Lakers vs. Celtics has really only been big on a national scale in the 60s, 80s and late 2000s/early 2010s and it was predicated on those two teams playing each other in the Finals.
Basically the formula for an NBA rivalry is they have to play each other in the playoffs multiple times, each team get a victory, and have starpower and/or play in a large market
In no other league is it that complicated
Yup.
Imagine if Dallas and Phoenix were additional Division Rivals. That'd carry over after the Luka/Booker rivalry and add more animosity to it.
Once they're done though or go to different teams, that rivalry is over and the NBA gets nothing out of it to build either smaller franchise from.
It'd also make the relationship dynamics between teams more interesting. Your division rival drafts x so you need to counter them with y in order to make the play-offs (because the division winner is guaranteed a play-off spot). You'd have to account for your direct competition more. Unfortunately though, come play-offs with the 7 game series it may not be the absolute best to draft according to your division, so maybe not this so much.
That said, there are so many positives from a simple adjustment: add divisions that matter for something rather than all this over-the-top in season tournament, play-in for 9-10 seed hoopla. Complete violation of the 80:20 principle.
Have four guaranteed spots from divisions and 2 spots up for grabs for the rest of the conference. The others don't get in, tough shyt but at 7-10 seeds probably weren't winning anything anyways most likely - should've tried more during the season to win games then.
Like they say: keep it simple.