News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Sports Realignment Ideas

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

Previous topic - Next topic

US 41

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.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM


english si

#26
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.

Henry

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
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

jp the roadgeek

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.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Desert Man

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.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

Max Rockatansky

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

Henry

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

CNGL-Leudimin

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).
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

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

DandyDan

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.
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE

jp the roadgeek

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)
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

jeffandnicole

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. 

SP Cook

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. 


jbnv

#37
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).
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Henry

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

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
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

dvferyance

#39
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   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.

dvferyance

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

jp the roadgeek

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,
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Alps

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.

Duke87

#43
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.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Alps

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.

triplemultiplex

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.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Duke87

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.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Jim

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.
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)

NWI_Irish96

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.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

jeffandnicole

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.



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