jlog3000

Then I guess I missed that one out. But what would the Big South do f the OVC somehow gets its full members like the adequate amount of schools sponsoring the sport (the minimum is 7 or 8). Although currently the Big South schools are in a 'partnership' with those from the OVC, due to both conferences lacking that pre-requiste of member schools with full membership (including football) to sponsor the sport on their own expenses (i.e.: look how it worked out and then being torn apart by the WAC and the A-Sun). Would those in the Big South become affiliates for football?

10 minutes ago, Seadragon76 said:

The divisions? Well, that's simple...

 

New England Division - Albany, Bryant, Maine, Monmouth, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Stony Brook and Villanova

Mid-Atlantic Division - Campbell, Delaware, Elon, Hampton, North Carolina A&T, Richmond, Towson and William & Mary

Those divisions would make total sense to me, not gonna lie.

A bit off-topic from the P5, I mean soon-to-be P3, FBS chaos; Bryant football (currently in the Big South for that sport) will move to the CAA, to give that conference on that sport an even membership amount of 16

https://caasports.com/news/2023/8/9/caa-football-welcomes-bryant-university-as-its-newest-member-in-2024.aspx

Bryant will still compete for other sports in the NFB-based America East Conference (after spending about 14 seasons in the NEC since joining D-I from D-II).

It's abundantly clear that the college sports (including football and possibly basketball, as both are the moneymakers in revenue and profit, out of every other Olympic-based sport) that we know and love today will soon be over and will never be the same. Like when conferences were like 8 teams minimum and 10 teams maximum, and almost there was like a full round robin schedule in conference play in football (or double the games for basketball or volleyball); before the SEC became the first conference to get to 12 and have the conference championship game format for football, which the Big XII would later follow suit a few years ago during the 1990's.

And before the eventual but inevitable and imminent era of super-conferences (excluding how the old WAC did, although it was an idea in theory gone wrong after just 3 school years) will occur with over 20 teams each without wanting or needing to care about fair-balanced formats, we must thank/blame the oligarchs in charge of this master plan of having their way since like the early 2010s.

Ironically the Big XII (who lost Nebraska to the Big TEN, Colorado to the Pac-12, and Texas A&M & Missouri to the SEC) suffered the blow a bit during that tenure, before eventually wanting to do some of their own adjustments after their 2 top schools are moving elsewhere (hence Oklahoma & Texas to the SEC, got BYU, UCF, Cincy & Houston; and UCLA & USC bolting out the Pac-12 to the Big TEN).

I wonder how will the scheduling formats will occur for each conference, and depending on the sport that conference will sponsor; and that's if those with power and influence and in charge of those conferences had learned from what the WAC did from 96-97 to 98-99. Obviously for football, one team cannot play all the other teams in the same school year [a 16 team league, the 15], although to a degree in basketball, it might work, with being just one game minimum. But it would be another story if it's a conference of upto 20 or 24 teams maximum. However, for other sports like soccer or volleyball or baseball/softball, etc., that would be a big challenge.

6 minutes ago, Gary said:

Tempe is in the same market as the Cardinals. I would go with Tucson if theres no college in your world, Albuquerque or Santa Fe

My world? Are you kidding? lol There is a reason for people to share some random concepts or ideas for certain leagues (pro or college levels alike), despite the fact that it will be obvious that it will never occur. Hence it's called "The Pointless Realignment Outpost".

P.S.: To be fair and to some extent on your behalf, those cities you mentioned, although not being from the state Arizona (as they are in New Mexico) would be fitting candidates for a 1st and 2nd D-Leagues respectively, if it were to occur.

1 minute ago, Gary said:

For Arizona stay away from Tempe because of the fact that during football season you have the Sun Devils and same thing with Tucson with the Wildcats. Problem is if you move them to Prescott or Flagstaff you're going with snow. Probably smart to keep them in Glendale. 

I was talking about secondary markets, NOT the MAIN market, in a developmental standpoint.

Then it seems to me that it sounds like as if football should not be a sponsored sport for athletic conferences, as it wants to be its own thing, and make profits their way; forcing every conference to be non-football.

13 minutes ago, TrueYankee26 said:

I had some of those cities in mind for the 2nd D-League lol, but I will use your suggestions

A 2nd D-League? That would be interesting. Like the NHL having its developmental leagues (the AHL and the ECHL), but for football.

@TrueYankee26 Love the alignments. Although, if it was me, I would change some of the town names for those that are repeatables, and replace with towns or cities close to the main city market.

For instance: Fort Lauderdale or Boca Raton [MIA], Long Island [NYJ], Columbus [CIN], Erie [PIT], Victoria or Austin or San Antonio [HOU], Fort Wayne [IND], Memphis instead of Knoxville [TEN], Colorado Springs or Fort Collins or Boulder [DEN], Reno [LV], Fort Worth or Arlington [DAL], Brooklyn [NYG], Gainesville (Ga.) or Athens [ATL], Tempe or Tucson [ARIZ], Anaheim [LAR], and San Jose [SF].

Your thoughts?

But how would this affect the other sports that those same superconferences sponsor? Like basketball or baseball or soccer or volleyball or other Olympic sport? Would those be tossed out the window or will they also benefit from the split with football being the primary and main concern or focus in a profit and economic revenue standpoint?

7 minutes ago, TrueYankee26 said:

Not only that.

 

Superconferences will be the end game, with Big 10 and 12 gobbling up their choice of Pac 12 schools, Big 10 and SEC getting the ACC schools they want, and the rest are left behind.

But with only 3 superconferences? Also good luck to all of those in terms of fair & balanced schedule format (depending on the sport being sponsored), even to find their fair share of permanent rivals plus the randoms for a x-year span.

42 minutes ago, SeaTac said:

College Football is dead. Long live the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. 

Basically you're admitting that it's now money who gets to dictate how college sports should be the way from how those with power want. If that's the case, good job and hope they are proud of themselves.

Is being a full independent considered an option for any of the remaining Pac schools, should they don't get a different conference home? Also, would the ACC consider do a Big TEN by grabbing a few Pac schools for expansion?

24 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

UW is already in the B1G 

Let's Go Red!

LOL, nice pun. But jokes aside, there is more than UW in college sports (even in D-I). Obviously it's Washington.

34 minutes ago, buckeye said:

Adding SDSU, Boise and Fresno would be no brainers I'd think out of that group, if they really do end up trying to expand. I'd throw UNLV and Colorado St. in the mix to get to 14, or 12, or 10, depending what other schools end up leaving. I think it's only a matter of time before Oregon and UW head to the B1G and a couple others leave for the Big XII. Not great what you're left with after that regardless.

That core of schools from the MW would make sense in a market standpoint, and in a way to offset the upcoming losses (now Colorado being in the mix officially after yesterday, and before the Buffaloes, it was UCLA and USC). However, if the remaining long-lasting schools like an Oregon or a Washington or an Oregon State or a Washington State would move to either the Big TEN or the Big XII, then I guess the Pac-X (12, 10, 8, etc.) would need to just have talks with the remaining MW schools and form some merger.

Because let's face it, college football in the West Coast as a whole has been in dire shape since many low level schools from the FCS and under had either dropped the sport or shut down its athletics programs altogether back in the 70s or 80s or 90s (from Cal State-Northridge to Pacific (Cal.) to Long Beach State, among others). Hence the top schools within that region remained strong to survive such impact since the formation of the Pac-10 (when the Pac-8 got Arizona and Arizona State from the WAC).

1 hour ago, McCall said:

Is a single sport still not "athletic"? Also, the fact that you used the singular "athletic" instead of "athletics" kinda contradicts your own question. Also, they can call themselves whatever they want. You might literally be the only person I've ever heard complain about something like this.

You're damn right I'm "complaining" according to you, and you just proved my point. Why protecting or defending or justifying a single-sport league to call such as they please knowing that it will just sponsor only one sport? Doesn't that seem a bit absurd? I think United Football Conference would had make a bit sense by name instead. Plus, I have the right to speak out an opinion as I want too, even if no one else for all I care about is asking for it. I'm not doing this to bash it out, or otherwise it would be silly and nonsensical. I think it's pretty obvious, and you don't see any other single-sport leagues that had existed or are currently existing using the "athletic" or "athletics" name; they have a name based on that singe sport and for a good reason. Like for instance: the Continental Lacrosse Conference (and it only sponsor lacrosse) or even the MVFC [or Missouri Valley Football Conference] (and it just has football).  Besides, "athletics" is a non-countable noun , while "athletic" is an adjective.

35 minutes ago, LMU said:

The WCC is solely religious (or formerly religious private), smaller schools (BYU was an anomaly). Stanford and Cal don’t fit the profile at all.

My thoughts exactly. Cuz I was about to say. Schools like Denver or Seattle (former WCC member) would fit such a description rather than Stanford and/or Cal. If another Pac-12/10 school gets an invite to the Big XII, then the Pac-12 will be doomed.

And a bit off-topic, but can someone explain to me why is it OK for a single-sport conference to have the word "athletic" on its name like the "United Athletic Conference", where it solely will sponsor just one sport and has no clear interest to add other sports? Help me make it make sense. I'm dying to know.

The reason I call it as "sliding pits" is because I saw it from some post on the "baseball" subreddit on Reddit; because I never knew that the non-artificial turf parts of the baseball field were called as "cut outs" (putting aside the circular ones being the home plate area and the pitcher's mound) nor I have seen it mentioned as such.

Also I wonder if an artificial turf-designed ballpark could work on a natural grassed stadium, even if that stadium is domed (so that we won't have to worry about weather issues, unless that dome has a roof leak a la Metrodome).

12 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Bitching mound.

I assume that it was a typo by accident from the one who typed previously. lol

4 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I don't think doing the cut outs on a grass field would work, as you'd wear down the grass in the basepaths.

How come, might I ask? If it was me, we wouldn't know unless we try.

Imagine if the NHL would somehow become a 36-team league.

Assuming that Arizona remains in the NHL without relocation, but 4 new expansion teams are available. 3 of them are obvious. And the 4th one is a wild card, because oddly enough it was also a WHA original that didn't make the cut to join with the other WHA teams in the merged NHL at that time.

For total games, it should be 80 in total; with home-and-away against all non-division opponents [5 div. x 6 teams per div. x 2 = 60], then double home-and-away against division opponents [5 teams in own div. x 4 = 20]

I have a curious question. Are there any links or sources about the history of sliding pits in baseball fields, at least in the MLB level? And if so, who were the first and subsequent teams to apply such on their stadiums, and who were the first ones that eventually dropped them out to be in favor of natural grass base path park fields? All I know was that the Blue Jays were the last team to do so in 2016 or 2015, thus ending the artificial turf sliding pit parks in the MLB.

And on a sidenote, could sliding pits (plus the separate small round areas (being the pitcher mound and catcher box)) be placed on a natural grass stadium and make it work, or it only applies to an artificial turf stadium?

14 minutes ago, McCall said:

You assigned the expansion teams conferences/divisions without having cities selected. Las Vegas, Sacramento and Phoenix are all in play for the 31st and 32nd teams and if two of them were selected, it would push a Western team, geographically being St. Louis or Minnesota, into the East.

Let's see how would you realign things, based on my model.

With San Diego being the MLS's 30th franchise, effective the 2025 season, I wonder if the league would somehow apply divisions for both East & West Conferences, to reduce travel expenses and what not. But it would make a bit more sense once the league hits to 32 teams; because originally it wouldn't fit as it was originally predicted, according to this post from Reddit about 7-8 years ago:

Instead, the teams that joined alongside Atlanta United FC, Minnesota United FC, Los Angeles FC and Inter Miami FC were Nashville SC, FC Cincinnati, Austin FC and Charlotte FC; with St. Louis FC (this season) and San Diego FC (in 2025) will follow suit. While the Carolina Railhawks, the Sacramento Republic, the San Antonio Scorpions and the Indy Eleven didn't make it and were left out.

With that being said, the MLS might look like this:

MLS East:

* Northeast - Atlantic : DC United, Philadelphia, NY Red Bulls, New York City FC

* Northeast - New England: New England, CF Montreal, Toronto FC, <expansion>

* Central - Great Lakes: Nashville SC, FC Cincinnati, Chicago, Columbus

* Central - Southeast: Atlanta United, Charlotte FC, Inter Miami, Orlando City SC

MLS West:

* Frontier - Plains: Colorado, St. Louis, Sporting KC, Minnesota United

* Frontier - Sun Belt: Austin FC, Houston, FC Dallas, <expansion>

* Pacific - Northwest: Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Real Salt Lake

* Pacific - Southwest: LA Galaxy, Los Angeles FC, San Jose, San Diego

Each team would face everyone (being 31 games), and another 3 within same section for a total of 34 games.

Thoughts?

With San Diego having a franchise to be the MLS's #30 team, I think that it will be very interesting once it joins the league. However, what concerns me a bit is the scheduling and conference format. I thin that both the MLS East and the MLS West must grouped their 15 teams into 3 divisions of 5 teams each, obviously based on geographic approximation.

The issue is that each team plays like 30 or so regular season games. This season is 34. One solution would be that a few games need to expand:

Like each team faces 4 teams of its own division twice, then face 5 teams of other division twice and face 5 teams of other 2nd division once (with inter-division play switching each year) and face 15 teams of other conference once. That would be a total of 38 games (oddly enough thats the same amount of games used on other pro soccer leagues of other countries, only that in those leagues they each got 20 teams and each of those face the other 19 twice [home and road alike]).

2 hours ago, Geoff said:

Just need 8 teams to break the GOR. I think the best bet or smartest move is for Louisville to realize they're better off in the Big XII with old rivals like Cinci, WVU, and maybe even Memphis than whatever the hell the ACC is going to be when the big names leave or an ACC with uneven distribution. Louisville doesn't see itself as a basketball school. It's a basketball and football school. Football just doesn't have the consistency to merit the amount of money in uneven distribution for it to be a basketball and football school. 

Agreed. Plus, with Houston also joining by, another former L'Ville rival from the C-USA days (as well as Cincy).

But imagine if Louisville had joined the Big XII instead of West Virginia back 11 years ago, with WVU joining the ACC a bit later. I wonder if either program would had success or blunders along the way. Oddly enough, if Maryland hadn't even like decided to leave the ACC, Rutgers would had been also consider joining in the ACC too instead of the Big TEN, alongside WVU. That would set a mini-cycle rivalry between those schools and had might given the ACC 16 teams (in a football perspective, excluding #17 in Notre Dame, who's just the non-football full-member).

A bit off-topic from FBS stuff, here's some unexpected but projected FCS stuff:

https://ovcsports.com/news/2023/5/12/general-western-illinois-university-to-join-the-ovc-in-2023-24.aspx

What would be the future now for the Summit, now that all of its members (except Denver and Oral Roberts) are technically in the Upper Midwest or West North Central states (or in geographic terms, the Great Plains)?

And what would be the future for the OVC, as it might be a full member school (that can sponsor football) might bring the conference back to 12 members (and possibly 7 or 8 for the autobid qualifyer for a football title in conference-play)?

Guess that's now official. After the news with St. Francis (NY) discontinuing its entire athletics program, the pick was obvious. Although the NEC still has time to potentially expand within a few years to grow back its membership amount.