Recently, Sandra, Bill and myself have all deservedly and rightfully blasted the N.L. West for how not-so-good it is:

That recent thought got me wondering about:

Can you guys recall divisions in any sport that were not very good?

For instance, I remember the NHL's old Norris Division, AKA the "Chuck Norris" division, "Bore-us" division, and "Snorris" Division, where mediocriy reigned for many years in the 1980s.

In 1986-87, the Blues won the division title with a 32–33–15 and 79 points- not exactly the most intimidating season. (NOBODY had a winning record in that division that season)

Two years later, the Red Wings won a division title with a .500 record (34-34-12, 80 points). (See above)

So many teams made the playoffs with horrific records:

1982-83- St. Louis had a 25-40-15 record and 65 points.

1984-85- Minnesota had a 25-43-12 record and 62 points.

1987-88 (This is why the divisional playoff format stunk)- Toronto had a 21-49-10 record, yet made the playoffs. (To quote Michael Berube in a great article I read, "That’s right, a .300 team! The mind reels.")

In 1985-86, they had a 25-48-7 record andgot into the playoffs- in contrast, my Sabres had a .500 record and DIDN'T GET IN!

Comedian Dick Young once said that if World War II were a hockey season, Poland would have made the playoffs.

This is exactly what he meant.

That's my choice- what's yours?

Oh, and honorable mention to the Patrick Division in the late 80s and early 90s- Sandra's Rangers had a 36-31-13 record with 85 points, yet won their division.

__________________
If you can't beat them in the alley, you can't beat them on the ice.

The NBA's 1975-76 Western Conference- Midwest Division gets my vote. This was back in the days when the NBA had only 18 teams.

The standings for the four team 1975-76 Midwest Division:


Milwaukee 38-44
Detroit 36-46
Kansas City 31-51
Chicago 24-58

__________________
"If winning isn't everything, then why do they keep score?" - Vince Lombardi

__________________
If you can't beat them in the alley, you can't beat them on the ice.

"Mr. Perfect" strikes again.

__________________
"If winning isn't everything, then why do they keep score?" - Vince Lombardi

Try the NBA's Central Division, 1971-72:

1. Baltimore Bullets 38-44 .463
2. Atlanta Hawks 36-46 .439
3. Cincinnati Royals 30-52 .366
4. Cleveland Cavaliers 23-59 .280

Note: The Cincinnati Royals moved to Kansas City for the 1972-73 season and were renamed the Kansas City-Omaha Kings.

The 2006-2007 NBA east was kind of a joke. Toronto won it with a decent record but they probably would have been sub .500 had they played in a better division. BTW that is not a knock on the Raptors. They were clearly the best team in a bad division.

I also thought it was almost comical how the Mets won the 1973 NL East. basically everyone else collapsed at the end.

Even that year, the division race was more competitive than 2007-08, when Boston basically nuked the division by Valentine's Day.

__________________
If you can't beat them in the alley, you can't beat them on the ice.

I agree but at least that was a situation where one team was performing well against the whole league and stood above the division. But the previous year everyone but Toronto was pretty bad. heck the Celtics lost 18 in a row and some were accusing them of throwing games to have a better chance at the #1 pick.

But overall I think it just show that the NBA is not balanced. I am not sure I would play with the divisions to make it balanced but it is not balanced.

I have to agree with the old Norris Divison, looking back at standings, wow was there some bad hockey!


I remember the 44 point year the wings had in the 80's

actually it was a 40 point season in 85-86