Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in sports?

[Assani Fisher]

Was just thinking about how awesome a Pats/Colts Super Bowl or a Spurs/Suns(or Mavs) Finals would've been.....

Now I understand the need for divisions in the NFL- rivalries in the NFL, unlike other pro sports, are more based on regular season games(whereas in other sports, nearly every great rivalry stems from the postseason). So you want to have 2 DAllas/Washington or GB/Chicago games each year. Thats fine.

But whats the point in conferences? And in the NBA, why not just lose divisions all together?

The benefit would be being way more likely to have the best teams meet later in the postseason rather than earlier. Aside from being more fair, I'd simply think that this would make for better drama and MOST IMPORTANTLY better TV ratings.

Other than "its just tradition" can anyone name a decent reason for having them?

[Hollywade]

the development of rivalries that would not occur otherwise

???

[THAY3R]

I think the NBA in a 18 team/12 team relegation style league would be fun.

[tuq]

Assani,

Travel comes to mind, for one thing. Which is the reason the NBA stupidly enacted the 2-3-2 format for the Finals back in the 80s. But generally speaking I would like to see a seeding system reflect record, not geography, as it does in the NFL. That way something like last year won't happen, where the best five teams in the NBA are beating each other senseless in one conference, while a one-man team is making it to the Finals fairly easily in the other.

[tuq]

BTW that travel excuse is pretty stupid...NBA playoff games have 2+ days between all of them, whereas with MLB's 2-2-1 format they often play game five the day after game four, even if it's all the way across the country. No reason that world-class athletes can't get rest on a team chartered plane and fully recover to play two days later.

[Billy Bibbit]

Basketball (and hockey) are a lot more physically demanding than baseball though, so it makes sense that those are the two sports that divide their conferences by geography.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Was just thinking about how awesome a Pats/Colts Super Bowl would've been.....

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason a Pats/Colts superbowl would seem so awesome is that they have so much history from meeting in the playoffs so much, which is fostered by the Conference setup. Without the Conference setup you'd have them playing less, which would negate the energy of the match up.

Also, the Colts and pats have never been the 1 and 2 seeds in the AFC in any season, much less the the 2 best records in the NFL. You feel like you have been robbed of the 1v2 superbowl but it wouldn't have happened with your conferenceless setup either.

[NIX]

I agree with the rivalries argument. Conferences and divisions give a good reason to have an unbalanced schedule. And the more often you play the same teams, the more likely some bad blood will develop with the players being able to do something about it since they'll see that other team again shortly rather than letting it die down if you won't see Team X again for another couple of months or years.

Also, baseball has the obvious reason of the different leagues using different rules.

[capone0]

The reason for conferences initially are probally travel considerations. They don't really make that much sense now although it kinda benefits teams on the west coast that are more seperated and therefore play more games against closer teams.

Right now they probally don't make as much sense but I doubt they will disband them.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason for conferences initially are probally travel considerations.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they are born out of separate leagues coming together and wanting to retain rivalries and identities.

The AFC is built up on the the old AFL, with a few teams moved over to balance the numbers.

The AL/NL should be obvious enough and not require any any explanation.

The only American sport with travel based conferences is the NBA.