Posted on: July 24, 2010 12:05 am
Edited on: August 10, 2010 3:45 pm


So the postings of a few people on this topic got me thinking. How would the NBA look if they cut it down to less teams. What woud the makeup of teams be? How would the season and playoffs be different? Here's what I was thinking. You take the average NBA attendence of all 30 teams over the past 10 years. Then using that you remove 6 teams from the league, using barometers to differentiate between some teams, i.e team performance, history, etc. For example, the Pacers fal into the list of one of the bottom ten teams, but they have at least some significant basketball history and their fans show up when the team is good due to Indiana being a big basketball state so they wouldn't be one of the 6. The Hawks are the worst over the last ten years, but Atlanta is a good spots market and with the team rising, they are starting to fill up again. Add in some semblance of history and they make the cut. Below is the average attendance figures for NBA teams over the last ten years.


So after all these things are considered, I think ultimately the 6 teams that would be contracted are: Memphis Grizzlies, Charlotte Bobcats, New Orleans Hornets (sorry GO), New Jersey Nets, Orlando Magic, and Milwaukee Bucks. However, due to the Magic being a premier team right now and with Toronto losing Chris Bosh, I think the NBA would contrct the Raptors since basketball has never taken off in Canada anyways and the team appears headed towards a long rebuilding process if it maintains existece.

That leaves 24 teams in the NBA. From that you put 12 in each conference, two divisions of 6. From there, you have 4 teams in each conference make the playoffs at the end of the season (you could do 6 and give byes to the top 2, ala football, either would work). The new divisions would look something like this, again using geography to decide most of the spots. And since under this format, the East would lose 4 of the 6 teams, the West would have to ship a team to the East to make this work out. The Timberwolves would make the most sense since geographically they are closest to some of the eastern conference teams. The two division winners make it as the top 2 seeds and then depending on whether its 4 or 6 teams, the next 2 or 4 best records make it.


Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
Orlando Magic
Washington Wizards
Atlanta Hawks
Miami Heat


Philadelphia 76ers
Cleveland Cavaliers
Detroit Pistons
Chicago Bulls
Indiana Pacers
Minnesota Timberwolves

Understandably right now the Atlantic Division is so much stronger than the Central but that happens from time to time. If this were the l90's, these divisions wold be somewhat even. It goes in cycles.


Oklahoma City Thunder
Denver Nuggets
San Antonio Spurs
Houston Rockets
Dallas Mavericks
Utah Jazz


Los Angelas Lakers
Los Angelas Clippers
Phoenix Suns
Golden State Warriors
Sacramento Kings
Portland Trailblazers


Every team plays every team in its division 6 times: 5 x 6 = 30 games
Every team plays the other division 4 times: 6 x 4 = 24 games
Every team plays the other conference 2 times: 12 x 3 = 36 games

Totals out to 90 games. 8 more games which Im sure most people wouldn't like given the season stretches to the end of June already. However, with less teams qualifying for the post-season it could hav a baseball like effect where come May, you have 7-8 teams battling it out for only 4 playoff spots as oppose to having teams clinch by Febuary because practically everyone nowadays makes the playoffs. And you know owners would be happy with 4 more games to make revenue.

What this new league does for the NBA:

1) Cuts down on the deadweight- 6 less teams means you can get rid of the 90 worst players remaining in the league and have stronger teams as well as a better product on the floor. Teams won't be rolling out Brian Scalabrine's, D.J. Mbega's, etc. Also this makes the difference between the best and worst teams much closer. The fact an NBA team can win only 12 games a year is embarassing. Under this new format, though the top teams would be better as well so you may think "Well it all balances out", almost every team woud have an all-star worthy player. No more teams rolling out mediocre talent. What do you do with the 90 players left over from the folded teams? You have a draft. Imagine having a draft right now with Gerald Wallace, Chris Paul, Brandon Jennings, Brook Lopez, Devin Harris, Zach Randolph, O.J. Mayo, Rudy Gay, Marc Gasol, etc, in it. All the bottom feeders would instantly add a proven all-star player and help narrow the gap between the Heats and Lakers of the world from the 76ers and Timberwolves of the world.

2) Enhance Rivalries- Smaller league means seeing the same team over and over. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain played something like 150 times in their careers against one another. As it is now, you could catch the Heat once at home when one of the Big 3 is out. Granted in this new format, every other year you would only get them once at home, but your team still sees them more. Playing a division rival 6 times a year will do wonders to raise the hate level between the two teams. You see the stars of the league more as it is whether in person or on TV as your team will play every team more given thats at least 10 games you would have had against the 6 contracted teams that you don't have to worry about anymore. Its no secret why people always refernece the older eras when pointing out great rivalries. You have a hard time making them work now because with 30 teams you don't get to play the other teams nearly as much.

3) Less chance of boring playoff series- Instead of having teams slip into an 8 seed with a barely .500% record and torturing us through 4-5 boring games where the team who will advance is hardly ever in doubt, you jump right into big-time playoff series. With only 4 teams (or again perhaps 6) making the post-season in a league where the roster talent would rise, you'd likely have multiple all-stars playing against one another for 6-7 games if these were the playoff teams that survived the more talented and converged league. Think back to the 80's when after the Bad Boy Pistons might have squared off with Bird and McHale's Celtics, the winner was looking forward to a series with Moses and Dr. J, who might have just finshed a series with the talented Cavs or Bucks teams of the 80's, ultimately culminating in  Finals mathcup with the Magic and Kareem Lakers, or Twin Tower Rockets teams. This also would go to enhancing rivalries, as less teams = greater likelihood that you would see the same opponents in the post-season during stretches.

Its all hypothetical and probably won't happen anytime soon because thats 6 less teams the NBA can make revenue from, but ultimately I think it would improve the product of the NBA immensely. And hey, a fan can dream can't he.....
Posted on: June 25, 2010 9:57 am

Free Agency 2010- From a fan of a non-factor team

With all the headlines and spotlight on the 2010 Free Agency class, it is easy to get hyped up over the potential BOOM that will come from the end of this summer. The entire landscape of the NBA could change and in one off-season alone, its not out of the realm of possibility that a team could go from mediocre franchise to the next dynasty if the chips fall in the right place. If you are a fan of the Knicks, Bulls, Heat, Nets, Clippers, heck even someone like the Wizards who are thrilled coming off the John Wall pick, this time of the year is especially enjoyable and there is a ton to be excited about. But what about those teams not involved in the Free Agent frenzy? What about those teams who won't be experiencing the glory and heartbreak of this 2010 Free Agent Class. Mainly what about those teams who will be HURT by the 2010 Free Agency bonanza.

Yep, Im looking at you Raptors fans, maybe Mavs fans, and especially possibly you Cavs fans. As a Suns fan, I feel your pain. In all reality I look at this 2010 Free Agency with great distaste as it should mark the end of the Amar'e Stoudemire era in Phoenix and the return to non-contender of my beloved Suns. Sure we'll get money to spend when STAT leaves, but we're not bringing in any major players. We're not taking a step forward at all when he leaves. Our franchise is getting SHREDDED by the 2010 Free Agency class. While NBA teams rise to power, franchises are risen from the dead, and new potential all-time duos are being paired up, the fans I mentioned prior will only watch as our franchises fade into mediocrity.

The Phoenix Suns had a great chance to play for an NBA title this past and came up short to the Los Angleas Lakers. And other Suns fans like myself were hoping this would mark the beginning of a return to prominence and a step forward for a franchise searching for its first NBA title. But it will likely all be for naught because the Phoenix Suns owner is cheap and the Suns can't just trade picks and random players to make cap space (also because that same cheap owner already gave away enough picks for $). Sure, teams like the Suns, Mavs, etc. may have enough talent to make the playoffs still, but there's no enjoyment to this parade known as the 2010 free agent class. It's all just unfortunate news we have to listen to over and over.

So while you fans in Chicago, New York, Miami, New Jersey, etc. celebrate or cry when your 2010 Free Agency bonanza ends and you either look forward to future success and a change for the better or a future of "what-if's" when you look back at this off-season, just remember, some teams never had a chance.

And as a fan of one of those teams, all I can say is.....

SUCK IT!!!!!

- This blog brought to you by resident genius Wildcatfan1
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com