DaytonBlue

With basketball and hockey, the banners could just say the year of the end of the season and it would make sense. Just like car models. (Automakers could begin selling 2014 car models on 1/1/13.) However, football should always refer back to the previous season, even though this often gets messed up. The following logo should have the year on the outside with the date. It was the Super Bowl for the 1999 season.

I could see it up there for just this season or until the next time they win a division, then it's replaced. That's kind of what the Cardinals do for divisional championships and wild cards. They get recognized on the outfield wall, but just for the next season or next division championship.

Wow, did not know that many teams put the cup on their banners. They definitely all look better than this one...

At least the Stanley Cup Banner looked pretty good (simple, no giant Stanley Cup on it cough Lightning cough)

"Pointless" being that its impossible to predict but not void of reason or logic. This kid claims he has reason for his realignments, but he can never articulate what the reasoning or logic is. Even though the title says its pointless, you still have to stay on track. You can't just on the carpet and call it art. Oh I agree, I can barely even tell what his realignments are (except for this last one of 2 and 3 team divisions, but I still don't understand the "logic" behind it) and some of his posts are just thoughts about how one should do a realignment. We've all had those thoughts since we've posted them before.

And this is the pointless realignment outpost. The place for us to share all the crazy realignment ideas that run through our heads while keeping us from posting a new NCAA realignment in the NCAA realignment thread every time one new team jumps conferences.

I would only do that if the division winners were guaranteed top four seeds. I think giving division winners top four seeds would be more legitimate if they played in their division more. I personally prefer this way because it makes division races more important. Now when I load the NBA standings I always change it to conference standings immediately because division standings mean nothing. I imagine more people would rather have divisional winners only guaranteed playoff spots and then seed the teams by record. In that case, RoughRiders arrangement is pretty good too.

For NHL/NBA I came up with this: division: 6 times against 3 opponents (18 games) two of the three other divisions in conference, 3 times (24 games) one of the three other divisions in conference, 2 times (8 games), rotates annually other conference, two times, 32 games =82 game season Everyone in a division would play the other teams the same number of times, with only the 3rd game between 8 teams in-conference varying between home and away. If they were to do a 8 division proposal, I would hope the NHL/NBA would give the top four seeds to the division winners. I know most people would disagree, but I think this arrangement would give more value to winning the division like baseball does. That's why I'm a fan of the 2nd wild card. They're not going to reduce playoffs ever, so at least a second wild card makes it much more important to win your division. For those who complain of a wild card losing a one-game playoff, I would argue that next time they should win the division. Full disclosure: I'm a Cardinals fan, but this has always been my opinion on the 2nd wild card. Although the 2-2-1 LDS format needs to return next year (I read that the 2-3 format was only for this year because they added the 2nd wild card.)

Yeah that's definitely better. Again I think 32 is going to be the ideal number of franchises for scheduling/alignment purposes and MLB/NBA/NHL will expand to it over the next decade or so. Then hopefully they stop.

I feel like with 8 divisions of 4, you'd have to play more division games to make the division championships legitimate. One possibility: division 6x=18 games interconference=32 games in conference=32 games (on a rotating basis, play two of the other three divisions 3x and one 2x) This would mean every team in a division plays just about the same schedule (only difference is home/away for a few opponents.) 82 game season, division winners seeded 1-4 If they were worried about a prime matchup taking place in the 2nd round instead of 3rd, they could reseed a la the NHL. I only mentioned Vancouver as a possibility because Stern has said it was a mistake leaving there so soon (it worked out for my city though). With 8 divisions of four, it's hard to come up with something they'd go for. This was the best I could do, but the Pistons, Celtics, and New York teams probably would not like it. Pacific: SEA, VAN, POR, PHX California: LAL, LAC, GSW, SAC Southwest: HOU, DAL, SA, NO Central: UTA, DEN, OKC, MIN Midwest: IND, CHI, MIL, CLE Northeast: DET, TOR, BOS, PHI Atlantic: NYK, BRK, WAS, CHA Southeast: MEM, ATL, MIA, ORL

Thinking about the Kings/Seattle situation made me think of a scenario like this... If Maloofs won't sell to Sacramento buyer... -sell Kings to Hansen, move franchise to Seattle and become Sonics (leave history behind) -immediately give expansion team to Sacramento, inheriting Kings history -Thunder only claim Thunder history as their own -Make team 32 Vancouver Dragons -No name swaps other than Seattle takes Sonics name again and Charlotte takes Hornets name again. Divisions: Pacific: LAL, LAC, GSW, SEA, VAN, POR, SAC, PHX Southwestern: DEN, UTA, OKC, MEM, NOLA, HOU, DAL, SA Central: MIN, MIL, CHI, IND, DET, CLE, TOR, ATL Atlantic: NYK, BRK, BOS, PHI, WAS, CHA, ORL, MIA Play your division 4x, other division 3x, other conference 2x=84 games To compensate for two extra games, cut preseason from 8 to 4 games. Playoffs: Just like now, except division winners and two next best teams ranked 1-4. 32 seems to be a really good number for sports realignment

Glad the Rays Wild Card Banner simply says Wild Card and not "Wild Card Champion" You can win the Wild Card, but it doesn't make you a champion. Same rule should go for every bowl game not named the BCS Championship.

The old Big East could try something like this: Eastern Collegiate Conference: North: UConn, Temple, UMass, Cincinnati, Memphis, Ohio U. (historically the "strongest" MAC program in FB/BB) NIU has no basketball credibility. South: ECU, UCF, USF, Tulane, Houston, SMU This only works if they don't lose UConn/Cincy or SMU/Houston, which is highly unlikely unless they pull off a "grant of rights" deal like the Big XII has.

This is still somewhat respectable (assuming SDSU goes back to MW) UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, ECU, UCF, USF, Tulane, SMU, Houston, Navy, Temple I think the New Big East though is down to its last life. If the ACC or MW swipe any more teams I think that will be all she wrote.

Whoops...well then adios Richmond or BU.

My stupid daydream... The New Big East: buys the name off of the Old Big East West: Creighton, SLU, Marquette, DePaul, Butler, Xavier East: St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence, Georgetown, Richmond, Boston U. Richmond and Boston U. are private and expand the footprint. Dayton and St. Joe's are left out due to market duplication. Then Boise/SDSU go back to the MW. Murray St. moves to Missouri Valley to replace Creighton. Metro Conference UConn and Cincy tell ACC to take them or they will have to stay in the "new' Metro Conference and sign away TV rights fees like the Big 12 did. ACC foolishly says no. North: UMass, UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, Navy (FB only), Dayton (non-FB) South: ECU, USF, UCF, Tulane, SMU, Houston With Navy staying for just football, the new Metro needed a non-FB member to keep the teams even. They invite Dayton to fill in the spot since Dayton plays football in the FCS Pioneer League. Atlantic 10 adds Siena and George Mason to actually have ten teams for once. Of course, when the next move is made, my mind will think of some new scenario.

To discuss a point that's been brought up here, if four super conferences tried to leave the NCAA, do you think Congress, the accrediting agencies like SACS, ESPN, or some other entity gets involved to try to stop it?

I put in New Mexico because early reports of Cincy/UConn's "national" conference included them as possibilities. And for the name, I at first thought of Big Continent Conference, but that would obviously be shortened to Big Con (which is what many people will consider this anyways)!

Here's the best they could do at this point. Sell the Big East name to the Catholic schools and become the Continental 16. East: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, East Carolina, USF, UCF, Tulane, Memphis West: New Mexico, Boise St., SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, SMU, Houston, Air Force If Air Force declines, maybe they get UMass, BYU (unlikely I know), or Nevada.

I think the ACC will look like this after its raided: -I think NC/Duke will want to stay together. So Big 10 takes Ga. Tech and Virginia, Big 12 takes FSU and Clemson, and SEC takes NCST and Va Tech Football: ACC North: UConn, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, Cincinnati, Temple ACC South: Memphis, Duke, UNC, Wake, UCF, USF, Miami Basketball: play each school once plus teams in your pod a second time (16 games total) Pod 1: ND, Pitt, Syracuse Pod 2: UConn, BC, Temple Pod 3: Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis Pod 4: UNC, Duke, Wake Pod 5: UCF, USF, Miami Top 12 make tourney. I know they won't want Memphis, USF, UCF, but academic/prestige considerations will no longer matter as they are just trying to survive. Boise St., SDSU, Houston, SMU go to Mountain West. ECU, Navy, and Army go to MAC for football only. Big East name goes to the Catholic 7. So this whole thing basically just gets rids of Big East and WAC football.

Give St. Joe's that spot and this looks pretty good.

I don't see how the Pac gets to 16 without taking a Boise St. or SDSU. The Big 12 schools would leave a lot of cash (all their TV money) on the table if they left the Big XII. I also don't see the ACC going after South Florida too much. If FSU/Clemson go Big XII or (I mean when) the BIG goes expanding (they would likely add two more to get to 16), adding Cincy and UConn gives the ACC a nice 14 for football and 15 for everything else. And the ACC at the last expansion said they were waiting to add more than Louisville because they knew Cincy and UConn will come running at the drop of a hat. So it looks like the losers are possibly South Florida and almost certainly the CUSA teams thinking they were heading to a greener pasture. Would St. Jospeh's be considered for the Catholic League? Them, Butler, XU, SLU, UD, plus the seven is a nice 12 team league.

The New "Big East" West: SLU, DePaul, Marquette, Butler, Dayton, Xavier East: Villanova, Georgetown, St. John's, Providence, Seton Hall, VCU As a Dayton alum, looks good to me, although I know only Xavier is a lock if the seven form their own league. As a Memphian with civic pride, this sucks. Although if I'm the FB "Big East", I could add UMass and get: UConn, UMass, Cincinnati, Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, SMU, Houston, Temple for all sports plus a few football-only schools...still a joke but still better than the current C-USA. Surely Boise St. and San Diego St. have to be thinking about staying Mountain West now. Cincy, UConn, and USF really lost this round, but may still have hope if the Big 12 decides 10 teams is not enough or the Big 10 decides its empire isn't big enough. And I also assume that after this new "Big East 7+some others" is formed, then the A10 goes and raids some other schools and we just keep going round and round. I wonder what low level basketball only conference will suffer the same fate as WAC football.

Andy Katz on SportsCenter just said ACC is likely to vote for Louisville on Wednesday to replace Maryland over Cincinnati or UConn. Also he said UNC and UVA don't want to be the teams that "destroy the ACC". I have two thoughts... -Why wouldn't the ACC just take all three right now? Katz said they have nowhere to go, but I wouldn't trust the Big 10 not to want UCONN since they want TV markets and Cincy would fill in a gap for the Big 12 if they changed their mind on expansion. -I think this might then settle down for awhile with the major conferences until the BI6 makes its next move or the Pac-12 goes after the Texas four (UT, Tech, OU, OSU).

how about the B16