While it's not a done deal yet, the NBA's announcement that it'll be expanding to 32 teams is expected to come fairly soon. The announcement that those two franchises will be located in Seattle and Las Vegas should follow shortly after. Which, of course, will trigger the necessary NBA realignment talk. Somebody in the Western Conference will have to move to the East. The real question is who?
Logically, it would make the most sense for the Grizzlies to make the move. After all, Memphis is the furthest-east team in the Western Conference. However, that might not be the case. All indications are it would actually be Minnesota switching conferences. And the rationale for it actually makes a lot of sense. So, even though it was surprising at first, I was able to quickly get on board with the idea of the Timberwolves in the East.
It's all about the location of the Grizzlies and Timberwolves in relation to other teams. Minnesota is isolated among Western Conference teams. It's closer to Milwaukee and Chicago than anybody in the West. The Vikings, Packers and Bears have been NFC North rivals for decades. So, it's not a stretch to envision the Timberwolves, Bucks and Bulls having a similar rivalry.
You've gotta think that's a part of it, too. The Vikings and Packers are rivals. The Twins and Brewers are each other's interleague partner. The Timberwolves and Bucks have always been in separate conferences, though, so they haven't established that same type of rivalry. The Timberwolves don't have one with anybody, actually. Because the Bucks would be the one. So, I'd imagine both teams are excited about the prospect of facing each other more often.
Meanwhile, Memphis is within driving distance to New Orleans, Oklahoma City and all three Texas teams. It's within driving distance to several Eastern Conference cities, as well, but the point is the NBA has more options with the Grizzlies than it does with the Timberwolves. It's really a matter of what makes more sense--keeping the Timberwolves in the West despite the closest NBA cities being the East and moving the Grizzlies away from their established rivals simply because they're the furthest east among Western Conference teams or moving Minnesota, despite being further west, so that the Timberwolves don't have to travel as much.
Whether it's the Timberwolves or Grizzlies who switches conferences, you'd also have to figure the NBA would adopt the NFL's alignment of four four-team divisions in each conference. Not only is it the only way to evenly divide 32 teams (unless you do it like the NHL and have four divisions of eight), it's the only way to make the math work for both the regular season schedule and the NBA Cup.
NBA teams currently play five games against the other four teams in their division (20 games), three against the other 10 in their conference (30 games) and two against the other conference (30 games) with the other two games TBA based on the NBA Cup. That 80-game breakdown wouldn't be fundamentally different with four divisions of four per conference: reducing the number of division games from five to four (12 games), keeping the three against the other 12 in your conference (36 games), keeping the two against the other conference (32 games) and still leaving the two TBA games for the NBA Cup.
Another argument for the expansion to 32 teams is how it would improve the NBA Cup. With three groups of five, the final group games can't be simultaneous. With four groups of four, they can. Just like in the World Cup. It would also eliminate the need for a fourth "wild card" team to make the quarterfinals since they could just do the four group winners. Likewise, there wouldn't need to be interconference games between teams that didn't make the quarterfinals since now you'd have 12 teams per conference eliminated instead of 11. All the more reason to go to 32 teams.
As for how to realign the divisions, it would actually be fairly straightforward. Only two divisions would have somewhat awkward configurations. But, for the most part, the league pretty much geographically aligns itself pretty well. So, setting up four divisions of four really wouldn't be that complicated. There might be some slight tweaks, but I'd expect the realigned NBA to look something like this:
EASTERN CONFERENCE
Atlantic: Nets, Knicks, 76ers, Wizards
Northeast: Celtics, Cavaliers, Pistons, Raptors
Central: Bulls, Pacers, Bucks, Timberwolves
Southeast: Hawks, Hornets, Heat, Magic
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Midwest: Nuggets, Grizzlies, Thunder, Jazz
Southwest: Mavericks, Rockets, Pelicans, Spurs
Northwest: Warriors, Trail Blazers, Kings, Sonics
Pacific: Las Vegas, Clippers, Lakers, Suns
Memphis and Minnesota are interchangeable, so they'd simply swap places if the Grizzlies were moved to the East instead of the Timberwolves. Although, if, as expected, they move Minnesota, that could leave the West open to a slight shakeup. The Northwest and Pacific wouldn't change, but I can see the Grizzlies and Pelicans being kept together with Denver and Utah, with the two outlier pairs making up one division and Oklahoma City with the Texas teams instead of New Orleans.
In the East, there are two divisions that are kinda awkward. I had to take Washington out of the Southeast since they're the furthest north and the easiest to move. I also couldn't find any possible way to work Charlotte into any other division. So, the Hornets are with the Hawks and the two Florida teams almost by default. Likewise, I had to break up the Central and put either Memphis or Minnesota in the division with Milwaukee, Chicago and Indiana. (If it's the Timberwolves, I'd imagine the Bulls would insist on keeping their rivalry with the Pacers intact.)
Because of where the other Eastern Conference teams are situated, there are a few possibilities for how to align them. The Knicks and Nets would obviously stay together, but that's it. You could do them with Boston and Toronto, then have Cleveland and Detroit with Philadelphia and Washington, but that seems just as arbitrary as what I went with. And that wraparound division is a little less gangly. Especially since Detroit and Cleveland are relatively close to Toronto. Doing a Knicks, Nets, 76ers, Wizards division would also mirror the NHL's Metropolitan Division. (Boston, Toronto and Detroit are all in the same division in the NHL, as well.)
Are these divisions perfect? No. Frankly, the geography of the NBA means there will be some flaws in any divisional alignment. The best you can do is getting it pretty close where enough people will be happy with it. And I think the divisions I've proposed would achieve that.
None of this is set in stone, obviously. The NBA needs to formally announce it's expanding first. Then they can worry about all of these logistics. And I'd imagine there will be some lobbying being done by multiple teams regarding the realigned divisions. I would be shocked if they didn't ultimately look pretty close to what I'm suggesting, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment