NBA realignment and playoff seeding starting in 2005

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1664103

Discuss.

This sounds like a hockey version of the playoff seeding. That, I do not object, and even makes things interesting.

Except for the point systems that the hockey has, I think it's challenging and more interesting.

Now if they can fix the god damned NFL playoff seeding, my Broncos would stand a better chance of making it instead of some funky formula to give out two wildcard with three divisional champs, with the king of AFC regular record gets a bye.

That doesn't make sense. I'd rather see a four wildcard instead of two with three divisional champions, like the old times.

Hawkeye-X

they have the Kings and the Lakers in their division?

they're toast

maybe we can move them to San Jose instead of the A's

Maybe they should add 2 more wild card teams and have no byes. But Denver right now is ahead in the wildcard race with Miami at a very close second. But the way Denver plays with Plummer they will be in the playoffs and probaly make the Super Bowl. But the reason why I didn't like the old system is because it was sloppy, some divisions had 6 teams while most had 5 teams. This is much more organized and everyone is guaranteed 3 division opponents with games at home and away, 4 non-conference opponents, and 6 non division opponents. But I also love the idea of getting rid of the playoffs and having a Super Bowl that faces the NFC team with the best record and the AFC team with the best record.

Make it simple. Top half of the teams get in. 8 in the AFC, 8 in the NFC. All the division winners get at least home-field in the 1st round. 2nd best division winner in each confernce gets home-field in the comference semis too, and the best division winner gets home-field throughout. Teams would be seeded 8 at 1, 7 at 2, 6 at 3 and 5 at 4. This system works the best with a symmetrical 32-team format also.

I'm also in favour of making the regular season schedule 18 games (still only have one bye week), and downsizing the preseason schedule to 3 per team for EVERYBODY. None of those half-weekends at the very beginning in late July. That way, teams can start camp in the third week of July, Go thru the preseason starting the first week of August, regular season starting the last week of August and ending in the 1st week of January, and the Super Bowl would be played the first week of February. "Playing football in February" could become a new popular cliche, too.

I think 16 games is fine, especially for the players. But in a 18 game season how would you schedule the games?

I'll use Denver as an example.

Every team plays their 3 division opponents 2 times one at home and 1 on the road every year.
Denver @ San Diego
Denver v Oakland
Denver @ Kansas City
Denver v San Diego
Denver @Oakland
Denver v Kansas City

Every team plays 4 teams from a non conference division and rotate every year. This year Denver is playing the NFC North, last year they played teams from the NFC West.
Denver v Detroit
Denver @ Minnesota
Denver v Chicago
Denver @ Green Bay

Every team plays 4 teams from a division within their conference, this year it is the AFC North, last year it was the AFC East.
Denver @ Cinncinnatti
Denver v Pittsburgh
Denver @ Baltimore
Denver v Cleveland

Every team plays 1 opponent from the remaining 2 divisions in their own conference.
Denver v New England (AFC East)
Denver @ Indianapolis (AFC South)
You also notice a pattern here, they play at home then they play on the road in each of the 4 categories.

What would you add or do differently for a 16 game season? 16 games is about as organized as you can get with 4 divisions in each conference and 4 teams in each division.

Each team plays 18 games:

6 games within the other three teams in the division, each home and away.

8 games played against other teams in the same conference but different division. What happens here is that every year, you alternate the division that you DON'T play against. So a team in the NFC North would play all the teams in the NFC West and NFC East once, and not play any NFC South teams that year. The division that would be "out" for NFC North teams would change the following year. I think this works well, because you have a more solid tie-breaking procedure in terms of conference record. Instead of 12 games within the conference, you now have 14. so it would be VERY hard for two teams vying for a wild-card spot (5 thru 8) to be tied in the conference record aspect of the tiebreaker.

4 games against AFC opponents, all in the same division, like they do now anyway.

So, here would be an example of the Minnesota Vikings' schedule in this format:

Division games:

@Chicago
Green Bay
@Detroit
Chicago
@Green Bay
Detroit

Conference games:

@Dallas
NY Giants
@Philadelphia
Washington
@Arizona
Seattle
@San Francisco
St. Louis

Inter-conference games:

@Buffalo
NY Jets
@Miami
New England

So there you have it...

Denver plays every team from the AFC North this year and one team from the remaining divisions, last year it was the AFC East, next year it will be the AFC South. This is how it works for Denver until the end of time.

2002 AFC WEST v AFC EAST
2003 AFC WEST v AFC NORTH
2004 AFC WEST v AFC SOUTH
2005 AFC WEST v AFC EAST
2006 AFC WEST v AFC NORTH
2007 AFC WEST v AFC SOUTH
2008 AFC WEST v AFC EAST
2009 AFC WEST v AFC NORTH
2010 AFC WEST v AFC SOUTH
continued.

Plus with your idea you have teams going head to head with all the teams in 2 divisions without facing in-conference teams from other divisions. So in that schedule Minnesota is playing teams from the NFC East and West but they aren't playing any teams from other divisions. Minnesota this year is playing the NFC West teams, AFC West, NFC North teams twice, 1 NFC East team, 1 NFC South team. I think the 16 team formant is much more organized and their is no need to add an extra two games to the schedule. But I like the idea of having a 16 team playoff though.

Because Denver had Plummer when the Chiefs beat them, and Denver has yet to beat a team with a winning percentage over .500

Plummer looks good against inept teams like Oakland and San Deigo, we'll see how he fares in his second game against KC...

Denver didn't have Plummer in the last 5 games and about 50 players didn't either. About that Kansas City game, Denver had their second best offensive game against the Chiefs. They outgained the Chiefs in total yards by almost 2x, they had better percentage of passes completed, better yards per carry, better yards per attempt, better percentage of converting on 3rd down, need I to go on? Denver was the much better team that day, but a block in the back and Dante Hall helped the Chiefs win by 1 point at a place where a team that came the closest to beating Kansas City was San Diego and they lost 27-14. I am pretty sure Denver will beat Kansas City when they come to Mile High. Denver has the 4th best defense and with Plummer in the lineup they average 384.5 yards a game, the best team in total offense is Minnesota with 376.2 yards per game! They average 29.6 points per game with Plummer in the lineup and they have a 5-1 record with him as a starter. So with the 4th best defense and the best offense(with Plummer in the lineup) I like Denver's chances. If Plummer stays healthy I suggest the other teams better watch out.

This may be early onset senility... but I don't remember them making the playoffs last year :P

Brian Griese was solid but not the type of player that can win games for Denver. He is the reason Denver didn't make the playoffs. Jake Plummer has the 4th best QB rating in the NFL, Griese was below the top 20.

where the qb ten rankings ahead of him had about 3 rating points more. In fact, he was tied with Favre and Jeff Garcia, two excellent qb's.

Oh well, Plummer is doing better then Griese last year and this year as well. He has 11 touchdowns to 4 interceptions, Griese had 15-15. But here is why I blame Griese. Denver was 6-2, Griese throws 2 Touchdowns and 6 interceptions down the stretch and Denver goes 9-7. 3 wins 5 loses from a great start.

Delete

I would just be totally geographically honest and put New Orleans in the West alongside Memphis. I would put both teams in the Southwest Division.

Here's how I would do it:

EAST
Atlantic

Wizards
Celtics
Sixers
Nets
Knicks

Southeast

Hawks
Bobcats
Magic
Heat
Pacers

Central

Bulls
Pistons
Cavaliers
Raptors
Bucks

WEST
Northwest

Timberwolves
Jazz
Nuggets
Sonics
Trailblazers

Southwest

Rockets
Mavericks
Spurs
Grizzlies
Hornets

Pacific

Warriors
Clippers
Lakers
Kings
Suns

This way, you would be completely geographically honest, and also it would mean that the Timberwolves would have a legitimate shot at winning a division championship!!!:-):-):-)

New Orleans will play in the Southwest Division of the Western Conference with Dallas, Houston, Memphis and San Antonio. The Northwest Division will have Denver, Minnesota, Portland, Seattle and Utah. The Pacific Division teams are Golden State, the Los Angeles Lakers and Clippers, Phoenix and Sacramento.