Rob E Dangerously Posted January 7, 2003 Report Posted January 7, 2003 After the Charlotte expansion team starts to play, the NBA will have 30 teams. But, right now, they have 29 teams. They have 15 in the East and 14 in the West. Obviously, they can either go 16/14 or 15/15 which means one East team will move to the West. Here are two scenarios I came up with for splitting the NBA into three divisions Scenario 1: Milwaukee goes from East to West NORTHEAST: Boston, New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia, Washington SOUTHEAST: Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando MIDWEST: Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, Indiana, Toronto CENTRAL: Dallas, Houston, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minnesota SOUTHWEST: Denver, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, Utah PACIFIC: Golden State, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Portland, Seattle Scenario 2: New Orleans goes from East to West NORTHEAST: Boston, New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto SOUTHEAST: Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, Washington MIDEAST: Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee MIDWEST: Dallas, Houston, Memphis, Minnesota, New Orleans SOUTHWEST: Denver, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, Utah PACIFIC: Golden State, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Portland, Seattle and for the playoffs, the three division leaders and five wildcards would qualify. Right now, under Scenario 1, the playoffs are East: #1 New Jersey (NE) v. #8 Washington (NE) #4 Detroit (ME) v. #5 Boston (NE) #3 New Orleans (SE) v. #6 Philadelphia (NE) #2 Indiana (ME) v. #7 Orlando (SE) West: #1 Dallas (MW) v. #8 Minnesota (MW) #4 San Antonio (SW) v. #5 Phoenix (SW) #3 Portland (P) v. #6 Utah (SW) #2 Sacramento (SW) v. #7 Houston (MW) and Scenario #2 is slightly different East: #1 New Jersey (NE) v. #8 Milwaukee (ME) #4 Detroit (ME) v. #5 Boston (NE) #3 Orlando (SE) v. #6 Philadelphia (NE) #2 Indiana (ME) v. #7 Washington (SE) West: #1 Dallas (MW) v. #8 Houston (MW) #4 San Antonio (SW) v. #5 Phoenix (SW) #3 Portland (P) v. #6 Utah (SW) #2 Sacramento (SW) v. #7 New Orleans (MW) So, what do you guys think? should the NBA go 16/14, 15/15 with the current setup or should they expand to three divisions? Also, any problems with the divisions?
Guest alfdogg Posted January 7, 2003 Report Posted January 7, 2003 Pacers paired with the Cavs, Raptors, and Bulls? Me likey.
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 8, 2003 Report Posted January 8, 2003 One question: Why would Sacramento go in the SW, when they are located north from LA? How about just folding the Clippers and creating a new team in Austin, Santa Fe, or bringing one back to San Diego? (Wasn't that where the Clips originated? I can't remember...)
Guest starvenger Posted January 8, 2003 Report Posted January 8, 2003 I'd rather that they stick with the 2 conference, 4 division setting. a 6 division set often rewards teams playing in a weak division, as in the NHL. Therefore, you move New Orleans to the Midwest and add Charlotte to the Central. Problem solved. Of course, you COULD go more radical. Try this out (teams switched in bold: Northeast Conference: East: Boston, Miami, New Jersey, New York, Philly, Orlando, Washington North: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Toronto Southwest Conference: South: Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Memphis, New Orleans, San Antonio West:: Golden State, LA/A, LA/B, Phoenix, Portland, Sacremento, Seattle, Utah And yes, I realize that this creates uneven conferences, but I kinda like that...
Guest Lethargic Posted January 8, 2003 Report Posted January 8, 2003 I would just like to see teams play where they are actually located. For some reason both of our teams in Tennessee are in the western leagues. Predators and Grizzlies. Last time I checked there is nothing western about Tennessee. I totally agree on the Clippers. It makes no sense why the Clippers are in LA. It made a LITTLE sense when they at least played a few miles apart, now they play in the same building. They should really be moved. A change of scene might actually help change that team around. Right now they're second fiddle and will ALWAYS be second fiddle. Maybe moving to a new town where they're the only show in town will get more fans behind them and give them more incentive to try to win.
Guest starvenger Posted January 8, 2003 Report Posted January 8, 2003 I would just like to see teams play where they are actually located. For some reason both of our teams in Tennessee are in the western leagues. Predators and Grizzlies. Last time I checked there is nothing western about Tennessee. I totally agree on the Clippers. It makes no sense why the Clippers are in LA. It made a LITTLE sense when they at least played a few miles apart, now they play in the same building. They should really be moved. A change of scene might actually help change that team around. Right now they're second fiddle and will ALWAYS be second fiddle. Maybe moving to a new town where they're the only show in town will get more fans behind them and give them more incentive to try to win. Definitely nothing western about Memphis. But then, there was nothing midwest about Vancouver. I've always felt that the "East" and "West" conference names were misleading, since "East" inevitably means the Northeastern US and Florida. That's why I tried separating teams by East, South, West and North. I think it works better, although Denver seems screwed no matter which way you slice it. But then the Nuggets perennially suck, so it doesn't make a difference what division they're in...
Guest Vern Gagne Posted January 9, 2003 Report Posted January 9, 2003 The NBA has no clue what their doing. The league sucks with 29 teams, a 30th will water down the league even more. Too bad they can't drop 6 teams.
Guest Sassquatch Posted January 10, 2003 Report Posted January 10, 2003 Since Verne brought it up, what 6 teams do you all think should be dropped from the league?
Guest Lethargic Posted January 10, 2003 Report Posted January 10, 2003 I wouldn't drop any teams. Contraction in any sport is beyond stupid and a slap right in the common fan's face.
Guest The Czech Republic Posted January 10, 2003 Report Posted January 10, 2003 I wouldn't drop any teams. Contraction in any sport is beyond stupid and a slap right in the common fan's face. Watch the NHL's progression from 1993 to 2003. Tell me contraction is stupid.
Guest Lethargic Posted January 11, 2003 Report Posted January 11, 2003 I wouldn't drop any teams. Contraction in any sport is beyond stupid and a slap right in the common fan's face. Watch the NHL's progression from 1993 to 2003. Tell me contraction is stupid. I already did, didn't I? Let's see, yep, right here I said...." I wouldn't drop any teams. Contraction in any sport is beyond stupid and a slap right in the common fan's face. "
Guest alkeiper Posted January 11, 2003 Report Posted January 11, 2003 The NBA has no clue what their doing. The league sucks with 29 teams, a 30th will water down the league even more. Too bad they can't drop 6 teams. Lets see.....30 teams times 12 players each....360 players. You can't tell me that the NBA can't find 360 players good enough to play pro basketball in all of the world.
Guest treble charged Posted January 11, 2003 Report Posted January 11, 2003 I hate the idea of contraction. And, while there are NHL teams in markets where the NHL probably shouldn't go and no teams where there should DEFINITELY be one, contracting teams is not the way to go. First off, there ARE hockey fans in Tampa, Miami, Phoenix, etc., they just may not be as numerous as in other, more northern markets. Also, these teams have all been around for about 10 years or less and have not really been given a full chance to make the most of the market they're in. Who knows, 10 years from now Tampa Bay could be leading the league in attendance and win 2 or 3 Stanley Cups. You have a bunch of young kids watching this and, presto, you could have a whole new generation of hockey fans on your hands. Had you taken the team away from their town before they were born, they may have never discovered the sport.
Guest The Czech Republic Posted January 11, 2003 Report Posted January 11, 2003 You can hypothesize that Tampa Bay will become the hockey capital of the world and all, but clearly, hockey belongs in Winnipeg, not Phoenix.
Guest treble charged Posted January 11, 2003 Report Posted January 11, 2003 Well, definitely, but I don't think that they should just contract the Coyotes because of that. One thing that pissed me off was when Gretzky was getting together his cash to buy the Phoenix team, and there was all this talk that if he didn't buy it, the team would leave Phoenix. Where was all this when the team was still in Winnipeg? Who cares if there's an NHL team in Phoenix or not?
Guest treble charged Posted January 11, 2003 Report Posted January 11, 2003 OMG DOUBLE POST~! Watch out cobainwasmurderederedrerererdrererereddrrreed. Watch out.
Guest phoenixrising Posted January 11, 2003 Report Posted January 11, 2003 If the NBA needs to do anything it's change the playoff system. Sixteen out of thirty teams (counting the new Charlotte franchise) making the playoffs means there are going to be a couple of teams that don't deserve to be in there. The NBA has had teams 15 games under .500 make the playoffs, and a couple of those teams have even made it into the NBA Finals. As for the Clippers...They started out as the Buffalo Braves in the 70's, were actually decent in the mid 70's with a few playoff appearances, then tailed off until moving to San Diego in 1978 or 1979. In 1983 they moved to LA. When the Staples Center was being built the Clips were playing in the LA Sports Arena, supposedly they were going to move into the Arrowhead Pond in Anaheim because they had been playing about eight home games a season at the Pond. At the last minute the Clips shoehorned their way into the Pond (I remember it being very last minute, it was supposed to just be the Lakers and Kings in there IIRC). The Clips' biggest problem is their owner. Donald Serling does not care if the team is 20 games over .500 or 20 games under, as long as the team is doing it with the minimum investment available. That's why the Clips rarely go after big money free agents, and why they let their own free agents go so quickly. It's already rumored that Brand and Olowokandi are leaving next year for bigger contracts, which is a shame because the current team is really good and could get better as time goes on.
Guest The Czech Republic Posted January 11, 2003 Report Posted January 11, 2003 When is this New Charlotte Franchise coming about? Does it have any tentative name or what? I'm surprised they didn't give an expansion team to St. Louis.
Guest starvenger Posted January 13, 2003 Report Posted January 13, 2003 You can hypothesize that Tampa Bay will become the hockey capital of the world and all Seeing as no team actually PLAYS in Tampa Bay (they play in Tampa), the free world can rest easy knowing that this will not happen Winnipeg deserves better than only having the Moose for a pro hockey team. If the NBA needs to do anything it's change the playoff system. Sixteen out of thirty teams (counting the new Charlotte franchise) making the playoffs means there are going to be a couple of teams that don't deserve to be in there. The NBA has had teams 15 games under .500 make the playoffs, and a couple of those teams have even made it into the NBA Finals. I actually like the NFL's playoff format, but it doesn't translate well to best-of-5/7 series. MLB uses the 8 team format, but it doesn't work because halfway through the season most of the teams are already out of the playoff picture, which means that fans have no reason to continue following the games. The 16 team format doesn't really work because, as you've said, shitty teams can get into the playoffs. But since this actually keeps you interested in the games, I'd say that this is still the better way to go (vs only 8 teams), but barely.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now