 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Way to grow NBA realignment could be on the horizonPosted: Tuesday November 05, 2002 12:46 PMUpdated: Tuesday November 05, 2002 1:07 PM
Almost casually, as if George W. Bush were to announce a major economic initiative while eating a plate of chicken wings (wait a minute, maybe he did that already), NBA commissioner David Stern raised the rarely discussed subject of realignment last week. It happened during an impromptu press conference in New Orleans, before the transplanted Hornets began a new era in the Big Easy. The subject at hand was the possibility of an expansion team in Charlotte that would swell the league total to 30 teams, and the commish took it one step further. "If Charlotte gets a team," he said, "maybe it's time to look at a lot of changes, including realignment." Forget for a moment the intriguing questions of: A) Why would the league so quickly award a new team to a city that just drove one out of town? and B) Does this league really need a further dilution of talent? The answer to B is simple: of course not. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. As far as A is concerned, the reasons are not easily condensed, but bank on this -- the NBA will be back in Charlotte, probably soon, probably with an ownership group that will install Larry Bird as general manager. Incidentally, having the Celtics immortal in Carolina is completely logical. Isiah Thomas should be coaching in Detroit, but he's in Indiana. Michael Jordan should be an owner in Charlotte or Chicago, but he's in Washington. Kevin McHale should be GM in Boston, but he's in Minneapolis. Julius Erving should be involved with the team in Philadelphia, but he's a senior vice president in Orlando. And after all these years, Lakers legend Jerry West is now the resident genius in Memphis. Only Magic Johnson, who owns 5 percent of Jerry Buss' Lakers, is in the right place ... and he just tried buy into Seattle. Anyway, with just a couple of exceptions, the league's currrent geographical setup is good; by and large, every team is where it should be. Midwest Division residents Memphis and Minnesota aren't too thrilled with their situations, but at this moment, what Western Conference franchise other than the Lakers really wants to be there? It's much easier to rapidly advance in the Eastern Conference, which has crowned different champions in each of the past four seasons. Putting a team back in Charlotte, in the geographically crammed eastern part of the country, would create a few problems. On the other hand, the league would derive some benefits (beyond, of course, the $60 million or so it would receive as an expansion fee). Thirty is a nice round number. There would be six five-team divisions (three in each conference, obviously) instead of the current three sevens and one eight (the Central). And the postseason would be more interesting. It would be way, way, way too much to hope that the league would go the baseball route and have a four-team playoff consisting of the three division winners and one wild card. More likely, the NBA would continue an eight-teams-per-conference playoff. Who would qualify? The first two finishers in each of the three divisions plus two wild cards? Or the three division winners and five wild cards? The latter presents the possibility of a mathematical nightmare, but it would be an inducement for teams to play hard and for fans to study the morning agate. So, here's an early line on realignment.
Analysis: Obviously, the Atlantic would be more solid geographically and traditionally with Washington in and Toronto out. However, there is simply little else to do with Toronto, a geographic anomaly. (Canadians, don't take that personally.) Anyway, how important is tradition these days? The Wizards aren't the Washington Bullets, for heaven's sake. Plus, when Washington was founded as the nation's capital, it was considered a distinctly southern city, a gift, in fact, to the southern states in exchange for giving Yankee federalist Alexander Hamilton control of the treasury. (I just finished reading Founding Brothers by historian Joseph Ellis; I strongly recommend it.) The Central is a set piece; these teams could bus to most intradivisional games (though they won't). Why no Atlanta in the Southern? Well, we'll get to that. Assessing the Eastern setup as it is now, the Southern is really feeble. Perhaps the inherent weakness of one or two divisions would strengthen the argument for a three-champion, five-wild-card playoff setup.
Analysis: I hate placing Atlanta here, but somebody from the East must take a hike; the Hawks have been around for a while, so let's pin it on them. The Mountain Division is a little squirrely geographically, but there's no way around it, since Denver, Minnesota and Utah have no obvious neighbors. Phoenix's being in the Pacific doesn't sound all that bad. Obviously, having Portland and Seattle in that division would be more logical, but there's no way to take one without the other and there are already four California teams. Taking hypothetical to an extreme, this would be my playoff lineup this season (excluding, of course, the nonexistent Charlotte franchise): In the East, New Jersey, Washington and Detroit as division champs with (in order of finish) Philadelphia, Orlando, Indiana, Boston and Milwaukee as wild cards. In the West, Dallas, Portland and Sacramento as division champs with (in order of finish), San Antonio, the Lakers, New Orleans, Minnesota and Portland as wild cards. I'm sure Stern would consider all this wildly premature. But, hey, he brought it up. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum covers the NBA beat for the magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. Click here to send a question to his NBA mailbag.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
