The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[ZapRowsdower8]

Not that is should ever happen, but here is my MLB expansion realignment.

NL

East

New York Mets

Washington Nationals

Philadelphia Phillies

Pittsburgh Pirates

North

Chicago Cubs

St Louis Cardinals

Cincinnati Reds

Milwaukee Brewers

South

Atlanta Braves

Miami Marlins

Houston Astros

Tennessee Expansion

West

Los Angeles Dodgers

Colorado Rockies

San Diego Padres

San Francisco Giants

AL

East

New York Yankees

Boston Red Sox

Baltimore Orioles

Toronto Blue Jays

North

Cleveland Indians

Detroit Tigers

Chicago White Sox

Minnesota Twins

South

Tampa Bay Rays

Texas Rangers

Kansas City Royals

Carolina Expansion

West

Arizona Diamondbacks

Los Angeles Angels

Oakland A's

Seattle Mariners

[Quillz]

I don't care what anyone else thinks... The MLB needs five teams per division.

AL East

------

~ New York Yankees

~ Boston Red Sox

~ Toronto Blue Jays

~ Tampa Bay Rays

~ Baltimore Orioles

AL Central

--------

~ Pittsburgh Pirates

~ Cleveland Indians

~ Minnesota Twins

~ Chicago White Sox

~ Detroit Tigers

AL West

------

~ Los Angeles Angels

~ Texas Rangers

~ Seattle Mariners

~ Oakland A's

~ Arizona Diamondbacks

NL East

------

~ Philadelphia Phillies

~ Florida Marlins

~ New York Mets

~ Washington Nationals

~ Atlanta Braves

NL Central

--------

~ Kansas City Royals

~ St. Louis Cardinals

~ Chicago Cubs

~ Milwaukee Brewers

~ Cincinnati Reds

NL West

------

~ Houston Astros

~ Los Angeles Dodgers

~ San Diego Padres

~ San Francisco Giants

~ Colorado Rockies

It's nothing earth-shattering... Arizona originally considered the AL West way back in 1998, anyway. The Brewers would stay in the NL but I moved the Astros into the NL West... I think it makes more sense considering the Texas Rangers also play in the Western Division. I read an article recently about swapping the Royals' and Pirates' leagues, and it made a lot of sense. I still think the Pirates should be in the AL East but since they'd be the westernmost of the Eastern teams, it makes sense leaving them in the AL Central.

Anyway, the idea is that, in general, states with two franchises should have one per league. So this realignment idea maintains the Rangers in the AL and the Astros in the NL, moves the Pirates into the AL and keeps the Phillies in the NL, although it does alter both Missouri franchises, as they've become division rivals. But since we're talking about the Royals here, so have somewhat less history than say, the Pirates, I think the change is acceptable.

In reality, if the MLB simply altered the way they schedule interleague play, there's no reason you can't have an equal five teams per division.

[BBTV]

Anyway, the idea is that, in general, states with two franchises should have one per league. So this realignment idea maintains the Rangers in the AL and the Astros in the NL, moves the Pirates into the AL and keeps the Phillies in the NL, although it does alter both Missouri franchises, as they've become division rivals. But since we're talking about the Royals here, so have somewhat less history than say, the Pirates, I think the change is acceptable.

What's the point of this "idea"? Just because two teams are located in the same political subdivision of the country doesn't mean that they're rivals. In most (not all though) cases, they are parts of two completely separate metropolitan areas, and the fact that they just happen to be in the same state is irrelevant.

[Quillz]

Anyway, the idea is that, in general, states with two franchises should have one per league. So this realignment idea maintains the Rangers in the AL and the Astros in the NL, moves the Pirates into the AL and keeps the Phillies in the NL, although it does alter both Missouri franchises, as they've become division rivals. But since we're talking about the Royals here, so have somewhat less history than say, the Pirates, I think the change is acceptable.

What's the point of this "idea"? Just because two teams are located in the same political subdivision of the country doesn't mean that they're rivals. In most (not all though) cases, they are parts of two completely separate metropolitan areas, and the fact that they just happen to be in the same state is irrelevant.

Did the topic title not say pointless realignment?

There's a reason the MLB's divisions aren't like this in reality. It was just a concept, an idea. Although there does tend to be a natural tendency for one area of a state to create a rivalry with another part of the state. You might have SoCal vs. NorCal, Upstate New York vs. NYC, etc. Maybe those kinds of rivalries do exist in reality, maybe they don't, but I posted nothing more than how *I* would like to see MLB aligned.

[BBTV]

With the exception of the California rivalries (or at least the LA SF rivalry), most intra-state rivalries are one sided - the rivalry tends to exist in the smaller or less "celebrated" of the two cities. I assume that very few people in NYC would get up any more for a game against Buffalo than they would for a game against the Thrashers. However, I'd wager that in Buffalo, people are foaming at the mouth to take down the big, bad, arrogant a-holes from NYC (I don't actually think that about people from NYC, but that's' what Buffalonians might think, just like in Pittsburgh, they HATE anything Philly, especially sports, while in Philly, very few have feelings one way or the other about Pittsburgh, because our rivals in sports and socioeconomically (is that a word?) are more NY, NJ, and DC.

[infrared41]

With the exception of the California rivalries (or at least the LA SF rivalry), most intra-state rivalries are one sided - the rivalry tends to exist in the smaller or less "celebrated" of the two cities. I assume that very few people in NYC would get up any more for a game against Buffalo than they would for a game against the Thrashers. However, I'd wager that in Buffalo, people are foaming at the mouth to take down the big, bad, arrogant a-holes from NYC (I don't actually think that about people from NYC, but that's' what Buffalonians might think, just like in Pittsburgh, they HATE anything Philly, especially sports, while in Philly, very few have feelings one way or the other about Pittsburgh, because our rivals in sports and socioeconomically (is that a word?) are more NY, NJ, and DC.

It is now.

[crashcarson15]

With the exception of the California rivalries (or at least the LA SF rivalry), most intra-state rivalries are one sided - the rivalry tends to exist in the smaller or less "celebrated" of the two cities. I assume that very few people in NYC would get up any more for a game against Buffalo than they would for a game against the Thrashers. However, I'd wager that in Buffalo, people are foaming at the mouth to take down the big, bad, arrogant a-holes from NYC (I don't actually think that about people from NYC, but that's' what Buffalonians might think, just like in Pittsburgh, they HATE anything Philly, especially sports, while in Philly, very few have feelings one way or the other about Pittsburgh, because our rivals in sports and socioeconomically (is that a word?) are more NY, NJ, and DC.

It is now.

socioeconomic |ˌsōsēōˌēkəˈnämik; -ekə-|

adjective

relating to or concerned with the interaction of social and economic factors.

DERIVATIVES

socioeconomically adverb

[BBTV]

I don't care what anyone else thinks... The MLB needs five teams per division.

my facebook my twitter

I don't disagree with this. Either expand or eliminate interleague play. Preferably, eliminate it, because it would suck to have a team in a tight race finish out the season in an interleague series as opposed to playing one of their rivals with whom they're fighting for a playoff spot.

EDIT: wait - your FB and Twitter links aren't part of your sig? You actually pasted them in your post?

[rams80]

I don't care what anyone else thinks... The MLB needs five teams per division.

my facebook my twitter

I don't disagree with this. Either expand or eliminate interleague play. Preferably, eliminate it, because it would suck to have a team in a tight race finish out the season in an interleague series as opposed to playing one of their rivals with whom they're fighting for a playoff spot.

EDIT: wait - your FB and Twitter links aren't part of your sig? You actually pasted them in your post?

It's a spammer.

[BBTV]

D'oh. I thought I recognized the user name as an actual member. Obviously, I didn't click on the links to see where they went.

[Lights Out]

His Facebook and Twitter both just so happen to be links to 2010-nfl.com.

[LocalVulture]

If the Big 12 does cease to exist in a few years the Big Ten should grab the five north schools left out in the cold.

Yeah I know the Big Ten wants an east coast presence (jamming the Big Ten network into NYC to rake in the $$$$) with Rutgers and would basically do anything to grab Notre Dame (more $$$$). Iowa State & Kansas State would pretty much bring nothing to the table but Kansas, Missouri & Nebraska would.

East - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

West - Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin

[rock55choc]

Most of you who pay attention to college football as much as I do are aware of the current talks of conference expansion involving the Big Ten mainly and when they do make a change it will affect the Big East, Big XII, Pac Ten, and possibly the SEC.

The following is my idea of what should take place. It is a drastic overhaul of the alignment of teams and conferences. Each one of the three new divisions would compete for a seperate championship.

NCAA Division 1A

ACC

Atlantic Division

Florida State

Maryland

Wake Forest

Boston College

North Carolina State

Pittsburgh

West Virginia

East Carolina

Coastal Division

Virginia Tech

Miami (FL)

North Carolina

Duke

Virginia

Central Florida

Memphis

Cincinnati

BIG MIDWEST (formerly the Big Ten)

Land Division

Connecticut

Iowa

Notre Dame

Nebraska

Rutgers

Syracuse

Penn State

Minnesota

Lakes Division

Illinois

Northwestern

Indiana

Purdue

Michigan

Michigan State

Ohio State

Wisconsin

BIG XVI (formerly the BIG XII)

North Division

Missouri

Iowa State

Kansas

Kansas State

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Brigham Young

Utah

South Division

Texas

Texas A&M

Texas Tech

Baylor

Texas Christian

Houston

New Mexico

Southern Methodist

PAC 16 (formerly the Pac 10)

North Division

Oregon

Oregon State

Washington

Washington State

Boise State

Colorado

Fresno State

Nevada

South Division

Arizona

Arizona State

California

Stanford

San Diego State

Nevada Las Vegas

California Los Angeles

Southern California

SEC

West Division

Alabama

Auburn

Arkansas

Louisiana State

Mississippi State

Ole Miss

Kentucky

Louisville

East Division

Tennessee

South Carolina

Florida

Vanderbilt

Georgia

Georgia Tech

South Florida

Clemson

NCAA Division 1B

WAC

Colorado State

Wyoming

Hawaii

Idaho

New Mexico State

San Jose State

Utah State

Air Force

Louisiana Tech

Western Kentucky

C-USA

Marshall

Rice

Southern Miss

Tulane

Tulsa

Alabama Birmingham

Texas El Paso

South Alabama

Georgia State

Arkansas State

Middle Tennessee

Troy

MAC

Akron

Bowling Green

Ball State

Buffalo

Central Michigan

Eastern Michigan

Western Michigan

Kent State

Miami (OH)

Northern Illinois

Ohio

Toledo

Southland

Central Arkansas

McNeese State

Nicholls State

Northwestern State (LA)

Sam Houston State

Southeastern Louisiana

Stephen F. Austin

Texas State

Louisiana Monroe

Louisiana Lafayette

Texas San Antonio

Colonial

Delaware

James Madison

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Northeastern

Rhode Island

Richmond

Towson

Villanova

William & Mary

Temple

Big Sky

Eastern Washington

Idaho State

Montana

Montana State

Northern Arizona

Northern Colorado

Portland State

Sacramento State

Weber State

Southern Illinois

Western Illinois

Northern Iowa

Southern

Appalachian State

Chattanooga

Citadel

Elon

Furman

Georgia Southern

Samford

Western Carolina

Wofford

Florida Atlantic

Florida International

North Texas

Independents

Army

Navy

NCAA Division1C

BIG SOUTH

Charleston Southern

Coastal Carolina

Gardner-Webb

Liberty

Presbyterian

Stony Brook

Virginia Military Institute

Old Dominion

Bucknell

Georgetown

Lafayette

Lehigh

Ivy

Brown

Columbia

Cornell

Dartmouth

Harvard

Pennsylvania

Princeton

Yale

MEAC

Bethune-Cookman

Delaware State

Florida A&M

Hampton

Howard

Morgan State

Norfolk State

North Carolina A&T

South Carolina State

Great West / Valley

Illinois State

Indiana State

Missouri State

Cal Poly

Southern Utah

UC Davis

North Dakota State

South Dakota State

North Dakota

South Dakota

Northeast

Albany

Bryant University

Central Connecticut State

Duquesne

Monmouth

Robert Morris

Sacred Heart

St. Francis (PA)

Wagner

Colgate

Fordham

Holy Cross

Ohio Valley

Austin Peay

Eastern Illinois

Eastern Kentucky

Jacksonville State

Murray State

Southeast Missouri State

Tennessee State

Tennessee Tech

Tennessee-Martin

Youngstown State

Pioneer

Butler

Campbell

Davidson

Dayton

Drake

Jacksonville

Marist

Morehead State

San Diego

Valparaiso

SWAC

Alabama A&M

Alabama State

Alcorn State

Arkansas-Pine Bluff

Grambling State

Jackson State

Mississippi Valley State

Prairie View A&M

Southern University

Texas Southern

So these are my changes and this is my overhaul. Let me know what you think

[jrh31584]

If the Big 12 does cease to exist in a few years the Big Ten should grab the five north schools left out in the cold.

Yeah I know the Big Ten wants an east coast presence (jamming the Big Ten network into NYC to rake in the $$$$) with Rutgers and would basically do anything to grab Notre Dame (more $$$$). Iowa State & Kansas State would pretty much bring nothing to the table but Kansas, Missouri & Nebraska would.

East - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

West - Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin

If this happened, I would then have Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State go to the SEC, and Texas Tech, Baylor and Colorado to the Mountain West, who would take over the Big Twelve's automatic BCS berth and split into two divisions. The remaining bowl tie-ins would by divvied up among the three conferences. So, to recap:

SEC East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

MWC North: Air Force, BYU, Colorado, Colorado State, Utah, Wyoming

MWC South: Baylor, New Mexico, San Diego State, TCU, Texas Tech, UNLV

[tj4eck]

So with all this talk of College Football realignment I figured I'd take a swing at figuring out FOUR power conferences and FOUR lower-tier conferences.

POWER CONFERENCES

WESTERN CONFERENCE

PAC 8

1. California

2. Oregon

3. Oregon St.

4. Stanford

5. UCLA

6. USC

7. Washington

8. Washington St.

SOUTHWEST

1. Arizona

2. Arizona St.

3. Colorado

4. Oklahoma

5. Oklahoma St.

6. Texas

7. Texas A&M

8. Texas Tech

NORTHERN CONFERENCE

GREAT LAKES

1. Illinois

2. Indiana

3. Michigan

4. Michigan St.

5. Notre Dame

6. Ohio St.

7. Penn St.

8. Purdue

NORTH PLAINS

1. Iowa

2. Iowa St.

3. Kansas

4. Kansas St.

5. Minnesota

6. Nebraska

7. Northwestern

8. Wisconsin

EASTERN CONFERENCE

NORTHEASTERN

1. Boston College

2. Cincinnati

3. UCONN

4. Maryland

5. Pittsburgh

6. Rutgers

7. Syracuse

8. West Virginia

ATLANTIC

1. Duke

2. Florida St.

3. Miami (FL)

4. North Carolina

5. NC State

6. Virginia

7. Virginia Tech

8. Wake Forest

SOUTHERN CONFERENCE

SOUTH

1. Arkansas

2. Kentucky

3. Louisville

4. LSU

5. Ole Miss

6. Mississippi St.

7. Missouri

8. Vanderbilt

SOUTHEAST

1. Alabama

2. Auburn

3. Clemson

4. Florida

5. Georgia

6. Georgia Tech

7. South Carolina

8. Tennessee

So the way I see it for the National Championship

Western would play Northern

Southern would play Eastern

Winner of Western/Northern would play Southern/Eastern

Winner of that game would be NATIONAL CHAMPIONS

And the next year rotate.

EX: Western vs. Southern...Northern vs. Eastern

Winner of Western/Southern vs. Winner of Northern/Eastern

Winner is National Champion

And rotate once more the following year.

EX: Western vs. Eastern...Northern vs. Southern

Winner of Western/Eastern vs. Winner of Northern/Southern

Winner is National Champion

The next year rotate back to the original matchup and keep it on that rotation.

LOWER TIER

UN-KNOWN CONFERENCE NAME

WESTERN

1. Fresno St.

2. Hawaii

3. Idaho

4. Nevada

5. San Diego St.

6. San Jose St.

7. UNLV

EASTERN

1. Air Force

2. Boise St.

3. BYU

4. Colorado St.

5. Utah

6. Utah St.

7. Wyoming

UN-KNOWN CONFERENCE NAME

TEXAS

1. Baylor

2. Houston

3. North Texas

4. Rice

5. SMU

6. TCU

7. UTEP

SOUTHERN

1. Arkansas St.

2. Louisiana Tech

3. New Mexico

4. New Mexico St.

5. Tulsa

6. UL-Lafayette

7. UL-Monroe

UN-KNOWN CONFERENCE NAME

SOUTH

1. Memphis

2. Middle Tennessee

3. Southern Miss

4. Troy

5. Tulane

6. UAB

7. Western Kentucky

COASTAL

1. Army

2. ECU

3. FAU

4. FIU

5. Navy

6. UCF

7. USF

UN-KNOWN CONFERENCE NAME

GREAT NORTH

1. Akron

2. Buffalo

3. Kent St.

4. Marshall

5. Miami (OH)

6. Ohio

7. Temple

GREAT LAKES

1. Ball St.

2. Bowling Green

3. Central Michigan

4. Eastern Michigan

5. Northern Illinois

6. Toledo

7. Western Michigan

[gueman]

@ tj4eck- That is a good as any set up. But there is no reason to keep Penn State in the Great Lakes. They should slide into the Northeast of the Eastern. It isn't like they have real tradition with the Big 10 schools.

[Lights Out]

Why isn't Boise in the top tier? Two major bowl wins in the past four years, dominating wins over the likes of Oklahoma, TCU (twice), Oregon (twice), and Fresno State when they were ranked #8 in the country - all in the past ten years - as well as a 59-2 record at home since 1999 would probably get them into the top tier in real life, right? Granted, not all of those home wins have come against traditional teams, but then again, traditional teams have been reluctant to schedule them as of late.

[rams80]

Presumably these power Conferences have academic associations and play other sports as well. That's why.

[Lights Out]

Boise State has other sports - men's and women's basketball, cross country, track and field, women's volleyball, etc. Granted, those programs aren't exactly stellar, but they exist.

[rams80]

Boise State has other sports - men's and women's basketball, cross country, track and field, women's volleyball, etc. Granted, those programs aren't exactly stellar, but they exist.

Their unstellar nature would keep them out of Tier 1.