The NBA schedules teams differently than any one of our three other major professional sports (MLB, NFL, NHL) that have at least three divisions in each conference or league. What I'm talking about is that those other three professional sports put a heavy emphasis on divisional play with their scheduling, meaning they schedule teams to play a lot more games against division rivals than against other teams within their conference or league. This makes rivalries within divisions very heated and intense. On the other hand, the NBA only has teams play a balanced schedule within the conference with only a slight emphasis on divisional play with four games against division rivals, then three or four games against the other conference opponents. If the NBA scheduled teams to play division rivals at least six times per season, then the other conference opponents no more than three times per season, the rivalries within the divisions would probably be much more heated and intense than they are now. That being said, do you think that the San Antonio Spurs would have made that trade with the Rockets involving Luis Scola? Another question I could really ask is this: Do you think that we would see division rivals make trades with each other at all if the NBA put in the heavy emphasis on divisional play with its scheduling?
Good thing that this is not the case. There would be zero chances for somebody in the SouthWest to get home Court Advantage. The easiest series would be against a healthy New orlean team, and a re-tool and healthy Memphis team. It would be nice to watch, but adding 8 extremly tough games on the schedule is not the best thing to do.
The major downfall to it is that we'll see Cavs/Pistons and Suns/Lakers 6 times a year on TV. That's 12 total games. Then there's Cavs/Bulls for another 6. Not to mention the other non divisional games. We'll be seeing the same 5 teams playing at least 40 combined games. .....and I haven't even included the Heat.
I like schedudele the way it is.Maybe 82 games are too much but I wouldn't mess with something that's good.
give me a thread that i can talk good about, and give some good opinions about and maybe i might not talk about how ****ty they are
the person who started that thread should be banned lol. that was the dumbest thing i ever read. my i.q. dropped after reading that.
The reason there is a poll to this thread is that the question to it consists of a yes or no answer. The only thing Spurs fans are upset about the Scola trade is the fact that he was traded to a division rival. They would probably be more upset if teams were playing division rivals at least six times per season as opposed to the current four times, or eight times like what is done in the NHL. Since the other professional sports emphasize divisions with their scheduling, I find that it is more rare in those other professional sports that a team trades a player to a division rival than here in the NBA. After all, the whole purpose a team has in trading a player of theirs to a team outside of their division, conference, or league is so that the one player they traded away doesn't have as many chances to come back and haunt them. As we should all know, this sort of thing goes on all the time in all of our professional sports, which is, "Team gets rid of player, player comes back to haunt team." In conclusion, I personally believe that the Spurs would have tried much harder than they did to trade Scola to a team outside of the Southwest Division if the NBA scheduled teams the same way the other three major professional sports do. That being said, we should be thankful for the balanced scheduling the NBA does because the Rockets probably don't get Scola this season, Battier last season from the Grizzlies, or Vernon Maxwell from the Spurs 17 years ago.
