News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Sports Realignment Ideas

Started by mrsman, January 31, 2016, 01:12:42 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mrsman

Especially with all the news with LA regaining their Rams and questions about whether the Raiders and Chargers will move to San Antonio or St Louis, I propose some realignment ideas.

As a roadgeek, I would have course prefer pure geographical realignment, but I do understand that people don't want to give up on traditional rivalries.

So, I propose:

NFL

Check out this wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League   for one of the best maps.  Ideally, we want to keep the reds close to other reds, greens close to other greens, etc. 

NFC E: NY Giants-Philadelphia-Washington-Dallas (Dallas doesn't really belong here geographically, but the rivalry is very established.  Plus the heaviest travel burden of any team will be placed on Dallas, which has the money to spend on it.)
NFC N: Minnesota-Green Bay-Chicago-Detroit (these cities are so tightly bound geographically, that they even fit into one AAroads forum)
NFC S: Carolina-Atlanta-Tampa Bay-New Orleans
NFC W: Seattle-SF-LA-Arizona

AFC E: New England-Buffalo-NY Jets-Baltimore (a tight northeastern market)
AFC N: Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Cincinnatti-Indianapolis (serving the eastern midwest)
AFC S: Houston-Tenneessee-Jacksonville-Miami (Miami is pretty far from the other AFC E teams, this is far closer, plus all teams are in former Confederate states)
AFC W: Kansas City-Denver-Chargers-Raiders

With the AFC W, particularly if the Chargers and Raiders move to San Antonio and St Louis, this western conference will all be in cities east of the Rockies.  Based upon where these teams eventually end up, I beleive that the AFC west should be a non-Pacific conference.  If both Chargers and Raiders leave California for cities between the Rockies and the Mississippi - perfect.  If only one of the teams moves, the team that remains in California should become part of the NFC west and Arizona should move to the AFC west.

MLB  See map at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball

Most of baseball is pretty good and I recommend very few changes.  For both leagues, the eastern division both have 3 teams in the Northeast (BOS-WASH) corridor with 2 teams outside of the corridor, but still on the eastern half of the continent (NL: ATL and MIA; AL: TOR and TB).  No changes.

The central divisions are also geographically tight in the midwest.  No changes necessary.

The western divisions do need some help as Denver and Seattle both have huge travel burdens within their division.  Seattle should not be in the same division as 2 Texas teams.  So I would switch Denver and Seattle:

AL West: Oakland-Anaheim-Denver-Dallas-Houston
NL West: Seattle-SF-LA-SD-Arizona



DandyDan

I remember advocating your AFC idea back when the Houston Texans entered the NFL.  It makes so much obvious geographical sense that I figured it would never happen.  At that time, I worked with a guy who was a huge Dolphins fan and he thought it was insane to split up the Dolphins rivalries with the Jets, Patriots and Bills.  Of course, back then, Bill Belichick was a retread and Tom Brady was a benchwarmer and now the Dolphins are filled with nobodies.  Given the way the teams in your hypothetical AFC South went since the addition of the Texans, the Dolphins should have gone that way instead of the way it became.

MLB is good enough the way it is.

The league that is really screwed up is the NBA.  How is Oklahoma City in the NW Division?
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE

CNGL-Leudimin

Because Oklahoma City Thunder was formerly Seattle Supersonics.

IIRC the then-Vancouver Grizzlies used to be in the Midwest division.
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

1995hoo

One reason the Ravens are in the division they are is entrenched rivalries with the Steelers and Browns. Recall the Ravens were the old Browns until they moved to Baltimore in 1996. The idea of the Ravens as an "expansion team" is a fiction the NFL developed to settle various litigation.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

NWI_Irish96

MLB - eliminate the AL/NL

Northeast Division: TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT
Southeast Division: WAS, BAL, ATL, TB, MIA, CIN
Great Lakes Division: CLE, DET, CHW, CHC, MIL, STL
Central Division: MIN, KC, TEX, HOU, COL, ARI
Pacific Division: SEA, SF, OAK, LAD, LAA, SD

Geographically fails with STL and MIN, but there's no way there would be a realignment with CHC and STL in different divisions.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: cabiness42 on January 31, 2016, 08:27:02 AM
MLB - eliminate the AL/NL

Northeast Division: TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT
Southeast Division: WAS, BAL, ATL, TB, MIA, CIN
Great Lakes Division: CLE, DET, CHW, CHC, MIL, STL
Central Division: MIN, KC, TEX, HOU, COL, ARI
Pacific Division: SEA, SF, OAK, LAD, LAA, SD

Geographically fails with STL and MIN, but there's no way there would be a realignment with CHC and STL in different divisions.


I have a similar one with 6 divisions.  Only snafus are that the Brewers are separated from the Chicago teams and the Padres from the rest of the west coast teams, although they would be with Arizona, which isn't too far away.  It keeps most of the natural rivals in the same divisions.

Northeast: BOS, NYM, NYY, PHI, PIT
Southeast: ATL, BAL, MIA, TB, WAS
Central: CIN, CLE, DET, MIL, TOR
Midwest: CHC, CWS, KC, MIN, STL
Southwest: ARZ, COL, HOU, SD, TEX
Pacific: LAA, LAD, OAK, SEA, SF
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

SP Cook

NFL's settlement over the move of the original Browns to Baltimore requires that the new Browns be in the same division as Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore.

As the saying goes, in Florida, as you go south you go north.  South Florida is in many ways where northeasterners go to retire and the Dolphins make their hay on displaced fans of the Jets and Patriots.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: cabiness42 on January 31, 2016, 08:27:02 AM
MLB - eliminate the AL/NL

Northeast Division: TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT
Southeast Division: WAS, BAL, ATL, TB, MIA, CIN
Great Lakes Division: CLE, DET, CHW, CHC, MIL, STL
Central Division: MIN, KC, TEX, HOU, COL, ARI
Pacific Division: SEA, SF, OAK, LAD, LAA, SD

Geographically fails with STL and MIN, but there's no way there would be a realignment with CHC and STL in different divisions.

Then how do you determine the playoff matchups and the World Series champion?

Henry

I just made up one for the NBA, with relocated teams in italics:

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Atlantic: Celtics, Nets, Knicks, 76ers, Wizards
Central: Bulls, Cavaliers, Pistons, Pacers, Raptors
Southeast: Hawks, Hornets, Grizzlies, Heat, Magic

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Northwest: Nuggets, Bucks, Timberwolves, Trail Blazers, Jazz
Southwest: Mavericks, Rockets, Pelicans, Thunder, Spurs
Pacific: Warriors, Clippers, Lakers, Suns, Kings

(I also considered switching New Orleans and Chicago, but then I decided against it, plus I see Minneapolis being rivals with Milwaukee annyway. This is the best I could come up with.)
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Thing 342

Quote from: mrsman on January 31, 2016, 01:12:42 AM
NFC E: NY Giants-Philadelphia-Washington-Dallas (Dallas doesn't really belong here geographically, but the rivalry is very established.  Plus the heaviest travel burden of any team will be placed on Dallas, which has the money to spend on it.)
NFC N: Minnesota-Green Bay-Chicago-Detroit (these cities are so tightly bound geographically, that they even fit into one AAroads forum)
NFC S: Carolina-Atlanta-Tampa Bay-New Orleans
NFC W: Seattle-SF-LA-Arizona

AFC E: New England-Buffalo-NY Jets-Baltimore (a tight northeastern market)
AFC N: Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Cincinnatti-Indianapolis (serving the eastern midwest)
AFC S: Houston-Tenneessee-Jacksonville-Miami (Miami is pretty far from the other AFC E teams, this is far closer, plus all teams are in former Confederate states)
AFC W: Kansas City-Denver-Chargers-Raiders
That AFC South you have would be pretty terrible. One of the more big and physical college teams (ie 2015 Alabama) could probably make the playoffs in that division. 

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2016, 10:37:39 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 31, 2016, 08:27:02 AM
MLB - eliminate the AL/NL

Northeast Division: TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT
Southeast Division: WAS, BAL, ATL, TB, MIA, CIN
Great Lakes Division: CLE, DET, CHW, CHC, MIL, STL
Central Division: MIN, KC, TEX, HOU, COL, ARI
Pacific Division: SEA, SF, OAK, LAD, LAA, SD

Geographically fails with STL and MIN, but there's no way there would be a realignment with CHC and STL in different divisions.

Then how do you determine the playoff matchups and the World Series champion?

Division winners seeded 1-5.  Next best five records seeded 6-10.  In the WC round, 7 vs 10, 8 vs 9.  Division round, 1 vs 8/9, 2 vs 7/10, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5.  Then the Semifinal round and then the World Series. 
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

The Nature Boy

Quote from: Thing 342 on February 01, 2016, 11:49:27 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 31, 2016, 01:12:42 AM
NFC E: NY Giants-Philadelphia-Washington-Dallas (Dallas doesn't really belong here geographically, but the rivalry is very established.  Plus the heaviest travel burden of any team will be placed on Dallas, which has the money to spend on it.)
NFC N: Minnesota-Green Bay-Chicago-Detroit (these cities are so tightly bound geographically, that they even fit into one AAroads forum)
NFC S: Carolina-Atlanta-Tampa Bay-New Orleans
NFC W: Seattle-SF-LA-Arizona

AFC E: New England-Buffalo-NY Jets-Baltimore (a tight northeastern market)
AFC N: Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Cincinnatti-Indianapolis (serving the eastern midwest)
AFC S: Houston-Tenneessee-Jacksonville-Miami (Miami is pretty far from the other AFC E teams, this is far closer, plus all teams are in former Confederate states)
AFC W: Kansas City-Denver-Chargers-Raiders
That AFC South you have would be pretty terrible. One of the more big and physical college teams (ie 2015 Alabama) could probably make the playoffs in that division.

You can't build conferences based on how teams are now. Remember when the Dolphins were a highly successful team and the Patriots were terrible?

spooky

Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 01, 2016, 02:22:23 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on February 01, 2016, 11:49:27 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 31, 2016, 01:12:42 AM
NFC E: NY Giants-Philadelphia-Washington-Dallas (Dallas doesn't really belong here geographically, but the rivalry is very established.  Plus the heaviest travel burden of any team will be placed on Dallas, which has the money to spend on it.)
NFC N: Minnesota-Green Bay-Chicago-Detroit (these cities are so tightly bound geographically, that they even fit into one AAroads forum)
NFC S: Carolina-Atlanta-Tampa Bay-New Orleans
NFC W: Seattle-SF-LA-Arizona

AFC E: New England-Buffalo-NY Jets-Baltimore (a tight northeastern market)
AFC N: Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Cincinnatti-Indianapolis (serving the eastern midwest)
AFC S: Houston-Tenneessee-Jacksonville-Miami (Miami is pretty far from the other AFC E teams, this is far closer, plus all teams are in former Confederate states)
AFC W: Kansas City-Denver-Chargers-Raiders
That AFC South you have would be pretty terrible. One of the more big and physical college teams (ie 2015 Alabama) could probably make the playoffs in that division.

You can't build conferences based on how teams are now. Remember when the Dolphins were a highly successful team and the Patriots were terrible?

He says he's 18, so he probably doesn't remember that.

Henry

I really don't see a problem with the NFL's divisional setup. Sure, Dallas being in the NFC East doesn't make sense from a geographical standpoint, but it works because of the Cowboys' rivalries with the other three teams. The AFC East is fine as it is (with all four teams being former AFL members), as is the AFC North (because of Baltimore's rivalries with the Steelers and Browns). The real issue that sticks out, though, is Indianapolis in the AFC South. However, because the Colts play close to the Ohio River, which is sort of an extension of the Mason-Dixon line in that part of the Midwest, I guess in a way it does make sense. You might swap the Colts with the Bengals (who do play next to the Ohio River), but then, Cleveland would lose its main rival.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

cpzilliacus

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2016, 08:08:05 AM
One reason the Ravens are in the division they are is entrenched rivalries with the Steelers and Browns. Recall the Ravens were the old Browns until they moved to Baltimore in 1996. The idea of the Ravens as an "expansion team" is a fiction the NFL developed to settle various litigation.

And the hatred of the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania franchise among Ravens fans (including myself) and even the Ravens players is well-established. 

Reminds me of the good old days of the rivalry between the Washington Redskins and the Arlington, Texas team.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Thing 342 on February 01, 2016, 11:49:27 AM
That AFC South you have would be pretty terrible. One of the more big and physical college teams (ie 2015 Alabama) could probably make the playoffs in that division. 

I would also change the rules in all sports to deny division championships to a club that finishes first but still has a losing record.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 04, 2016, 08:19:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2016, 08:08:05 AM
One reason the Ravens are in the division they are is entrenched rivalries with the Steelers and Browns. Recall the Ravens were the old Browns until they moved to Baltimore in 1996. The idea of the Ravens as an "expansion team" is a fiction the NFL developed to settle various litigation.

And the hatred of the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania franchise among Ravens fans (including myself) and even the Ravens players is well-established. 

Reminds me of the good old days of the rivalry between the Washington Redskins and the Arlington, Texas team.

Steelers.  Cowboys.  Do some simple exercises in front of a mirror and soon you'll be able to say their names.

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: Henry on February 02, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
I really don't see a problem with the NFL's divisional setup. Sure, Dallas being in the NFC East doesn't make sense from a geographical standpoint, but it works because of the Cowboys' rivalries with the other three teams. The AFC East is fine as it is (with all four teams being former AFL members), as is the AFC North (because of Baltimore's rivalries with the Steelers and Browns). The real issue that sticks out, though, is Indianapolis in the AFC South. However, because the Colts play close to the Ohio River, which is sort of an extension of the Mason-Dixon line in that part of the Midwest, I guess in a way it does make sense. You might swap the Colts with the Bengals (who do play next to the Ohio River), but then, Cleveland would lose its main rival.

The NFL has too many long, bitter rivalries to do much realignment.  Teams like the Jaguars, Panthers and Texans could be moved if necessary, but Dallas is always going to be in a division with NY-Philly-Washington, and Miami is always going to be in a division with NY-NE-Buffalo.  The only thing you could really do is eliminate conferences and just have 8 divisions and a single bracket playoff seeded 1-12 instead of two brackets seeded 1-6.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

Anthony_JK

My idea for NFL realignment:


1) NFC
North: Packers, Vikings, Bears, Lions
East: Redsk*ns, Eagles, Giants, Panthers
South: Cowboys, Saints, Falcons, Bucs
West: Rams, Cardinals, Seahawks, 49ers


Just a minor shift, but a big one for me. Sorry, Cowboys fans and NFC East traditionalists, but Dallas is still part of the South, not the East, and needs to to be in the NFC South. Plus, natural rivalry with NOLA could overcome losing NFC East. Moving Carolina to the North compensates.


2) AFC
North: Steelers, Bengals, Browns, Colts
East: Bills, Patriots, Jets, Ravens
South: Texans, Jaguars, Titans, Dolphins
West: Chargers, Raiders, Chiefs, Broncos


A bit more of a shift in the AFC: Miami becomes a southern team once again; B-More is closer to the Eastern Seaboard to me than the North; and Indy is closer to Ohio than the South.


Now...if the NFL decides on some form of expansion and attempts to reward both new teams and some old cities they shafted, and if the Chargers do decide to make the move to LA, here's a possible expanded NFL:


NFC
East: NYG, Wash. Philly, Carolina, London
North: GB, Minn, Detroit, Chicago, Toronto
South: Dallas, NO, Atl., TB, St. Louis
West: Seattle, SF, LA Rams, Arizona, San Antonio


AFC
East: NYJ, Buffalo, B-More, NE, Norfolk
North: Pitt, Clev, Cin, Indy, Memphis
South: Hou, Tenn, Miami, Jax, El Paso
West: SD, LA, Denver, Oakland, Las Vegas


For the new teams, I went with places that either had NFL franchises in the past, old USFL teams (Memphis, Vegas, San Antonio), and cities that look like they could probably absorb an NFL franchise (like El Paso, Norfolk for the Delmarva; as well as the NFL's pipe dream of expanding into Canada and London. Also, this assumes that LA gets 2 teams; and whichever cities lose their team (whether San Diego, Oakland, or both) get new franchises as consolation prizes.


Thinking out loud, of course.

Desert Man

#19
The top 4 major league sports leagues in North America (the MLB-baseball, NFL-football, NBA-basketball and NHL-ice hockey) believe 3 pairs of expansion teams is a "crowd". IMO, the expansion limit is 38 teams, in order to cover the largest sports markets and equally in every US region: the North-East coast, South-east, Midwest-Central and West. The MLB and NBA currently has one team in Canada (both in Toronto), the CFL (Canadian Football League) in a nation without a NFL team and 7 NHL teams since ice hockey is the "national sport". The "5th big sport" Major League Soccer can manage up to 28 teams, 25 in the US and 3 in Canada.

In their leagues' two conferences, the NFL has 4 divisions each, MLB and NBA has 3, and NHL returned to 2, while MLS has maintained 2 since its foundation 20 years ago. How many teams per division is a tricky question: My realignment features the NFL divisions have 5 teams each, the MLB and NBA divisions have 6 teams each, and the NHL's 2 divisions have 9 teams each with the top 4 team seeds enter the postseason. The MLS with only two conference-divisions have top 8 out of 14 teams enter their postseason. 

And my favorite expansion team cities: MLB-Buffalo NY, Charlotte NC and Sacramento CA in AL; Brooklyn NY ( had the Dodgers, 1890-1957), Montreal Canada (had the Expos, 1969-2004) and Portland OR in NL. NFL-Birmingham AL, Oakland (in case the Raiders leave), Oklahoma City OK and Toronto Canada in AFC; Mexico City, San Antonio TX, San Diego CA and St. Louis MO in NFC. It's likely the Chargers and Raiders would relocate, but don't expect Las Vegas. NBA-Buffalo, Cincinnati OH, Kansas City, Newark NJ (had the Nets 1967-2013), San Diego, Seattle WA (had the Supersonics, 1965-2008), Vancouver Canada and Virginia Beach. and NHL-Atlanta GA, Hartford CT (had the Whalers 1972-1997), Kansas City, Quebec City (had the Nordiques, 1972-1995), Saskatoon or Regina Canada, and Seattle/Tacoma WA.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

US 41

I think Boise State should be invited to the Big 12. The Big 12 is also down to 10 teams, so they need to find a couple teams or change their name to the Big 8 like it used to be. They (Boise St) have a pretty good football team most years and their basketball team is decent and has made the tournament recently.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

jbnv

I have a concept for reorganizing college sports. Somewhat of a realignment, but also a significant change from the hodgepodge of conferences that we have today.

There are currently 110+ schools in NCAA Division I. I would create five divisions based on regions: Southeast, Atlantic Coast, Northeast, Midwest, and West/Pacific. Each division would have three tiers (call them I, II and III) of eight teams. The inaugural seeding would correspond to current conference prestige and win-loss records.

There would be separate tier compositions for each major sport. A smaller school that has a poor football team but a great women's softball team might seed into Tier I for softball but Tier III for football.

The kicker is that there would be mobility between the tiers, much like in some soccer leagues. After the season ends, the bottom-ranked team of Tier I moves down to Tier II. The top team of Tier II moves up to Tier I. Likewise between Tiers II and III. This system would give smaller schools (like Boise State) a real chance to move up when they are good, and keep big schools from staying on autopilot forever.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

US 41

In NCAA D1 college basketball I think it would be pretty awesome if they let every single D1 team in the NCAA Tournament. It would only add 2 more rounds to the tournament. A totally random draw would make the tournament totally awesome.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

DandyDan

Quote from: US 41 on February 07, 2016, 07:44:56 PM
In NCAA D1 college basketball I think it would be pretty awesome if they let every single D1 team in the NCAA Tournament. It would only add 2 more rounds to the tournament. A totally random draw would make the tournament totally awesome.
That would make it similar to England's FA Cup for soccer.  I love that idea, but it would never happen.  Besides, it would make the whole regular season pointless.
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE

jeffandnicole

Quote from: DandyDan on February 09, 2016, 07:11:05 AM
Quote from: US 41 on February 07, 2016, 07:44:56 PM
In NCAA D1 college basketball I think it would be pretty awesome if they let every single D1 team in the NCAA Tournament. It would only add 2 more rounds to the tournament. A totally random draw would make the tournament totally awesome.
That would make it similar to England's FA Cup for soccer.  I love that idea, but it would never happen.  Besides, it would make the whole regular season pointless.

Agree 9,000,000%.  It would whittle down the regular season to nothing more than a bunch of exhibition games where going 28-0 or 0-28 doesn't matter except for the guys that desire to make it to the NBA.  Add on a random draw where the #1 seed could be playing the #3 seed, but the #2 seed plays the bottom seed?  No thanks!



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.