Author Topic: Expansion possible? Seattle group willing to privately finance new arena  (Read 7120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Expansion possible? Seattle group willing to privately finance new arena
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2016, 12:28:04 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Move Memphis east instead of Minn.
Just ditch East and West and make four 8-team conferences. Play 2 times with out-of-conference teams and 6 times with in-conference teams for a total of 90 games.
What is the point of ditching divisions for conferences? Shouldn't you at least mention what the point is of that? Why not 2 conferences with 2 divisions each if you want 4 groupings? There is no reason why # of games has to be the same for all in conference or all out of conference.

And would the all-star game be round robin now between the 4 conference teams? Or would there be 2 rounds of all start games? Or would we just alternate which cycle through all star conference match-ups every 3 years?
Ditching divisions means that you don't have to play extra games against one of the other three conferences. That's the only practical meaning of it anyhow. On second thought I don't think they will ditch these soon because it is the feature that allows them to keep a 82 game schedule through potential expansion/league restructure (the number of games vs non-division conference teams is flexible).

You can do the ASG a number of different ways, including a draft from a pool of players. I don't think anyone will loose sleep over that.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Expansion possible? Seattle group willing to privately finance new arena
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2016, 11:26:33 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7508
  • Tommy Points: 742
I am against expansion of the league.   It seems there are not enough stars at the moment for the teams now.  How does adding more teams without stars better the game we watch?


The way I look at it is, league expansion won't make competitive balance any worse.  The league is already horribly top heavy.  So why not give more cities NBA basketball?

What we need is some non-Finals accomplishments that can mean something to all the teams with no hope of winning a title.  Bill Simmons was championing a mid-season tournament at one point in time.  I like that idea.
My answer to that would be because it means that there would be one more team (maybe two more teams) every year that is awful and no fun to watch and just inflates the records of the handful of good teams.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008