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 (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
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?
Because Oklahoma City Thunder was formerly Seattle Supersonics.
IIRC the then-Vancouver Grizzlies used to be in the Midwest division.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Which they could still put everyone in the tournament and seed it based off of RPI so that the regular season would still matter.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 09, 2016, 09:05:08 AMAdd on a random draw where the #1 seed could be playing the #3 seed, but the #2 seed plays the bottom seed? No thanks!
So let's bias it towards the higher seeds?
Why can't the league be the league and the knockout-competition be the knockout-competition, rather than the league being merely a very long-winded way of seeding the knockout competition?
The FA Cup has an element of seeding based on league position - teams from the top 2 divisions enter at Round 3, the next 2 divisions down enter at Round 1, the next division down in the Fourth Qualifying Round, the next level down (which is several geographic divisions) in the Second Qualifying Round, the level below in the First Qualifying Round, level 8 in a Preliminary Round and there's even an Extra Preliminary Round for clubs even lower. But beyond what is basically the best 44 clubs getting two byes, there's no bias towards the better clubs that entrenches their superiority.
If expansion comes around again, here's what I would like to see for the Big Four:
MLB
AL East: Charlotte
AL Central: Louisville
AL West: Salt Lake City
NL East: Montreal
NL Central: Memphis
NL West: Portland
NFL
NFC East: Toronto
NFC North: Columbus
NFC South: San Antonio
NFC West: St. Louis
AFC East: Norfolk
AFC North: Chicago (second team to complement da Bears)
AFC South: Oklahoma City
AFC West: Portland
NBA
Atlantic: Pittsburgh
Central: Cincinnati
Southeast: Baltimore
Northwest: Seattle
Southwest: Kansas City
Pacific: San Diego
NHL
Atlantic: Hartford, Quebec
Metropolitan: Cleveland, Cincinnati
Midwest: Kansas City
Pacific: Seattle
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 09, 2016, 09:05:08 AM
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!
Wouldn't quite work, unless the top 95 teams somehow got byes. There are 351 Division 1 schools, where adding 2 rounds would expand the field to 256. So we'd have to leave out the bottom 95, or maybe the bottom 31. I think a 96 team field might work where 31 of the conference tournament, and the Ivy winner, get byes as a reward.
Quote from: Henry on February 09, 2016, 10:37:24 AM
If expansion comes around again, here's what I would like to see for the Big Four:
MLB
AL East: Charlotte
AL Central: Louisville
AL West: Salt Lake City
NL East: Montreal
NL Central: Memphis
NL West: Portland
NFL
NFC East: Toronto
NFC North: Columbus
NFC South: San Antonio
NFC West: St. Louis
AFC East: Norfolk
AFC North: Chicago (second team to complement da Bears)
AFC South: Oklahoma City
AFC West: Portland
NBA
Atlantic: Pittsburgh
Central: Cincinnati
Southeast: Baltimore
Northwest: Seattle
Southwest: Kansas City
Pacific: San Diego
NHL
Atlantic: Hartford, Quebec
Metropolitan: Cleveland, Cincinnati
Midwest: Kansas City
Pacific: Seattle
What a fine list...I forgot to mention in my earlier post San Diego had 2 NBA teams (the Rockets in the late 1960s and Clippers, 1976-84), St. Louis' previous NFL team before the Rams (the Cardinals until their move to Phoenix, Arizona in 1988), past NBA history in Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati and Kansas City, and short-lived 1970s NHL teams in Cleveland and Kansas City. One of the NBA's first 2 international teams was in Vancouver when the Grizzlies played there in 1995-2001 and the original NHL (1920s) held a team in Seattle. The Oakland Raiders are likely to stay put, so my future expansion sites drops Oakland and replaced by El Paso TX, home to the Sun Bowl. A century ago and earlier, Buffalo, Hartford CT and Louisville had major league baseball teams.
Chicagoland itself can have 2 NFL, 2 NBA and 2 NHL teams, with large suburbs like Gary IN (although shrunk by half of population) and Aurora IL (doubled or tripled in population at the same time) can have new stadiums and arenas. The NY-NJ metro area itself had 3 MLB teams until 1958 (the AL's Yankees, and the former NL Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers), currently 3 NHL teams (the Rangers, Islanders and NJ Devils), and my future expansion list places New Jersey in the NBA along with the NY Knicks and Brooklyn Nets. Not surprising, the LA metro area can handle 3 major league teams per sport, except the NFL decided to approve the St Louis Rams return to L.A. and looking into allowing the San Diego Chargers instead of the Oakland Raiders to represent the AFC. The DC-Baltimore and SF Bay areas have 2 MLB and 2 NFL teams located within a 40-mile radius.
Reduce the number of divisions in the NFL from 8 to 4. Have the division winners as the top two seeds and the four wild-cards from the best records. The way I see it that would eliminate a lot of these 8-8 division winners potentially jamming up a more worthy 9-7/10-6 team from getting into the playoffs. Have a round robin of 7 games for each team in their division, 3 against teams from the like conference division and 6 from the opposite conference. Here is how I would realign the divisions as is:
NFC
Division 1
1. Detroit Lions
2. Minnesota Vikings
3. Chicago Bears
4. Green Bay Packers
5. Dallas Cowboys
6. Washington Redskins
7. Philadelphia Eagles
8. New York Giants
Division 2
1. Seattle Seahawks
2. San Francisco 49ers
3. L.A Rams
4. Arizona Cardinals
5. New Orleans Saints
6. Tampa Bay Bucs
7. Atlanta Falcons
8. Carolina Panthers
AFC Division 1
1. Baltimore Ravens
2. Pittsburg Steelers
3. Cinny Bengals
4. Cleveland Browns
5. New England Patroits
6. New York Jets
7. Buffalo Bills
8. Tennessee Titans
AFC Division 2
1. Miami Dolphins
2. Houston Texans
3. Jacksonville Jaguars
4. Indianapolis Colts
5. Kansas City Chiefs
6. Denver Bronocs
7. Wherever the hell they are Chargers
8. Wherever the hell they are Raiders
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 29, 2016, 11:09:46 PM
Reduce the number of divisions in the NFL from 8 to 4. Have the division winners as the top two seeds and the four wild-cards from the best records. The way I see it that would eliminate a lot of these 8-8 division winners potentially jamming up a more worthy 9-7/10-6 team from getting into the playoffs. Have a round robin of 7 games for each team in their division, 3 against teams from the like conference division and 6 from the opposite conference. Here is how I would realign the divisions as is:
NFC
Division 1
1. Detroit Lions
2. Minnesota Vikings
3. Chicago Bears
4. Green Bay Packers
5. Dallas Cowboys
6. Washington Redskins
7. Philadelphia Eagles
8. New York Giants
Division 2
1. Seattle Seahawks
2. San Francisco 49ers
3. L.A Rams
4. Arizona Cardinals
5. New Orleans Saints
6. Tampa Bay Bucs
7. Atlanta Falcons
8. Carolina Panthers
AFC Division 1
1. Baltimore Ravens
2. Pittsburg Steelers
3. Cinny Bengals
4. Cleveland Browns
5. New England Patroits
6. New York Jets
7. Buffalo Bills
8. Tennessee Titans
AFC Division 2
1. Miami Dolphins
2. Houston Texans
3. Jacksonville Jaguars
4. Indianapolis Colts
5. Kansas City Chiefs
6. Denver Bronocs
7. Wherever the hell they are Chargers
8. Wherever the hell they are Raiders
IIRC, Blitz: The League (which came after the NFL signed an exclusive deal with EA Sports, the maker of Madden games) had a setup similar to the European soccer leagues in which one division would have all the good teams, and the other had all the bad ones. The teams who had better records would be promoted to one division, and the worse ones would be demoted to the other. While it's highly unlikely that the NFL would go for this setup, it certainly would make the game more fun to watch. Especially if they were to shrink down to four divisions, they should at least do them in the same way as their European counterparts.
That is what I miss in American sports: promotion and relegation. That would give smaller cities and even towns the chance of having a team in a major league. That is what happens with Hoffenheim, a German Bundesliga team with its namesake being a 3,272 inhabitant village in Baden-Württemberg (Southwestern Germany) that doesn't even have a council (instead belonging to Sinsheim).
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 30, 2016, 03:20:28 PM
That is what I miss in American sports: promotion and relegation. That would give smaller cities and even towns the chance of having a team in a major league. That is what happens with Hoffenheim, a German Bundesliga team with its namesake being a 3,272 inhabitant village in Baden-Württemberg (Southwestern Germany) that doesn't even have a council (instead belonging to Sinsheim).
I can go along with that. Omaha can never be big league in anything, simply because the population is too small. That's one reason I am not fond of local sports, because it all seems second class. They promote it as family fun, but it all seems like a clown show to me, not to mention one giant sales pitch. If the Omaha Storm Chasers had a chance at making it to MLB, I might go to games, but even when they win the AAA World Series, they still end up in AAA next year. To me, it seems like they deserve a shot at the Yankees, but that will never happen in the present setup of baseball. And that's the same for all sports.
The reason why you won't see it in baseball is A. The affiliation of minor league teams with big league teams, and B. stadium size. Most AAA stadiums hold about 9000 people, where the average major league stadium holds about 40-45,000. I love the idea of a team like Pawtucket possibly being promoted to the majors, while a team like the Rockies gets relegated to AAA. It would really make a team think twice about tanking to rebuild; this would really work in the NBA (I'm looking at you Sixers, Lakers, and Nets)
An AAA team winning the World Series is playing amongst like competitors in terms of skill. There may be a few good players on that team that could play in the majors, but generally speaking most of them would get destroyed by even the worst Major League Team.
There are some cases where a small market has done well - Green Bay & Pittsburgh comes to mind. But a lot of it depends on management, ownership, and fan base. Even the largest of cities doesn't have a team from each of the major leagues (Los Angeles, #2 was clearly the example here with football. Houston - #4, doesn't have a hockey team). And starting with the 6th largest city, suddenly it's tough to find any city that has all 4 sports teams. So clearly, there's more to it than just being a big city.
Relegation has no application to American sports, with the minor league players being asigned there by the major league teams, and the long term contracts, both with the players and between the clubs and their TV outlets and (generally) the municipality that owns the stadium.
It works in a single country in Europe, where a particular metro area might have many dozens of teams, one of which can move up and another down and so on. Cannot work in a contiental sized country. Try telling Fox and ESPN that NYC is not going to be in the big leagues next year, but Toledo and Boise are.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 31, 2016, 10:02:35 AM
Relegation has no application to American sports, with the minor league players being asigned there by the major league teams, and the long term contracts, both with the players and between the clubs and their TV outlets and (generally) the municipality that owns the stadium.
It works in a single country in Europe, where a particular metro area might have many dozens of teams, one of which can move up and another down and so on. Cannot work in a contiental sized country. Try telling Fox and ESPN that NYC is not going to be in the big leagues next year, but Toledo and Boise are.
It could work in college sports. There are enough teams to make it work. Most of those teams have only regional followings. College teams don't have major-minor league relationships. There are no long-term contracts; every player plays for a team at most four years. And the college sports world loves Cinderella stories.
I dare say that it could also work in the minor leagues in the sports that have lots of teams (baseball and hockey).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 31, 2016, 09:28:48 AM
The reason why you won't see it in baseball is A. The affiliation of minor league teams with big league teams, and B. stadium size. Most AAA stadiums hold about 9000 people, where the average major league stadium holds about 40-45,000. I love the idea of a team like Pawtucket possibly being promoted to the majors, while a team like the Rockies gets relegated to AAA. It would really make a team think twice about tanking to rebuild; this would really work in the NBA (I'm looking at you Sixers, Lakers, and Nets)
Yes, I like the idea of applying this to the NBA, where the good teams would play in one division, and the bad ones in the other. So given the current standings, with two divisions per conference, this is how the setup would go (8 playoff teams in Division A, 7 non-playoff teams in Division B):
EASTERN CONFERENCEDIVISION ACleveland
Toronto
Atlanta
Boston
Miami
Charlotte
Detroit
Indiana
DIVISION BChicago
Washington
Orlando
Milwaukee
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
WESTERN CONFERENCEDIVISION AGolden State
San Antonio
Oklahoma City
L.A. Clippers
Memphis
Portland
Houston
Utah
DIVISION BDallas
Denver
Sacramento
New Orleans
Minnesota
Phoenix
L.A. Lakers
Quote from: mrsman on January 31, 2016, 01:12:42 AM
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 (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
I agree with this. The Ravens should be in the east the Colts in the north and the Dolphins in the south. My only guess as to why they did it the way they did is they wanted Baltimore and Cleveland to be in the same division to have an old Browns new Browns rivalry. The AFC west and the NFC is fine the way it is.
Here is my suggestion for the NBA
Eastern Conference
Atlantic Division Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto
Central Division Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee
Southeast Division Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami ,Orlando, Washington
So really no change there everything is fine the way it is but the western conference needs some changes for sure.
Western Conference
Midwest Division (New name there is only one team in the northwest since Seattle moved to OKC) Denver, Kansas City (Move the Kings back to KC. There is absolutely no need for an NBA team in Sacramento) Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Utah
Southwest Division Dallas, Houston, Memphis, New Orleans, San Antonio
Pacific Division Golden State, LA Clippers, LA Lakers, Phoenix, Portland
Since the NHL in Vegas seems to be coming a reality for the 2017-18 season, logic would have it that the league would add a 32nd team to even things off. Question is will it be Quebec, Kansas City, or Seattle? If it's Kansas City, then no realignment would really be necessary as KC would slide into the Central and Vegas the Pacific. Seattle makes it a little more complicated, as Arizona would be the logical choice to go to the central (same time zone as Colorado for most of the winter). Quebec poses a little more of a problem, as Columbus or Detroit would have to go to the Central Division. Quebec would go into the Atlantic, which means Detroit either moves to the Metropolitan and bumps Columbus to the Central, or Detroit goes to the Central. Instead, I wouldn't mind seeing the league go to 8 4 team divisions and eliminating conferences, with each division winner getting a playoff berth and the next 8 best teams (regardless of division) getting playoff berths. The seedings would be that the President's Trophy winner would play Wildcard 8, 2nd best division winner would play WC 7, etc... The divisions (assuming it's Vegas and Quebec), could look like this:
Northeast: BOS, MON, OTT, QUE North: MON, OTT, QUE, TOR
Metropolitan: NJ, NYI, NYR, PHI Northeast: BOS, NJ, NYI, NYR
Southeast: CAR, FLA, TB, WAS Atlantic: BUF, PHI, PIT, WAS
Great Lakes: BUF, CLB/DET, PIT, TOR Southeast: CAR, FLA, NAS, TB
Central: CHI, CLB/DET, NAS, STL OR Central: CHI, CLB, DET, STL
Midwest: ARZ, COL, DAL, MIN Midwest: CAL, EDM, MIN, WPG
Northwest: CAL, EDM, VAN, WPG Southwest: ARZ, COL, DAL, LV
Pacific: ANA, LA, LV, SJ Pacific: ANA, LA, SJ, VAN
Taking the first scenario, the first round playoff matchups this year would have looked like this (notice one of them):
WAS vs. NAS, DAL vs. PHI, STL vs. TB, PIT vs. SJ, ANA vs. NYI, FLA vs. NYR , BOS vs. LA, WPG vs. CHI
And the second (1 did happen in the 2nd round, and New Yorkers would love this one):
WAS vs. NAS, DAL vs. PHI, STL vs. TB, ANA vs. SJ, NYR vs. NYI, FLA vs. LA, MIN vs. CHI, OTT vs. PIT,
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 05, 2016, 04:45:17 PM
Since the NHL in Vegas seems to be coming a reality for the 2017-18 season, logic would have it that the league would add a 32nd team to even things off. Question is will it be Quebec, Kansas City, or Seattle?
Quebec.
This will never happen because it would mean placing the traditional spirit of the game over profit, but... I propose reorganizing MLB thusly:
- Brewers go back to the AL where they belong, Astros go back to the NL where they belong. Rays move from AL to NL in order to make the number of teams in each league even again.
- Reduce each league from 3 divisions down to 2, which I would arrange as such:
AL East: BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR, CLE, DET, CWS
AL West: SEA, OAK, LAA, TEX, KC, MIN, MIL
NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, TB, PIT, CIN
NL West: SF, LAD, SD, ARI, COL, HOU, STL, CHC
The division winners from the same league play each other in a best of 7 series, the winner advances to the world series. There is only one playoff round and no wild card teams. There is also no interleague play during the regular season.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 05, 2016, 11:46:00 PM
This will never happen because it would mean placing the traditional spirit of the game over profit, but... I propose reorganizing MLB thusly:
- Brewers go back to the AL where they belong, Astros go back to the NL where they belong. Rays move from AL to NL in order to make the number of teams in each league even again.
- Reduce each league from 3 divisions down to 2, which I would arrange as such:
AL East: BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR, CLE, DET, CWS
AL West: SEA, OAK, LAA, TEX, KC, MIN, MIL
NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, TB, PIT, CIN
NL West: SF, LAD, SD, ARI, COL, HOU, STL, CHC
The division winners from the same league play each other in a best of 7 series, the winner advances to the world series. There is only one playoff round and no wild card teams. There is also no interleague play during the regular season.
I would sooner add 2 teams. San Antonio/Austin have grown sufficiently to warrant at least one new team. I think Carolina is the best chance for another - Charlotte looks like the larger metro area, plus already supports football.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 05, 2016, 11:46:00 PM
This will never happen because it would mean placing the traditional spirit of the game over profit, but... I propose reorganizing MLB thusly:
- Brewers go back to the AL where they belong, Astros go back to the NL where they belong. Rays move from AL to NL in order to make the number of teams in each league even again.
Only if you eliminate the lame-ass Designated Hitter Rule and force the American League to play real baseball again. :p
Quote from: Duke87 on June 05, 2016, 11:46:00 PM- Reduce each league from 3 divisions down to 2, which I would arrange as such:
AL East: BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR, CLE, DET, CWS
AL West: SEA, OAK, LAA, TEX, KC, MIN, MIL
NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, TB, PIT, CIN
NL West: SF, LAD, SD, ARI, COL, HOU, STL, CHC
The division winners from the same league play each other in a best of 7 series, the winner advances to the world series. There is only one playoff round and no wild card teams. There is also no interleague play during the regular season.
You would destroy Milwaukee's rivalry with Chicago. I can't let you do that.
I hate teams from Chicago, but I also love to hate teams from Chicago. Those rivalries make me a more passionate fan.
Quote from: Alps on June 06, 2016, 07:04:07 PM
I would sooner add 2 teams. San Antonio/Austin have grown sufficiently to warrant at least one new team. I think Carolina is the best chance for another - Charlotte looks like the larger metro area, plus already supports football.
That would work nicely enough with the San Antonio team going to the AL West and the Charlotte team to the AL East.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 06, 2016, 09:28:16 PM
You would destroy Milwaukee's rivalry with Chicago. I can't let you do that.
Or, alternatively, bump the White Sox into the AL West (matching where I have Chicago in the NL), and ensure both new AL teams as proposed by Alps go further east. That might give us something like this...
AL East: BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR, CLE, DET, CHA, SJ
AL West: SEA, OAK, LAA, TEX, KC, MIN, CWS, MIL
NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, TB, PIT, CIN
NL West: SF, LAD, SD, ARI, COL, HOU, STL, CHC
(I've added fictional teams in Charlotte and San Juan, but any two cities that are both physically east of Chicago will do for this purpose)
Milwaukee and Chicago being in different divisions was something I had noticed as being the largest flaw in my proposal. But, there is no way to put them in the same division without adding teams to the league, putting an existing team in a division that is geographically illogical (such as how the Braves were once in the NL West), or moving teams into a league which is different from the one where they logically belong.
I saw a proposal somewhere quite a while back about what MLB could do if the AL and NL were dissolved (but not replaced with eastern and western conferences) and the teams were divided up into geographical divisions. With 30 teams you could do 6 divisions of 5 or 5 divisions of 6. For the latter, you might end up with something like this:
BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, BAL, TOR
WAS, CIN, PIT, ATL, TB, MIA
CLE, DET, CHC, CHW, MIN, MIL
ARI, TEX, HOU, COL, KC, STL
SD, LAD, LAA, SFG, OAK, SEA
That list is just thrown together, but seems pretty decent other than BAL and WAS being so close together but in different divisions. Then a schedule might be 13 games against each division rival (65) and 4 against each non-division opponent (96), and one extra game somewhere to keep the 162-game schedules. Non-division could be 2 games at each stadium for relatively close teams, alternate year 4-game series for more distant teams.
Take your division winners and either 3 or 6 wild cards into some kind of playoff format which would also allow anyone to play anyone else in a World Series depending on seeding. So you could have that Yankees-Red Sox or Dodgers-Giants World Series as a possibility if the bracket worked out that way.
For 6 divisions maybe you could have
BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, TOR
BAL, WAS, CIN, PIT, CLE
TB, MIA, ATL, KC, STL
DET, CHC, CHW, MIN, MIL
SD, ARI, TEX, HOU, COL
LAD, LAA, SFG, OAK, SEA
Here, play in division 15 times (60), out of division 4 games (100) and maybe an extra game against 2 teams.
I don't see something like this happening any time soon but I can see some benefits to it.
Quote from: Jim on June 06, 2016, 10:47:25 PM
I saw a proposal somewhere quite a while back about what MLB could do if the AL and NL were dissolved (but not replaced with eastern and western conferences) and the teams were divided up into geographical divisions. With 30 teams you could do 6 divisions of 5 or 5 divisions of 6. For the latter, you might end up with something like this:
BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, BAL, TOR
WAS, CIN, PIT, ATL, TB, MIA
CLE, DET, CHC, CHW, MIN, MIL
ARI, TEX, HOU, COL, KC, STL
SD, LAD, LAA, SFG, OAK, SEA
That list is just thrown together, but seems pretty decent other than BAL and WAS being so close together but in different divisions. Then a schedule might be 13 games against each division rival (65) and 4 against each non-division opponent (96), and one extra game somewhere to keep the 162-game schedules. Non-division could be 2 games at each stadium for relatively close teams, alternate year 4-game series for more distant teams.
Take your division winners and either 3 or 6 wild cards into some kind of playoff format which would also allow anyone to play anyone else in a World Series depending on seeding. So you could have that Yankees-Red Sox or Dodgers-Giants World Series as a possibility if the bracket worked out that way.
Don't remember if I did it here, but I have made a single-league 5 division proposal before. Divisions are a bit different though.
Northeast: TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT
Southeast: BAL, WAS, CIN, ATL, TB, MIA
Great Lakes: CLE, DET, CHW, CHC, MIL, STL
Midwest: MIN, KC, TEX, HOU, COL, ARI
Pacific: SEA, OAK, SF, LAD, LAA, SD
(STL and MIN slightly out of place geographically to maintain STL-CHC rivalry)
I do think something like this is likely to happen. Sometime in the not too distant future, the NL will adopt the DH, and this kind of realignment will follow shortly. Teams want to cut down on travel and on the number of games in different time zones due to TV. TV execs also want the possibility of a Yankees-Red Sox / Cubs-Cardinals / Dodgers-Giants WS, and this could make that happen as well.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 07, 2016, 09:53:56 AM
I do think something like this is likely to happen. Sometime in the not too distant future, the NL will adopt the DH, and this kind of realignment will follow shortly. Teams want to cut down on travel and on the number of games in different time zones due to TV. TV execs also want the possibility of a Yankees-Red Sox / Cubs-Cardinals / Dodgers-Giants WS, and this could make that happen as well.
Says who?
I don't think TV Execs want that at all. If, say, the Dodgers and Giants are in the World Series, mainly the only people that are going to care will be those in California. If it's just Yankees and Red Sox, just those in the Northeast will care. By trying to keep these games regional in nature, you're effectively reducing the audience that'll watch the games.
Unless the teams can travel via bus or train within a 3 or 4 hour window to the opponent's city, they're going to fly. So the travel savings really isn't going to be all that great as in most cases they will still fly.
The bigger advantage is the time zone difference, but that really isn't a factor now anyway. For the most part, the teams play other teams within their time zones, with some games played an hour earlier or later when they're playing games in an adjoining time zone. For the extremes: West Coast teams and East Coast teams, they only play each other in one series per year anyway within their league. For example, the Phillies only go to the West Coast twice...once to play the Giants & Diamondbacks, and once to play the Dodgers and Padres, so they don't have too many jetlag experiences and odd-time games in the first place.
On the other hand, merging the leagues and creating geographic divisions would guarantee that the two teams in the World Series would be from different parts of the country. So it would benefit TV ratings... but it would not enable matchups like Yankees-Red Sox since they'd still be in the same division and thus only one could survive the playoffs.
This is, however, entirely against the traditional spirit of the game and would drive many more older fans away. Not that MLB hasn't already shown they are perfectly willing to do that...
Quote from: Duke87 on June 10, 2016, 12:48:02 AM
On the other hand, merging the leagues and creating geographic divisions would guarantee that the two teams in the World Series would be from different parts of the country. So it would benefit TV ratings... but it would not enable matchups like Yankees-Red Sox since they'd still be in the same division and thus only one could survive the playoffs.
This is, however, entirely against the traditional spirit of the game and would drive many more older fans away. Not that MLB hasn't already shown they are perfectly willing to do that...
The traditional spirit of the game is built on rivalries. Geographical divisions make for good rivalries. But yes, it would require resolution of the DL issue. MLB: The only major sport where teams have different dimensions of fields and different rules in the same league.
Quote from: Henry on February 09, 2016, 10:37:24 AM
If expansion comes around again, here's what I would like to see for the Big Four:
MLB
AL East: Charlotte
AL Central: Louisville
AL West: Salt Lake City
NL East: Montreal
NL Central: Memphis
NL West: Portland
NFL
NFC East: Toronto
NFC North: Columbus
NFC South: San Antonio
NFC West: St. Louis
AFC East: Norfolk
AFC North: Chicago (second team to complement da Bears)
AFC South: Oklahoma City
AFC West: Portland
NBA
Atlantic: Pittsburgh
Central: Cincinnati
Southeast: Baltimore
Northwest: Seattle
Southwest: Kansas City
Pacific: San Diego
NHL
Atlantic: Hartford, Quebec
Metropolitan: Cleveland, Cincinnati
Midwest: Kansas City
Pacific: Seattle
I highly doubt Louisville will get a baseball team Indianapolis would make a lot more sense. I also highly doubt Montreal will get another team support there was pitiful. There are already 2 NFL teams in Ohio so I would doubt Columbus would work and I am sure Jerry Jones would put up a big fight if the NFL ever wanted to expand in San Antonio or Oklahoma City. Pittsburgh is too small of a market for both the NBA and NHL and there is no way the NHL would allow 3 teams in Ohio.
Quote from: Alps on June 10, 2016, 01:12:36 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 10, 2016, 12:48:02 AM
On the other hand, merging the leagues and creating geographic divisions would guarantee that the two teams in the World Series would be from different parts of the country. So it would benefit TV ratings... but it would not enable matchups like Yankees-Red Sox since they'd still be in the same division and thus only one could survive the playoffs.
This is, however, entirely against the traditional spirit of the game and would drive many more older fans away. Not that MLB hasn't already shown they are perfectly willing to do that...
The traditional spirit of the game is built on rivalries. Geographical divisions make for good rivalries. But yes, it would require resolution of the DL issue. MLB: The only major sport where teams have different dimensions of fields and different rules in the same league.
Often thought about that. So, the pitching mound is 60'6" from home plate. The base paths are 90' long each, and the foul lines are straight down the 1st and 3rd base line. But after that, everything can differ.
People get so upset when American League teams play National League teams. Yet, this stuff goes on in the other major sporting leagues without a 2nd thought.
My idea for realignment would be geographical. For now, it would keep 6 divisions, but would go to 8 4 team divisions if there were expansion (there is a sentiment to bring baseball back to Montreal, and another city like Charlotte or Vegas could get a team). In my 32 team league, teams would play divisional foes 14 times, teams in the other 3 divisions in their geographical "conference" 6 times, and series against the other conference 3 times. Teams within divisions would be grouped together into 2-team "pods" that would travel together and play a week at other pods' ballparks. Example: the Yankees and Mets would go to Chicago and the Mets would play a 3 game series at Wrigley and the Yankees a 3 game series at US Cellular, then they'd swap. The playoffs would take the top 12 teams overall regardless of division. The top 4 teams get byes. The next 8 teams would all play a Wildcard game. The winners of those games would be matched up with the bye teams in the Division Series. The length of the remaining serieses would remain the same, but home field in the World Series would go to the highest seed.
For my alignments, they're not totally geographically aligned, but relatively close while preserving many of the natural rivalries within a division (Sox/Yanks, Cubs/Cardinals, Dodgers/Giants)
My 30 team alignment: My 32 team alignment (using pods, and Montreal and Charlotte as the expansion teams)
East: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT Atlantic: BOS/PHI, NYM/NYY
South: ATL, BAL, MIA, TB, WAS East: ATL/CHA, BAL/WAS
Central: CIN, CLE, DET, MIL, TOR South: CIN/CLE, MIA/TB
Midwest: CHC, CWS, KC, MIN, STL North: DET/PIT, MON/TOR
Mountain: ARZ, COL, HOU, TEX, SD
West: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SEA Central: CHC/CWS, KC/STL
Midwest: HOU/TEX, MIL/MIN
Mountain: ARZ/SD, COL/SEA
West: LAA/LAD, OAK/SF
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2016, 02:35:55 PM
My idea for realignment would be geographical. For now, it would keep 6 divisions, but would go to 8 4 team divisions if there were expansion (there is a sentiment to bring baseball back to Montreal, and another city like Charlotte or Vegas could get a team). In my 32 team league, teams would play divisional foes 14 times, teams in the other 3 divisions in their geographical "conference" 6 times, and series against the other conference 3 times. Teams within divisions would be grouped together into 2-team "pods" that would travel together and play a week at other pods' ballparks. Example: the Yankees and Mets would go to Chicago and the Mets would play a 3 game series at Wrigley and the Yankees a 3 game series at US Cellular, then they'd swap. The playoffs would take the top 12 teams overall regardless of division. The top 4 teams get byes. The next 8 teams would all play a Wildcard game. The winners of those games would be matched up with the bye teams in the Division Series. The length of the remaining serieses would remain the same, but home field in the World Series would go to the highest seed.
For my alignments, they're not totally geographically aligned, but relatively close while preserving many of the natural rivalries within a division (Sox/Yanks, Cubs/Cardinals, Dodgers/Giants)
My 30 team alignment: My 32 team alignment (using pods, and Montreal and Charlotte as the expansion teams)
East: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT Atlantic: BOS/PHI, NYM/NYY
South: ATL, BAL, MIA, TB, WAS East: ATL/CHA, BAL/WAS
Central: CIN, CLE, DET, MIL, TOR South: CIN/CLE, MIA/TB
Midwest: CHC, CWS, KC, MIN, STL North: DET/PIT, MON/TOR
Mountain: ARZ, COL, HOU, TEX, SD
West: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SEA Central: CHC/CWS, KC/STL
Midwest: HOU/TEX, MIL/MIN
Mountain: ARZ/SD, COL/SEA
West: LAA/LAD, OAK/SF
Why does everybody think Montreal is going to get another team? Support for the Expos was dismal why an expansion team there? There are plenty of other cities that would make way more sense for expansion like Indianapolis, Portland, Memphis, San Antonio, New Orleans, Nashville ect.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:31:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2016, 02:35:55 PM
My idea for realignment would be geographical. For now, it would keep 6 divisions, but would go to 8 4 team divisions if there were expansion (there is a sentiment to bring baseball back to Montreal, and another city like Charlotte or Vegas could get a team). In my 32 team league, teams would play divisional foes 14 times, teams in the other 3 divisions in their geographical "conference" 6 times, and series against the other conference 3 times. Teams within divisions would be grouped together into 2-team "pods" that would travel together and play a week at other pods' ballparks. Example: the Yankees and Mets would go to Chicago and the Mets would play a 3 game series at Wrigley and the Yankees a 3 game series at US Cellular, then they'd swap. The playoffs would take the top 12 teams overall regardless of division. The top 4 teams get byes. The next 8 teams would all play a Wildcard game. The winners of those games would be matched up with the bye teams in the Division Series. The length of the remaining serieses would remain the same, but home field in the World Series would go to the highest seed.
For my alignments, they're not totally geographically aligned, but relatively close while preserving many of the natural rivalries within a division (Sox/Yanks, Cubs/Cardinals, Dodgers/Giants)
My 30 team alignment: My 32 team alignment (using pods, and Montreal and Charlotte as the expansion teams)
East: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT Atlantic: BOS/PHI, NYM/NYY
South: ATL, BAL, MIA, TB, WAS East: ATL/CHA, BAL/WAS
Central: CIN, CLE, DET, MIL, TOR South: CIN/CLE, MIA/TB
Midwest: CHC, CWS, KC, MIN, STL North: DET/PIT, MON/TOR
Mountain: ARZ, COL, HOU, TEX, SD
West: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SEA Central: CHC/CWS, KC/STL
Midwest: HOU/TEX, MIL/MIN
Mountain: ARZ/SD, COL/SEA
West: LAA/LAD, OAK/SF
Why does everybody think Montreal is going to get another team? Support for the Expos was dismal why an expansion team there? There are plenty of other cities that would make way more sense for expansion like Indianapolis, Portland, Memphis, San Antonio, New Orleans, Nashville ect.
Because they played in a dump of a stadium with a terrible ownership group who refused to invest in the city with a new stadium. The Sox/Jays exhibition games at the end of Spring Training were totally sold out despite how terrible Olympic Stadium is. Sox fans in Northern New England and New York fans from far upstate would go to games there. Many cities in sports have lost teams and gotten a second chance (a) decade(s) later (DC baseball, Houston in football, Winnipeg in hockey) and have done well. Quebec City hasn't had a hockey team for 20 years, and they're starving for the NHL to come back.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2016, 06:34:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:31:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2016, 02:35:55 PM
My idea for realignment would be geographical. For now, it would keep 6 divisions, but would go to 8 4 team divisions if there were expansion (there is a sentiment to bring baseball back to Montreal, and another city like Charlotte or Vegas could get a team). In my 32 team league, teams would play divisional foes 14 times, teams in the other 3 divisions in their geographical "conference" 6 times, and series against the other conference 3 times. Teams within divisions would be grouped together into 2-team "pods" that would travel together and play a week at other pods' ballparks. Example: the Yankees and Mets would go to Chicago and the Mets would play a 3 game series at Wrigley and the Yankees a 3 game series at US Cellular, then they'd swap. The playoffs would take the top 12 teams overall regardless of division. The top 4 teams get byes. The next 8 teams would all play a Wildcard game. The winners of those games would be matched up with the bye teams in the Division Series. The length of the remaining serieses would remain the same, but home field in the World Series would go to the highest seed.
For my alignments, they're not totally geographically aligned, but relatively close while preserving many of the natural rivalries within a division (Sox/Yanks, Cubs/Cardinals, Dodgers/Giants)
My 30 team alignment: My 32 team alignment (using pods, and Montreal and Charlotte as the expansion teams)
East: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT Atlantic: BOS/PHI, NYM/NYY
South: ATL, BAL, MIA, TB, WAS East: ATL/CHA, BAL/WAS
Central: CIN, CLE, DET, MIL, TOR South: CIN/CLE, MIA/TB
Midwest: CHC, CWS, KC, MIN, STL North: DET/PIT, MON/TOR
Mountain: ARZ, COL, HOU, TEX, SD
West: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SEA Central: CHC/CWS, KC/STL
Midwest: HOU/TEX, MIL/MIN
Mountain: ARZ/SD, COL/SEA
West: LAA/LAD, OAK/SF
Why does everybody think Montreal is going to get another team? Support for the Expos was dismal why an expansion team there? There are plenty of other cities that would make way more sense for expansion like Indianapolis, Portland, Memphis, San Antonio, New Orleans, Nashville ect.
Because they played in a dump of a stadium with a terrible ownership group who refused to invest in the city with a new stadium. The Sox/Jays exhibition games at the end of Spring Training were totally sold out despite how terrible Olympic Stadium is. Sox fans in Northern New England and New York fans from far upstate would go to games there. Many cities in sports have lost teams and gotten a second chance (a) decade(s) later (DC baseball, Houston in football, Winnipeg in hockey) and have done well. Quebec City hasn't had a hockey team for 20 years, and they're starving for the NHL to come back.
Forget baseball in Canada it doesn't work.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 10, 2016, 03:01:06 PM
People get so upset when American League teams play National League teams. Yet, this stuff goes on in the other major sporting leagues without a 2nd thought.
The issue is one of history. The NFL, NBA, and NHL all started facing all teams against each other as soon as they absorbed their former rival leagues. The NBA and NHL even did away with the distinction of having two distinct "leagues" and instead created purely geographic divisions.
With MLB, AL and NL teams started facing each other in the World Series in 1903, but was not until 1997 that they first faced each other in regular season play.
So, MLB has something that the NFL, NBA, and NHL do not: a century of precedent saying that interleague play is not supposed to happen.
It also doesn't help MLB's case that the motive for implementing interleague play was largely to get people interested again after the 1994-95 players' strike. It is understandably seen by purists as a gimmick that cheapens the game.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:31:21 PM
Why does everybody think Montreal is going to get another team? Support for the Expos was dismal why an expansion team there? There are plenty of other cities that would make way more sense for expansion like Indianapolis, Portland, Memphis, San Antonio, New Orleans, Nashville ect.
Indianapolis seems a bit close to Cincinnati to create a separate market out of. But then, this same argument was used against the Expos moving to Washington (very close to Baltimore) and it happened anyway.
Portland, while it is a decent size city, does not strike me as an attractive market for MLB since hipsters either don't care about sports or only watch soccer.
Memphis, San Antonio, New Orleans, and Nashville would all be potentially viable markets - although it is probably one or the other, not both, with Memphis and Nashville.
I could also see the Rays potentially attempting to relocate once their obligations to Tropicana Field run out - attendance has always been disappointing for them.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 12, 2016, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:31:21 PM
Why does everybody think Montreal is going to get another team? Support for the Expos was dismal why an expansion team there? There are plenty of other cities that would make way more sense for expansion like Indianapolis, Portland, Memphis, San Antonio, New Orleans, Nashville ect.
Memphis, San Antonio, New Orleans, and Nashville would all be potentially viable markets.
New Orleans has had a AAA team (the Zephyrs) for two decades. But I doubt that New Orleans on its own would support a MLB team. Considering that Baton Rouge is now a larger market than New Orleans, a case could be made for putting the stadium somewhere between the cities, maybe in Gonzales.
Pro: Louisiana seems to produce a lot of baseball talent. LSU and the University of Louisiana are perennial contenders in the NCAA playoffs in both baseball and softball. MLB drafts quite a few people from our schools.
Con: The success of our college teams doesn't seem to translate to interest in pro teams. Only one Louisiana city not named New Orleans (Alexandria) has kept a minor league team for a substantial amount of time. Many of the teams that have sprung up and died here were not MLB-system teams. If MLB has shown interest in developing farm teams here, it hasn't translated into successful teams. (Probably largely due to the intense humidity during the summer.) There's not much reason to believe that the college fan bases would adopt an MLB team.
And how are we going to pay for an MLB stadium? The state is broke and can't keep up with the backlog in highway projects. The post-Katrina Saints games at Tiger Stadium were disasters, making the odds of fielding an MLB team in LSU's baseball stadium virtually nil.
In short, don't look to Louisiana for an MLB expansion any time soon.
For those thinking about possible MLB Expansion markets, consider:
| Team | Total | Dates | Average | Capacity | % Filled |
| Charlotte Knights | 669398 | 71 | 9428 | 10200 | 92.43% |
| Sacramento River Cats | 672354 | 72 | 9338 | 14680 | 63.61% |
| Indianapolis Indians | 662536 | 71 | 9331 | 14230 | 65.57% |
| Columbus Clippers | 622096 | 69 | 9016 | 10100 | 89.27% |
| Lehigh Valley IronPigs | 613815 | 70 | 8769 | 10100 | 86.82% |
| Round Rock Express | 595012 | 69 | 8623 | 10000 | 86.23% |
| Buffalo Bisons | 551303 | 67 | 8228 | 17600 | 46.75% |
| El Paso Chihuahuas | 578952 | 71 | 8154 | 9500 | 85.83% |
| Albuquerque Isotopes | 560519 | 70 | 8007 | 13279 | 60.30% |
| Nashville Sounds | 565548 | 71 | 7965 | 10000 | 79.65% |
| Durham Bulls | 554788 | 71 | 7814 | 10000 | 78.14% |
| Toledo Mud Hens | 531249 | 69 | 7699 | 8943 | 86.09% |
| Louisville Bats | 527588 | 70 | 7537 | 13131 | 57.40% |
| Iowa Cubs | 504577 | 67 | 7531 | 11500 | 65.49% |
| Oklahoma City Dodgers | 471996 | 68 | 6941 | 9000 | 77.12% |
| Salt Lake Bees | 470760 | 69 | 6823 | 15334 | 44.50% |
| Pawtucket Red Sox | 466600 | 71 | 6572 | 10031 | 65.52% |
| Fresno Grizzlies | 458431 | 71 | 6457 | 12500 | 51.66% |
| Rochester Red Wings | 440360 | 70 | 6291 | 10840 | 58.04% |
| Norfolk Tides | 386402 | 67 | 5767 | 11856 | 48.64% |
| Scranton/WB RailRiders | 402731 | 70 | 5753 | 10000 | 57.53% |
| Omaha Storm Chasers | 386141 | 70 | 5516 | 9023 | 61.13% |
| Reno Aces | 376422 | 70 | 5377 | 9013 | 59.66% |
| Tacoma Rainiers | 352521 | 71 | 4965 | 9600 | 51.72% |
| Las Vegas 51s | 333520 | 69 | 4834 | 10000 | 48.34% |
| New Orleans Zephyrs | 324973 | 69 | 4710 | 8400 | 56.07% |
| Colorado Springs Sky Sox | 300209 | 65 | 4619 | 8400 | 54.99% |
| Memphis Redbirds | 278579 | 69 | 4037 | 10000 | 40.37% |
| Gwinnett Braves | 270336 | 71 | 3808 | 10427 | 36.52% |
| Syracuse Chiefs | 262408 | 69 | 3803 | 11117 | 34.21% |
Of the top few, Allentown, Sacramento, and Columbus seem too close to existing markets (PHI, SF/OAK and CLE/CIN), leaving Indy and Charlotte as potential expansion teams. Charlotte seems like the better option of the two, as it fills in a massive hole on the East Coast between Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Washington (see here (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/24/upshot/facebook-baseball-map.html#7,36.462,-81.605)), although the Research Triangle may be a better fit if you're going for coverage. The Carolinas have a sizeable interest in baseball, given the success of local collegiate teams, and the amount of local talent from the area, making them a large untapped area for MLB.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2016, 06:34:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:31:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2016, 02:35:55 PM
My idea for realignment would be geographical. For now, it would keep 6 divisions, but would go to 8 4 team divisions if there were expansion (there is a sentiment to bring baseball back to Montreal, and another city like Charlotte or Vegas could get a team). In my 32 team league, teams would play divisional foes 14 times, teams in the other 3 divisions in their geographical "conference" 6 times, and series against the other conference 3 times. Teams within divisions would be grouped together into 2-team "pods" that would travel together and play a week at other pods' ballparks. Example: the Yankees and Mets would go to Chicago and the Mets would play a 3 game series at Wrigley and the Yankees a 3 game series at US Cellular, then they'd swap. The playoffs would take the top 12 teams overall regardless of division. The top 4 teams get byes. The next 8 teams would all play a Wildcard game. The winners of those games would be matched up with the bye teams in the Division Series. The length of the remaining serieses would remain the same, but home field in the World Series would go to the highest seed.
For my alignments, they're not totally geographically aligned, but relatively close while preserving many of the natural rivalries within a division (Sox/Yanks, Cubs/Cardinals, Dodgers/Giants)
My 30 team alignment: My 32 team alignment (using pods, and Montreal and Charlotte as the expansion teams)
East: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT Atlantic: BOS/PHI, NYM/NYY
South: ATL, BAL, MIA, TB, WAS East: ATL/CHA, BAL/WAS
Central: CIN, CLE, DET, MIL, TOR South: CIN/CLE, MIA/TB
Midwest: CHC, CWS, KC, MIN, STL North: DET/PIT, MON/TOR
Mountain: ARZ, COL, HOU, TEX, SD
West: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SEA Central: CHC/CWS, KC/STL
Midwest: HOU/TEX, MIL/MIN
Mountain: ARZ/SD, COL/SEA
West: LAA/LAD, OAK/SF
Why does everybody think Montreal is going to get another team? Support for the Expos was dismal why an expansion team there? There are plenty of other cities that would make way more sense for expansion like Indianapolis, Portland, Memphis, San Antonio, New Orleans, Nashville ect.
Because they played in a dump of a stadium with a terrible ownership group who refused to invest in the city with a new stadium. The Sox/Jays exhibition games at the end of Spring Training were totally sold out despite how terrible Olympic Stadium is. Sox fans in Northern New England and New York fans from far upstate would go to games there. Many cities in sports have lost teams and gotten a second chance (a) decade(s) later (DC baseball, Houston in football, Winnipeg in hockey) and have done well. Quebec City hasn't had a hockey team for 20 years, and they're starving for the NHL to come back.
And then they have a few bites, enjoy it, but they're probably not going to be back.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 14, 2016, 09:26:55 PM
For those thinking about possible MLB Expansion markets, consider:
| Team | Total | Dates | Average | Capacity | % Filled |
| Charlotte Knights | 669398 | 71 | 9428 | 10200 | 92.43% |
| Sacramento River Cats | 672354 | 72 | 9338 | 14680 | 63.61% |
| Indianapolis Indians | 662536 | 71 | 9331 | 14230 | 65.57% |
| Columbus Clippers | 622096 | 69 | 9016 | 10100 | 89.27% |
<snip>
Of the top few, Allentown, Sacramento, and Columbus seem too close to existing markets (PHI, SF/OAK and CLE/CIN), leaving Indy and Charlotte as potential expansion teams. Charlotte seems like the better option of the two, as it fills in a massive hole on the East Coast between Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Washington (see here (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/24/upshot/facebook-baseball-map.html#7,36.462,-81.605)), although the Research Triangle may be a better fit if you're going for coverage. The Carolinas have a sizeable interest in baseball, given the success of local collegiate teams, and the amount of local talent from the area, making them a large untapped area for MLB.
Looks like a grand-slam for the Carolinas. (Pun intended.) They have not only the best average attendance but the most-filled stadium.
Weren't the Twins threatening to move to Charlotte if they couldn't get a new stadium back in the Metro Dome days?
Building a stadium in Uptown before Charlotte landed an MLB team was incredibly short-sighted. The old Knights Stadium in SC was built to be upgraded to a full MLB stadium if Charlotte ever got a team, a feature that BB&T Park lacks.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/mlb/charlotte-knights/article27346342.html
The current stadium can't be retrofitted to be an MLB stadium AND the city is locked into a 20 year agreement with the current Knights. Putting a minor league stadium in the downtown of a city of 700,000 just seems incredibly shortsighted.
Oops!
Montreal: To blame the Expos' failure on simply lack of fan support is to deny history. Consider:
- The team was put into a mostly wooden park that was supposed to be used for not more than 4 years. It ended up being used for nine.
- Olympic Stadium is the world's largest archetectural malpractice. Designed by an "artistic" archetect with no venue designing expeience, it was a dank rathole with bad sight lines, a dank unfinished basement atmosphere (due to the malpracticed retractable dome design), pieces falling off, and other problem. And, due to union extremism, it was not really finished for the Olympics nor when the Expos moved in in 77. It was an active construction site for years thereafter, not counting the dome which was years after that and never did work.
- Without compensation (unlike the Orioles- Nationals situation where the Os own the Nats TV rights for 30 years) the Expos were forced to share most of Canada with the Blue Jays when they started and were forced off the TV in the Golden Horseshoe region totally.
- The PQ govenement's hostility to the English merchant class moved hundreds of corporate HQs , and their attendant luxury box buying, out of Montreal and to Toronto and Calgary.
- The last ownership of the team was set on losing (on the field and in marketing both) in order to move the team to the supposed promised land of Miami (real life Major League) and ended up getting the Miami franchise.
Carolinas:
IF all of the metro Carolinas region, which is to say the Piedmont Triad, the Triangle, Metrolina, the SC Upstate and Columbia were one city, it would be easy to put a team there. It is not. It is a 50 mile wide and 240 mile long stretch of big cites, suburbs, small towns and still rural areas. That works for the NFL, where it is 8 games a year, mostly on Sunday afternoons. It works for the NBA and NHL, where it is half as many games needing half as many people to be a good crowd. It does not work for baseball, where you need a full crowd on weeknights. No one city, not even Charlotte, can support baseball by itself.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 15, 2016, 10:25:26 AM
IF all of the metro Carolinas region, which is to say the Piedmont Triad, the Triangle, Metrolina, the SC Upstate and Columbia were one city, it would be easy to put a team there. It is not. It is a 50 mile wide and 240 mile long stretch of big cites, suburbs, small towns and still rural areas. That works for the NFL [and college football as well -jbnv], where it is 8 games a year, mostly on Sunday afternoons. It works for the NBA and NHL, where it is half as many games needing half as many people to be a good crowd. It does not work for baseball, where you need a full crowd on weeknights. No one city, not even Charlotte, can support baseball by itself.
Great point. This is also true for New Orleans and Baton Rouge. For NFL and college football fans, it's an entire-day (if not -weekend) event. You can set up shop at or near the stadium and camp out before and/or after your game. Baseball doesn't offer such an opportunity.
Quote from: jbnv on June 15, 2016, 08:49:18 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 14, 2016, 09:26:55 PM
For those thinking about possible MLB Expansion markets, consider:
| Team | Total | Dates | Average | Capacity | % Filled |
| Charlotte Knights | 669398 | 71 | 9428 | 10200 | 92.43% |
| Sacramento River Cats | 672354 | 72 | 9338 | 14680 | 63.61% |
| Indianapolis Indians | 662536 | 71 | 9331 | 14230 | 65.57% |
| Columbus Clippers | 622096 | 69 | 9016 | 10100 | 89.27% |
<snip>
Of the top few, Allentown, Sacramento, and Columbus seem too close to existing markets (PHI, SF/OAK and CLE/CIN), leaving Indy and Charlotte as potential expansion teams. Charlotte seems like the better option of the two, as it fills in a massive hole on the East Coast between Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Washington (see here (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/24/upshot/facebook-baseball-map.html#7,36.462,-81.605)), although the Research Triangle may be a better fit if you're going for coverage. The Carolinas have a sizeable interest in baseball, given the success of local collegiate teams, and the amount of local talent from the area, making them a large untapped area for MLB.
Looks like a grand-slam for the Carolinas. (Pun intended.) They have not only the best average attendance but the most-filled stadium.
Why in the world does Sacramento need a team? There are already 2 teams in the bay area and 5 in California. That's plenty for one state. California is over saturated in sports as is. Columbus would make some sense but you already have 2 baseball teams in Ohio. The 4 cities that makes the most sense to me is Indianapolis, Portland, Charlotte and Memphis.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 15, 2016, 10:25:26 AM
Carolinas:
IF all of the metro Carolinas region, which is to say the Piedmont Triad, the Triangle, Metrolina, the SC Upstate and Columbia were one city, it would be easy to put a team there. It is not. It is a 50 mile wide and 240 mile long stretch of big cites, suburbs, small towns and still rural areas. That works for the NFL, where it is 8 games a year, mostly on Sunday afternoons. It works for the NBA and NHL, where it is half as many games needing half as many people to be a good crowd. It does not work for baseball, where you need a full crowd on weeknights. No one city, not even Charlotte, can support baseball by itself.
This is utter nonsense. Charlotte is a top-25 media market, and has been able to sustain an NBA and NFL team for several years with decent attendance figures. To say Charlotte couldn't support a team is to imply that places like Kansas City, San Diego, and Cincinnati couldn't either.
Nexus 6P
It won't be Indy I can tell you that. The city has no interest in an MLB team and we are quite satisfied with the AAA Indians who are as much of an institution as the Colts and Pacers. Being two hours from the Reds, three hours from the Cubs and White Sox and four hours from the Cardinals make it a little too crowded. Charlotte and Portland would be better suited personally.
Quote from: tdindy88 on June 17, 2016, 09:41:49 PM
It won't be Indy I can tell you that. The city has no interest in an MLB team and we are quite satisfied with the AAA Indians who are as much of an institution as the Colts and Pacers. Being two hours from the Reds, three hours from the Cubs and White Sox and four hours from the Cardinals make it a little too crowded. Charlotte and Portland would be better suited personally.
Have to agree with you on the Indy perspective. I was there last summer, and did not really hear one murmur on television about MLB (all about Colts training camp opening in a couple of weeks). Went to a game at Victory Field. Nice Minor League stadium, but no one there seemed to have an interest in any Major League team (even the parent club Pirates), nor did I see any team's apparel dominant in what people were wearing. New Orleans is similar. Was there 2 summers ago and did not hear a single word about baseball, just Saints, Saints, and more Saints.
Next month, the NHL votes on whether or not to grant an expansion team in Las Vegas (the team name expected to be the Black Knights) and other cities like Seattle and Quebec City withdrew from expansion, due to lack of approval of arenas and other issues in holding a pro/major league team. The NHL should look into a 32nd team, either in the Kansas City-Topeka, KS area or Saskatchewan (in Saskatoon, larger than the capital Regina), but this is only my opinion. The NHL has 2 conferences: the eastern have 8 in each 2 divisions and the western have 7 in each. My prediction is Kansas City gets the team instead of Saskatchewan, because of a larger market and the Sprint Center in Kansas City (KS side) is an existing large, standard sports facility. Las Vegas are natural division rivals of the Kings and Ducks.
And in the NBA, the rejection of arena plans in Seattle gave Las Vegas a huge advantage in a future basketball team. If they're granted a team, then a 32nd team comes about, and places like Kansas City and Virginia Beach could get one. The NBA would have 16 teams (current 15) each conference, a division with 6 team each and the other two have 5. Las Vegas would be divisional rivals to the 2 L.A. and 2 other CA teams (the possible team name is the Las Vegas Aces), and divisional realignment is possible for the eastern conference (the Washington Wizards become division rivals of the NY Knicks and Brooklyn Nets), because Virginia Beach is ready for a pro/major league sports team (name them the VA Squires, after the 1960s-70s ABA team) and will replace the Wizards' spot.
Quote from: tdindy88 on June 17, 2016, 09:41:49 PM
It won't be Indy I can tell you that. The city has no interest in an MLB team and we are quite satisfied with the AAA Indians who are as much of an institution as the Colts and Pacers. Being two hours from the Reds, three hours from the Cubs and White Sox and four hours from the Cardinals make it a little too crowded. Charlotte and Portland would be better suited personally.
The Colts are 2 hours from the Bengals 3 hours from the Bears and untill this year 4 hours from the Rams. What's the difference?
We were able to steal the Colts. We probably won't have luck being given an MLB team and Lucas Oil Stadium was built with plenty of kicking and screaming along the way. No one wants to replace Victory Field at the moment. Now that said, an MLS team would be a more likely outcome for another professional team judging by some pushes to build a fancy soccer stadium in the city.
How did I ever miss this page?
Y'all play fantasy football at all?
MLB: What about Austin (Round Rock Express). We have no major league teams at all and with 3 basketball teams and the omnipotent Cowboys here, baseball would be the best sport here.
Cleveland should move to Columbus...or Indianapolis (the name already works). They are hot this year and can't draw flies
Quote from: Desert Man on June 19, 2016, 03:32:56 PM
And in the NBA, the rejection of arena plans in Seattle gave Las Vegas a huge advantage in a future basketball team. If they're granted a team, then a 32nd team comes about, and places like Kansas City and Virginia Beach could get one. The NBA would have 16 teams (current 15) each conference, a division with 6 team each and the other two have 5. Las Vegas would be divisional rivals to the 2 L.A. and 2 other CA teams (the possible team name is the Las Vegas Aces), and divisional realignment is possible for the eastern conference (the Washington Wizards become division rivals of the NY Knicks and Brooklyn Nets), because Virginia Beach is ready for a pro/major league sports team (name them the VA Squires, after the 1960s-70s ABA team) and will replace the Wizards' spot.
I would argue that Hampton Roads (#43 media market) isn't big enough to support a NBA team (we can't even keep a bloody AHL team!), but then I remember that OKC (#45), Memphis (#48) and New Orleans (#53) appear to be doing just fine.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2016, 03:29:08 PM
MLB: What about Austin (Round Rock Express). We have no major league teams at all and with 3 basketball teams and the omnipotent Cowboys here, baseball would be the best sport here.
Cleveland should move to Columbus...or Indianapolis (the name already works). They are hot this year and can't draw flies
San Antonio would make more sense.
Professional basketball usually doesn't do that well in ACC country. Charlotte already had a team and lost it, and the second Hornets aren't the greatest draw. Plus, the NC border is only about a half hour from Hampton Roads, so you're already losing your fan base there. Plus, the DC fanbase is too nearby to legitimize creating a new fan base. Worked when the Squires were in a separate league from the then Bullets (plus the Bullets were relatively new to the DC area, having played in Baltimore for many years), and would've worked if they had come in with the ABA/NBA merger, but I don't see it working 40 years later. 2 other ABA markets that missed the cut, St. Louis and Louisville, could be considered, as could Pittsburgh (the latter 2 are technically ACC country, but are outliers at that).
How about Buffalo as a possible MLB market? Could form a territorial rivalry with the NY teams, Toronto, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland.
Actually, the NHL voted to grant Las Vegas, NV the league's 31st team.
http://www.fox5vegas.com/clip/12544507/nhl-awards-hockey-team-to-las-vegas
The minor league Las Vegas Wranglers of the ECHL folded in 2014. Las Vegas has a triple-A minor league baseball team the Area 51's in the PCL. And a history of Arena football, the NBA all-star game in 2007, and in the 1980s the Las Vegas Lazers of the North American Soccer League.
By next month, a second vote to grant the 32nd team (not sure where exactly is) to the NHL, to tie in size with the NFL's 32 teams, then the NBA and MLB's 30, and MLS' expanded 24 teams.
I have no information on when the NBA votes on expansion, but I read posts on Virginia Beach isn't the right site, and no mention of former NBA/ABA sites Louisville KY, Cincinnati and Buffalo. The most possible expansion sites are still Las Vegas and Kansas City, larger markets than the 3 mentioned.
And about Seattle, what about Tacoma with their arena (TacomaDome) and Bellevue, the affluent suburb east of Seattle with the University of Seattle's sports facilities? The NBA can still grant a team in the Seattle metro area.
With all that talk about the Raiders' move to Las Vegas, and now a new NHL franchise, don't be surprised if a MLB team is placed there, through either expansion or relocation (with the Rays and A's as potential suitors). Commissioner Rob Manfred says he's open to that idea. And with the NBA having played an All-Star Game there in 2007, as previously mentioned, having its own team would be the icing on the cake.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 23, 2016, 06:31:36 PM
Professional basketball usually doesn't do that well in ACC country. Charlotte already had a team and lost it, and the second Hornets aren't the greatest draw. Plus, the NC border is only about a half hour from Hampton Roads, so you're already losing your fan base there. Plus, the DC fanbase is too nearby to legitimize creating a new fan base. Worked when the Squires were in a separate league from the then Bullets (plus the Bullets were relatively new to the DC area, having played in Baltimore for many years), and would've worked if they had come in with the ABA/NBA merger, but I don't see it working 40 years later. 2 other ABA markets that missed the cut, St. Louis and Louisville, could be considered, as could Pittsburgh (the latter 2 are technically ACC country, but are outliers at that).
How about Buffalo as a possible MLB market? Could form a territorial rivalry with the NY teams, Toronto, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland.
Then there's CBA (Continental Basketball Association) territory: Iowa, Omaha and the Dakotas (the original NBA in the 1940s-50s), Mont., Idaho and the NW sells out their home games in smaller or moderately populated cities. The early NFL was all over the Midwest in similar fashion, the early MLB had teams in Louisville, Indianapolis, Buffalo, Newark, and New England like Hartford, worcester and Providence, and the pre-1917 pro hockey leagues had a team in Seattle.
In the 1960s-70s the ABA (basketball), the 1970s WHA (hockey) and 1970s-80s NASL (soccer) brought pro or "major league" sports in places previously without one. The 1960s AFL (football) succeeded to merge with the NFL, while the NASL folded out of business and teams I remember: Provo Strikers, Tulsa Roughnecks and Santa Barbara Surf, are indications these cities could have a pro or "major league" team. Only 4 ABA and 4 WHA teams each manage to survive to this day.
Quote from: Henry on June 24, 2016, 10:24:05 AM
With all that talk about the Raiders' move to Las Vegas, and now a new NHL franchise, don't be surprised if a MLB team is placed there, through either expansion or relocation (with the Rays and A's as potential suitors). Commissioner Rob Manfred says he's open to that idea. And with the NBA having played an All-Star Game there in 2007, as previously mentioned, having its own team would be the icing on the cake.
I would be surprised. There's no place to put a MLB team, and a stadium would take several years to build. You'll also have an issue with the extreme heat out there, which both players and fans wouldn't want to be sitting in. So you're talking about a domed stadium, and overall they don't tend to be very popular unless a team is doing very well.
The reason the NHL is the best choice for the Las Vegas region is because it is the least TV money dependent of the three possible sports (the NFL, which sells all of its TV rights as a group is a different discussion). Live gate still drives the NHL. Between locals and well planned marketing towards tourists, it can work.
Baseball, and to a lesser extent basketball, is much more dependent on money from its local TV and radio contracts. Las Vegas is growing, but it still is not that big and the team would have no claim on any other place. It is just Clark County, NV, while most current MLB teams have region sports networks covering multiple states.
Then, re baseball, you do have the heat issue and 81 live dates to sell. I just do not see that.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 24, 2016, 01:47:47 PM
The reason the NHL is the best choice for the Las Vegas region is because it is the least TV money dependent of the three possible sports (the NFL, which sells all of its TV rights as a group is a different discussion). Live gate still drives the NHL. Between locals and well planned marketing towards tourists, it can work.
Baseball, and to a lesser extent basketball, is much more dependent on money from its local TV and radio contracts. Las Vegas is growing, but it still is not that big and the team would have no claim on any other place. It is just Clark County, NV, while most current MLB teams have region sports networks covering multiple states.
Then, re baseball, you do have the heat issue and 81 live dates to sell. I just do not see that.
Ok, I see...Las Vegas in the desert more suited for a "cold" sport, since the peak tourist and seasonal resident season is winter. Montreal, Canada has a better chance of a MLB team than Las Vegas, since the Tampa Bay Rays explored moving north as well out west (unless the Oakland A's staked their turf). If the Rays relocated, Tampa might start all over in MLB expansion.
Somebody mentioned the appeal to Vegas is people traveling with the team to see the games. But it's not going to be the thousands of people they would need. Maybe for NFL...I don't see that draw for other sports.
Houston is the largest US city/metro area without a NHL team, the closest one is the Dallas Stars. I like to see Hartford, Conn. in the NHL again, as much I like Brooklyn represented in the majors in baseball. Newark, NJ's arena can have a new NBA team replacing the Nets went to Barclay Center in Brooklyn. And the idea of a NFL team in Canada (specifically Toronto) will make the league truly international.
Edit: This came to mind: the MLS is expanding and in my version, they add 6 or 7 more teams, concentrated in the Southwest. They are the Austin Tejano, El Paso Aztecs, Las Vegas Dustdevils (or new Lazers), Sacramento Republic, San Diego Sockers, Tucson Clash, and Tulsa Roughnecks. Currently at 24, they could reach 30-34 like the other big 4 sports leagues. El Paso and San Diego are right on the US-Mexican border, they could hold exhibition games with Juarez Indios and Club Tijuana. Texas currently has the Houston Dynamo (they tried to have "1836" as part of their logo) and Dallas-Fort Worth nicknamed "DFW". Canada has 3 MLS teams: Toronto FC "Canada", Le Impact du Montreal and Vancouver Whitecaps, who take part in the Cascadia cup vs. the Seattle sounders and Portland Timbers.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 23, 2016, 05:52:11 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2016, 03:29:08 PM
MLB: What about Austin (Round Rock Express). We have no major league teams at all and with 3 basketball teams and the omnipotent Cowboys here, baseball would be the best sport here.
Cleveland should move to Columbus...or Indianapolis (the name already works). They are hot this year and can't draw flies
San Antonio would make more sense.
San Antonio doesn't even support their AA team whereas Austin we support our AAA team. It's not all about population.
Orlando and Portland OR don't have minor league baseball teams (their nearest ones in fact in suburbs: Kissimmee FL or Hillsboro OR), while Brooklyn and Buffalo NY have exceptionally high attendance in minor league baseball, and the chances of the A's or Rays moving to new ground, this calls for a new round of MLB expansion.
The Class-A California League needs to add a pair of teams in the state, they have 2 divisions (Nor and Sou) with 5 teams each. Candidates are Salinas and Palm Springs, if they approve new standard ballparks, and find major league affiliations (MLB expansion can make it possible). The Salinas Spurs in the early 1990s was a Japanese professional league affiliate and the Palm Springs Angels of late 80s/early 90s paid tribute to the parent club's former spring training site.
And there's a women's Pro softball League: National Pro Fastpitch, the highest level of women's softball in the US. There are 6 or 8 teams, notably Akron with the most success and their rivals Dayton, Oh. In my version, they expanded west into CA: how about L.A. and San Francisco? Give them cute feminine, but strong sportslike names. The L.A. Serafins or Divas? and the S.F. Bay Mermaids or Sirens?
NHL back to six divisions with one Western Conference team containing six teams beginning in 2017-18 with the new Las Vegas team's arrival. This is mostly a revert to the pre-2012 format.
Eastern:
- Northeast:Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
- Atlantic:New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
- Southeast:Carolina, Florida, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Washington
Western:
- Midwest:Columbus, Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, St. Louis
- Northwest:Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg
- Pacific:Anaheim, Arizona, Dallas, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Jose
OR maybe Columbus would move to the East, Detroit would still move back to the West, and the Atlantic would be the five teams above plus Columbus. Meanwhile, Las Vegas could land in the Northwest instead. AND/OR the Midwest could be the six-team division beginning in 2017-18 and it would be Columbus, Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, St. Louis and Winnipeg, and the Northwest would be Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Las Vegas and Vancouver.
Why would Las Vegas be in the Northwest Division? That would be a serious mismatch, like the Thunder are in the NBA's own Northwest Division! Granted, they used to be the Seattle SuperSonics, but Oklahoma City being included makes absolutely no sense.
They will probably stay with 4 divisions and just throw Las Vegas in the Pacific until a 32nd team is added. Question is if when that team is added, will the league stay with 8 4 team divisions, or 4 8 team divisions? If it's Quebec, either Detroit or Columbus would have to go west. If it's Seattle or Kansas City, then Seattle would send most likely Arizona to the Central. If it's KC, then they just slide into the Central.
Here's a breakdown of the divisions based on each scenario: Quebec, KC, and Seattle. To save space, I listed them in 4 divisions. To break them into 8 divisions, just take the first 4 of each division and the last 4 and split them up (notice the slight tweak I make by moving CLB and PIT into the Atlantic, and the Florida teams in the Metropolitan.
QUEBEC:
Atlantic: BOS, MON, OTT, QUE, BUF, DET, TOR, PIT
Metropolitan: NJ, NYI, NYR, PHL, CAR, FLA, TB, WAS
Central: CHI, CBJ, NAS, STL, DAL, COL, MIN, WPG
Pacific: ANA, ARZ, LA, LV, CAL, EDM, SJ, VAN
KANSAS CITY:
Atlantic: BOS, MON, OTT, TOR, BUF, CLB, DET, PIT
Metropolitan: NJ, NYI, NYR, WAS, CAR, FLA, TB, WAL
Central: CHI, MIN, NAS, WIN, COL, DAL, KC, STL
Pacific: ANA, ARZ, LA, LV, CAL, EDM, SJ, VAN
SEATTLE:
Atlantic: BOS, MON, OTT, TOR, BUF, CLB, DET, PIT
Metropolitan: NJ, NYI, NYR, WAS, CAR, FLA, TB, WAL
Central: CHI, MIN, NAS, WPG, ARZ, COL, DAL, STL
Pacific: ANA, LA, LV, SJ, CAL, EDM, SEA, VAN
I can live with Arizona in the Central, as it's further east than Las Vegas.
Quote from: mrsman on January 31, 2016, 01:12:42 AM
AFC N: Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Cincinnatti-Indianapolis (serving the eastern midwest)
I've been thinking the same thing for years. Indianapolis is not in the South. I think the Colts would develop an interesting rivalry with the Steelers.
Quote from: Rushmeister on August 04, 2016, 12:24:50 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 31, 2016, 01:12:42 AM
AFC N: Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Cincinnatti-Indianapolis (serving the eastern midwest)
I've been thinking the same thing for years. Indianapolis is not in the South. I think the Colts would develop an interesting rivalry with the Steelers.
Steelers have too much of a rivalry with the Ravens, and the name Rooney pulls a lot of weight in the NFL. Same reason why you won't see the Cowboys, despite being almost 1400 miles from its nearest divisional opponent, leaving the NFC East anytime soon. At least the Rams moving back to LA eliminates the "St. Louis is West" anomaly. Logical geographical move in the NFC would put the Panthers in the East and the Cowboys in the South. AFC is a little more complicated. True geography would look like this in the AFC:
AFC East: BAL, BUF, NE, NYJ
AFC North: CIN, CLE, IND, PIT
AFC South: HOU, JAX, MIA, TEN
AFC West: As is
Or, if you really want to get radical, eliminate the AFC and NFC and go to 8 divisions based on geography
Northeast: BUF, NE, NYG, NYJ,
Mid-Atlantic: BAL, PHI, PIT, WAS
Great Lakes: CAR, CIN, CLE, IND
Central: CHI, DET, GB, MIN,
Southeast: ATL, JAX, MIA, TB
Gulf Coast: DAL, HOU, NO, TEN
Southwest: ARZ, DEN, KC, SD
Northwest: LA, OAK, SEA, SF
If the Raiders move to Vega$, flip flop the Raiders and Broncos.
you mean Raiders & Chargers I take it.
Of course, this year was this realignment https://princetonsportsanalytics.com/2016/04/14/nfl-divisional-realignment-for-earth-day/ (https://princetonsportsanalytics.com/2016/04/14/nfl-divisional-realignment-for-earth-day/) on April, something didn't get as we expected, but anyways it is what it is
Actually, I'd like to revise my AFC realignment slightly
AFC East: BAL, NE, NYJ, PIT
AFC North: BUF, CIN, CLE, IND
AFC South: HOU, JAX, MIA, TEN
AFC West: As is
My reasoning: The Steelers now have a bigger divisional rivalry with the Ravens than the Browns, and the Pats biggest divisional rival is the Jets, so both are preserved. Miami in the South makes geographic sense, and a intrastate rivalry with the Jags has been virtually ignored for 21 years (and the current vs. former Houston rivalry is preserved as well). Buffalo and Cleveland is another untapped regional rivalry; the Paul Brown rivalry remains, and Cincy and Indy are only 2 hours apart.
Yes, but over the last five years, the Steelers-Bengals rivalry has amped up 10-fold. Just watch last year's Divisional game. It looked like football from the late 1960's-mid 1970's. An 18-16 score and shots being delivered all over the field from both sides. These teams really hate each other. Just put the Browns in the AFC East and keep the Steelers, Ravens, Colts, and Bengals in the AFC North. These teams would practically kill each other during the season. Probably would have the division winner end up 8-8 or 9-7 every year because of each team smacking the crap out of the others in that division.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 23, 2016, 06:31:36 PM
Professional basketball usually doesn't do that well in ACC country. Charlotte already had a team and lost it, and the second Hornets aren't the greatest draw. Plus, the NC border is only about a half hour from Hampton Roads, so you're already losing your fan base there. Plus, the DC fanbase is too nearby to legitimize creating a new fan base. Worked when the Squires were in a separate league from the then Bullets (plus the Bullets were relatively new to the DC area, having played in Baltimore for many years), and would've worked if they had come in with the ABA/NBA merger, but I don't see it working 40 years later. 2 other ABA markets that missed the cut, St. Louis and Louisville, could be considered, as could Pittsburgh (the latter 2 are technically ACC country, but are outliers at that).
How about Buffalo as a possible MLB market? Could form a territorial rivalry with the NY teams, Toronto, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland.
People say this but they forget the Hornets had a 9 year long, 364 game sell out streak and that the Hornets left because George Shinn was a word that I won't say on this forum.
The NBA moved to get Charlotte a team immediately because of the potential drawing power of the team. The market is still recovering from the departure of the original Hornets and the circumstances surrounding the building of the current Time Warner Cable Arena. The original Hornets leaving had nothing to do with attendance woes.
The Squires only drew well when they were winning and when they had Dr. J (Julius Erving) on the team. The team management basically mismanaged the team into oblivion--trading stars, including two Hall-of-Famers, for cash because they always seemed strapped for it. I don't know if it was because the Scope lease was high or if they could not manage the income. If the management had not been so "panicky", and kept these good players, they probably would have done fine. The fans there would have come. Of course, they would have had to build another arena because the Scope has a basketball capacity of around 10,600. Fine for the 1970's--not so fine today.
As far as Buffalo in MLB, remember they were the second minor league franchise to draw 1 million fans for a season (1983 Louisville Redbirds were the first). They drew over 1 million a season from 1988-91. They would make a good rivalry with New York, Toronto, Boston, and Cleveland.
Okay, get this! The name of the Las Vegas NHL team has been finalized and that will be the 31st NHL team starting in 2017-18. What if there was a situation just like the NFL had in the late '90s/early 2000s where the Baltimore Ravens were declared the 31st NFL team and the 1999 return of the Cleveland Browns gave the league 31 active teams, and then the arrival of the Houston Texans in 2002 evened things out at 32, allowing for eight divisions with four teams per division. Maybe the NHL could do the same by creating a 32nd team and doing their divisions in the style of the NFL. I would place the 32nd NHL team in Quebec City. The two conferences would return to their historic names, Prince of Wales and Clarence Campbell.
^ I'm all for reintroducing the original conferences names. As far as a "new" Quebec Nordiques team is concerned, we will have to see what may happen with the Carolina Hurricanes franchise. There have been rumblings about Carolina possibly moving to Quebec.
Quote from: amroad17 on November 28, 2016, 05:10:36 PM
^ I'm all for reintroducing the original conferences names. As far as a "new" Quebec Nordiques team is concerned, we will have to see what may happen with the Carolina Hurricanes franchise. There have been rumblings about Carolina possibly moving to Quebec.
I would be more than happy with keeping names that are understandable by people who aren't devoted hockey fans. The sport needs to grow.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2016, 10:59:13 AM
Quote from: Henry on June 24, 2016, 10:24:05 AM
With all that talk about the Raiders' move to Las Vegas, and now a new NHL franchise, don't be surprised if a MLB team is placed there, through either expansion or relocation (with the Rays and A's as potential suitors). Commissioner Rob Manfred says he's open to that idea. And with the NBA having played an All-Star Game there in 2007, as previously mentioned, having its own team would be the icing on the cake.
I would be surprised. There's no place to put a MLB team, and a stadium would take several years to build. You'll also have an issue with the extreme heat out there, which both players and fans wouldn't want to be sitting in. So you're talking about a domed stadium, and overall they don't tend to be very popular unless a team is doing very well.
... Or midnight or sunrise games! Switch to watching the Vegas team's home games after all of the California and Seattle games get over. Or watch a game before an East Coast afternoon game! Day shift people in Vegas could go to the game BEFORE work. And then there would emerge the "All Night Doubleheader".
"Yes, that's Wednesday at 0:05. We will be on our network stations for the pre-game at 11:30PM on Tuesday night"
I've figured out my NHL 32-team plan.
PWC East:
- Columbus Blue Jackets
- New York Rangers
- Philadelphia Flyers
- Washington Capitals
PWC North:
- Boston Bruins
- Montreal Canadiens
- Quebec Nordiques
- Toronto Maple Leafs
PWC South:
- Carolina Hurricanes
- Nashville Predators
- St. Louis Blues
- Tampa Bay Lightning
PWC West:
- Arizona Coyotes
- Los Angeles Kings
- San Jose Sharks
- Vancouver Canucks
CCC East:
- Boston Bruins
- New York Islanders
- Ottawa Senators
- Pittsburgh Penguins
CCC North:
- Buffalo Sabres
- Chicago Blackhawks
- Detroit Red Wings
- Minnesota Wild
CCC South:
- Colorado Avalanche
- Dallas Stars
- Florida Panthers
- Las Vegas Golden Knights
CCC West:
- Anaheim Ducks
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Winnipeg Jets
The problem with teams in smaller Canadian cities is that when the US economy gets ahead of the Canadian economy the relief valve to prevent a wholesale Canadian meltdown is to devalue the Loonie. From par just a few years ago, the Loonie is now at just 74 cents. And, given the expressed intentions of the current Canadian government and the incoming American one, the disparity is likely to grow to histoic proportions in the near term. Players and most expenses are paid in US dollars, but revenue is in Canadian. This applies to not just Quebec City, but to Winnipeg, both of which's original versions failed for just that reason.
The big three Canadian cities are big enough to have teams that make it regardless, but these smaller markets cannot, as was shown the last time this happened. Adding in the loonie (no pun intended) NDP governemnt in, of all places, Alberta, and the survival of the two oil patch cities (not just the teams, the cities) is a real question. That crew (elected becasue of a party split with just 40% of the vote) is in until 2019.
Don't think they'd break them up like AL and NL and mix geography in conferences. Still think it would be Eastern and Western conferences. Here's my 32 team breakdown (and yes, I would love to see the Whalercanes go home, but we need a new arena first).
If Quebec gets it:
Prince of Wales Conference:
Adams Division: BUF, DET, PIT, TOR
Patrick Division: NJ, NYI, NYR, PHL
Howe Division: CAR, FLA, TB, WAS
Orr Division: BOS, MON, OTT, QUE
Clarence Campbell Conference:
Norris Division: CHI, CLB, MIN, WIN
Smythe Division: COL, DAL, NAS, STL
Gretzky Division: CAL, EDM, SJ, VAN
Hull Division: ANA, ARZ, LA, LV
If Seattle gets it:
Prince of Wales Conference:
Adams Division: BUF, CLB, DET, PIT
Patrick Division: NJ, NYI, NYR, PHL
Howe Division: CAR, FLA, TB, WAS
Orr Division: BOS, MON, OTT, TOR
Clarence Campbell Conference:
Norris Division: CHI, MIN, STL, WIN
Smythe Division: ARZ, COL, DAL, NAS
Gretzky Division: CAL, EDM, SEA, VAN
Hull Division: ANA, LA, LV, SJ
^ Impressed with the divisional names--mixing the old with the new!
At least we will more than likely never see a division with both Montreal and Los Angeles in one (Norris, 1974-79) or with both California and Boston in one (Adams 1974-76). :spin: And the NHL wondered why teams floundered! Besides, who in the blue hell came up with the way these divisions were set up starting in 1974? Odd as anything the NFL always seemed to come up with until 2002--and even now the NFL divisions are not quite the way it should be.
Realign Division 1 NCAA Football into Five Conferences with Sixteen teams each. Each conference would have two divisions that would meet head-to-head in the conference championship game, the winner gets an automatic bid in an 8 team playoff. There could be three at-large wild card teams from the rest of the draw. Relegate lesser conferences down to Division Two since they rarely bring anything relevant. Basically the real trick would be figuring out who would belong in D1 who isn't in a major conference. Some schools like Boise State, Notre Dame, BYU, and Army come to mind immediately. Personally I'd like to see schools with a decent of history of winning bumped up followed by rounding geography.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2016, 09:54:39 PM
Realign Division 1 NCAA Football into Five Conferences with Sixteen teams each. Each conference would have two divisions that would meet head-to-head in the conference championship game, the winner gets an automatic bid in an 8 team playoff. There could be three at-large wild card teams from the rest of the draw. Relegate lesser conferences down to Division Two since they rarely bring anything relevant. Basically the real trick would be figuring out who would belong in D1 who isn't in a major conference. Some schools like Boise State, Notre Dame, BYU, and Army come to mind immediately. Personally I'd like to see schools with a decent of history of winning bumped up followed by rounding geography.
I'm OK with the current setup. 8 teams, five conference champions, plus the top ranked "Group of Five" team, plus any remaining undefeated teams after you do that (which would basically be another Group of Fiver or an independent). Any spots left go to the remaining top ranked teams. Under this scenario, your automatic 6 bids would go to Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Sandusky State, Oklahoma, and Western Michigan. Since there are no remaining undefeated teams, you go to the two highest remaining: Ohio (3) and Michigan (6). Seeding would go by ranking:
* Alabama vs. WMU
* Clemson vs. Oklahoma
* Ohio vs. Michigan (yes, a rematch)
* Washington vs. Sandusky State
I'm willing to bet that Michigan would have been moved up to 5 under this scenario to avoid such an immediate big 10 rematch. Alternatively, they could have been dropped below Oklahoma to keep Big Ten teams from facing each other in the first round.
Easy to do. You have six major bowls now. Four of them host the quarterfinals, two the semis. Rotate the semis on a triennial basis.
So, am I surmising that your Five Conferences will be the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12? If this is so, each conference is going to have to add anywhere between 2-6 teams to make it 16 in each.
What would be the "next tier"? Probably these, since they are also in the Football Bowl Subdivision...
- American Athletic
- MAC
- Conference USA
- Mountain West
- Sun Belt
We could call these the "five conferences"! :D
Seriously, in this scenario, the champions of the Five Conferences (Power 5) would ensure automatic berths. Should the champions from three of the other five conferences (depending on how "strong" the conference is) receive the other berths or will a committee rely on what they see and pick three other teams from the Power 5? If this would be the case, then these other five conferences should have a Subdivision of their own and determine a champion in the same way as the Power 5. In fact, we could have a Power 5 Subdivision and an Group of 5 Subdivision or it could be called the Electric 5 Subdivision.
Personally, if there were an 8-team playoff this year, these are the teams I would like to see (with seedings)...
- #1 Alabama vs. #8 Western Michigan
- #4 Washington vs. #5 Penn State
- #3 Ohio State vs. #6 Oklahoma
- #2 Clemson vs. #7 Michigan
I placed Oklahoma above Michigan because they would be considered the defacto Big 12 Champion. I placed Western Michigan at #8 because they won their conference championship and are undefeated. I believe any undefeated and conference champion team from a non-Power 5 conference should be included in an 8-team playoff. Maybe not a 4-team playoff, but definitely an 8-team playoff. Also, two teams from the same conference would not meet in these quarterfinal games.
Overall, I would not mind having the FBS become two Subdivisions. It would be extremely rare, under the current format, to have a team from the Group of 5 be selected for one of the four spots to determine a national champion. The only team in the last ten years that I could have seen selected was Boise State from the Mountain West (ask Oklahoma).
I have an idea on what I would like to see if the FBS splits and there are 8-team playoffs...
As far as bowl games in the Power 5, four of the New Year's Six could be used as quarterfinal matchups (except the Rose Bowl--keep that a Pac-12/Big Ten tradition, the two losers of each conference championship game would meet there). There would be then two cities to hold the National Semifinal games and then a city to hold the National Championship Game.
The Citrus and the Outback Bowls would still be on New Year's Day (or as close to it if is not a Sunday). These two bowls would host teams that would be ranked anywhere between 9-14, based on which teams would go to the Rose Bowl if they are ranked in this area.
As far as bowl games for the Group of 5, the Las Vegas, Independence, Holiday, and the Liberty Bowl games could be played around Dec 16-19 as quarterfinal games, the Sun and TaxSlayer (Gator) Bowls could be used as semifinal games on Christmas Eve or a day or two after Christmas, and the fifth bowl of the New Year's Six not chosen for any of the Power 5 quarterfinal games would host the Group of 5 Championship Game.
Doing this would bring a renewed relevance to some of these older bowl games. Also, by staggering the playing of each Subdivisions' playoff, fans would have an interest in who wins each Subdivision's National Championship.
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2016, 11:44:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2016, 09:54:39 PM
Realign Division 1 NCAA Football into Five Conferences with Sixteen teams each. Each conference would have two divisions that would meet head-to-head in the conference championship game, the winner gets an automatic bid in an 8 team playoff. There could be three at-large wild card teams from the rest of the draw. Relegate lesser conferences down to Division Two since they rarely bring anything relevant. Basically the real trick would be figuring out who would belong in D1 who isn't in a major conference. Some schools like Boise State, Notre Dame, BYU, and Army come to mind immediately. Personally I'd like to see schools with a decent of history of winning bumped up followed by rounding geography.
I'm OK with the current setup. 8 teams, five conference champions, plus the top ranked "Group of Five" team, plus any remaining undefeated teams after you do that (which would basically be another Group of Fiver or an independent). Any spots left go to the remaining top ranked teams. Under this scenario, your automatic 6 bids would go to Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Sandusky State, Oklahoma, and Western Michigan. Since there are no remaining undefeated teams, you go to the two highest remaining: Ohio (3) and Michigan (6). Seeding would go by ranking:
* Alabama vs. WMU
* Clemson vs. Oklahoma
* Ohio vs. Michigan (yes, a rematch)
* Washington vs. Sandusky State
I'm willing to bet that Michigan would have been moved up to 5 under this scenario to avoid such an immediate big 10 rematch. Alternatively, they could have been dropped below Oklahoma to keep Big Ten teams from facing each other in the first round.
Easy to do. You have six major bowls now. Four of them host the quarterfinals, two the semis. Rotate the semis on a triennial basis.
What I had in mind was wrapped around five major regional conferences:
- Mid-West Conference
- Atlantic Conference
- Southern Conference
- Mountain/Plains Conference
- Western Conference
Basically this would be kind of the gist of 80 team D1:
Mid-West Conference
1. Michigan
2. Indiana
3. Michigan State
4. Ohio State
5. Penn State
6. Illinois
7. Minnesota
8. Iowa
9. Minnesota
10. Northwestern
11. Purdue
12. Wisconsin
13. Notre Dame
14. Iowa State
15. Penn
16. Missouri
Atlantic Conference
1. Maryland
2. Rutgers
3. Boston College
4. Duke
5. North Carolina
6. Syracuse
7. Virginia
8. West Virginia
9. Virginia Tech
10. Wake Forest
11. Clemson
12. South Carolina
13. Navy
14. Connecticut
15. Army
16. East Carolina
Mountain/Plains Conference
1. Nebraska
2. Texas A&M
3. Baylor
4. Kansas
5. Kansas State
6. Oklahoma
7. Oklahoma State
8. Texas
9. TCU
10. Texas Tech
11. Colorado
12. Boise State
13. Air Force
14. Wyoming
15. Houston
16. New Mexico
Southern Conference
1. Louisville
2. Miami
3. Georgia Tech
4. Florida State
5. Kentucky
6. Vanderbilt
7. Arkansas
8. Ole Miss
9. Miss State
10. Alabama
11. Auburn
12. LSU
13. Florida
14. Tennessee
15. Central Florida
16. Memphis
Western Conference
1. Arizona
2. Arizona State
3. UNLV
4. Utah
5. BYU
6. Cal
7. UCLA
8. Oregon
9. Oregon State
10. USC
11. Stanford
12. Washington
13. Washington State
14. Hawaii
15. San Diego State
16. Fresno State
Granted I might rotate some of those lesser (or screwed something else up since I literally whipped that up in 10 minutes and I've noticed some errors already) schools out but the ones I picked seemed to be reasonably competitive, have a geographic area, or some decent past history. I wanted to keep the three service academies in since they Air Force and Navy have been reasonably competitive. That's a quick write up so I'm not sure if I missed anyone too important that should stay. If college is going to act like a professional sport then it ought to be structured like one. 8 out 80 teams making a play is still only 10% which I fail to see how is a water downed product. Saying teams like Western Michigan can compete with the national top 10 or the great majority of the others before hand prior to the previous ten years was kind of a joke. Regardless the current system has it so the lesser conferences stand no chance at competing for a title...so why are on the big stage at all to begin with?
Basically I see the conferences broken up into twin 8 team divisions which would play a round robin of 7 games with 2 additional on the other side of the conference. Each team would play 3 non-conference games and there would be a 6/6 split for home and away. Basically this would give everyone in the field a fighting chance in what would be a season long play-off. Even though there would be 3 wild-cards it would put a huge emphasis on winning your conference championship game at the end of the season.
Quote from: amroad17 on December 05, 2016, 12:03:15 AM
So, am I surmising that your Five Conferences will be the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12? If this is so, each conference is going to have to add anywhere between 2-6 teams to make it 16 in each.
What would be the "next tier"? Probably these, since they are also in the Football Bowl Subdivision...
- American Athletic
- MAC
- Conference USA
- Mountain West
- Sun Belt
We could call these the "five conferences"! :D
Essentially yes, in addition to cannibalizing the best out of the conferences and independents that are left. I'd say dissolve the major conferences completely as far as football goes and have everything run through the NCAA. If things get too big with more major schools split it into 8 twelve team conferences and expand the play-off field to twelve like the NFL.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2016, 11:31:25 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 05, 2016, 10:21:27 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2016, 12:15:00 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2016, 11:44:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2016, 09:54:39 PM
15. Penn
Ivy props. Nice
Too bad I meant Pitt, hence the disclaimer I threw out there about accuracy being spotty on the quickly cobbled conferences.
you need another disclaimer about how we should stop bringing up your ex, she has nothing to do with this.
Quote from: Alps on December 07, 2016, 12:14:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2016, 11:31:25 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 05, 2016, 10:21:27 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2016, 12:15:00 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2016, 11:44:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2016, 09:54:39 PM
15. Penn
Ivy props. Nice
Too bad I meant Pitt, hence the disclaimer I threw out there about accuracy being spotty on the quickly cobbled conferences.
you need another disclaimer about how we should stop bringing up your ex, she has nothing to do with this.
It would seem that would only lead to a nonsensical post where the full name is given along with what exit on the freeway they can be found at. That would be followed by a declaration that "this discussion is over" and perhaps some banter about which maps are best or perhaps even Disney.
Quote from: Henry on March 31, 2016, 10:24:38 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 31, 2016, 09:28:48 AM
The reason why you won't see it in baseball is A. The affiliation of minor league teams with big league teams, and B. stadium size. Most AAA stadiums hold about 9000 people, where the average major league stadium holds about 40-45,000. I love the idea of a team like Pawtucket possibly being promoted to the majors, while a team like the Rockies gets relegated to AAA. It would really make a team think twice about tanking to rebuild; this would really work in the NBA (I'm looking at you Sixers, Lakers, and Nets)
Yes, I like the idea of applying this to the NBA, where the good teams would play in one division, and the bad ones in the other. So given the current standings, with two divisions per conference, this is how the setup would go (8 playoff teams in Division A, 7 non-playoff teams in Division B):
EASTERN CONFERENCE
DIVISION A
Cleveland
Toronto
Atlanta
Boston
Miami
Charlotte
Detroit
Indiana
DIVISION B
Chicago
Washington
Orlando
Milwaukee
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
VIRGINIA (revival of the 1967 Squires)
WESTERN CONFERENCE
DIVISION A
Golden State
San Antonio
Oklahoma City
L.A. Clippers
Memphis
Portland
Houston
Utah
DIVISION B
Dallas
Denver
Sacramento
New Orleans
Minnesota
Phoenix
L.A. Lakers
SEATTLE (my edit: the new Supersonics)
Seattle tries hard to bring the NBA back and Virginia Beach's attempt to be a major league sports city could pay off. Considering the Supersonics were generally successful before their relocation to Oklahoma (City) in 2008. And Virginia's Hampton Roads area is it's own metropolis apart from Northern VA-Washington DC-Baltimore-Delaware and the Carolinas (Raleigh-Charlotte-Columbia SC+Charleston SC).
Quote from: epzik8 on November 28, 2016, 12:31:27 AM
Okay, get this! The name of the Las Vegas NHL team has been finalized and that will be the 31st NHL team starting in 2017-18. What if there was a situation just like the NFL had in the late '90s/early 2000s where the Baltimore Ravens were declared the 31st NFL team and the 1999 return of the Cleveland Browns gave the league 31 active teams, and then the arrival of the Houston Texans in 2002 evened things out at 32, allowing for eight divisions with four teams per division. Maybe the NHL could do the same by creating a 32nd team and doing their divisions in the style of the NFL. I would place the 32nd NHL team in Quebec City. The two conferences would return to their historic names, Prince of Wales and Clarence Campbell.
No, the Ravens were the 30th team and the Browns were the 31st
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 04, 2016, 02:51:51 PM
Don't think they'd break them up like AL and NL and mix geography in conferences. Still think it would be Eastern and Western conferences. Here's my 32 team breakdown (and yes, I would love to see the Whalercanes go home, but we need a new arena first).
If Quebec gets it:
Prince of Wales Conference:
Adams Division: BUF, DET, PIT, TOR
Patrick Division: NJ, NYI, NYR, PHL
Howe Division: CAR, FLA, TB, WAS
Orr Division: BOS, MON, OTT, QUE
Clarence Campbell Conference:
Norris Division: CHI, CLB, MIN, WIN
Smythe Division: COL, DAL, NAS, STL
Gretzky Division: CAL, EDM, SJ, VAN
Hull Division: ANA, ARZ, LA, LV
If Seattle gets it:
Prince of Wales Conference:
Adams Division: BUF, CLB, DET, PIT
Patrick Division: NJ, NYI, NYR, PHL
Howe Division: CAR, FLA, TB, WAS
Orr Division: BOS, MON, OTT, TOR
Clarence Campbell Conference:
Norris Division: CHI, MIN, STL, WIN
Smythe Division: ARZ, COL, DAL, NAS
Gretzky Division: CAL, EDM, SEA, VAN
Hull Division: ANA, LA, LV, SJ
Prince of Wales? Clarence Campbell? What's that all about? Usually divisions are named after geographic locations.
^^ The NHL used to have those as conference names and the divisions were also named Norris, Smythe, Adams and Patrick