I would like to go even further and remove the conference system altogether. Is the conference rivalry system really a key component of BB as someone said earlier? From a personal standpoint, I can say that it adds nothing for me.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I would really like to see the number of teams per division reduced and the conference system removed. I think this solves a few things:
1) Less teams means you can get to know your division mates better. Then we can say that division rivalries are a key component of BB. ;-)
2) Every team has a better shot of promoting (instead of 1/16, 1/12).
3) The top 6 make the playoffs, the bottom two relegate and the remaining 4 battle it out for the last 2 demotion spots. You wouldn't have a 5th place team in no-man's land (it is actually better to finish 6th than 5th in the current format - you get revenue and more training)
4) The division will equilibrate faster. The worst teams will demote while the best stay in the division. Right now, with an unbalanced conference, the worst teams often stay up.
5) The draft is messed up. I could finish 8th in my conference and demote with a 8-14 record, for example. Meanwhile, a guy in the other conference finishes 5th with a 7-15 record. He drafts ahead of me but he is staying up.
Just look at Naismith in Canada. I would love to see Toroo and Molson play head-to-head with the Sculpins more often. It would make things much more interesting for them. I would go down to division II, but the competition would be much more interesting for me, too.
Finally, it would force the higher level teams to spend their money and max out their salaries. It makes everything more competitive faster. If you don't spend your money, you'll get left behind.
Run of the Mill Canadian Manager