Arizona...good year, wrong division and conference

[Thewholefnshow28]

I kind of agree, because the east sucks in the NBA. Only two or three teams over .500 in the East. The thing is though, they kind of need divisions. Division winners are guaranteed a playoff seed. If they didn't, you'd be seeing the same team over and over again in the playoffs.

Why should you be guaranteed a playoff seed though?  You look at the NFC West and North in the NFL or Atlantic divison in the NA and you have nothing but mediocrity. Why should the Celtics get a guaranteed spot when they are 12-15 over a team like Atlanta who is above .500?  Why should a .500 team in the NFL be rewarded with a home playoff game over a team that is say 10-6 or 11-5 all because they played in a weaker division?

 

To me the playoffs should be about ensuring the best teams are getting in.  Get rid of the divisions and just go two conferences and seed by best record.

[IndyScribe]

Why should you be guaranteed a playoff seed though?  You look at the NFC West and North in the NFL or Atlantic divison in the NA and you have nothing but mediocrity. Why should the Celtics get a guaranteed spot when they are 12-15 over a team like Atlanta who is above .500?  Why should a .500 team in the NFL be rewarded with a home playoff game over a team that is say 10-6 or 11-5 all because they played in a weaker division?

 

To me the playoffs should be about ensuring the best teams are getting in.  Get rid of the divisions and just go two conferences and seed by best record.

Then how would they determine tiebreaker? What happens if two teams have the same record but have never gone head to head or split the games they've played? And watching the same teams compete over and over again eventually gets boring. And anything can happen. There are a lot of good teams built for the playoffs that just cruise through the regular season. They may get 2nd in the division and get in the playoffs, then dominate all other teams in the playoffs. They wouldn't have a chance if divisions were removed. Also, it gives worse teams something to look forward to. You think the Magic or the Bulls are going to try to take away the division title from the Heat or the Pacers? In the weaker conferences, with not as many good teams, they are more motivated to win that division title. Teams like the Hawks will get motivated too. They want to make the playoffs, so they're going to make the push to win that division title. If it were by no division, they may or may not have gotten in. This is true in the Western Conference. The EC may be weaker, so a lot of bad teams sniff the playoffs, but in the West, that's where most of the good teams are. Those good teams will continually get into the playoffs, leaving no chance for the worse teams, like the Grizzlies.

[Superman]

Cassell has been looking pretty good in Minnesota. I would have liked to see what may have happened to him had he went to a team with decent coaching instead of KC. I think he would be great with Andy Reid now in KC.

 

You know you once tried telling me that Matt Cassel is no better than Curtis Painter?

[Superman]

Why should you be guaranteed a playoff seed though?  You look at the NFC West and North in the NFL or Atlantic divison in the NA and you have nothing but mediocrity. Why should the Celtics get a guaranteed spot when they are 12-15 over a team like Atlanta who is above .500?  Why should a .500 team in the NFL be rewarded with a home playoff game over a team that is say 10-6 or 11-5 all because they played in a weaker division?

 

To me the playoffs should be about ensuring the best teams are getting in.  Get rid of the divisions and just go two conferences and seed by best record.

 

Divisions exist mostly for the sake of scheduling, particularly in the NFL (different story in the NBA; I mostly agree with you there). Getting rid of divisions would completely overhaul the way teams matchup during the regular season. Very drastic. Doesn't mean it couldn't be better, but I don't think I've seen a proposal that makes very much sense.

[amfootball]

You know you once tried telling me that Matt Cassel is no better than Curtis Painter?

He ended up that way I guess but I think he had more talent if he was in a better situation. But maybe not. He certainly had a great team to work with in NE in 2008.