It is yet another season where under .500 teams in the east will be making the playoffs, while in the west it is a dogfight, with the 8th seed projected to win 48 games. The disadvantage of playing in a better conference is 2 fold, you have to face and beat better teams more often to just make the playoffs, and once you make it in, you have to go through 3 rounds of tough battles to just get the opportunity to play for a championship. The 2 teams with the worst strength of schedule so far are Indiana and Miami (Schedule strength is based on ulative opponent record, and adjusted for home vs. away and days of rest before a game. )
I would like to hear what some of you guys would have for a solution, that would realistically work.
My idea is to keep conferences just for the name and things like that all star game. Then have each team play every other team 3 times and then have the best teams 1-16 be seeded , it alternates year to year with what team gets the 2 home games. My problem there is that makes 87 games, and I am having a hard way to cut it down without comprising schedule making. My first thought was to have each team not play 2 teams each year on a rotating basis, but then that leaves an uneven amount of games so home/away ration is compromised. Then I thought maybe just have each team play 5 of the teams only twice, again on a year to year rotating basis, but I haven't though it out enough to see if there will be major scheduling issues.
So I would like to know your ideas that might realistically work (i.e. cant reduce games drastically, owners and players like their money, will never go for it)
Extremely easy. Disregard the conferences for playoff seeding purposes and make it 1-16.
Then the ty eastern conference teams who only make the playoffs because they're playing other ty eastern conference teams will have to get their act together to sell season tickets.
Nothing will change until Eastern teams stop hiring the Isiahs, Laydens, Otis Smiths and Dumars of the world and start hiring competent general managers, tbh....
Nuke Milwaukee and Detroit tbh.
As for the disparity, get rid of conferences like was mentioned.
That still leaves eastern teams playing each other more often, i.e. Toronto plays Philadelphia and Boston 4 times each in every season, giving them easy wins. While western teams only play the crappy eastern teams 2 times a year.
Might not fix conference disparity, but there's 6-8 franchises that should be contracted from the league--which would lessen the dilution of the talent pool and make compe ion greater.
The NBA is not contracting a franchise with as much history as the Pistons, let's be real now....
Yea but that's how it is now too. The slightly inflated record by playing bad teams is only going to net them a 16th seed playing the 1st meaning No chance of advancing. Every year their would be around 3 teams who wouldn't make the playoffs in the east who do now.
Right now out east you can suck but still call yourself a playoff team. No lotto picks, no GM firings.
This would end that.
This would also ensure the best two teams always play each other in the finals.
No, I mean nuke those cities. Nothing of value would be lost.
Only the bad part of Detroit deserves to be nuked... the rich, white man's part of the city isn't too bad
If it has to be collateral to get the job done so be it.
They didn't fix it in the 80s when the West was awful for most of the decade, why would they decide to do it now, tbh?..
The East is getting stronger. I think we'll see an eighth seed with a winning record pretty soon.
so basically you want to fix conference disparity by eliminating conferences? legit
thats like stopping crime by nuking a civilization
The Nyets are the perfect example. The were basement dwellers and then someone realized that they wouldn't have a draft pick for 5 years, decent first round at least. So they started playing their asses off. Get rid of the dang lottery and use the draft wheel for preset draft positioning. Then suddenly there is no reward in losing and you have a much more compe ive league.
Minnesota Rep. Pat Garofalo's tweet linking NBA to street crime stirs cries of racism
http://www.nola.com/pelicans/index.s...ofalos_tw.html
They will never seed 1-16 without conferences because the teams would throw a fit. The teams in the East don't want a mass migration of players all over to the West coast, for example.
Treat it like a business. Liquify some assets that aren't producing.
I started a thread a few months ago about the same thing, the problem with the current system is not only the disparity, is the fact that it will get even bigger.
Memphis/Dallas/Phoenix could get a pick, but Atlanta and Charlotte wont.
Is a vicious circle.
Questions: Are there teams that should play in the other conference? Sometimes people post that it makes geographical sense.
If you have to boot the bottom 6, who do you boot?
1. Bobcats
2. Bucks
3. Kings
4. Magic
5. Raptors
6..........Lakers?
I'd prefer to remain unnuked and alive thx
Truth. Maybe if the best talent would stop running to the West there wouldn't be a disparity.
Things will even out eventually...but let's not act like the 4-8ths seeds in the West are worldbeaters. 'Tough battles' in the playoffs is overstated - the top-seeded West ususally beats playoff teams just as easy as the best teams in the East. Spurs went 12-2 in the West last year. OKC went 12-3 against the West the previous year. Dallas went 12-3 the year before.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
