I'm curiosu to see what yall think the new divisions will look like next year. I could see the Rockets being grouped with the Spurs, Mavs, Hornets (who will move to the West to give room to Charlotte), and Grizz. Thats a pretty darn good division. That would also leave the divisions as follows: HOU SA DAL NO MEM MIN Utah DEN SEA? POR? LAL LAC SAC GS PHX? The middle division would have threee timezones, but there really doesnt look like a lot of other solutions. They do have a common tie in that theyre in the northern half of the country- that may be one way to justify grouping them together. It would make more sense to have Phoneix with Utah and Denver, but I cant see how that would work out.
ESPN said this most likely how they will look According to a source familiar with the new realignment proposal, a final breakdown of the divisions hasn't been made. The divisions also have not received names just yet. However, the most likely breakdown is thought to look something like this. Eastern Conference Northeast: Boston Celtics, New York Knicks, New Jersey Nets, Philadelphia 76ers, Toronto Raptors Southeast: Atlanta Hawks, Charlotte Bobcats, Orlando Magic, Miami Heat, Washington Wizards Central: Chicago Bulls, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks Western Conference Northwest: Denver Nuggets, Minnesota Timberwolves, Portland Trailblazers, Seattle Supersonics, Utah Jazz Southwest: Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, Memphis Grizzlies, New Orleans Hornets, San Antonio Spurs Pacific: Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings
So, are we going to be playing more games against our division foes now? (unbalanced) OR will it still be a balanced schedule. (4 games against all conference opponents, 2 against the east) If its a balanced schedule, then divisions don't really matter.... everybody in the conference has the same schedule. Thus, the Rockets could be in the TOUGHEST DIVISION IMAGINABLE (Lakers, Sacramento, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston!), and they'd have the exact same schedule as if they were in the easiest division. But, I guess division winners get an automatic ticket to the playoffs, so it does "mean" something... but not much.
The alignment of the divisions should be simple, except for Minnesota. They get screwed wherever you put them.
2 games against teams from the opposite conference. 15 x 2 = 30 2 games against intraconference opponents. 10 x 2 = 20 8 games against divisional opponents. 8 x 4 = 32 30 + 20 + 32 = 82 That means only one long West Coast swing per season. Too bad it means getting beaten by San Antonio and Dallas 16 times.
I seriously doubt divisional opp will play each other 8 times a year. I don't think you will see but 100 fans in the stand watching that 8th game of the season against the Grizzlies!
the most interesting thing to me with the realignment is their are adding another playoff team to the west in NO. so the east becomes weaker, and the west stronger. so 8 spots for 10 or 11 great2decent teams. this sucks for western teams. just watch the first year this is implemented we will have a sub .500 team make the playoffs in the east.
While the idea of trying to make divisions "mean something" (like in baseball and football) is good, it simply won't happen in the NBA. Why? Less marquee matchups. See, even though the NBA season seems long, its only that way because there are soooo many teams, and everybody has to play each other at least once. That being said, playing an interconference opponent only twice is NOT a fair assessment of where a team is in relation to its conference. (especially if they're continuing to take the top 8 teams, regardless of division record...). Also, the NBA won't let such marquee matchups only happen twice a year: Lakers vs. San Antonio Lakers vs. Dallas Lakers vs. Portland Lakers vs. HOUSTON (basically, Lakers vs. anyone not in the Pacific division) Thus, the schedule will probably look more evenly balanced: 2 games against each team in other conference: 15 X 2 = 30 4 games against each team in your own division: 4 X 4 = 16 4 games against each team in ONE other division (will rotate each year): 4 X 5 = 20 3 games agains each team in the remaining division: 3 X 5 = 15 That's 81 games... that leaves ONE game per team to serve as a "Wild-card" game each season... IE, you'll play that one game against the team you had a similiar record to the year before (sort of a built-in easy vs. hard schedule for bad and good teams... but its still only one game). This sort of puts a little more emphasis on the individual divisions than there is now, but still primarily keeps the schedule balanced, and ensures that the good teams in the West see plenty of each other during the regular season.
The league wants marquee matchups but there is a limit to what they can do. Don't u think they wanted Lakers vs Celtics of old 20 times a year? This schedule sounds good but flawed. Let's call the divisions in the West: divs. A, B, C. Per your schedule: 1) A play B 4 times, A play C 3 times. 2) B play A 4 times, B play C 3 times 3) C play A 3 times, C play B 3 times. Won't work.
Gee, I didn't know that the Lakers were involved in every single marquee matchup during the season...Thanks for clearing that up.
Nice analysis, Nick, although I doubt that the NBA will have a "strength of schedule" type of game. It'll probably just be a fourth game against one of the teams in the division against which three games are played. No way the NBA cuts back to 81 games for the season. Even though that would make more sense, the league would lose too much money for its liking that way.
Simplest schedule: 2 games against teams from other conference, 2x15 = 30 4 games against teams from own conf, 4x14= 56. Total 86 games. More money for everyone!!
If the playoffs selection is 3 div winners + 5 next best records from each conference then it calls for a balanced schedule within the conference.
haha... you can tell I haven't taken a stats class in about 5 years. Thanks for stopping me from talking out of my ass ragingfire...
Is it me, or does Minn have a really easy division. They can beat every single one of those teams every night.
5 games against each team in division (4) = 20 4 vs. same seed in same conference (2) = 8 3 vs. all other teams in same conference (8) = 24 2 vs. each team in other conference (15) = 30 ---- Total 82
Although I like Raging Fire's two justifications for an 86 game schedule, I think the NBA season is too long already, given the number of teams which make the playoffs. Take a round out of the playoffs (yeah, that'll happen) and I could deal with a longer regular season. You can't give a bye in basketball for a full playoff series, even a 5-game one. It would completely mess up the rhythm of a team to sit that long. So we're stuck with either 8 playoff teams or 16. Unless.. What if we had a single-elimination bracket with 4 teams for the wild-card spot in each conference? The whole thing would only take 4 days: 2 East games, 2 West games, East wild-card showdown, West wild-card showdown. The whole process of choosing a wild-card team would take less than half the time of the current first round, making the 86-game schedule possible without lengthing the season as a whole. It would add the single-elimination excitement of March madness to the NBA. It would make the regular season mean a lot more than it currently does (BIG difference between winning your conference vs. being in the wild-card bracket AND seeding in wild-card bracket would mean a LOT for single-elimination). And you'd still have the traditional 7 game series to reach the conference finals and beyond.
