Jump to content

Okay kids, get your paper and pencils!


yh

Recommended Posts

The NBA announced today that it is going to realign when the Charlotte Bobcats enter the league.  There will be two conferences with three five team divisions.  All they have said for sure is that New Orleans will move to the West, Charlotte will play in the East, the divisions will be attempt to be as geographically logical as possible and that there will remain 8 playoff teams per conference (3 division champs and then the 5 next best teams).  There has been no indication as to whether any of the present division names will remain or what the new division names will be.  So . . . .  how do you see the new NBA lining up?

Here's my thought

EAST

Southeast: Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami, Washington

Central: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Indiana

Northeast: Boston, NY, NJ, Toronto, Philly

WEST

Pacific: Lakers, Clippers, Sacramento, Golden State, Phoenix

Midwest: San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Memphis, New Orleans

Northwest: Seattle, Portland, Utah, Minnesota, Denver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YHollander has a pretty good setup but I woudl make some slight modificiations.

You may want to have Milwaukee move west to have natural rivalray with Minnesota

Washingot shoudl be in North East because the NE corridor is Bos-Was

Toronto should be in same division as Detroit because of the close proximity.

The only problem is the Pacific with 4 teams in Cali who is the 5th team in the Pacific? Thats a mellon scratcher

???  ???

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would move some of the Cali teams out of the Pacific Division, maybe LAC & SAC so all the Cali teams aren't fighting for one Division title.  It sems odd to have 4 Cali teams and one loner team trying to fight them all off.

In other sports: The NHL & NFL have the Cali teams in one division, but MLB has the teams split into the two conferences.

Whatcha gonna do when the Ultimate MegaPowers run wild over you!

UMPPrimarySig.jpgUMPWarriorSig.jpgUMPAltSig.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yhollander...

You beat me to the punch. That's exactly how I envision the new divisional alignments breaking down. In fact, I'd be shocked if this wasn't the direction that the NBA actually goes in.

Somethings are just a given: i.e., they're NOT going to break-up the California-based teams... they're NOT going to break-up the Celtics/Knicks/Nets/76ers block... they're NOT going to break-up the Texas-based teams... they're not going to break-up the Bulls/Bucks/Pacers/Pistons/Cavaliers block (unfortunately,  the Raptors and TimberWolves are left on the outside looking in)... they're NOT going to break-up the Magic/Heat and (new) Hawks/Bobcats pairings. After that, it's all just a question of dropping teams into available slots.

Brian in Boston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the realignment is one of the better ideas to come from the NBA in a while.  It makes sense now with the Bobcats coming into the league.  My only problem, like in the NHL, is that the Southeast is that it's a weak division (no wonder they watch NASCAR).  There would be a weak team as the third seed in the playoffs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's a really far-fetched realignment idea:

I put the 15 teams that have been in the NBA the longest in one conference and the rest, including the surviving ABA teams in the other conference.

National Conference

East

New York

Boston

Philadelphia

Washington

Atlanta

Central

Chicago

Detroit

Houston

Milwaukee

Cleveland

West

Sacramento

LA Lakers

Phoenix

Seattle

Golden State

American Conference

East

New Jersey

Miami

Orlando

Charlotte

Toronto

Central

Indiana

Dallas

New Orleans

Minnesota

Memphis

West

San Antonio

LA Clippers

Denver

Utah

Portland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's kinda funny that in jrh's realignment, the American Conference is the only one with a non-U.S. team.

Toronto-Miami is a heck of a long way to go.

Anyway, I like the NBA calling it the East and West... the MLB is wrong with the National League being International and the Blue Jays being in the American League (unless you interpret it as North American, which 99.9% of people don't).

WINnipegSigBanner.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the MLB is wrong with the National League being International and the Blue Jays being in the American League (unless you interpret it as North American, which 99.9% of people don't).

Except, of course, those names were chosen some 60-70 years before either Canadian team came into existence... before Major League Baseball itself existed, for that matter.

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On alignments, isn't it interesting how the two most popular sports in America (Baseball and football) have non-geographical divisions?  Like, I mean two west divisions in different confrences, etc.  I think it's kinda cool, and sets up a more exciting championship game and all-star game instead of West v. East every year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for that is that the conferences in each league were actually born out of the merger of two competing leagues--the American and National Leagues in the case of MLB, and the NFL and AFL (creating the NFC and AFC in the process).

Why they never decided to change that can mostly be attributed to tradition, especially in the case of MLB.

In the case of the NHL and NBA, they also merged with competing leagues, but in both cases, only a very small number of teams came from the other league (four in both cases?).  Therefore, no radical shift was necessary.

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for that is that the conferences in each league were actually born out of the merger of two competing leagues--the American and National Leagues in the case of MLB, and the NFL and AFL (creating the NFC and AFC in the process).

Why they never decided to change that can mostly be attributed to tradition, especially in the case of MLB.

In the case of the NHL and NBA, they also merged with competing leagues, but in both cases, only a very small number of teams came from the other league (four in both cases?). Therefore, no radical shift was necessary.

I know that, of course, I was just saying it was a coincidence; but it creates a more exciting championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that, of course, I was just saying it was a coincidence; but it creates a more exciting championship.

Just trying to be educational. *heh*

I'm not sure it creates a "more exciting" championship, necessarily.

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, the way things are starting to turn in the college ranks, I wonder how long it will be before we start saying "I can remember when conferences were geographic in alignment."  How many more years before we see USC play Miami for the Big 30 Championship and the right to play the winner of the Great America Conference championship game (Michigan vs. Oklahoma) in the Pepsi Bowl at Pasadena?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the MLB is wrong with the National League being International and the Blue Jays being in the American League (unless you interpret it as North American, which 99.9% of people don't).

Except, of course, those names were chosen some 60-70 years before either Canadian team came into existence... before Major League Baseball itself existed, for that matter.

Using that reasoning...

Say the sky used to be red. Logically, the sky was determined to be 'red'. Then 60-70 years later, the sky inexplicably turned blue. Is calling the sky 'red' now still correct, regardless of the fact that the designation predates the change?

chin-scratcher... :D

WINnipegSigBanner.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean the NHL should get renamed, since "National," in its case, was supposed to mean Canada? :;):

In all seriousness, you would expect them to change a sixty-plus-year-old league name because they admitted a team from Canada?

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.