As of today, one of those teams would be your 76ers, alone in seventh place in the East with a 28-33 record.

Conversely, one team, perhaps two, in the Western Conference is going to miss the playoffs even though it will finish between five and 10 games over .500.

Right now, one of those teams would be the Denver Nuggets (35-24).

This perceived disparity in the conferences has some people talking about changing the NBA's playoff structure.

I say that would be a complicated undertaking that would do little to affect who would become NBA champion. In addition, it would destroy well-established traditions in the league.

There always has been some kind of disparity between the conferences. This season it's just a little more glaring.

Last season, the Orlando Magic made the East playoffs with a losing record, while the New Jersey Nets and Washington Wizards got in at .500.

But out West, the Golden State Warriors and Los Angeles Lakers got in at 42-40 - not that much of a difference to complain about.

The real issue, however, is what it would achieve to switch the playoffs and what the cost would be.

In theory, the most fair system would be to eliminate conferences and simply have the 16 teams with the best records make the playoffs.

In that scenario, the only way to make sure things were level would be to have each team play the others the same number of times at home and on the road.

With a 30-team league and an 82-game schedule, that is not possible.

The best you could do is have one home-and-home series, but that would only take care of 58 games.

How would you determine what were fair matchups for the other 24 games?

If Dallas played extra games against Phoenix and the Lakers while Detroit played New York and Miami, the Mavericks would be at a competitive disadvantage.

Balancing the schedule also would destroy the great rivalries the NBA has developed.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and it's tough to sustain a rivalry when little is at stake on a yearly basis.

The rivalry among the Sixers, Celtics and Knicks comes from decades of battling each other for supremacy of the division and then in the Eastern playoffs.

It's the same for the Bulls and Pistons; Lakers and Suns; Spurs and Mavericks.

If those teams only played each other two times a season and weren't seeing each other in the playoffs on a regular basis, there would not be enough interaction to develop healthy rivalries.

Team, division and conference rivalries create more fan interest, which is healthy for the sport.

More important is that changing the playoff format would not do anything to change the issue of dominance.

As far as NBA titles are concerned, it is not about one conference being superior but rather one or two teams being superior.

During the 1960s, the Celtics won nine of 10 titles.

In the 1980s, the Lakers and Celtics won eight of the 10 NBA titles.

The 1990s saw Michael Jordan and the Bulls win six titles and the Rockets win two.

And since 1998, two players have dominated the NBA championship - Tim Duncan, who won four titles with the Spurs, and Shaquille O'Neal, who won three rings with the Lakers and one with the Heat.

In the past nine seasons, the only team to win a title without either Duncan or O'Neal was the Pistons in 2004.

The 1970s were the only decade in NBA history to have more than four different teams win championships. Eight franchises won NBA titles.

Sometimes, the second-best team just ends up being in the same division or conference as the best.

The only difference that changing the playoff format could make is that Phoenix or Dallas would lose to San Antonio in the NBA Finals instead of the Western Conference playoffs.

The reality is that while Denver might deserve to go to the playoffs more than the Sixers, neither is good enough to win the NBA title.

The Nuggets might get a tough break, but it's not a good enough reason to alter the entire playoff structure.

*

Send e-mail to smallwj@phillynews.com. For recent columns, go to http://go.philly.com/smallwood.