In this day and age, I think it's a worthy idea. I don't necessarily buy the argument that the league shouldn't consider this just because the East/West disparity was so big this year -- it seems to me that going to a global tournament rather than a conference-based tournament would ensure that when there are disparate years, you get the 16 best teams in the playoffs and when there's more balance, you likely get something closer to an 8-8 split in participation.
The other part of this that I like is that you introduce the possibility for playoff matchups (and perhaps rivalries) that are highly unlikely in the current structure. Over the course of the Duncan era, the Spurs (an extreme example, given the sheer number of playoff series they've participated in over that span) have played Phoenix and the Lakers 7 times and have played Dallas 6 times. Certainly, the familiarity breeds contempt, but one wonders if a mini-rivalry might have been born if the Spurs had to play the Pacers, the Bulls, or the Celtics (for example) at some point during that run. Rivalries often need a playoff series to gain some traction and in cross-conference matchups, that currently requires each team to reach the Finals, which means that the chances of getting too many of those rivalries is really small.
Still, I think the fundamental problem with the idea is that you either have to live with the fact that the schedules will be imbalanced or you have to re-work the schedule to try to balance it and ignore the conference distinctions, likely without reducing the number of regular season games.


. Should divisions/conferences be scrapped completely for a system like this because the East sucks so bad? I could see the final 4 being spurs vs rockets and heat vs okc.
Reply With Quote