Really interested to hear your ideas on this.3394


The Seattle SuperSonics are set to come back to the NBA after the city ironically steals a team from California (we'll leave that for another thread). With that, it only makes sense for the NBA to realign rather than to have Seattle in the Pacific Division with Golden State, the LA teams, and Phoenix, bypassing its natural I-5 rival -- Portland. Either OKC and the Kings/Sonics franchises need to swap divisions, which would send OKC to the Pacific, or the NBA should re-draw divisions altogether.

So what do you think should happen? Should OKC play in the Pacific Division although we're not in the Pacific (we're not in the Northwest either, but hey)? Should a true Pacific division form (SEA, PDX, Golden State, LAX^2)? Should OKC be in a division with the Texas teams instead? Do we even care where we are aligned, as long as the Peake is loud and Bricktown bars and restaurants are full on game nights?

OKC certainly does not belong in the pacific division. Given how much whining came out of Seattle, I would like to see them stay in the pacific since that makes winning their division much harder.

If you want to argue having them in the northwest for a rivalry with Portland, then it makes sense to have OKC stay their since there is a good chance for that could be a rivalry as well.

I like this guy's idea:

http://i.imgur.com/uChmRkk.jpg

NBA Divisional Realignment - a modest proposal (http://www.slcdunk.com/2011/3/5/2031804/nba-divisional-realignment-a-modest-proposal)

From a logistical standpoint, the Midwest Division above would be a nightmare. Memphis, Milwaukee, and Utah in a division together makes no sense. If I were to take this map, I'd keep the Atlantic division as drawn because it is the most compact region. The Central division plus Minnesota, Milwaukee, Memphis, Atlanta, and Washington DC could then be divided into two division. Keeping compact divisions together might yield Memphis, Atlanta, DC, Cleveland, and Toronto in one division, with the others in another division.

The Florida teams, New Orleans, Houston, and San Antonio make another decent grouping. Dallas and OKC would join the Mountain Division teams; and all teams in Pacific zone states would be grouped together.

I'm not married to those ideas. However if geography is going to be the driver for this, and there is no way to break up the north Atlantic area teams, that would be the most sensible way to go about it.

I don't much care for alignment schemes that places Minnesota or Memphis so far away from division rivals. Placing OKC in the Southwest and Minnesota in the Northwest or hypothetical Midwest makes sense for OKC only, but for the Thunder. For Minnesota, why fly to Seattle when Milwaukee is down the street?

You gotta keep Atlanta in the Southeast. It's a Southern city in the Southeast part of America. Memphis is Mid-South, but nevertheless, South.

From a logistical standpoint, the Midwest Division above would be a nightmare. Memphis, Milwaukee, and Utah in a division together makes no sense.

It's really not any more-ridiculous than the current Northwest Division setup.


If I were to take this map, I'd keep the Atlantic division as drawn because it is the most compact region. The Central division plus Minnesota, Milwaukee, Memphis, Atlanta, and Washington DC could then be divided into two division. Keeping compact divisions together might yield Memphis, Atlanta, DC, Cleveland, and Toronto in one division, with the others in another division.

The Florida teams, New Orleans, Houston, and San Antonio make another decent grouping. Dallas and OKC would join the Mountain Division teams; and all teams in Pacific zone states would be grouped together.

I'm not married to those ideas. However if geography is going to be the driver for this, and there is no way to break up the north Atlantic area teams, that would be the most sensible way to go about it.

So you'd do something like this? (Please excuse my crude MS Paint skills and the apparent early-onset Parkinson's disease.)

http://i.imgur.com/c0fopqa.jpg

I'm just assuming you meant Charlotte when you mentioned Washington (twice), because you also said you'd keep the Atlantic Division as drawn.

I guess my biggest question here is which division would be joining us in the Western Conference? 'Cause I really hope it's not the one with Miami in it.

we need to be realistic teams are not going to have a mass switch of conf because a team moves from sac to seattle ..

if any change is going to happen either utah or denver would switch with Sacramento and go to the pacific

I'm just assuming you meant Charlotte when you mentioned Washington (twice), because you also said you'd keep the Atlantic Division as drawn.

I guess my biggest question here is which division would be joining us in the Western Conference? 'Cause I really hope it's not the one with Miami in it.[/QUOTE]

Yes I meant Charlotte and thought I posted a correction that said so. My apologies, and thanks for pointing that out.

Wow, yes the suggestion is even more horrendous when Minnesota and Memphis are given more geographically sensible division rivals. Thank you for the map which makes that point clear.

So then I guess the question becomes what is the most appropriate way to to align the Western Conference?

we need to be realistic teams are not going to have a mass switch of conf because a team moves from sac to seattle ..

if any change is going to happen either utah or denver would switch with Sacramento and go to the pacific

That is certainly possible. I would have assumed the NBA would want to keep Utah and Denver with Seattle and Portland, though.

That is certainly possible. I would have assumed the NBA would want to keep Utah and Denver with Seattle and Portland, though.

Seattle use to be in the pacific division till the northwest was created 2004ish

Seattle use to be in the pacific division till the northwest was created 2004ish

so was portland

so was portland

Where I was going with that is Seattle is not really out of place with the Pacific division and have longer division histories with the teams in it than verses Portland. Also as long as they are both in the west, they will still play the same number of times per year.

A swap of Portland and Suns might be another reasonable shift without reorganizing the entire conference.

I have read that proposed on a sports blog from the Pacific Northwest. Creating a true Pacific division would be feasible by kicking Phoenix to the current Northwest division. That still leaves Minnesota traveling to OKC, DEN, SLC, and PHX, but I still have not figured out or seen any way to align Minnesota in a way that makes regional sense for them.

I like this guy's idea:

http://i.imgur.com/uChmRkk.jpg

NBA Divisional Realignment - a modest proposal (http://www.slcdunk.com/2011/3/5/2031804/nba-divisional-realignment-a-modest-proposal)

I like this, but move Memphis to Southeast, New Orleans to Southwest, and PHX to midwest. The midwest is still the worst aligned division geographically, but PHX-Denver-Utah make sense and so does Minny-Mil. There's no perfect way to do it, but that would be pretty good.

I like this, but move Memphis to Southeast, New Orleans to Southwest, and PHX to midwest. The midwest is still the worst aligned division geographically, but PHX-Denver-Utah make sense and so does Minny-Mil. There's no perfect way to do it, but that would be pretty good.

*Applause

That would make a lot of sense. Everyone would have regional rivals and no one would be the lone far-flung team in any division. Minnesota and Memphis would have to be very happy about the move; Phoenix -- not so much.

I redrew a map on my laptop....no clue what the conference names would be but here's my groupings:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8383/8515446140_5b2928883d_c.jpg

Yellow, Brown & Green would make up the Eastern Conference and Blue, Red, and Purple would be the Western Conference. Of course the Kings and Trailblazers would just swap places if the Kings went to Seattle and became the Sonics.

As you can see, I'm really aiming for a shake up of what we've become used to. After all, it is a realignment.

That's retarded.

That's retarded.

and you're gay.

and you're gay.

http://i.imgur.com/bxW1HKt.gif

lol

Kings moving to Seattle is not a done deal yet, you are jumping to consultions way early

I have read that proposed on a sports blog from the Pacific Northwest. Creating a true Pacific division would be feasible by kicking Phoenix to the current Northwest division. That still leaves Minnesota traveling to OKC, DEN, SLC, and PHX, but I still have not figured out or seen any way to align Minnesota in a way that makes regional sense for them.

the other thing that every one is missing is that divisions don't mean very much in the NBA as far a schedule goes ...

in the nba teams play the opposite conf 2 games a year (1 home 1 away) that is 30 games leaving 52 games for 14 teams

you play the teams in your division 4 times (2 home 2 away) 16 games leaving 36 games for 10 teams

you play 6 of those 10 teams 4 times (2 home 2 away) 24 games leaving 12 games for 4 teams and play the other 4 teams 3 times each ..

thus the division schedule doesn't really effect travel very much

Kings moving to Seattle is not a done deal yet, you are jumping to consultions way early

You are jumping to conclusions way too early. I said IF they move to Seattle and drew respective arrows...yep.

Kings moving to Seattle is not a done deal yet, you are jumping to consultions way early

Even if they don't move this discussion still makes sense. The Kings/Sonics would be in the same division according to almost every drawing.

I redrew a map on my laptop....no clue what the conference names would be but here's my groupings:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8383/8515446140_5b2928883d_c.jpg

Yellow, Brown & Green would make up the Eastern Conference and Blue, Red, and Purple would be the Western Conference. Of course the Kings and Trailblazers would just swap places if the Kings went to Seattle and became the Sonics.

As you can see, I'm really aiming for a shake up of what we've become used to. After all, it is a realignment.

Lol. As Charles Barkely would say, this is tuuurrrriiibbbblllleeeee. You break up so many teams from their most logical, closest rivals.

Here's an idea I've been working on for our division:

http://i.imgur.com/fxZOvG3.jpg

Lol. As Charles Barkely would say, this is tuuurrrriiibbbblllleeeee. You break up so many teams from their most logical, closest rivals.

See last sentence in original post. I don't know how blind you guys are. I'm just having fun, lol.

Here's an idea I've been working on for our division:

http://i.imgur.com/fxZOvG3.jpg

That is 'retarded awesome'!! hahaha

Here's an idea I've been working on for our division:

http://i.imgur.com/fxZOvG3.jpg

The downside with this is with that many statistically bad teams we would be guaranteed to soon be playing against some of the best talents in the NBA to win our division and in four to six years several will have the experiences to make it difficult unless all their front offices are stupid. Right now most of our division's teams are on the treadmill of mediocrity, with Denver the only one looking to possibly be emerging from it on the positive side of that anytime soon.

If a changes are made I think other factors other than just geography will come into play, market share being one of them.

I like this guy's idea:

http://i.imgur.com/uChmRkk.jpg

NBA Divisional Realignment - a modest proposal (http://www.slcdunk.com/2011/3/5/2031804/nba-divisional-realignment-a-modest-proposal)

I like this one as well.

It would be so much easier if the NBA just added 2 teams.

It would be so much easier if the NBA just added 2 teams.

geographic divisions don't matter in the nba .. they don't really make a difference in the schedule

I like this one as well.

I like Kilgore's tweak of it even better. Memphis to Southeast, New Orleans to Southwest, and Phoenix to Midwest. Makes even more sense, and we'd still get to play New Orleans just as often as we do now, and we wouldn't have to play Memphis as much. http://i.imgur.com/bMUqUoy.gif

Midwest/old Northwest is still borked, but it's always gonna be borked.

If a changes are made I think other factors other than just geography will come into play, market share being one of them.

I agree. However, this is one of the biggest reasons for keeping Pacific and Northwest divisions. Placing all of the West Coast teams in the same division leads to a Midwest division (someone mentioned above PHX, SLC, DEN, MSP, MEM or MKE) that is roughly equivalent in market size to the old Northwest division. The downside is that it is more geographically sprawling than it needs to be. All things being equal in market size, it would probably make more sense for the NBA to go with a more geographically compact division alignment.

I have something to say about the title of this thread...

WHO THE #%^.+ CARES!!!!!!!!!!

I have something to say about the title of this thread...

WHO THE #%^.+ CARES!!!!!!!!!!

I'm thinking that if you don't care you don't have to read this thread.

I agree. However, this is one of the biggest reasons for keeping Pacific and Northwest divisions. Placing all of the West Coast teams in the same division leads to a Midwest division (someone mentioned above PHX, SLC, DEN, MSP, MEM or MKE) that is roughly equivalent in market size to the old Northwest division. The downside is that it is more geographically sprawling than it needs to be. All things being equal in market size, it would probably make more sense for the NBA to go with a more geographically compact division alignment.

Only the conferences really matter how sprawling they are and unless they go away from the east/west format we are more sprawling no mater what lines you draw, the divisions only affect the schedule if a lockout shortens the season. Pretty much the only thing that a division determines is who are the three that are guaranteed a top four seed in the playoffs. Which if you are not naturally at least a top four team in your conference, you are going out first or second round anyway.

Nvm.

I have something to say about the title of this thread...

WHO THE #%^.+ CARES!!!!!!!!!!

Since you replied, it is obvious that you do care

It would be so much easier if the NBA just added 2 teams.

I hope they do't. The talent in the league is already watered down, expansion just waters it down further.

The downside with this is with that many statistically bad teams we would be guaranteed to soon be playing against some of the best talents in the NBA to win our division and in four to six years several will have the experiences to make it difficult unless all their front offices are stupid. Right now most of our division's teams are on the treadmill of mediocrity, with Denver the only one looking to possibly be emerging from it on the positive side of that anytime soon.

First, I'm sure you know he was kidding. Secondly, how long have those teams been bad? Being bad doesn't mean you will be good. The Kings just got rid of the #5 pick as a rookie to save money. The Hornets will likely improve, but on the whole, these teams could be bad for a while...

First, I'm sure you know he was kidding. Secondly, how long have those teams been bad? Being bad doesn't mean you will be good. The Kings just got rid of the #5 pick as a rookie to save money. The Hornets will likely improve, but on the whole, these teams could be bad for a while...

I caught that. While the old Kings management should be a case study in bad management on several business fronts, either new management team coming next year in Seattle or a new local group is bound to be a drastic improvement. Surprisingly Charlotte has a bit of a handicap too, for a good a player MJ has issues to work on owning a team. New Orleans it is still two early to tell how their owner is going to run the team but is putting in effort. I have never followed much with Orlando.

While I don't see any of them making as quick a turn around as we did, I would bet in six years there are more top ten teams on that list than the list of our division rivals.

I hope they do't. The talent in the league is already watered down, expansion just waters it down further.

Contraction would benefit the league and fans as well. Another benefit to the league would be to set up the draft for play like baseball. If you don't go after high school, you are ineligible to come in for 3 years. The NCAA needs to do their part as well and not disqualify someone for entering the NBA draft and not making a team.

How about add two teams and reduce the rosters by 1 player. This would keep the same number of players and increase playing time for all of them.

Then create an NBA Senior league (I posted this proposal some time back) for players like Derek Fisher who are still pretty good but maybe don't have the legs for the added playing time.

How about add two teams and reduce the rosters by 1 player. This would keep the same number of players and increase playing time for all of them.

Then create an NBA Senior league (I posted this proposal some time back) for players like Derek Fisher who are still pretty good but maybe don't have the legs for the added playing time.


umm no .. what would be the benefit to adding any teams??

How about add two teams and reduce the rosters by 1 player. This would keep the same number of players and increase playing time for all of them.

Then create an NBA Senior league (I posted this proposal some time back) for players like Derek Fisher who are still pretty good but maybe don't have the legs for the added playing time.

What.

umm no .. what would be the benefit to adding any teams??

To increase the market size. Of course, adding a team must add to the overall profitability of the league otherwise it is a step backwards. I think adding a team in Seattle (assuming Sacramento stays put) and a team in say, Omaha, would enhance the league.

A team in Omaha would add 3 TV markets to the NBA - Omaha, Des Moines, and Lincoln (total TVs in those markets: 1,118,710). OKC/Tulsa is 1,245,730.

So I'm just throwing out ideas.

How about add two teams and reduce the rosters by 1 player. This would keep the same number of players and increase playing time for all of them.

Then create an NBA Senior league (I posted this proposal some time back) for players like Derek Fisher who are still pretty good but maybe don't have the legs for the added playing time.

The number of players isn't the problem, the quality is. There's a limited number of top tier talent in the league. When you add more teams, you dilute them between more teams, which decreases the overall quality. A team isn't going to be all superstars, and the last roster spot typically never plays, so removing one player wouldn't counteract dilution of talent, it'd just mean teams take one less practice squad player to games.

If we were using the number of superstars to determine the number of teams there would be maybe 5 teams in the league. The Wizards are one the worst team in the NBA and look who they have beaten. There isn't as much difference between the top and bottom on any give night as people make it out to be. Every team has to show up every night; take a night off and you lose.

OKC (43-16)
Milwaukee (29-28)
Miami (43-14)
Houston (33-28)
Orlando-2X (16-44)
New York (35-21)
Denver-2X (38-22)
Minnesota (20-36)
New Orleans (21-39)
Portland-2X (27-31)
Chicago (34-26)
Brooklyn (34-26)
Toronto (23-37)
Philadelphia (23-35)
Atlanta (33-25)
LA Clippers (43-19)

Not really, no one is saying no bit players, but there is an significant difference in excitement when teams with no superstars come to town vs. those who do have them. Less excitement means less gates, less profit, and an overall weakening of the product. Just because a 13-46 team can upset a much better team doesn't mean people are as fired up to see it.

The biggest threat to the NBA is bad basketball, and the more the league expands, the higher the risk is of getting it. Sports franchises have to keep a certain quality of play to keep the fanbase interested, and if you don't, then you damage that brand.

Expantion is no sure bet of more money, it likely means an infusion of cash and a smaller percent of media revenue in perpetuity with other hassles. Seattle is only middle of the pack population wise. Any other US city in top twenty-five market either has a team who's owner will fight it, is oversaturated for sports dollars already or unlikely due to little to no chance of public funds for stadium.

From Feb 15, 2013

Pittsburgh Mentioned On Short List For NBA Franchise « CBS Pittsburgh (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/02/15/pittsburgh-mentioned-on-short-list-for-nba-franchise/)


When asked about possible NBA expansion Stern told the Chronicle, “I keep a little green book with a list of all the cities interested in NBA teams and could respond pretty quickly. There’s all kinds of stuff going on in Pittsburgh, Columbus, Louisville, Virginia Beach, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Mexico City, Kansas City.”

“I keep a little green book with a list of all the cities interested in NBA teams and could respond pretty quickly. There’s all kinds of stuff going on in Pittsburgh, Columbus, Louisville, Virginia Beach, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Mexico City, Kansas City.”

That is a perfect lineup of cities for the new NBA Senior League featuring superstar Derek Fisher.

That is a perfect lineup of cities for the new NBA Senior League featuring superstar Derek Fisher.

Bazinga.

That is a perfect lineup of cities for the new NBA Senior League featuring superstar Derek Fisher.

Well, I was more thinking of Boston, New York, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Seattle, and Minneapolis. No game clock, 30 second shot clock, and the first team to 40 is half time. First team to 65 wins. Playoffs are decided by 4 teams with the highest point total. Players must be retired from the NBA for 2 years and over 35. Jordan and Magic could probably still be playing.

If I had to put moey on a guess right now, I'd say the Thunder will be playing in the Pacific Division next year. It's probably the easiest move logistically the NBA could make at this point.

If I had to put moey on a guess right now, I'd say the Thunder will be playing in the Pacific Division next year. It's probably the easiest move logistically the NBA could make at this point.


i would bet a ton that the thunder will be in the northwest division next year .. no reason for a change .. as it doesn't really effect the schedule for Sacramento

If I had to put moey on a guess right now, I'd say the Thunder will be playing in the Pacific Division next year. It's probably the easiest move logistically the NBA could make at this point.

If it had any impact it makes travel worse the Northwest and no better for the Pacific and worse on time zones spanned. However who is in what division makes little impact, we play eleven out of the fifteen teams in the west four times in the regular season, the other four teams we play three with distance clearly not determining who we are not playing a fourth game.

I doubt the remaining team in the pacific league teams would be that interested in us joining their division. Oklahoma in the Pacific is geographically stupid, Phoenix arguably has enough ex-Californians that it makes some sense.