Divide each Conference into five three-team Hubs. In the West we’d have Phx-LA-LA, GS-Sacto-Portland, Utah-Denver-Minny, OKC-Memphis-NO, and Texas*3. In the East we’d have Mia-Orl-Atl, Cha-Was-Phi, NY-Bkn-Bos, Tor-Cle-Det, and Mil-Chi-Ind. You can draw a ring through the five Hubs in each Conference so that each Hub has two adjacent Hubs and two non-adjacent Hubs in the Conference.
You play five games against each other team in your Hub, four games against each team in an adjacent Hub, three games against each team in a non-adjacent Hub, and two games against each team in the other Conference.
2*5 + 6*4 + 6*3 + 15*2 = 82.
Each IST group would have one team from each Hub.
What do you think? Do you like the idea of the localized hubs with extra games, or prefer a system where you play four games against ten Conference opponents and three against the other four?
Scheduling Idea
Re: Scheduling Idea
I think it’s interesting…what would you get for winning your hub?
Re: Scheduling Idea
I think what the league really needs to do is reduce the overall number of games (to 70, or 72 at the most) and eliminate back-to-backs altogether. I think the product immediately becomes better if that happens. But, since they seem absolutely married to the concept of an 82-game schedule within essentially the same time period as always, it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.
That said, I really like this idea. I'm very much in favor of anything that might reduce overall travel time and help promote geographic rivalries, and I think this concept does just that. Along those lines, it might be fun to run most of the hub games as something like a mini in-season playoff round, where the teams play 2 sets of back-to-back games, one set in each city, with a couple of travel days in between for rest and the chance to strategize. One of the best things about the playoffs is seeing the adjustments that are made from game to game, and I think it would be fun to see that kind of thing during regular-season play as well. The remaining fifth hub game can then be plugged into the schedule wherever it makes sense.
That said, I really like this idea. I'm very much in favor of anything that might reduce overall travel time and help promote geographic rivalries, and I think this concept does just that. Along those lines, it might be fun to run most of the hub games as something like a mini in-season playoff round, where the teams play 2 sets of back-to-back games, one set in each city, with a couple of travel days in between for rest and the chance to strategize. One of the best things about the playoffs is seeing the adjustments that are made from game to game, and I think it would be fun to see that kind of thing during regular-season play as well. The remaining fifth hub game can then be plugged into the schedule wherever it makes sense.
-
Ring_Wanted
- Posts: 5089
- Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:47 am
Re: Scheduling Idea
76 games is optimal to me because it gives you 4 games against your division, 3 against the rest of your conference and 2 against the other. Make it so the season lasts a couple extra weeks and this could be a good compromise between business and load on players, specially contributing to fewer back to backs.
Re: Scheduling Idea
How would you name the hubs?
Texas is obvious. We could use Northeast, Southeast, Northwest and Southwest for the hubs in those corners. Uta-Den-Min are the three Western Conference cities that get snow, so Western Snow? Tor-Cle-Det and Mil-Chi-Ind are on the Great Lakes, so GLE/GLW?
That leaves two hubs (OKC-Mem-NO, Cha-Was-Phi) unnamed and seven names (all but Texas) that could probably be improved.
Texas is obvious. We could use Northeast, Southeast, Northwest and Southwest for the hubs in those corners. Uta-Den-Min are the three Western Conference cities that get snow, so Western Snow? Tor-Cle-Det and Mil-Chi-Ind are on the Great Lakes, so GLE/GLW?
That leaves two hubs (OKC-Mem-NO, Cha-Was-Phi) unnamed and seven names (all but Texas) that could probably be improved.