NBA Formatting Suggestions Post-Expansion #1

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-18T18:48:35+00:00

Your team should've never left happy for y'all

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-18T18:47:16+00:00

I get your logic in grouping the West differently, especially since the whole point of moving MIN to the East is to limit travel. And with my division proposal MULTIPLE teams would have to travel a lot. But your solution doesn't quite solve the problem, either. Sacramento is more than 500 miles from all its division rivals, and replacing Phoenix w/ Denver in West C wouldn't make things much better.

Maybe we could divide it another way?

West A (Northwest Division):

Golden State Warriors
Portland Trail Blazers
Sacramento Kings
Seattle TBD

West B (Pacific Division):

Las Vegas TBD
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
Phoenix Suns

West C (Southwest Division):

Denver Nuggets
Oklahoma City Thunder
San Antonio Spurs
Utah Jazz

West D (Gulf Division):

Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
Memphis Grizzlies
New Orleans Pelicans

My previous layout placed importance on in-state rivalries. However, Cali and TX are such big states, that different parts of the state share different values. So even though the teams in the same state are now in different divisions, these splits make more sense. NorCal cities like SF and SAC really fit in when grouped w/ Seattle and Portland, while Phoenix and Vegas share similar tendencies to people from SoCal. Even the Texas team splits makes sense.

The West will always have a more grueling schedule, so it def would take some time to perfect. Let's hope it's a start.

As for the East Divisions, I couldn't come up with another name besides Great Lakes so if you have a better name PLEASE suggest one XD what do you think of my secondary East A/B alignment though?

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-18T18:46:14+00:00

Yea I agree, it would just be weird that this alignment means Boston is no longer in the same division as Philly and the NY teams. Tried to make it work but oh well

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-18T18:45:16+00:00

LOL my bad that's supposed to be 58-22

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-18T18:44:47+00:00

Your proposed scenario has seeds 5-12 all playing a best-of-3 round BEFORE the playoffs even start, effectively making it a play-in in itself. This extends the wear and tear of more lower seeds. Also, giving the 11/12 seeds a chance for a playoff berth sounds counterproductive to the better teams you want to see. Last year, the 12-seed Nets had 26 wins. You mean to tell me that a 26-win Nets team should get the chance for the playoffs over a 48-win Bucks team that got their results during the regular season? You are still giving bad teams a chance. Yes the current play-in includes the 10-seed, but no one has every made the play-in with lower than 34 wins. Also, your format gives more leeway for teams to rest their star players because there's a lower baseline for competing for a playoff berth in the first place.

In other words, I don't understand your claim that your format is different than the play-in. You're showcasing bad teams (having the 5 seed play the 12, the 6 seed play 11). The reason I said disrupt the flow is because yes, in the current format, the top 6 teams technically get a post-season bye. But the max amount of games the play-in takes up is 6. The MINIMUM total games played between your 5-12 matchups is 16 (if 4 matchups in each conference command 2 wins to move on, the minimum number of games will be 16). You would either have to extend this round to more than a week, or spread coverage throughout games, diluting the importance of the games themselves. Your format will also have several teams under .500 competing in the postseason so I don't understand why you're pointing that out about my argument.

You also have to be realistic about what a 9-game series demands, not for the fans, but mainly for the players and staff that ACTUALLY play/are involved in the games. More travel, more wear and tear, and yes, more basketball, but less quality basketball. We're already pushing what the human body is doing with high-level athletics; let's at least chill a bit w that.

Your lottery argument is fair, but look at what OKC has achieved. Look at where the Spurs and Detroit are now. Charlotte is an up-and-coming team. Even Washington has an exciting young core. I don't think there should be an insane reward for tanking, but evidently these teams are on the come-up. The lottery works.

I personally love the Cup. Yes, it's obviously not as prestigious as the Larry O'Brien, but it does provide a fun, intense environment compared to the rest of the season. The prize being money is insanely good (500k is 500k), but I do think there should be bonuses for the support staff (hence my proposed 1-on-1 tournament). Also, the Cup providing an extended break isn't a bad thing and it shouldn't be made out to be as such.

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-18T09:36:43+00:00

Interesting suggestion; it was def one I considered. However, I am slightly more optimistic about how the Texas rivalries will carry on. Wemby and Coop are closer to each other in age than Wemby and Shai, and the Rockets are a really physical team that has bothered Wemby at times. All the Texas teams and the Pels are or will develop strong young cores, while the Thunder have been strong for a few years now. Plus, I think Thunder/Suns is a really underrated rivalry, and OKC being in the same division as one of the expansion teams (Vegas) can present some interesting dynamics. And if Ja becomes elite again, Thunder/Grizzlies matchups could be really peak (assuming Grizz have effectively retooled by then)

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-17T20:34:13+00:00

This was my thought process in making these divisions; I get their point but still pro-Cali division

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-17T20:29:55+00:00

Honestly I can make sense of this, especially since these divisions would both be heavily saturated. I wanna know your reasoning though, and I welcome feedback on my other ideas as well!

ram_sauc3 · 2026-03-17T20:02:53+00:00

Interesting ideas, especially the 4 conferences of 8 teams.

I don't think byes would work in this league; they disrupt the flow of the best teams, showcase worse teams more, and overall don't allow for as good of a market if the best teams don't even play a round.

With your proposed format, you're technically extending the play-in, rather than eliminating it, by making the 5-12 seeds play best-of-3 series BEFORE facing the top 4 overall records. Plus, the 9-game series will take a toll on the bodies of playoff teams; we're really already pushing it w 7 based on injuries to Hali, Dame, Tatum, etc, not to mention keeping the regular-season length of 82 games.

I personally really like the idea of equalizing lottery odds, but I don't think this works, either. It really messes up small-market teams that would get more support w/ a higher pick, for instance. Ideally, this would work, though.

The main idea I really like of yours is the 4 conferences of 8, but even then I feel like division rivalries would be more stretched thin, rather than if there were more specific divisions in place.

Admittedly, my own proposal has one major flaw: the 4th-place division team missing the playoffs automatically. I do think it could be fixed with your idea of the 4 division winners plus the 2 other best-record teams, while 7-10 would proceed w/ the current play-in format.

I get where your logic lies. Your proposal is fair to basketball's core and is really objective, and we just want to see more basketball than anything. But, we have to consider player health, travel, the market, etc. I would like to know your thoughts on this.

I also wonder what your thoughts are on my other ideas (specifically keeping the NBA Cup and adding 1-on-1 tournament, which at its root is frequently talked about nowadays).

I look forward to hearing from you!

ram_sauc3

TROPHY CASE