Anonymous
Years ago
I saw Jalen Rose mention that it might be time for the playoffs to be seeded 1 to 16 instead of conferences. I think it has some merit and it makes it more likely to have the 2 best teams in the finals.
IMO you would have to scrap conferences meaning every team would need to play every other team the same number of times thus increasing/decreasing regular season games? I dunno just my opinion, but it would mean a big change in the way the Season is structured.
spot up
Years ago
I think with 30 teams, you need to have conferences and the east/west break up is the best way to do it. Just because the west is a lot stronger right at the moment doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally wrong with the system.
I reckon OKC are a good example for this. Do Westbrook and KD stick with OKC knowing they need to get past GSW to play finals, or do they look at East Conference teams in order to possibly get an easier path to the finals and meet GSW there?
Tornado
Years ago
Spot Up....either way they have to go through GSW so kind of pointless moving just for that reason imo.
spot up
Years ago
Was just an example, and it could influence their decision depending on the mix of players they end up with, etc. Would they rather stay in a loaded west or look to create a strong roster in an east conference team?
Zodiac
Years ago
I've never really understood the whole East vs West divide in the NBA. It's got nothing to do with saving owners travel costs because they're all loaded but probably more to do with trying to create conference (and even worse division) rivalries in long NBA seasons that just drag on and on.
It's archaic and so is playing 82 games when the season should be shortened to 60 tops but I can't see the NBA changing it anytime soon.
Luuuc
Years ago
I could see them changing it before too long.
They've just changed the WNBA to create a more balanced & fair schedule for the regular season and a conference-free playoff system, prompted by the west being dominant for too long. So it wouldn't surprise me to see them transfer some of that to the NBA if the new system proves better (which I'm sure it will. Who wants to see the champ decided before the finals so often).
Having one weaker conference is self-perpetuating, because mediocre teams get pushed away from the top drafts picks by virtue of too many easier in-conference matchups.
Baller#3
Years ago
A 58 game season would make sense, and reduce wear and tear. However, cutting out 24 games from a season reduces the earning potential for every single person involved. That is the single reason they don't want to reduce the amount of games. If they are selling out 82 games they will keep 82 games.
If this wasn't a factor I would play the first 40, have a month off mid season for FIBA to play the qualifiers they want, and all star weekend. Then finish the season off and play offs 1-16
Pointless imo. No matter what all teams have to go through the best at the time. GWS is that good they would sweep most teams when at full strength regardless of seedings etc. And one day when the stud team is the Milwaukee Bucks hypothetically, then all teams will still have the win the title through them. Just accept that no matter what right now we are all witnesses to a superstar team.
You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.
Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.
An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 8:57 am, Fri 26 Apr 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754
