NBA should consider realignment and changing the schedule

[Moranis]

With the talk of all the imbalance and certain teams pushing for reseeding regardless of conference (I personally find that to be a problem until they balance the schedule), maybe a better solution is a bit of realignment given some teams have moved around to reduce regular season travel.  If you then redid the schedule, you could more easily sell a 1-16 playoff system.

So proposed new divisions. 

1 - Bos, NY, BKN, Phi, Wash
2 - Mia, Orl, Atl, NO, Cha
3 - Tor, Cle, Det, Ind, Chi
4 - Min, Mil, Dal, Mem, OKC
5 - Pho, Uta, Den, SA, HOU 
6 - LAL, LAC, GS, Sac, Por

So to get the 82 game schedule you play each of the other 5 divisions, 2 times each (50 games), and you play your other 4 divisional opponents 8 games each (32 games).  You keep the 82 game schedule, but increase your divisional rivalry games.  That generates more local interest, cuts down on travel and increases the importance of winning your division. 

You then guarantee the division winners a playoff spot (maybe in the top 8.), but then just seed the other 10 teams by record. 

that seems like a fairer way to do the playoffs, but at the same time better creating rivalries, reducing travel, and stressing the importance of winning your division.

[footey]

With the talk of all the imbalance and certain teams pushing for reseeding regardless of conference (I personally find that to be a problem until they balance the schedule), maybe a better solution is a bit of realignment given some teams have moved around to reduce regular season travel.  If you then redid the schedule, you could more easily sell a 1-16 playoff system.

So proposed new divisions. 

1 - Bos, NY, BKN, Phi, Wash
2 - Mia, Orl, Atl, NO, Cha
3 - Tor, Cle, Det, Ind, Chi
4 - Min, Mil, Dal, Mem, OKC
5 - Pho, Uta, Den, SA, HOU 
6 - LAL, LAC, GS, Sac, Por

So to get the 82 game schedule you play each of the other 5 divisions, 2 times each (50 games), and you play your other 4 divisional opponents 8 games each (32 games).  You keep the 82 game schedule, but increase your divisional rivalry games.  That generates more local interest, cuts down on travel and increases the importance of winning your division. 

You then guarantee the division winners a playoff spot (maybe in the top , but then just seed the other 10 teams by record. 

that seems like a fairer way to do the playoffs, but at the same time better creating rivalries, reducing travel, and stressing the importance of winning your division.

Creative, but I see three problems:

1. Too many divisional games.  If your division stinks, and you're good, that's a lot of bad games to watch.  Rivalries develop by being competitive, not by playing more games vs each other (e.g. Celtics-Lakers).
2. Winning your division should not guaranty you a top seed; otherwise you are subject to the same criticism of the current system.  Why should a team finishing 2nd with a better record than a team winning another division be seeded lower?  I agree that winning a division has to have some value, just not sure this is it.
3. Seeding the balance of teams based on record should probably factor in strength of schedule, otherwise a team in a weak division will have an inflated winning percentage relative to a team in a tougher division.

[Moranis]

With the talk of all the imbalance and certain teams pushing for reseeding regardless of conference (I personally find that to be a problem until they balance the schedule), maybe a better solution is a bit of realignment given some teams have moved around to reduce regular season travel.  If you then redid the schedule, you could more easily sell a 1-16 playoff system.

So proposed new divisions. 

1 - Bos, NY, BKN, Phi, Wash
2 - Mia, Orl, Atl, NO, Cha
3 - Tor, Cle, Det, Ind, Chi
4 - Min, Mil, Dal, Mem, OKC
5 - Pho, Uta, Den, SA, HOU 
6 - LAL, LAC, GS, Sac, Por

So to get the 82 game schedule you play each of the other 5 divisions, 2 times each (50 games), and you play your other 4 divisional opponents 8 games each (32 games).  You keep the 82 game schedule, but increase your divisional rivalry games.  That generates more local interest, cuts down on travel and increases the importance of winning your division. 

You then guarantee the division winners a playoff spot (maybe in the top , but then just seed the other 10 teams by record. 

that seems like a fairer way to do the playoffs, but at the same time better creating rivalries, reducing travel, and stressing the importance of winning your division.

Creative, but I see three problems:

1. Too many divisional games.  If your division stinks, and you're good, that's a lot of bad games to watch.  Rivalries develop by being competitive, not by playing more games vs each other (e.g. Celtics-Lakers).
2. Winning your division should not guaranty you a top seed; otherwise you are subject to the same criticism of the current system.  Why should a team finishing 2nd with a better record than a team winning another division be seeded lower?  I agree that winning a division has to have some value, just not sure this is it.
3. Seeding the balance of teams based on record should probably factor in strength of schedule, otherwise a team in a weak division will have an inflated winning percentage relative to a team in a tougher division.

1.  I like divisional games.  I like having more games against teams located near you.  I just think it adds to the sport.  Now sure if 1 team is great and 1 team is bad, it might be more problematic, but how is replacing that 1 sucky divisional opponent for a sucky team from another division any different.  Aside from making it less likely for fans to have any sort of interest, increasing the travel, etc. 

2. Every other sport has no problem giving the division winner a top seed and a home playoff game (or series).  I mean baseball the wild card teams play 1 game, which is just ridiculous, but that absolutely stresses the importance of winning your division.  7-9 teams have hosted 12-4 teams in the NFL because of the division.  I like that winning the division matters.

3. You could potentially do this, but again the other sports don't do this.  I'd be more inclined to re-seed after every round of the playoffs (like the NFL) then just change the seeding based on strength of schedule.  Some years your division will work to your favor, some years it won't, and I have no issue with that. 

[slamtheking]

With the talk of all the imbalance and certain teams pushing for reseeding regardless of conference (I personally find that to be a problem until they balance the schedule), maybe a better solution is a bit of realignment given some teams have moved around to reduce regular season travel.  If you then redid the schedule, you could more easily sell a 1-16 playoff system.

So proposed new divisions. 

1 - Bos, NY, BKN, Phi, Wash
2 - Mia, Orl, Atl, NO, Cha
3 - Tor, Cle, Det, Ind, Chi
4 - Min, Mil, Dal, Mem, OKC
5 - Pho, Uta, Den, SA, HOU 
6 - LAL, LAC, GS, Sac, Por

So to get the 82 game schedule you play each of the other 5 divisions, 2 times each (50 games), and you play your other 4 divisional opponents 8 games each (32 games).  You keep the 82 game schedule, but increase your divisional rivalry games.  That generates more local interest, cuts down on travel and increases the importance of winning your division. 

You then guarantee the division winners a playoff spot (maybe in the top , but then just seed the other 10 teams by record. 

that seems like a fairer way to do the playoffs, but at the same time better creating rivalries, reducing travel, and stressing the importance of winning your division.

Creative, but I see three problems:

1. Too many divisional games.  If your division stinks, and you're good, that's a lot of bad games to watch.  Rivalries develop by being competitive, not by playing more games vs each other (e.g. Celtics-Lakers).
2. Winning your division should not guaranty you a top seed; otherwise you are subject to the same criticism of the current system.  Why should a team finishing 2nd with a better record than a team winning another division be seeded lower?  I agree that winning a division has to have some value, just not sure this is it.
3. Seeding the balance of teams based on record should probably factor in strength of schedule, otherwise a team in a weak division will have an inflated winning percentage relative to a team in a tougher division.

1.  I like divisional games.  I like having more games against teams located near you.  I just think it adds to the sport.  Now sure if 1 team is great and 1 team is bad, it might be more problematic, but how is replacing that 1 sucky divisional opponent for a sucky team from another division any different.  Aside from making it less likely for fans to have any sort of interest, increasing the travel, etc. 

2. Every other sport has no problem giving the division winner a top seed and a home playoff game (or series).  I mean baseball the wild card teams play 1 game, which is just ridiculous, but that absolutely stresses the importance of winning your division.  7-9 teams have hosted 12-4 teams in the NFL because of the division.  I like that winning the division matters.

3. You could potentially do this, but again the other sports don't do this.  I'd be more inclined to re-seed after every round of the playoffs (like the NFL) then just change the seeding based on strength of schedule.  Some years your division will work to your favor, some years it won't, and I have no issue with that. 

a few thoughts:
-I'd swap Denver and Dallas so that the 3 Texas teams are in the same division.  if you absolutely had to break up the Texas trio, I'd swap Dallas with SA for geographic reasons.
-what's your plan for conferences?  are there any or are you going strictly off of divisions?
-while I understand your drive to make the schedule more driven to playing within your division, I do think it's a bit imbalanced with only 2 games each against teams not in your division.  I get that it cuts down on travel issues and we have that already with east/west conference but in this set up, if I wanted to go to a game against the Bucks to see Giannis for example, I'd only have 1 opportunity rather than multiple as I (or another fan) do now.  I could see that being an issue for the league looking to draw in more than the hardcore fan.

As for one set of playoffs with seeds 1-16 and reseeding after every round, I'm on the fence on that.  I see the appeal of the upset in the NCAA tourney were reseeding doesn't occur and the underdog isn't immediately penalized for beating the better team by having to take on the best team left after that round.

[TheSundanceKid]

You don't want to saturate the games within a division. IMO one of the main reason rivalries are dying is because there are too many games not too few. It also imbalances the league, it feels counterproductive, you are actively trying to punish good management in favour of representation from all parts of the USA.

If you simplified this to the only change being NO and Milwaukee switch conferences, plus the shake up of divisions then I can see merit but you'd need to analyse how it would affect travel time for each team. Milwaukee would obviously hate this...

[Moranis]

With the talk of all the imbalance and certain teams pushing for reseeding regardless of conference (I personally find that to be a problem until they balance the schedule), maybe a better solution is a bit of realignment given some teams have moved around to reduce regular season travel.  If you then redid the schedule, you could more easily sell a 1-16 playoff system.

So proposed new divisions. 

1 - Bos, NY, BKN, Phi, Wash
2 - Mia, Orl, Atl, NO, Cha
3 - Tor, Cle, Det, Ind, Chi
4 - Min, Mil, Dal, Mem, OKC
5 - Pho, Uta, Den, SA, HOU 
6 - LAL, LAC, GS, Sac, Por

So to get the 82 game schedule you play each of the other 5 divisions, 2 times each (50 games), and you play your other 4 divisional opponents 8 games each (32 games).  You keep the 82 game schedule, but increase your divisional rivalry games.  That generates more local interest, cuts down on travel and increases the importance of winning your division. 

You then guarantee the division winners a playoff spot (maybe in the top , but then just seed the other 10 teams by record. 

that seems like a fairer way to do the playoffs, but at the same time better creating rivalries, reducing travel, and stressing the importance of winning your division.

Creative, but I see three problems:

1. Too many divisional games.  If your division stinks, and you're good, that's a lot of bad games to watch.  Rivalries develop by being competitive, not by playing more games vs each other (e.g. Celtics-Lakers).
2. Winning your division should not guaranty you a top seed; otherwise you are subject to the same criticism of the current system.  Why should a team finishing 2nd with a better record than a team winning another division be seeded lower?  I agree that winning a division has to have some value, just not sure this is it.
3. Seeding the balance of teams based on record should probably factor in strength of schedule, otherwise a team in a weak division will have an inflated winning percentage relative to a team in a tougher division.

1.  I like divisional games.  I like having more games against teams located near you.  I just think it adds to the sport.  Now sure if 1 team is great and 1 team is bad, it might be more problematic, but how is replacing that 1 sucky divisional opponent for a sucky team from another division any different.  Aside from making it less likely for fans to have any sort of interest, increasing the travel, etc. 

2. Every other sport has no problem giving the division winner a top seed and a home playoff game (or series).  I mean baseball the wild card teams play 1 game, which is just ridiculous, but that absolutely stresses the importance of winning your division.  7-9 teams have hosted 12-4 teams in the NFL because of the division.  I like that winning the division matters.

3. You could potentially do this, but again the other sports don't do this.  I'd be more inclined to re-seed after every round of the playoffs (like the NFL) then just change the seeding based on strength of schedule.  Some years your division will work to your favor, some years it won't, and I have no issue with that. 

a few thoughts:
-I'd swap Denver and Dallas so that the 3 Texas teams are in the same division.  if you absolutely had to break up the Texas trio, I'd swap Dallas with SA for geographic reasons.
-what's your plan for conferences?  are there any or are you going strictly off of divisions?
-while I understand your drive to make the schedule more driven to playing within your division, I do think it's a bit imbalanced with only 2 games each against teams not in your division.  I get that it cuts down on travel issues and we have that already with east/west conference but in this set up, if I wanted to go to a game against the Bucks to see Giannis for example, I'd only have 1 opportunity rather than multiple as I (or another fan) do now.  I could see that being an issue for the league looking to draw in more than the hardcore fan.

As for one set of playoffs with seeds 1-16 and reseeding after every round, I'm on the fence on that.  I see the appeal of the upset in the NCAA tourney were reseeding doesn't occur and the underdog isn't immediately penalized for beating the better team by having to take on the best team left after that round.

There would be no conferences as there would be no need for them.  As it is now, you only play the other conference twice a year.  You play the other divisions in your conference 3 games (a couple get 4).  So you often only get Milwaukee 1 time a year at home anyway. 

[Moranis]

You don't want to saturate the games within a division. IMO one of the main reason rivalries are dying is because there are too many games not too few. It also imbalances the league, it feels counterproductive, you are actively trying to punish good management in favour of representation from all parts of the USA.

If you simplified this to the only change being NO and Milwaukee switch conferences, plus the shake up of divisions then I can see merit but you'd need to analyse how it would affect travel time for each team. Milwaukee would obviously hate this...

There are too many teams on the East vs. the West so some teams are going to have problems.  At least I've given Milwaukee, Minnesota.  I think eventually they are going to add 2 teams, probably Seattle and let's just say St. Louis.  I think they would then go to 4, 8 team divisions or 8, 4 team divisions, which would actually clean up some of those travel issues a great deal.

So assume Seattle and St. Louis get added

You can keep East and West here if you want

East
1 - Bos, NY, Bkn, Phi, Was, Tor, Cle, Det
2 - Mia, Orl, Atl, NO, Cha, SA, Hou, Dal

West
3 - Ind, Chi, Mil, Min, Mem, StL, OKC, Den
4 - LAL, LAC, GS, Sac, Por, Sea, Pho, Uta

Then play the other conference 2 times - 32 games
Other division 3 times - 24 games
Own Division 4 times - 28 games

So that is an 84 game schedule.  I realize it adds 2, but I think with the cut down on travel it might work out ok.  Denver is the only team really out of place, but not much you can do there.

Now if you went for 4 team divisions, I think you would change some of that up.

East
1 - Bos, NY, Bkn, Phi
2 - Mia, Orl, Atl, NO
3 - Ind, Chi, Mil, Tor
4 - Cha, Was, Cle, Det

West
5 - OKC, Dal, Hou, SA
6 - Mem, StL, Den, Min
7 - LAL, LAC, GS, Sac
8 - Por, Sea, Pho, Uta

2 games each against other conference - 32 games
3 games each against other divisions - 36 games
5 games each against own division - 15 games

So 83 game schedule - adds 1, though could just do 4 games against own division and drop 2 games. 

The divisions aren't quite as clean that way as more than just Denver is out of place, but I think that would be a workable solution as well.  Again that is with the addition of Seattle and St. Louis.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I think it's funny that there's so much talk of imbalance, when a similar thing happened in the '80s—in that entire decade, the Western Conference had only two representatives in the Finals: the Lakers and the Rockets—and no one seemed to care.

These things have ebbs and flows, and things always shift eventually—"on their own," so to speak. It seems to me, for example, that over the next couple of seasons, free agents from Western teams will see the relative weakness of the East and decide that the East offers a better path to success.

[Surferdad]

I like the idea of building in some motivation to win the division.  Currently, divisions are not serving any purpose, only the conference matters.

[johnnygreen]

I think it's funny that there's so much talk of imbalance, when a similar thing happened in the '80s—in that entire decade, the Western Conference had only two representatives in the Finals: the Lakers and the Rockets—and no one seemed to care.

These things have ebbs and flows, and things always shift eventually—"on their own," so to speak. It seems to me, for example, that over the next couple of seasons, free agents from Western teams will see the relative weakness of the East and decide that the East offers a better path to success.

I'd like to think free agents would rather go West because the Celtics will be dominating the East, and the league in general.

[dreamgreen]

I like what you have done makes sense to me. I like division games and less travel is something they should work on. Only thing I would say is all the Texas teams should be in the same division IMO.

[Surferdad]

I think it's funny that there's so much talk of imbalance, when a similar thing happened in the '80s—in that entire decade, the Western Conference had only two representatives in the Finals: the Lakers and the Rockets—and no one seemed to care.

These things have ebbs and flows, and things always shift eventually—"on their own," so to speak. It seems to me, for example, that over the next couple of seasons, free agents from Western teams will see the relative weakness of the East and decide that the East offers a better path to success.

I'd like to think free agents would rather go West because the Celtics will be dominating the East, and the league in general.

Unless it's the Celtics they are going to, right?, or team up with other superstars in the East to beat the Celtics.  GSW will continue to dominate the West so by your logic they wouldn't want to go there.

The other very real season for the 'ebbs and flows' is the draft.  With more weaker teams in the East, more top players in the draft will be picked by EC teams.

[bdm860]

-while I understand your drive to make the schedule more driven to playing within your division, I do think it's a bit imbalanced with only 2 games each against teams not in your division.  I get that it cuts down on travel issues and we have that already with east/west conference but in this set up, if I wanted to go to a game against the Bucks to see Giannis for example, I'd only have 1 opportunity rather than multiple as I (or another fan) do now.  I could see that being an issue for the league looking to draw in more than the hardcore fan.

How many opportunities do you think you get to see Giannis now (excluding playoffs)?  You're actually only going to get to see him one time next year (assuming you'd be going to a Boston home game).

Right now it's 2 home games vs your division, 1 home game vs other conferences, and between 1-2 home games against the rest of your conference (with like an 80% chance in any given year that it will be 2 home games against any particular non-division conference team).  Going from 2 to 1 doesn't seem like that big of a difference to me (especially when you already only get to see 60% of the league one time).


It's an interesting concept for sure, the first objection I think of would be owners would worry about getting stuck with 2-3 losers in your division.

'16 Atlantic had 21-win Brooklyn and 10-win Philly, along with 32-win Knicks (but they were still probably a decent draw with Carmelo/Porzingis and being the Knicks).

'15 Atlantic had 18-win Philly and 17-win Knicks.

'13 Southeast had 20-win Orlando, 21-win Charlotte, 29-win Wizards.

That's adding 4-6 more potential duds on your home schedule, while dropping 1-2 visits from LeBron + whoever else is good at the moment.  Those middling small market owners will fight tooth and nail not give up a visit from LeBron or GS, which are the only games they sell out.

Oh I know the counter will be you also get to see potential duds from other divisions less.  And playing duds in your own division can boost your record/playoff seeding (which can have a bigger payoff down the road).  And there's the travel cost savings.  I just think most owners would oppose missing out on those few prime games, unless a deep financial analysis proved this new method would be extremely more profitable in every scenario.

[johnnygreen]

I think it's funny that there's so much talk of imbalance, when a similar thing happened in the '80s—in that entire decade, the Western Conference had only two representatives in the Finals: the Lakers and the Rockets—and no one seemed to care.

These things have ebbs and flows, and things always shift eventually—"on their own," so to speak. It seems to me, for example, that over the next couple of seasons, free agents from Western teams will see the relative weakness of the East and decide that the East offers a better path to success.

I'd like to think free agents would rather go West because the Celtics will be dominating the East, and the league in general.

Unless it's the Celtics they are going to, right?, or team up with other superstars in the East to beat the Celtics.  GSW will continue to dominate the West so by your logic they wouldn't want to go there.

The other very real season for the 'ebbs and flows' is the draft.  With more weaker teams in the East, more top players in the draft will be picked by EC teams.

For some reason, I can't get half of the editing tools to work, including all of the smile faces. I was being sarcastic, in that the Celtics will hopefully be dominating the East and then spanking the Warriors in the Finals. Basically, it doesn't matter where free agents go, as the Warriors will control the West and the Celtics will be doing the same in the East (fingers crossed on the Celtics part).

[Moranis]

I think it's funny that there's so much talk of imbalance, when a similar thing happened in the '80s—in that entire decade, the Western Conference had only two representatives in the Finals: the Lakers and the Rockets—and no one seemed to care.

These things have ebbs and flows, and things always shift eventually—"on their own," so to speak. It seems to me, for example, that over the next couple of seasons, free agents from Western teams will see the relative weakness of the East and decide that the East offers a better path to success.

I'd like to think free agents would rather go West because the Celtics will be dominating the East, and the league in general.

Unless it's the Celtics they are going to, right?, or team up with other superstars in the East to beat the Celtics.  GSW will continue to dominate the West so by your logic they wouldn't want to go there.

The other very real season for the 'ebbs and flows' is the draft.  With more weaker teams in the East, more top players in the draft will be picked by EC teams.

I don't know the Western teams stars are pretty old.  All approaching or past 30 for the most part except for Davis and Towns.  The East has Irving, Giannis, Oladipo, Embiid, Simmons, and Porzingis.  All have yet to reach their prime.  It isn't hard to see how in 3 years, the East is the dominant conference because the East has better and a lot more young (or younger) stars (where not a single one of those players from the East will be 30 and every single western player on an All NBA team will be well past 30 except for Davis and Towns).