 pm

I think minimal movement between conferences is ideal. I'd be all for just a straightforward Phoenix/Portland division swap.

farzi · Post #35 » by **farzi** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:23 am

Meh, call it crazy or whatever, but if you wan't perfect ballance, you have to have no conferences or divisions.

30 teams, each team plays the others 3 times each.

29 opponents, 3 games each, 72 games in the regular season. Complete balance.

Top 16 teams get in.

This way, there's no crying over OMG WE'RE A BETTER TEAM BUT WE HAD MORE COMPETITION. IF WE WERE IN X CONFERENCE WE'D BE A Y SEED. No, everyone has an equal chance.

WEFFPIM · Post #36 » by **WEFFPIM** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:51 am

UNLVNugsFan wrote:1 conference - 30 teams.

Problem solved!

There we go

Lake Dynasty · Post #37 » by **Lake Dynasty** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:12 am

WEFFPIM wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

There we go

that makes too much sence. You know Stren will hate this idea cos of that

kandiking · Post #38 » by **kandiking** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:35 pm

yep, still sucks for minnesota.

Dtown84 · Post #39 » by **Dtown84** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:41 pm

farzi wrote:Meh, call it crazy or whatever, but if you wan't perfect ballance, you have to have no conferences or divisions.

30 teams, each team plays the others 3 times each.

29 opponents, 3 games each, 72 games in the regular season. Complete balance.

That's 87 games not 72

farzi · Post #40 » by **farzi** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:05 pm

Dtown84 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That's 87 games not 72

I was very tired