Could Texas A&M's purported move to the SEC lay the groundwork for UMass being invited to a BCS conference?
I'll be perfectly honest. I love the amount of realignment talk going on in college football. I don't care if the Big 12 ceases to exist, which is looking more likely by the day, and I'm excited at the possibility of superconferences, even if those feelings are fairly selfish. I went to UMass, and would love to see them join a conference such as the Big East. Every time talks of realignment come up, I think about the possibility of the Big East either deciding to add teams to get to the 12 required for a conference title game (and the payday that comes with televising it), or having their hands forced as teams are lured out by bigger, more lucrative opportunities. The discussion has come up again, so I decided to look into what moves would likely have to be made in order to present conditions that might facilitate a BCS conference invitation extended to UMass.
The latest rumors have begun to swirl as Texas A&M is reportedly entertaining the idea of moving to the SEC. Coupled with the reports that the SEC is exploring an addition of Virginia Tech as well, this would bump the conference up to 14 teams and most likely set in motion a chain reaction that could doom the Big 12. With Texas A&M gone, the two Oklahoma schools would be encouraged to seriously consider the moves they have been exploring, namely joining the Pac 12. Texas would then be faced with an interesting choice: joining Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the Pac 12, or becoming independent, as the Big 12 will not survive once these moves begin. While I could foresee them becoming independent a la Notre Dame, and preserving the Long Horn Network partnership they've begun with ESPN, I would not be surprised if they instead choose to remain conference foes with Oklahoma and ensure the continuation of the Red River Rivalry.
Either way, once A&M and the Oklahoma teams bolt the Big 12, the conference as we know it is over. Texas Tech is sure to follow Oklahoma into the Pac 12, if that is where they end up. If Texas chooses to go the independent route, I could see the Pac 12 then moving to add either Boise State or BYU to get to the magic number of 16 teams, making them the first superconference and really forcing the other conferences to make similar moves in order to remain competitive financially. If Texas follows OU, OSU, and Tech, that gives them 16 without the risks associated with the other smaller programs.
If Virginia Tech does in fact leave the ACC for the SEC, that drops the number of ACC teams below the threshold for a conference championship game. The logical move for the ACC in this case would be to conduct a bit of a raid on the Big East, luring Pitt and West Virginia as the most likely options as they are two of the more successful Big East programs and already have a strong rivalry in place. Pulling in a third new team (Syracuse and Rutgers are the popular throw-ins at this point) would give the conference 14 football teams as well as bolstering their standing in basketball as well, depending on what schools they could bring in.
The Big East would be forced at this point to make a few additions of their own in order to retain their status as automatic qualifiers to the BCS as well as adding a championship game if they could bring in enough teams. With the Big 12 having only five teams remaining, adding these would be the obvious move. The Big East have made inquiries into adding Kansas and Kansas State in the past, and pulling in Iowa State, Missouri, and Baylor would certainly improve the national brand and prominence of the conference. However, this again would leave the conference with an odd number of teams, and one fewer than required for the title game. This is where UMass could potentially come into play. If Notre Dame, the logical 12th team as they are already a member of the conference in other sports, chooses to preserve its independence, the Big East would be left choosing between a few options: wooing a service academy in Army or Navy, coupling the recent addition of TCU with SMU from Conference USA, expanding out to the Rocky Mountains and really stretching the conference geography, or looking to a school like Massachusetts. While 2012 is to be UMass' first as a member of the FBS, the Big East has experience with schools making the transition, as UConn completed the move less than 10 years ago. UMass would make sense in terms of balancing the conferences between the East Coast and the newly-added Midwest schools. They also have a dormant rivalry with UConn that, in my opinion, has the potential to become a legitimate draw and the premier game in New England. The two state universities played each other yearly for much of their history until UConn made the move up to what was then Division 1-A, and the contests were always some of the most anticipated of their respective seasons. Likewise, a renewal of the basketball rivalry could prove lucrative for both schools, as that is the sport both are known for, and a major-conference affiliation for Minutemen basketball certainly would not hurt their recruiting efforts.
With the Big 12 gone, the only conference that looks as if it would hold off on making moves would be the Big 10, currently holding 12 teams and a TV deal that runs through 2016. As the Big 10 most likely would not participate in conference expansion until around the time that deal is to be renegotiated, it could end up being the future home to teams such as Boise State, BYU, Nevada, even Notre Dame. The possibilities are numerous, and change is exciting. However, in terms of how this could affect UMass, a lot of dominoes would have to fall in the right direction in order for them to seize an opportunity to move to a big-time, BCS power conference. The possibility does exist, however, and the next few weeks could get the ball rolling in that direction, as we all wait on Texas A&M.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The Familiarity of the Unknown
As I write this, I have Saul Williams yelling, rather, speaking passionately in my ear. Through headphones, as I'm not fortunate enough to be on personal speaking terms with the poet, rapper, author, Renaissance man. I first discovered Williams' music right in the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century. He was opening for Nine Inch Nails on their spring tour, which happened to race right through my town and university, close enough where I was able to walk to the venue from my dorm room. Hip hop was not my preferred genre of music to put on, but as I listened to Williams' lyrics and beats and genuine music behind his words, I identified with him. Of course, we have completely different upbringings, coming from entirely different American worlds. But our passions were similar, and I appreciated the methods and style in which he projected his point of view and thoughts. That's what lies at the heart of why anyone likes any type of music: they are able to identify with it in some way that makes the artist or the song personal. I found that in Saul Williams.
Knowing what is important to you and fighting for what you believe is right has always been a noble quality in a person. Williams embodies this. He fights through his music, the same way so many musicians did in the era surrounding the conflict in Vietnam. In a world where so much is taken for granted, where so much is kept from those in need, where greed is considered a positive quality, his voice may be of the minority. At least, that's what those at the top want people to think.
I used to think that I was in the majority, that most people truly wanted a different world than the one we live in. That they want a better world. I may have just surrounded myself with people who share this viewpoint, and life circumstances brought me to a separate, more cynical collection of individuals. I have become more cynical, less hopeful, more worried about the future we are inheriting and inhabiting. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe that's the natural progression. Maybe that is the conundrum that Saul Williams found himself in, when he started getting serious about his writing and performing. If so, then I should be happy.
I should be happy because I envy Williams' ability to corral his anger and passion and excitement and fear and express those emotions and hopes in a positive manner. A productive manner. One that inspires people and attacks those who do wrong. I want to be a positive force in the world. I don't want to waste away performing others' minutiae and dirty work. I want to own my life and do with it as I wish. I know that I am not alone in that desire, and that it is a tougher life to lead than to follow the path of what has been done before and experienced already. I just can't find my life satisfying if my accomplishments mean the rich get richer.
I think too many people have fallen victim to settling. I include myself in that allegation. This world of mine is currently at a crossroads, yet there are not two paths, but many. Which one to take, I am still working on figuring out. This is a time in which the income gap is spreading to shameful levels, a time when it is becoming a sign of weakness to help those less fortunate, and one in which there seems to be almost no level of compassion towards one another. Every man for himself is becoming the norm, the expected. Whatever happened to the highest ideals of manhood? Whatever happened to working together to create a better society and a better planet? Whatever happened to leaving the world in better shape than when you arrived?
Knowing what is important to you and fighting for what you believe is right has always been a noble quality in a person. Williams embodies this. He fights through his music, the same way so many musicians did in the era surrounding the conflict in Vietnam. In a world where so much is taken for granted, where so much is kept from those in need, where greed is considered a positive quality, his voice may be of the minority. At least, that's what those at the top want people to think.
I used to think that I was in the majority, that most people truly wanted a different world than the one we live in. That they want a better world. I may have just surrounded myself with people who share this viewpoint, and life circumstances brought me to a separate, more cynical collection of individuals. I have become more cynical, less hopeful, more worried about the future we are inheriting and inhabiting. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe that's the natural progression. Maybe that is the conundrum that Saul Williams found himself in, when he started getting serious about his writing and performing. If so, then I should be happy.
I should be happy because I envy Williams' ability to corral his anger and passion and excitement and fear and express those emotions and hopes in a positive manner. A productive manner. One that inspires people and attacks those who do wrong. I want to be a positive force in the world. I don't want to waste away performing others' minutiae and dirty work. I want to own my life and do with it as I wish. I know that I am not alone in that desire, and that it is a tougher life to lead than to follow the path of what has been done before and experienced already. I just can't find my life satisfying if my accomplishments mean the rich get richer.
I think too many people have fallen victim to settling. I include myself in that allegation. This world of mine is currently at a crossroads, yet there are not two paths, but many. Which one to take, I am still working on figuring out. This is a time in which the income gap is spreading to shameful levels, a time when it is becoming a sign of weakness to help those less fortunate, and one in which there seems to be almost no level of compassion towards one another. Every man for himself is becoming the norm, the expected. Whatever happened to the highest ideals of manhood? Whatever happened to working together to create a better society and a better planet? Whatever happened to leaving the world in better shape than when you arrived?
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
A Real College Football Playoff
Yeah, I'm going to try to tackle (hah) a college football playoff system. Division 1 (and by Division 1 I'm referring to FBS) college football is the only sport I can think of that crowns its champion based on opinion, and not strictly on performance. The major professional sports all have playoff systems. So do all levels of college sports - March Madness, the Frozen Four, FCS, DII, and DIII football, soccer. They all have a postseason tournament (or event, in the case of swimming, track, etc.) that allows athletes and teams to prove themselves on the field (or diamond, or pool). All of them except perhaps the most high-profile sport, football, in which we repeatedly endure a season-long discussion on who's the best, who should be ranked number one, who should play for the national championship. Things get ugly when we have to watch teams who should be given a shot denied that chance based on strength of schedule, expectations, or any other number of factors that aren't controlled by the team itself.
Sports are competitive. They are also meant to be played on a fair level, everyone playing by the same set of rules, so that we can determine who the best teams or athletes are. That is why the most popular format of a lengthy regular season followed by a tournament has become so ubiquitous. After a long stretch of games, we have an idea who the best teams are, but the tournaments after the regular season show us who's the best when it counts the most. And in the end, this is what we value highest in our sports-loving society. There's a reason that people like Michael Jordan, Mariano Rivera, Tom Brady, Mark Messier, and others like them are celebrated, while others with similar skills and accomplishments but lacking those championships or rings are forgotten or leave us feeling as if their careers are incomplete. We value winners, but we also consider what they won. You win a title when you win the postseason tournament, not when you finish the regular season with the best record. That's just how we evaluate sports and the athletes and teams who play them.
Without this level field though, without the teams themselves determining on the field who is the best, we are left in a place without what many would call a "true champion," in a place with a team or athlete who wins a title without going through the steps we expect and want to see. This is very much the place we find ourselves at with Division 1 college football. At the end of a regular season, which is shorter than almost any regular season in any other popular sport, we pick two teams to faceoff in a championship game. These teams don't arrive at the championship game by defeating all in their path in a tournament. It's almost as if the college football season is a combination regular-post-season, as the teams play a predetermined schedule, but unless they are almost perfect, they cannot make it to the championship. In some cases, teams that ARE perfect don't even get that chance.
This needs to be addressed, it needs to be rectified. There is no logical reason for the NCAA to continue to award championships to teams in the current format. If we are to take D1 college football seriously, and give it the time it deserves, we need to know that we are watching a sport that rewards its best team with a title. We don't know that now. The solution is, of course, a playoff system.
The main argument against a playoff (besides that it will hamper the athlete's in-class performance which I shouldn't have to but will address) is that it will diminish the importance of the regular season. This is not necessarily true. Yes, you may be able to win a championship with a less-than-stellar record if a playoff were implemented. But in no other sport does the regular season champ get a free pass to the finals. And in my playoff format, performance in the regular season will be highly important in terms of playoff berths and seeding.
March Madness is a gigantic event in the world of sports every year, and I'd love to see football take a lot of its ideas and implement them in order to have a fun, entertaining, and effective tournament of their own. Here's the basic rundown of how I'd like to see this work out. The playoff tournament would have 16 teams. All conference champions get an automatic bid into the playoff, just like in March Madness. This rewards teams for playing well within their conference, and adds importance to Conference Championship games. This also means every single school has a shot to get in, which also means they have a shot, regardless of how unlikely, to win the championship. Right now, teams like Buffalo, FAU, Utah State, can't realistically enter a season with championship aspirations. And though their talent level may suggest that even with a playoff they shouldn't be able to win, they could sneak into the playoffs as an unlikely conference champion, and put together a run to get them closer than they'd even have a shot at in the current system.
This gives us, as of this posting, 11 entries into the playoff. That leaves us with five more spots for at-large teams who did not win their conference. This allows room for the big-name programs in highly competitive conferences to gain entry into the tournament as well. While that may seem like a small number, it's much better than the current opportunity given to those teams: be perfect or you're out.
So we have 16 teams, 11 auto-qualifiers and five at-large bids. These five teams can be determined by a selection committee as in the college basketball playoffs. The committee could also be given the task of seeding the teams appropriately. Once we have our matchups, we then can determine where they would play.
Many of the playoff pleas I've read incorporate the current bowl games in the formula, holding each playoff game at a different Bowl venue through the tournament. I can see why this would be desirable, as it may ease the transition to a playoff system, but I don't agree it would be the best option we have.
There's not much like being at a college football stadium on gameday. The tailgating, revelry, alumni, students, fans, band. It's a great experience, and it's one of the things that makes college football so great. This should be embraced and harnessed, not ignored. The current bowl format places teams from all over the country in strange, unfamiliar locations in front of a crowd that a) probably has no real rooting interest in either team, b) probably has never seen them play before, and c) most likely got their tickets from their company or on business in some way. Rarely do we see an overwhelming contingent of fans filling a stadium 2,000 miles from their campus to root on their favorite teams, and this is most glaring during the non-BCS bowl games. It's a shame, really, and there's a really easy way to fix this problem in a playoff.
The top eight seeds in the playoffs are awarded home field advantage, and the higher seed in each matchup continues to have home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Seeing teams like Michigan, Texas, USC playing a playoff game at their own stadium would be quite the event, and surely would add to the excitement and feel of the game itself. Much better than the current system, from both the team and fan perspective. This would almost guarantee sellouts for postseason games. Imagine seeing Auburn or LSU trot out in The Big House, or Happy Valley, sliding all over the place in the snow in December or January. Now that's home-field advantage, and that's what you play for. We can even split the gate between teams so the smaller schools who get in and have to travel to SEC or Big 10 stadiums still have a financial incentive for making the postseason tournament, as they do for making bowl games now. We wouldn't even have to eliminate the bowl games entirely. They could continue to exist as a source of revenue and competition for schools who didn't qualify for the postseason tournament, acting similarly to the NIT in college basketball.
For the championship game, there's a couple ways we could go. We could have the higher seed host, or play it at a neutral site. We could even rotate the host as they do now, and as they do for the Super Bowl. Fans will travel to see their team win a title, this we know, and they will especially do so if it's in a fun city. For this reason, I would say we should host it in the warm weather, rotating between Southern California, Dallas, New Orleans, and Miami, or something similar to that. Those areas know how to host a party, and have proven they can do it well with championship sports. There's no reason not to allow them to do the same with college football.
So my proposed plan would be a 16-team tournament that includes the 11 conference champions and five at-large teams chosen by a Selection Committee, who would seed the field as well. All games would be played at the home field of the higher seed (or their desired field, such as a nearby NFL stadium), except for the championship, which will be played at a neutral site to be chosen from a rotation. The two best parts of this plan would be that the championship is decided on the field, and small-conference teams with stellar records would no longer be left out of the competition. I don't see any reason why something like this isn't in place now, and why it couldn't be implemented. We need a college football playoff to determine our true champion. Let's get it done, NCAA.
Sports are competitive. They are also meant to be played on a fair level, everyone playing by the same set of rules, so that we can determine who the best teams or athletes are. That is why the most popular format of a lengthy regular season followed by a tournament has become so ubiquitous. After a long stretch of games, we have an idea who the best teams are, but the tournaments after the regular season show us who's the best when it counts the most. And in the end, this is what we value highest in our sports-loving society. There's a reason that people like Michael Jordan, Mariano Rivera, Tom Brady, Mark Messier, and others like them are celebrated, while others with similar skills and accomplishments but lacking those championships or rings are forgotten or leave us feeling as if their careers are incomplete. We value winners, but we also consider what they won. You win a title when you win the postseason tournament, not when you finish the regular season with the best record. That's just how we evaluate sports and the athletes and teams who play them.
Without this level field though, without the teams themselves determining on the field who is the best, we are left in a place without what many would call a "true champion," in a place with a team or athlete who wins a title without going through the steps we expect and want to see. This is very much the place we find ourselves at with Division 1 college football. At the end of a regular season, which is shorter than almost any regular season in any other popular sport, we pick two teams to faceoff in a championship game. These teams don't arrive at the championship game by defeating all in their path in a tournament. It's almost as if the college football season is a combination regular-post-season, as the teams play a predetermined schedule, but unless they are almost perfect, they cannot make it to the championship. In some cases, teams that ARE perfect don't even get that chance.
This needs to be addressed, it needs to be rectified. There is no logical reason for the NCAA to continue to award championships to teams in the current format. If we are to take D1 college football seriously, and give it the time it deserves, we need to know that we are watching a sport that rewards its best team with a title. We don't know that now. The solution is, of course, a playoff system.
The main argument against a playoff (besides that it will hamper the athlete's in-class performance which I shouldn't have to but will address) is that it will diminish the importance of the regular season. This is not necessarily true. Yes, you may be able to win a championship with a less-than-stellar record if a playoff were implemented. But in no other sport does the regular season champ get a free pass to the finals. And in my playoff format, performance in the regular season will be highly important in terms of playoff berths and seeding.
March Madness is a gigantic event in the world of sports every year, and I'd love to see football take a lot of its ideas and implement them in order to have a fun, entertaining, and effective tournament of their own. Here's the basic rundown of how I'd like to see this work out. The playoff tournament would have 16 teams. All conference champions get an automatic bid into the playoff, just like in March Madness. This rewards teams for playing well within their conference, and adds importance to Conference Championship games. This also means every single school has a shot to get in, which also means they have a shot, regardless of how unlikely, to win the championship. Right now, teams like Buffalo, FAU, Utah State, can't realistically enter a season with championship aspirations. And though their talent level may suggest that even with a playoff they shouldn't be able to win, they could sneak into the playoffs as an unlikely conference champion, and put together a run to get them closer than they'd even have a shot at in the current system.
This gives us, as of this posting, 11 entries into the playoff. That leaves us with five more spots for at-large teams who did not win their conference. This allows room for the big-name programs in highly competitive conferences to gain entry into the tournament as well. While that may seem like a small number, it's much better than the current opportunity given to those teams: be perfect or you're out.
So we have 16 teams, 11 auto-qualifiers and five at-large bids. These five teams can be determined by a selection committee as in the college basketball playoffs. The committee could also be given the task of seeding the teams appropriately. Once we have our matchups, we then can determine where they would play.
Many of the playoff pleas I've read incorporate the current bowl games in the formula, holding each playoff game at a different Bowl venue through the tournament. I can see why this would be desirable, as it may ease the transition to a playoff system, but I don't agree it would be the best option we have.
There's not much like being at a college football stadium on gameday. The tailgating, revelry, alumni, students, fans, band. It's a great experience, and it's one of the things that makes college football so great. This should be embraced and harnessed, not ignored. The current bowl format places teams from all over the country in strange, unfamiliar locations in front of a crowd that a) probably has no real rooting interest in either team, b) probably has never seen them play before, and c) most likely got their tickets from their company or on business in some way. Rarely do we see an overwhelming contingent of fans filling a stadium 2,000 miles from their campus to root on their favorite teams, and this is most glaring during the non-BCS bowl games. It's a shame, really, and there's a really easy way to fix this problem in a playoff.
The top eight seeds in the playoffs are awarded home field advantage, and the higher seed in each matchup continues to have home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Seeing teams like Michigan, Texas, USC playing a playoff game at their own stadium would be quite the event, and surely would add to the excitement and feel of the game itself. Much better than the current system, from both the team and fan perspective. This would almost guarantee sellouts for postseason games. Imagine seeing Auburn or LSU trot out in The Big House, or Happy Valley, sliding all over the place in the snow in December or January. Now that's home-field advantage, and that's what you play for. We can even split the gate between teams so the smaller schools who get in and have to travel to SEC or Big 10 stadiums still have a financial incentive for making the postseason tournament, as they do for making bowl games now. We wouldn't even have to eliminate the bowl games entirely. They could continue to exist as a source of revenue and competition for schools who didn't qualify for the postseason tournament, acting similarly to the NIT in college basketball.
For the championship game, there's a couple ways we could go. We could have the higher seed host, or play it at a neutral site. We could even rotate the host as they do now, and as they do for the Super Bowl. Fans will travel to see their team win a title, this we know, and they will especially do so if it's in a fun city. For this reason, I would say we should host it in the warm weather, rotating between Southern California, Dallas, New Orleans, and Miami, or something similar to that. Those areas know how to host a party, and have proven they can do it well with championship sports. There's no reason not to allow them to do the same with college football.
So my proposed plan would be a 16-team tournament that includes the 11 conference champions and five at-large teams chosen by a Selection Committee, who would seed the field as well. All games would be played at the home field of the higher seed (or their desired field, such as a nearby NFL stadium), except for the championship, which will be played at a neutral site to be chosen from a rotation. The two best parts of this plan would be that the championship is decided on the field, and small-conference teams with stellar records would no longer be left out of the competition. I don't see any reason why something like this isn't in place now, and why it couldn't be implemented. We need a college football playoff to determine our true champion. Let's get it done, NCAA.
Friday, June 17, 2011
The NHL Re-Imagined
Not quite re-imagined. I just needed a title and wanted to be hyperbolic for a moment.
Similar to my earlier post regarding a proposed realignment and restructure of the NBA, I feel the need to address the situation of the NHL. Yet another league that has just enjoyed one of the more entertaining and exciting postseasons in recent memory (though I may be biased as I live around Boston), the NHL is going through a small renaissance of sorts. The lockout they endured not too many seasons ago shied away many fans, but it was not the sole reason the popularity of the sport declined. However, it is making a comeback, and though the NHL may never eclipse the popularity of the NFL, they do look to be adding a new generation of fans within the past couple years. Certainly to thank would be the new rules installed post-lockout that encourage exciting, fast play, as well as the hard salary cap that ensures a stingy owner cannot submarine the team's competitiveness by refusing to pay for talent.
Bettman's Sun Belt expansion/relocation was miscalculated, and I think on this we can all agree. Expanding hockey into southern US states worked in some cases (Dallas, Anaheim), but you can't force a game onto a population that does not grow up around the sport. Hockey will always do well in Canada, and in the northern parts of the States where it is already a tradition and part of life in the winter months. Nashville? Raleigh? Miami? These are not hockey cities, and I know it pains the diehards to watch the Stanley Cup skated around the ice when outside the arena it's 95 degrees (I'm looking at you, Tampa/Carolina/Anaheim).
Besides, the NHL isn't a league that needs 30 teams. The league worked best before Bettman went expansion-crazy in the '90s, and it could be much more prosperous in a situation that keeps its teams in areas where the fan base cares and realizes that what's important is not the quantity of teams. The talent level has grown in recent years due to the influx of European and Russian skaters, but I still think 30 is too big for the league. If I was Commissioner of Sports and lived in my ideal world, I'd be cutting the NHL down to 24 teams, 12 in Canada, 12 in the US, and split up the conferences as so, allowing every Stanley Cup to feel like a Border War. Of course, since this is a good idea, it will never happen.
My more realistic dream would be to break up the Sun Belt teams and either contract them or relocate them to a region that will give a shit. This plan is already in motion, as Atlanta finally admitted they made a mistake, and granted Winnipeg a team to call their own again. Let's continue with the shakeup: Gone are the Hurricanes, Panthers, and Lightning, three teams whose fan bases spend more time in the Sun in one week than a hockey player spends on the ice in a month. Columbus is not a pro sports town, and any professional major league team who has a cartoony wasp in the wrong colors as their mascot should have had the team taken away long ago (yeah, Charlotte, that's a dig at your old basketball team, who looks like they won't be in New Orleans much longer either). The Nashville Sabertooth Fossils can remove themselves as well, along with the Phoenix Coyotes (that was never going to work) and the San Jose Sharks, who despite having the best team in their division for four years running, simply cannot fill their arena. We'll move this talented group to a city that cares.
That makes seven teams I'd like to see moved or contracted. In response to this, I'd like to see five markets served with their own franchise, giving us a net loss of two teams. These new (or revisited) cities I'd like to propose would be Quebec City, Hamilton, Hartford, Seattle, and Green Bay.
Hear me out. Quebec is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, and the Nordiques are a much-beloved franchise missed not only by their loyal fans, but also by hockey fans in general. Same goes for Hartford and the Whalers. In the past few years, Whalers merchandise has come back into popularity in New England, with many of the old fans and new hopefuls clamoring for a return of their green-and-blue clad skaters.
The new ideas are Hamilton, Seattle, and Green Bay. Seattle has a long hockey history, stretching back to the Metropolitans of the Pacific Coast Hockey Association in the early 1900s and currently being carried on by the Thunderbirds of the Western Hockey League (who look strikingly similar to the 1990s Whalers and current Vancouver Canucks). Seattle is a city of rabid sports fans, as evidenced by their quick and passionate support of Sounders FC in MLS.
It's long been said that the Toronto area can support another team, and in my opinion Hamilton would be a perfect place to host them. They certainly have the population and growth rate to support a professional team, and the nearby hockey cities of Toronto, Buffalo, and Detroit would make for some quick, fun rivalries between the teams. And let's be honest: It can never be a bad thing to bring hockey into a big Canadian city, right?
Lastly is Green Bay, and this is my biggest question mark in the fake plan that I'm making up now and definitely will never come to fruition. However, bear with me. Green Bay isn't the biggest city in the world, it's not even the biggest city in its own state. However, really the only things to do in Green Bay (I imagine, I've never been) are watch the Packers, talk about the Packers, or go ice fishing. Considering the intense passion and dedication these sports fans show to their football team, I don't think a hockey team in town would be a disaster. With the Packers' season over in early February at the earliest each year, having another sports team in the city of Green Bay that could continue play into the summer months could be a rousing success. The nearby Resch Center only has a capacity around 10,000, but I have to believe that a renovation and expansion in order to bring an NHL team to Green Bay would be a welcome process. Besides, the Canadian city of Saskatoon has been discussed as a future NHL site, and their population a) is smaller than Green Bay's, and b) isn't exactly known for their rabid sports fandom. The other place I'd consider for this last spot would be bringing a team to Portland's Rose Garden. Portland could be a viable NHL city in the way that it's a wholly viable NBA city, but for now, I'll pencil in Green Bay as our last introduction.
So, we are left with 28 teams. With the reduction in franchises, we no longer have a need for six divisions. What makes sense in this case are four seven-team divisions within two conferences, broken down in the traditional structure of East-West and divided as to reduce cross-time zone travel. Below is what this new league would look like, taking all of the previous moves into consideration:
There. That feels better, doesn't it?
The problem this now presents us with is scheduling. We've cut two teams and realigned all our divisions; current scheduling formats won't work with this new look. Aiming towards retaining the 82 games that have been standard since the 1995-96 season, I've broken the proposed schedule down as such: Five games against all other teams within the division (intra-divisional), for a total of 30 games. The odd game against each team would alternate hosts each year. Additionally, teams would play three games against all opponents that are within the same conference but outside the division (inter-divisional), giving us another 21 games, for a current total of 51. The extra home game would be alternated in the same manner as the intra-divisional games. Each team would then faceoff against every team outside their conference (inter-conference) twice in a home-and-home series. This new format ensures, unlike the current scheduling methods, that fans will have the opportunity to see every team in the NHL at least once in their home team's arena. This adds up to 28 games, totaling 79. With the three additional games we can follow an idea introduced by the NFL and that I adopted in my earlier post about reorganizing the NBA: each team plays one additional game against the team in each division that finished in the same place in the standings the previous year. That brings us to 82 games, a full NHL season.
One of the things I like most about this potential scheduling method is that there are an uneven number of games against all opponents within a team's conference (except the one opponent in the other division with the additional game as noted above), ensuring that the season series between teams will always have a definitive winner. This could open the door for challenge trophies as we see in college football, where the winner of the season series takes home the trophy for the year. As if we needed an added incentive for a Bruins-Canadiens or Red Wings-Blackhawks series, we might actually see hardware exchange hands as well. Talk about an interesting proposition.
With the altered alignment and scheduling system, the playoff system needs a little tweaking. We will guarantee playoff spots for the top three teams in each division, with the division winners being seeded no lower than fourth, therefore rewarding them with home ice in the first round. The remaining two spots in each conference go to the two remaining teams with the most points. We don't want a situation where the fourth-placed team in the weakest division gets into the playoffs with less points than the fifth-placed team in the other division, therefore giving us a weaker field for the playoffs. We want the best quality tournament we can get. We can retain the reseeding that is currently done after each round, and I would suggest keeping the seven-game series in every round as well. We know the Stanley Cup Playoffs work incredibly well, so let's not go messing around with the format too much.
It's my opinion that all of the changes mentioned in this post would make the NHL a much stronger and more successful league. I'm sure not all of these changes will ever be adopted, in fact most might never see discussion outside this blog. But Atlanta is packing up and moving to Winnipeg, so I guess anything is possible.
Similar to my earlier post regarding a proposed realignment and restructure of the NBA, I feel the need to address the situation of the NHL. Yet another league that has just enjoyed one of the more entertaining and exciting postseasons in recent memory (though I may be biased as I live around Boston), the NHL is going through a small renaissance of sorts. The lockout they endured not too many seasons ago shied away many fans, but it was not the sole reason the popularity of the sport declined. However, it is making a comeback, and though the NHL may never eclipse the popularity of the NFL, they do look to be adding a new generation of fans within the past couple years. Certainly to thank would be the new rules installed post-lockout that encourage exciting, fast play, as well as the hard salary cap that ensures a stingy owner cannot submarine the team's competitiveness by refusing to pay for talent.
Bettman's Sun Belt expansion/relocation was miscalculated, and I think on this we can all agree. Expanding hockey into southern US states worked in some cases (Dallas, Anaheim), but you can't force a game onto a population that does not grow up around the sport. Hockey will always do well in Canada, and in the northern parts of the States where it is already a tradition and part of life in the winter months. Nashville? Raleigh? Miami? These are not hockey cities, and I know it pains the diehards to watch the Stanley Cup skated around the ice when outside the arena it's 95 degrees (I'm looking at you, Tampa/Carolina/Anaheim).
Besides, the NHL isn't a league that needs 30 teams. The league worked best before Bettman went expansion-crazy in the '90s, and it could be much more prosperous in a situation that keeps its teams in areas where the fan base cares and realizes that what's important is not the quantity of teams. The talent level has grown in recent years due to the influx of European and Russian skaters, but I still think 30 is too big for the league. If I was Commissioner of Sports and lived in my ideal world, I'd be cutting the NHL down to 24 teams, 12 in Canada, 12 in the US, and split up the conferences as so, allowing every Stanley Cup to feel like a Border War. Of course, since this is a good idea, it will never happen.
My more realistic dream would be to break up the Sun Belt teams and either contract them or relocate them to a region that will give a shit. This plan is already in motion, as Atlanta finally admitted they made a mistake, and granted Winnipeg a team to call their own again. Let's continue with the shakeup: Gone are the Hurricanes, Panthers, and Lightning, three teams whose fan bases spend more time in the Sun in one week than a hockey player spends on the ice in a month. Columbus is not a pro sports town, and any professional major league team who has a cartoony wasp in the wrong colors as their mascot should have had the team taken away long ago (yeah, Charlotte, that's a dig at your old basketball team, who looks like they won't be in New Orleans much longer either). The Nashville Sabertooth Fossils can remove themselves as well, along with the Phoenix Coyotes (that was never going to work) and the San Jose Sharks, who despite having the best team in their division for four years running, simply cannot fill their arena. We'll move this talented group to a city that cares.
That makes seven teams I'd like to see moved or contracted. In response to this, I'd like to see five markets served with their own franchise, giving us a net loss of two teams. These new (or revisited) cities I'd like to propose would be Quebec City, Hamilton, Hartford, Seattle, and Green Bay.
Hear me out. Quebec is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, and the Nordiques are a much-beloved franchise missed not only by their loyal fans, but also by hockey fans in general. Same goes for Hartford and the Whalers. In the past few years, Whalers merchandise has come back into popularity in New England, with many of the old fans and new hopefuls clamoring for a return of their green-and-blue clad skaters.
The new ideas are Hamilton, Seattle, and Green Bay. Seattle has a long hockey history, stretching back to the Metropolitans of the Pacific Coast Hockey Association in the early 1900s and currently being carried on by the Thunderbirds of the Western Hockey League (who look strikingly similar to the 1990s Whalers and current Vancouver Canucks). Seattle is a city of rabid sports fans, as evidenced by their quick and passionate support of Sounders FC in MLS.
It's long been said that the Toronto area can support another team, and in my opinion Hamilton would be a perfect place to host them. They certainly have the population and growth rate to support a professional team, and the nearby hockey cities of Toronto, Buffalo, and Detroit would make for some quick, fun rivalries between the teams. And let's be honest: It can never be a bad thing to bring hockey into a big Canadian city, right?
Lastly is Green Bay, and this is my biggest question mark in the fake plan that I'm making up now and definitely will never come to fruition. However, bear with me. Green Bay isn't the biggest city in the world, it's not even the biggest city in its own state. However, really the only things to do in Green Bay (I imagine, I've never been) are watch the Packers, talk about the Packers, or go ice fishing. Considering the intense passion and dedication these sports fans show to their football team, I don't think a hockey team in town would be a disaster. With the Packers' season over in early February at the earliest each year, having another sports team in the city of Green Bay that could continue play into the summer months could be a rousing success. The nearby Resch Center only has a capacity around 10,000, but I have to believe that a renovation and expansion in order to bring an NHL team to Green Bay would be a welcome process. Besides, the Canadian city of Saskatoon has been discussed as a future NHL site, and their population a) is smaller than Green Bay's, and b) isn't exactly known for their rabid sports fandom. The other place I'd consider for this last spot would be bringing a team to Portland's Rose Garden. Portland could be a viable NHL city in the way that it's a wholly viable NBA city, but for now, I'll pencil in Green Bay as our last introduction.
So, we are left with 28 teams. With the reduction in franchises, we no longer have a need for six divisions. What makes sense in this case are four seven-team divisions within two conferences, broken down in the traditional structure of East-West and divided as to reduce cross-time zone travel. Below is what this new league would look like, taking all of the previous moves into consideration:
There. That feels better, doesn't it?
The problem this now presents us with is scheduling. We've cut two teams and realigned all our divisions; current scheduling formats won't work with this new look. Aiming towards retaining the 82 games that have been standard since the 1995-96 season, I've broken the proposed schedule down as such: Five games against all other teams within the division (intra-divisional), for a total of 30 games. The odd game against each team would alternate hosts each year. Additionally, teams would play three games against all opponents that are within the same conference but outside the division (inter-divisional), giving us another 21 games, for a current total of 51. The extra home game would be alternated in the same manner as the intra-divisional games. Each team would then faceoff against every team outside their conference (inter-conference) twice in a home-and-home series. This new format ensures, unlike the current scheduling methods, that fans will have the opportunity to see every team in the NHL at least once in their home team's arena. This adds up to 28 games, totaling 79. With the three additional games we can follow an idea introduced by the NFL and that I adopted in my earlier post about reorganizing the NBA: each team plays one additional game against the team in each division that finished in the same place in the standings the previous year. That brings us to 82 games, a full NHL season.
One of the things I like most about this potential scheduling method is that there are an uneven number of games against all opponents within a team's conference (except the one opponent in the other division with the additional game as noted above), ensuring that the season series between teams will always have a definitive winner. This could open the door for challenge trophies as we see in college football, where the winner of the season series takes home the trophy for the year. As if we needed an added incentive for a Bruins-Canadiens or Red Wings-Blackhawks series, we might actually see hardware exchange hands as well. Talk about an interesting proposition.
With the altered alignment and scheduling system, the playoff system needs a little tweaking. We will guarantee playoff spots for the top three teams in each division, with the division winners being seeded no lower than fourth, therefore rewarding them with home ice in the first round. The remaining two spots in each conference go to the two remaining teams with the most points. We don't want a situation where the fourth-placed team in the weakest division gets into the playoffs with less points than the fifth-placed team in the other division, therefore giving us a weaker field for the playoffs. We want the best quality tournament we can get. We can retain the reseeding that is currently done after each round, and I would suggest keeping the seven-game series in every round as well. We know the Stanley Cup Playoffs work incredibly well, so let's not go messing around with the format too much.
It's my opinion that all of the changes mentioned in this post would make the NHL a much stronger and more successful league. I'm sure not all of these changes will ever be adopted, in fact most might never see discussion outside this blog. But Atlanta is packing up and moving to Winnipeg, so I guess anything is possible.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Titletown, USA
I want to start this post by congratulating the Boston Bruins on winning the 2011 Stanley Cup. It's been a long time coming, with 1972 being the last year the Cup called Boston its home. A truly remarkable run for the B's, who have shed the weight of being the last Boston sports team from the four major leagues to win a championship in the new millennium, allowing both themselves and their loyal fans to breathe a big sigh of relief, followed by the widest smile they've ever known.
But while the Bruins' achievements are certainly to be admired and celebrated, the real winner here is the city of Boston. This was not the Bruins' first title, though it may feel that way for many. It has, however, marked the culmination of the most spectacular, compact sports run any city has ever seen.
Boston has celebrated championships in all four majors before last night. In fact, that quest ended when the Patriots secured their first Lombardi Trophy back in February of 2002, thanks to the arm of Tom Brady and the leg of Adam Vinatieri. That championship put them in elite company; to date, only five American cities have had the honor of being called Champions in all four majors: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and then Boston.
What's incredible about this Bruins victory is that Boston now boasts the shortest span of time in which all four championships were won by the local team. From the last Patriots Super Bowl win in 2005 to last night's hoisting of the Cup, at one time or another, Boston sports fans have been able to say that yes, their team truly is the best, a claim that fans in only those four other cities can make. But Boston is different because of this incredibly short time span.
Detroit, perhaps the most unlikely city on this list considering market size, has the longest gap between all four titles, sitting at 34 years. Beginning with the Red Wings Stanly Cup win in 1955 and ending with the Pistons first NBA Championship in 1989, they also saw the pre-Super Bowl NFL Championship won by their Lions (1957) and a couple World Series taken by the beloved Tigers in 1968 and 1984.
Chicago, while part of this exclusive club, also had to wait many years in between titles. In a 24-year span from 1986 to 2010, they were able to relish championships from Da Bears, Jordan's Bulls, the surprise 2005 White Sox, and last year's Blackhawks. A great run, filled with some incredible moments for sure. But still, it took a quarter century to complete the superfecta.
Philadelphia was not much more impressive than Chicago's teams in terms of winning time, besting them only by four years. Philly's span reached from the 1960 NFL Champion Eagles to the 1980 Phillies, encompassing back-to-back championship wins from the Flyers as well as Wilt Chamberlain's first title, coming as a member of the 1967 76ers.
Ah, New York. Of course they're on this list. When you have two entries in three of the four sports, you give yourself a pretty monumental advantage. However, they still don't best Boston's six-year run. In their most concise effort, New York teams won all four titles in a 15-year span from 1973 to 1988. This run began with the Knicks' most recent NBA Championship and went through a couple World Series in Yankee Stadium, four straight Stanley Cups on the Islanders' ice, and finished up with the New York Football Giants' Super Bowl victory and ensuing Bill Parcells Gatorade shower. An impressive run, for sure.
But the crown goes to Boston, who before last night sat just ahead of Detroit with a span of 32 years (last Bruins Cup in '72 to 2004 Red Sox). Interesting, too, that there are no duplicates within the six year title run, though we were close. Minutes away, in fact, from an undefeated Super Bowl season from the 2007 Patriots and another Celtics victory over arch nemesis Los Angeles last June. Nevertheless, from the 2005 Patriots through the 2007 Red Sox, 2008 Celtics, and the 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins, this has truly been the most incredible, remarkable run for any four-sport city in modern history. Congratulations, Boston fans, and enjoy this. It's truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
Note: Anyone who wants to argue that "Boston" doesn't count because the Patriots don't play within the city limits must also then throw out New York and Detroit. But more importantly, they should probably just get over themselves.
But while the Bruins' achievements are certainly to be admired and celebrated, the real winner here is the city of Boston. This was not the Bruins' first title, though it may feel that way for many. It has, however, marked the culmination of the most spectacular, compact sports run any city has ever seen.
Boston has celebrated championships in all four majors before last night. In fact, that quest ended when the Patriots secured their first Lombardi Trophy back in February of 2002, thanks to the arm of Tom Brady and the leg of Adam Vinatieri. That championship put them in elite company; to date, only five American cities have had the honor of being called Champions in all four majors: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and then Boston.
What's incredible about this Bruins victory is that Boston now boasts the shortest span of time in which all four championships were won by the local team. From the last Patriots Super Bowl win in 2005 to last night's hoisting of the Cup, at one time or another, Boston sports fans have been able to say that yes, their team truly is the best, a claim that fans in only those four other cities can make. But Boston is different because of this incredibly short time span.
Detroit, perhaps the most unlikely city on this list considering market size, has the longest gap between all four titles, sitting at 34 years. Beginning with the Red Wings Stanly Cup win in 1955 and ending with the Pistons first NBA Championship in 1989, they also saw the pre-Super Bowl NFL Championship won by their Lions (1957) and a couple World Series taken by the beloved Tigers in 1968 and 1984.
Chicago, while part of this exclusive club, also had to wait many years in between titles. In a 24-year span from 1986 to 2010, they were able to relish championships from Da Bears, Jordan's Bulls, the surprise 2005 White Sox, and last year's Blackhawks. A great run, filled with some incredible moments for sure. But still, it took a quarter century to complete the superfecta.
Philadelphia was not much more impressive than Chicago's teams in terms of winning time, besting them only by four years. Philly's span reached from the 1960 NFL Champion Eagles to the 1980 Phillies, encompassing back-to-back championship wins from the Flyers as well as Wilt Chamberlain's first title, coming as a member of the 1967 76ers.
Ah, New York. Of course they're on this list. When you have two entries in three of the four sports, you give yourself a pretty monumental advantage. However, they still don't best Boston's six-year run. In their most concise effort, New York teams won all four titles in a 15-year span from 1973 to 1988. This run began with the Knicks' most recent NBA Championship and went through a couple World Series in Yankee Stadium, four straight Stanley Cups on the Islanders' ice, and finished up with the New York Football Giants' Super Bowl victory and ensuing Bill Parcells Gatorade shower. An impressive run, for sure.
But the crown goes to Boston, who before last night sat just ahead of Detroit with a span of 32 years (last Bruins Cup in '72 to 2004 Red Sox). Interesting, too, that there are no duplicates within the six year title run, though we were close. Minutes away, in fact, from an undefeated Super Bowl season from the 2007 Patriots and another Celtics victory over arch nemesis Los Angeles last June. Nevertheless, from the 2005 Patriots through the 2007 Red Sox, 2008 Celtics, and the 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins, this has truly been the most incredible, remarkable run for any four-sport city in modern history. Congratulations, Boston fans, and enjoy this. It's truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
Note: Anyone who wants to argue that "Boston" doesn't count because the Patriots don't play within the city limits must also then throw out New York and Detroit. But more importantly, they should probably just get over themselves.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Missing A Tornado
Ever since I can remember, I've been fascinated with tornadoes. Maybe it was getting surprised by my parents when they showed up at my school to take me and my sister to a matinee showing of Twister that sparked my interest. Maybe it was the constant replays of Night of the Twisters on cable. Maybe it was something completely different. What began my interest doesn't really matter, just that it has endured to this day and shows no signs of slowing down.
See, I live in a state that gets no tornadoes. My richest memory of one was a twister that tore up a grocery store about an hour west of my house when I was a kid. That's it, that's as close as I've come. I relish the tornado watches that the news occasionally throws my way, and I brighten up whenever the watch progresses to a warning. It is almost too much.
Don't assume this means I have a weird interest in death and destruction. It's not the aftermath I look forward to. The stories that have come out of the Midwest already this year are heavy on my heart, and I wish the best for all those affected and their families. I have read and consumed more tornado stories and videos than an average 24-year-old, so I'm quite familiar with the consequences. Yet still I hold out hope. I know there is no preventing them, so maybe I use that to rationalize my interest.
What it really comes down to is the pure awe-inspiring power. The most intense, concentrated power that nature has to offer. There is truly nothing like a tornado. Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, these are all events that cause much more damage and much more lasting effects than the average twister. But the concentration of wind power in such a small space is simply incredible. This is without mentioning the strange beauty of it all.
I recently began a job that has me traveling quite a bit. When I found out my first account was in Iowa, and I'd be there multiple times during the summer, I got excited. I knew there wasn't much in terms of tourist attractions in the area, but I felt like I finally had my chance to see one. Of course, the first night in Independence, we had a tornado watch. That was the last time (so far) that I would be so close while on business though.
Tonight, the area I grew up in, that same area that never gets a tornado, was hit by multiple instances of the storms. Parts of 19 communities throughout Western and Central Massachusetts have been hit, and the tornado watch has recently been extended until 11pm this evening. Thankfully, my hometown seems to have been spared of the heaviest devastation, suffering only downed trees and power lines. As of this moment it also looks like injuries were at a minimum, and only one fatality has been reported. I hope that the numbers remain where they are now, and do not grow.
From the moment I heard a big storm was coming, with the potential for tornadoes, I was very excited. I always am when I hear the watches, warnings, and reports. Once I began to hear of the sightings and damage in Springfield, my thoughts immediately rushed to my family and friends. Everyone is okay, and though the power and cell service was knocked out in my town, I was able to get in contact with those I was concerned about. Some texts made their way to me, others that couldn't text had the ability to use their 3G connection (somehow) to communicate on Twitter. Once things started to settle down, I even discovered that one of the videos the Boston news had been showing on repeat was taken in the truck of my friend I had just returned with last night from Florida. He had accidentally driven into the storm, and his coworker and friend lucked out enough to catch a tree falling in front of the truck and a roof being ripped off a house. The video can be found here, credit to Dylan. Silly world we live in.
Part of me was extremely jealous that I was out east, away from the action and the possibility of catching this storm with my eye. That feeling increased the more videos and pictures I saw as they scrolled by on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. But in the end, I'm so very relieved that everyone is okay. At the very least, you all have a wonderful story to tell. The night is not yet over here, with another two hours to go before the watch is lifted, but at least for this one day I think I can say I'd rather not be a witness. I know that sentiment will change, and I will always wish I could have been there (at a safe distance, of course). But there's always the next time.
See, I live in a state that gets no tornadoes. My richest memory of one was a twister that tore up a grocery store about an hour west of my house when I was a kid. That's it, that's as close as I've come. I relish the tornado watches that the news occasionally throws my way, and I brighten up whenever the watch progresses to a warning. It is almost too much.
Don't assume this means I have a weird interest in death and destruction. It's not the aftermath I look forward to. The stories that have come out of the Midwest already this year are heavy on my heart, and I wish the best for all those affected and their families. I have read and consumed more tornado stories and videos than an average 24-year-old, so I'm quite familiar with the consequences. Yet still I hold out hope. I know there is no preventing them, so maybe I use that to rationalize my interest.
What it really comes down to is the pure awe-inspiring power. The most intense, concentrated power that nature has to offer. There is truly nothing like a tornado. Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, these are all events that cause much more damage and much more lasting effects than the average twister. But the concentration of wind power in such a small space is simply incredible. This is without mentioning the strange beauty of it all.
I recently began a job that has me traveling quite a bit. When I found out my first account was in Iowa, and I'd be there multiple times during the summer, I got excited. I knew there wasn't much in terms of tourist attractions in the area, but I felt like I finally had my chance to see one. Of course, the first night in Independence, we had a tornado watch. That was the last time (so far) that I would be so close while on business though.
Tonight, the area I grew up in, that same area that never gets a tornado, was hit by multiple instances of the storms. Parts of 19 communities throughout Western and Central Massachusetts have been hit, and the tornado watch has recently been extended until 11pm this evening. Thankfully, my hometown seems to have been spared of the heaviest devastation, suffering only downed trees and power lines. As of this moment it also looks like injuries were at a minimum, and only one fatality has been reported. I hope that the numbers remain where they are now, and do not grow.
From the moment I heard a big storm was coming, with the potential for tornadoes, I was very excited. I always am when I hear the watches, warnings, and reports. Once I began to hear of the sightings and damage in Springfield, my thoughts immediately rushed to my family and friends. Everyone is okay, and though the power and cell service was knocked out in my town, I was able to get in contact with those I was concerned about. Some texts made their way to me, others that couldn't text had the ability to use their 3G connection (somehow) to communicate on Twitter. Once things started to settle down, I even discovered that one of the videos the Boston news had been showing on repeat was taken in the truck of my friend I had just returned with last night from Florida. He had accidentally driven into the storm, and his coworker and friend lucked out enough to catch a tree falling in front of the truck and a roof being ripped off a house. The video can be found here, credit to Dylan. Silly world we live in.
Part of me was extremely jealous that I was out east, away from the action and the possibility of catching this storm with my eye. That feeling increased the more videos and pictures I saw as they scrolled by on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. But in the end, I'm so very relieved that everyone is okay. At the very least, you all have a wonderful story to tell. The night is not yet over here, with another two hours to go before the watch is lifted, but at least for this one day I think I can say I'd rather not be a witness. I know that sentiment will change, and I will always wish I could have been there (at a safe distance, of course). But there's always the next time.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Being Realistic With Today's NBA
I was prompted to begin thinking about today's NBA by ESPN's Bill Simmons, whom I read pretty consistently. I find a lot of my opinions on the Association fall in line with his thoughts, and the quips and lightbulbs he introduces often have me looking deeper into the effects and results of implementing such things. Which is probably why, despite being in the middle of one of the more entertaining postseasons in recent memory, I found myself spending serious time thinking about how to improve the product. Starting from a fun, time-wasting exercise in realigning the Association's divisions (honestly, to make my NBA 2K11 experience more geographically satisfying), I found myself delving deeper into restructuring the two-conference format every major league seems so intent on employing, reworking the playoff system, and even introducing new elements in detail that, in the end, retained the overall identity of the Association while providing it new opportunities to grow and entertain.
I begin with addressing division alignment. It has been discussed before, in many different venues with as many different outcomes, but my belief after much thinking is that conferences really serve no purpose right now that can't be also maintained by a strict division breakdown. The idea, when they were introduced, was to cut down on the cross-country travel that was such a hassle in the days of flying coach. With all the amenities these teams have available to them now, the most obvious of which is chartered planes that I can only assume are exponentially more comfortable and tailored than the typical 1960s Boston to LA PanAm flight would have been, that need no longer exists in the capacity it once did. However, we do still see teams affected by heavy travel schedules, especially the veteran teams that tend to have deep playoff runs. But when you have teams in Oklahoma City, Minneapolis, and Portland occupying the same division, you're clearly not aligning them for the benefit of reduced travel. With the previous decade's relocations, we've needed to take another look at alignment, and with the talks of the Maloofs taking the Kings out of Sacramento put to rest for at least another year, now might be the time to address alignment concerns.
My proposal is not a quick-fix, let's-just-move-this-team-here-and-this-team-there suggestion. I suggest we take a hammer to the conference piggy bank and separate out our coins in a way that makes more sense: Five divisions of six teams each. It sounds uneven at first, but once you actually take a look at how the teams would fall in, it begins to become a much clearer geographic picture, with the benefit of reduced travel actually increased from the current two-conference format. Here's a quick look at my proposed alignment, the 5-Division system:
With the divisions including six teams each, traditional divisional rivalries remain intact for the most part, and they divisions make much more sense geographically as well. The Texas Triangle welcomes OKC into the fold. Phoenix remains a Pacific team. The current Central Division expands to include Minnesota, who really has been on an island since they joined the NBA in terms of distance to division rivals. And the Atlantic Division remains intact, joined by the Wizards and their wonderful new uniforms.
There are a couple things to note about this proposal and potential relocations. We all know the Nets are moving to Brooklyn after the 2011-12 season (if there is one, and if the Barclays Center is done in time. Who knows). The Kings have no certain future ahead of them. We can assume they will find the funding they need to build a new arena and stay in Sacramento, but that sort of thing is never 100%. If the arena plans do fall through and they instead move to Anaheim, as they intended at some point within the past month, then that does not affect this division alignment negatively (same goes for if they move to Seattle, or Vancouver, or Las Vegas, as all have been rumored over the past year). The other NBA franchise without a definite middle-term future is the Hornets, currently owned by the Association and while they did hit their minimum attendance mark set in their lease, keeping the team from opting out of the contract penalty-free, there do not seem to be many potential buyers with the desire to keep the team in town. If they leave New Orleans as the Jazz did before them, the cities best-equipped to attract the team would be those mentioned above, as well as Kansas City, with their relatively-new Sprint Center, which is currently without a major league sports tenant. A Kansas City franchise would still make most sense in the Southeast Division, given the proposed layout. The one kink that could be thrown in is if a team such as the Hornets or the Bobcats made the move West, inhabiting the Seattle-Vancouver region or Las Vegas (or Anaheim, who for some reason is really excited to host the C team of Greater Los Angeles), or if the Kings decide to return to their previous home of Kansas City. This could be easily rectified, however. In the first case the NBA could shift the Suns to the Southwest (sorry, Phoenix, but you're much more a Southwest city than a Pacific city anyways), and the Thunder to the Southeast, giving the relocated Hornets/Bobcats the Suns' old position in the Pacific Division. A Sacto-to-KC move would involve even less shuffling: Sacramento (now Kansas City in this scenario) could simply swap divisions with Utah. For these foreseeable moves, this 5-division structure seems to hold up.
The big change this would predicate would be the playoff structure. I thought long and hard about this as well, and I think the NBA needs a drastic overhaul of their postseason tournament. The NBA Playoffs have long been cited as the most predictable and uninteresting playoffs of the four major sports, and despite classic games each year, the argument holds up. Since 1984, only four times has a #8 seed upset a #1 in the first round, and only once has that #8 gone on to the NBA Finals. That was the 1999 Knicks, which I will throw out as the shortened season surely had an effect on the proper seeding of talent. The last NBA Finals to not feature a #1 seed was 1994, and that Finals saw the #2 seeded Rockets take on the #2 Knicks. The previous top-seedless Finals? 1978, when the third-seeded Bullets topped the fourth-seeded Supersonics in seven games. Maybe there's no good way to go about changing the end result and the finals matchups, but there is a way to make those early rounds of the playoffs more exciting and unpredictable, and here is where I employ the ideas of a couple of others to flesh out the new NBA Postseason.
Here's the scenario. We have played through an entire regular season, and have some idea who the best teams in the NBA are, and now we look forward to watching them prove it in the postseason. However, some of these "best teams" don't get this chance to prove themselves in the playoffs, as the current format restricts how many teams can get in from a particular conference. In my NBA, this restriction no longer exists. We are going to reward the best teams in the Association, like the current system does, but we're not going to penalize any team for playing in the toughest situations. This solution involves 12 auto-qualifiers and four wild card teams, and borrows from the excitement and uncertainty that March Madness provides to us every year. Without conferences providing us strict playoff seeding, I'll employ an idea I first saw from Bob Fitzgerald: turning the playoffs into a straight 16-team bracket, much like one of the regional brackets at the beginning of March Madness. With that in your head, let's talk about who gets in. Here we go:
a) The five division champions earn a playoff berth, as well as the guarantee to host the first round of the playoffs. Winning your division, no matter the level of competition, is an accomplishment, and those teams should be rewarded as such. Therefore we will not seed them any lower than 8th, similar to how current division winners cannot be seeded lower than 4th in their respective conference.
b) The five division runners-up earn a playoff berth. This makes playing well within your division meaningful. As we'll take a look at soon, the five-division alignment requires us to make some changes to the regular season schedule. One of the solutions involves a bit more in-division play than in the current system, so in order to reward the teams who play well within their division but get edged out by the top team, we will give them a playoff spot. These teams will be seeded no lower than 12th.
c) The two remaining teams with the best overall records who did not already secure a playoff spot are given one. We can refer to these teams as wild cards, or at-large teams, or really whatever you'd like to call them. The point is, here we reward the teams who play the best in the toughest divisions. In the alignment I detailed above, the Southwest Division is pretty brutal in terms of difficulty. The top two teams would get into the playoffs, but that leaves some heavy talent out. The two wild card spots aim to rectify this. If you have three 50-game winners in a division, one most likely won't be on the outside looking in as the playoffs begin. Or rather, when the "Entertaining As Hell Tournament," as Bill Simmons tentatively dubbed it, begins. These teams also would be seeded no lower than 12th.
d) The four remaining seed go to the top 4 finishers of a double elimination tournament that immediately follows the regular season and precedes what we know as the playoffs. First introduced to combat the tanking that teams subject their fans to when they're out of the playoff race, Simmons describes it as such:
As my alignment strategy doesn't take conferences into consideration, we guarantee the top 12 seeds overall, but still have the bottom four seeds determined by the EAHT, as I will refer to it as from here on out. Simmons' point A, the top four teams not playing each other until the conference finals, is another benefit to the straight 16 seed bracket. As it stands now, the best teams often fall within the same conference, so you may have the two best teams in the NBA meeting in the Conference Finals, or two of the best three even squaring off in the Conference Semifinals. This is no way to determine a champion. With the straight 16 seed bracket, the top four teams get the top four seeds, and they are guaranteed not to meet until at least the NBA Semifinals (formerly the Conference Finals), with the top two seeds not matching up until the NBA Finals. They could even be from the same division, in this case, as we only guarantee homecourt in the first round for division winners. There are no top seed restrictions. If Dallas finishes a season with the best record, and Oklahoma City finishes with the second best, they would be seeded 1-2. The other four division winners and the two remaining auto-qualifiers would round out the top 8, allowing for the two best teams to truly meet in the Finals. If, of course, they take care of business.
The EAHT would be seeded in order of overall record, using the same tiebreakers currently employed by the Association. This would follow the typical layout of an 18-team double elimination tournament, where the champion gets the #13 seed in the playoffs, the runner-up gets #14, third place is seeded #15, and the team that finishes in fourth gets the last seed and the honor to matchup against the team with the best record in the NBA. With this format, we could see some pretty exciting first round matchups, and like Simmons mentions, even see a Cinderella team gel during the EAHT and take advantage of matchups with their first round opponent in the NBA Playoffs, giving us some unexpected upsets.
Taking a look at the finishes for the 2010-11 season, here's what the NBA Playoffs would have looked like with the proposed division alignment and new postseason structure (using records from this season, which would of course be different with altered schedules and divisions):
The teams left out that made the 2011 NBA Playoffs would be the Hawks, the Sixers, the Hornets, and the bandwagon flavor of the month Grizzlies. Watching the Grizzlies' remarkable postseason, I have little doubt they would have put together a serious run in the EAHT, and made the playoffs through that method too. Regardless, what we watched with Memphis this past month would be duplicated every season, with underachieving (or not, depending on how you view them) regular season teams putting together an unexpected stretch during the Tournament and gaining real support from fans all over. Here's how the seeding and opening matchups for the EAHT would have looked like this year:
Remember, these aren't best-of-5 or best-of-7 series, it's a double elimination tournament, so each game matters. The tournament could even be hosted at a different NBA venue each year, like All-Star Weekend, or even rotate between couple destination cities, like the Super Bowl. Imagine the EAHT in Las Vegas every year. Actually, if David Stern is reading this, don't imagine that. Imagine this being another event to increase the popularity of your Association. This would be a radical shift from current policy, but something like this tournament could be the best decision the NBA makes, in terms of fan interest as well as marketing power.
Back to Simmons' comment about shortening the regular season. Once I finalized my five divisions, I realized the schedule would not be workable in its current state, and that some changes were necessary. Here's the breakdown I came up with:
a) Teams play each division opponent five times. Two home, two away, and alternate the host of the fifth every year. This comes to 25 games.
b) Teams play a home-and-home series with every team outside their division, just like teams currently do with opponents from the opposite conference. Fans still have the opportunity to see every team at least once in this scenario, as they do now with the current scheduling system. This comes to 48 games, for a total of 73 so far.
c) Here's where it starts to get interesting. The teams will play one additional game against the teams in the other four divisions that finished in the same place as them the previous season. Meaning the following year the team that finished second in Atlantic will play one additional game against the teams that finished second in their divisions. It's an idea the NFL currently uses effectively, and I could see it being beneficial for the NBA as well. This comes to four games, totaling 77.
d) Lastly, one additional game vs. the team's traditional/geographical/team-that-stole-their-city rival from outside the division. This has two purposes. First, being able to see one more Lakers-Celtics game a year can't possibly hurt, and neither would an extra matchup of Hornets-Jazz (Battle for New Orleans!) or Knicks-Heat (the Pat Riley Special). Hell, you could even see trophies introduced for the winner of the season series, like the Cascadia Cup in MLS or college football rivalries. Secondly, we need to have an even number of home and away games, and this "extra" game would even out the schedule at a nice 78: 39 Home, 39 Away.
This scheduling structure would allow us to cut about a week off the end of the regular season, which would then be used to hold and showcase the EAHT. The tough part might be determining that extra matchup for some franchises. Celtics-Lakers makes sense, but who would be designated as Memphis' matchup each year? Maybe we could institute a 4- or 5-year reevalutation period, where you can switch the "rivalry" games for the following few seasons until the next evalutation. I haven't come up with a perfect solution for this one yet.
This will probably never happen, but I can see it only benefiting the NBA if it were ever adopted. You'd have a more exciting regular season, an Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament, and an improved NBA Playoff format. What's there to lose?
I begin with addressing division alignment. It has been discussed before, in many different venues with as many different outcomes, but my belief after much thinking is that conferences really serve no purpose right now that can't be also maintained by a strict division breakdown. The idea, when they were introduced, was to cut down on the cross-country travel that was such a hassle in the days of flying coach. With all the amenities these teams have available to them now, the most obvious of which is chartered planes that I can only assume are exponentially more comfortable and tailored than the typical 1960s Boston to LA PanAm flight would have been, that need no longer exists in the capacity it once did. However, we do still see teams affected by heavy travel schedules, especially the veteran teams that tend to have deep playoff runs. But when you have teams in Oklahoma City, Minneapolis, and Portland occupying the same division, you're clearly not aligning them for the benefit of reduced travel. With the previous decade's relocations, we've needed to take another look at alignment, and with the talks of the Maloofs taking the Kings out of Sacramento put to rest for at least another year, now might be the time to address alignment concerns.
My proposal is not a quick-fix, let's-just-move-this-team-here-and-this-team-there suggestion. I suggest we take a hammer to the conference piggy bank and separate out our coins in a way that makes more sense: Five divisions of six teams each. It sounds uneven at first, but once you actually take a look at how the teams would fall in, it begins to become a much clearer geographic picture, with the benefit of reduced travel actually increased from the current two-conference format. Here's a quick look at my proposed alignment, the 5-Division system:
With the divisions including six teams each, traditional divisional rivalries remain intact for the most part, and they divisions make much more sense geographically as well. The Texas Triangle welcomes OKC into the fold. Phoenix remains a Pacific team. The current Central Division expands to include Minnesota, who really has been on an island since they joined the NBA in terms of distance to division rivals. And the Atlantic Division remains intact, joined by the Wizards and their wonderful new uniforms.
There are a couple things to note about this proposal and potential relocations. We all know the Nets are moving to Brooklyn after the 2011-12 season (if there is one, and if the Barclays Center is done in time. Who knows). The Kings have no certain future ahead of them. We can assume they will find the funding they need to build a new arena and stay in Sacramento, but that sort of thing is never 100%. If the arena plans do fall through and they instead move to Anaheim, as they intended at some point within the past month, then that does not affect this division alignment negatively (same goes for if they move to Seattle, or Vancouver, or Las Vegas, as all have been rumored over the past year). The other NBA franchise without a definite middle-term future is the Hornets, currently owned by the Association and while they did hit their minimum attendance mark set in their lease, keeping the team from opting out of the contract penalty-free, there do not seem to be many potential buyers with the desire to keep the team in town. If they leave New Orleans as the Jazz did before them, the cities best-equipped to attract the team would be those mentioned above, as well as Kansas City, with their relatively-new Sprint Center, which is currently without a major league sports tenant. A Kansas City franchise would still make most sense in the Southeast Division, given the proposed layout. The one kink that could be thrown in is if a team such as the Hornets or the Bobcats made the move West, inhabiting the Seattle-Vancouver region or Las Vegas (or Anaheim, who for some reason is really excited to host the C team of Greater Los Angeles), or if the Kings decide to return to their previous home of Kansas City. This could be easily rectified, however. In the first case the NBA could shift the Suns to the Southwest (sorry, Phoenix, but you're much more a Southwest city than a Pacific city anyways), and the Thunder to the Southeast, giving the relocated Hornets/Bobcats the Suns' old position in the Pacific Division. A Sacto-to-KC move would involve even less shuffling: Sacramento (now Kansas City in this scenario) could simply swap divisions with Utah. For these foreseeable moves, this 5-division structure seems to hold up.
The big change this would predicate would be the playoff structure. I thought long and hard about this as well, and I think the NBA needs a drastic overhaul of their postseason tournament. The NBA Playoffs have long been cited as the most predictable and uninteresting playoffs of the four major sports, and despite classic games each year, the argument holds up. Since 1984, only four times has a #8 seed upset a #1 in the first round, and only once has that #8 gone on to the NBA Finals. That was the 1999 Knicks, which I will throw out as the shortened season surely had an effect on the proper seeding of talent. The last NBA Finals to not feature a #1 seed was 1994, and that Finals saw the #2 seeded Rockets take on the #2 Knicks. The previous top-seedless Finals? 1978, when the third-seeded Bullets topped the fourth-seeded Supersonics in seven games. Maybe there's no good way to go about changing the end result and the finals matchups, but there is a way to make those early rounds of the playoffs more exciting and unpredictable, and here is where I employ the ideas of a couple of others to flesh out the new NBA Postseason.
Here's the scenario. We have played through an entire regular season, and have some idea who the best teams in the NBA are, and now we look forward to watching them prove it in the postseason. However, some of these "best teams" don't get this chance to prove themselves in the playoffs, as the current format restricts how many teams can get in from a particular conference. In my NBA, this restriction no longer exists. We are going to reward the best teams in the Association, like the current system does, but we're not going to penalize any team for playing in the toughest situations. This solution involves 12 auto-qualifiers and four wild card teams, and borrows from the excitement and uncertainty that March Madness provides to us every year. Without conferences providing us strict playoff seeding, I'll employ an idea I first saw from Bob Fitzgerald: turning the playoffs into a straight 16-team bracket, much like one of the regional brackets at the beginning of March Madness. With that in your head, let's talk about who gets in. Here we go:
a) The five division champions earn a playoff berth, as well as the guarantee to host the first round of the playoffs. Winning your division, no matter the level of competition, is an accomplishment, and those teams should be rewarded as such. Therefore we will not seed them any lower than 8th, similar to how current division winners cannot be seeded lower than 4th in their respective conference.
b) The five division runners-up earn a playoff berth. This makes playing well within your division meaningful. As we'll take a look at soon, the five-division alignment requires us to make some changes to the regular season schedule. One of the solutions involves a bit more in-division play than in the current system, so in order to reward the teams who play well within their division but get edged out by the top team, we will give them a playoff spot. These teams will be seeded no lower than 12th.
c) The two remaining teams with the best overall records who did not already secure a playoff spot are given one. We can refer to these teams as wild cards, or at-large teams, or really whatever you'd like to call them. The point is, here we reward the teams who play the best in the toughest divisions. In the alignment I detailed above, the Southwest Division is pretty brutal in terms of difficulty. The top two teams would get into the playoffs, but that leaves some heavy talent out. The two wild card spots aim to rectify this. If you have three 50-game winners in a division, one most likely won't be on the outside looking in as the playoffs begin. Or rather, when the "Entertaining As Hell Tournament," as Bill Simmons tentatively dubbed it, begins. These teams also would be seeded no lower than 12th.
d) The four remaining seed go to the top 4 finishers of a double elimination tournament that immediately follows the regular season and precedes what we know as the playoffs. First introduced to combat the tanking that teams subject their fans to when they're out of the playoff race, Simmons describes it as such:
"Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference, then have a double-elimination tourney for the seventh and eighth seeds between the remaining ... teams. I suggest this for five reasons. First, it would be entertaining as hell. In fact, that's what we'll call it: the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament. Second, I'm pretty sure we could get it sponsored. Third, the top 12 teams get a reward: two weeks of rest while the tournament plays out.
"Fourth, a Cinderella squad could pull off some upsets, grab an eighth seed and win fans along the way. And fifth, with the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament giving everyone a chance, no team could tank down the stretch without insulting paying customers beyond repair.
"Is there any downside for that idea? Lottery teams couldn't tank down the stretch and sideline their best players with dubious injuries. Playoff teams get two weeks of rest and practice so they'll be running on all cylinders in the playoffs. And if that's not enough, the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament would be entertaining as hell, wouldn't it? Then, when the real playoffs started, we'd have a wide-open, 16-team bracket in which (A) the top-four teams couldn't play each other until the conference finals, (B) the matchups would be completely unpredictable, and (C) the bracket even would lend itself to a few illegal office pools (with the Finals MVP as the tiebreaker)."
As my alignment strategy doesn't take conferences into consideration, we guarantee the top 12 seeds overall, but still have the bottom four seeds determined by the EAHT, as I will refer to it as from here on out. Simmons' point A, the top four teams not playing each other until the conference finals, is another benefit to the straight 16 seed bracket. As it stands now, the best teams often fall within the same conference, so you may have the two best teams in the NBA meeting in the Conference Finals, or two of the best three even squaring off in the Conference Semifinals. This is no way to determine a champion. With the straight 16 seed bracket, the top four teams get the top four seeds, and they are guaranteed not to meet until at least the NBA Semifinals (formerly the Conference Finals), with the top two seeds not matching up until the NBA Finals. They could even be from the same division, in this case, as we only guarantee homecourt in the first round for division winners. There are no top seed restrictions. If Dallas finishes a season with the best record, and Oklahoma City finishes with the second best, they would be seeded 1-2. The other four division winners and the two remaining auto-qualifiers would round out the top 8, allowing for the two best teams to truly meet in the Finals. If, of course, they take care of business.
The EAHT would be seeded in order of overall record, using the same tiebreakers currently employed by the Association. This would follow the typical layout of an 18-team double elimination tournament, where the champion gets the #13 seed in the playoffs, the runner-up gets #14, third place is seeded #15, and the team that finishes in fourth gets the last seed and the honor to matchup against the team with the best record in the NBA. With this format, we could see some pretty exciting first round matchups, and like Simmons mentions, even see a Cinderella team gel during the EAHT and take advantage of matchups with their first round opponent in the NBA Playoffs, giving us some unexpected upsets.
Taking a look at the finishes for the 2010-11 season, here's what the NBA Playoffs would have looked like with the proposed division alignment and new postseason structure (using records from this season, which would of course be different with altered schedules and divisions):
The teams left out that made the 2011 NBA Playoffs would be the Hawks, the Sixers, the Hornets, and the bandwagon flavor of the month Grizzlies. Watching the Grizzlies' remarkable postseason, I have little doubt they would have put together a serious run in the EAHT, and made the playoffs through that method too. Regardless, what we watched with Memphis this past month would be duplicated every season, with underachieving (or not, depending on how you view them) regular season teams putting together an unexpected stretch during the Tournament and gaining real support from fans all over. Here's how the seeding and opening matchups for the EAHT would have looked like this year:
Remember, these aren't best-of-5 or best-of-7 series, it's a double elimination tournament, so each game matters. The tournament could even be hosted at a different NBA venue each year, like All-Star Weekend, or even rotate between couple destination cities, like the Super Bowl. Imagine the EAHT in Las Vegas every year. Actually, if David Stern is reading this, don't imagine that. Imagine this being another event to increase the popularity of your Association. This would be a radical shift from current policy, but something like this tournament could be the best decision the NBA makes, in terms of fan interest as well as marketing power.
Back to Simmons' comment about shortening the regular season. Once I finalized my five divisions, I realized the schedule would not be workable in its current state, and that some changes were necessary. Here's the breakdown I came up with:
a) Teams play each division opponent five times. Two home, two away, and alternate the host of the fifth every year. This comes to 25 games.
b) Teams play a home-and-home series with every team outside their division, just like teams currently do with opponents from the opposite conference. Fans still have the opportunity to see every team at least once in this scenario, as they do now with the current scheduling system. This comes to 48 games, for a total of 73 so far.
c) Here's where it starts to get interesting. The teams will play one additional game against the teams in the other four divisions that finished in the same place as them the previous season. Meaning the following year the team that finished second in Atlantic will play one additional game against the teams that finished second in their divisions. It's an idea the NFL currently uses effectively, and I could see it being beneficial for the NBA as well. This comes to four games, totaling 77.
d) Lastly, one additional game vs. the team's traditional/geographical/team-that-stole-their-city rival from outside the division. This has two purposes. First, being able to see one more Lakers-Celtics game a year can't possibly hurt, and neither would an extra matchup of Hornets-Jazz (Battle for New Orleans!) or Knicks-Heat (the Pat Riley Special). Hell, you could even see trophies introduced for the winner of the season series, like the Cascadia Cup in MLS or college football rivalries. Secondly, we need to have an even number of home and away games, and this "extra" game would even out the schedule at a nice 78: 39 Home, 39 Away.
This scheduling structure would allow us to cut about a week off the end of the regular season, which would then be used to hold and showcase the EAHT. The tough part might be determining that extra matchup for some franchises. Celtics-Lakers makes sense, but who would be designated as Memphis' matchup each year? Maybe we could institute a 4- or 5-year reevalutation period, where you can switch the "rivalry" games for the following few seasons until the next evalutation. I haven't come up with a perfect solution for this one yet.
This will probably never happen, but I can see it only benefiting the NBA if it were ever adopted. You'd have a more exciting regular season, an Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament, and an improved NBA Playoff format. What's there to lose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)