Magnus

Not really a realignment; just a proposed schedule tweak for the NHL when Seattle joins:

8 pods, 4 teams each
Teams play pod opponents 8 times (24)
Play everyone else twice (56)

Season schedule reduced by 2 games. Ticket prices can be bumped up if necessary.

Two dates that come to mind?

June 13, 2019 - Raptors win their first NBA title. Funnily enough, that championship game is airing tonight on TSN.
Aug 16, 2013 - Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, NY - Bills beat Vikings 20-16 in the preseason.
Not a memorable game for many folks; but it was for me, because it was my big summer trip that year. I traveled to another country (without my parents!), as well as with my girlfriend at the time. I still have the menu from the Anchor Bar (originator of the buffalo wing) around here somewhere.

9 hours ago, Moser316 said:

 

Because universities align themselves not just on athletic standards, but academic ones as well.  To use your example, all of the SEC schools are very high-level research universities (Carnegie category R1) in addition to being very strong in athletics.  Putting schools like Troy, South Alabama, and Arkansas State into the mix (M1, R2 and R2, respectively) doesn't make sense not just from a competitive standpoint on the field, but in the classroom as well.

Okay. Thanks for a more informative response.

 

Quote

IMO, and I have like 50+ plans I've been working on for this, the "power conferences" (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, PAC 12) should be moved to a new division, the top tier of Division I (plus Notre Dame and maybe even some group of five schools like Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Boise State). Take the remaining FBS schools, plus move some up from FCS (Like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, etc.) and make FBS the middle tier between the "Power Division" and FCS.

Honestly, this does make more sense than having 100+ schools in a "top" tier.
Wouldn't have to tinker too much with the existing CFP setup either. I'd just like to see every conference champion in a given tier have a shot at a national title - and no undeserving teams that fail to win their conference (but are somehow picked for ratings) taking those spots.

1 hour ago, McCall said:

You clearly do not watch any college football if you did this to the major conferences. Troy, South Alabama, Coastal Carolina etc. are nowhere near on the same level, competitively, as Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Ohio State or the rest of the Power Conference schools that you disrespected (figuratively) with this alignment. The "weaker" schools don't have the strength of schedule, strength of roster, to compete with the bigger schools. To put it frankly, many of those schools don't actually belong in a division with the power conference schools (yes I know a small school can occasionally beat a big school, but it's a rarity that doesn't defend any argument that can be made).

 

In short, no to your proposal.

 

In my personal opinion.

So, I just have one question. If Troy, South Alabama et al. will "never win" against the established power schools in their conferences, what's the harm of having them in there, even theoretically? Somebody's gonna have a losing record in a 16-team conference.

K. This one may anger a few folks. I've kept 128 teams in the FBS, and organized it into 9 conferences. The former Big 12 becomes the Big Texas Conference, and takes all 12 Texas FBS teams into its fold. Five conferences swell to 16 football-fielding members; the other four conferences field 12 members.

The College Football Playoff gets a minor, but in my opinion, very important change. Since currently, six major bowl games are part of the New Year's Six lineup, they all become part of a proper 8-team playoff, which will allow every team in the FBS a (theoretical) shot at winning a national title. I may not watch a lot of NCAA football, but I think it's a travesty that some teams in what is supposed to be the top division of college football can post a perfect season, and yet not be considered national champions simply because other schools have - what - a larger nationwide fanbase? It's a travesty. If a no-name school like Butler can make it to 2 straight NCAA basketball finals, football teams should have the same opportunity.

Here's how it breaks down.
4 conferences keep their tie-ins with a particular prestigious bowl game. The BI6 10 and Pacific Conference champs will play in the Rose Bowl.
The Mid-South champ will now join the SEC champ at the Sugar Bowl. The New England champ will join the ACC at the Orange Bowl.
The remaining quarterfinal bowl game will rotate between the Peach, Cotton, and Fiesta Bowls, with the other two serving as semifinals, as currently happens.
The national championship game will proceed as normal - but now, again, theoretically, every team in the FBS will have at least some chance of making a championship run. No more UCF Knights having an undefeated season and not being considered for a premiere bowl game. They're in the playoff if they win their conference. No more Boise State being undefeated, yet ignored in favour of a one-loss Alabama just because "hurr durr national ratings".

Win your conference and you're in. That's how it should be. Bama can play in the Bahamas Bowl for all I care. I'm still disgusted that they played a divisional rival for a "national championship" in 2012. That's just stupid. Oklahoma State deserved the #2 spot that year.

I know that detractors will now say that not every game matters with this format. You could *theoretically* have a team from one conference go 6-6 in regular season play, win their extremely weak division, and then go on a run of upsets in the conference championship game and subsequent playoff. But perhaps the chances of that could be reduced by eliminating divisions within the conference, and just picking the two teams with the best two records for the conference title game in every conference.

Anyway, here it is.


 

On 1/3/2020 at 5:28 PM, Punchy_Gungus said:

Sorry for the absence. Wasn't much inspiration this holiday season. I'm trying to update the series at the very least every 2-3 weeks, but I'm not sure how long I can keep up the pace.

I made a new template, loosely based on @mr.nascar13 and @raysox's templates, with thicker lines, sleeve detail, and better functionality.

 

Anyways, moving on to the next team, the Miami Suns.

I know the name isn't very original, but I couldn't get anything else to work. I went with a neon sign, miami vice theme, with more original colors. I'm not sure the colors work with the Suns moniker, but I think it looks good.

 

 

Damn...! I dunno very many cities that could pull off hot pink on a sports uniform. This is nice.

23 hours ago, Marcos Flamengo said:

Dear Mr. Magnus, What are the teams according to this possible 2020-2021 NHL realignment?.

All teams are the same as now, except for the expansion Seattle team.

As it was confirmed not long ago that Seattle would finally be getting an NHL team, a 2020-21 possible realignment and schedule.

On 2017-6-5 at 3:27 PM, 29texan said:

 

...why does UNT, Baylor, and TCU have "Dallas" next to their names?

When I was doing my organizing, I wanted to make sure the divisions had some degree of geographical accuracy. All of those colleges are in  the Dallas area. It was a note for myself.

So, I just read that the Ivy League, the last holdout for staging their own playoff champion in basketball, will hold a playoff for their basketball champions. 

This gives a chance to simplify the qualification structure for the NCAA Tournament. I never liked the idea of "at-large" bids.
I think that the 32 champs and 32 runners-up should qualify. It's very simple, and does away with controversial selection.

1 minute ago, CinnamonRoll21 said:

No. Your version just looks a lot better tan mine.

Okiedoke. Well, I used Excel so that it formatted with nice straight lines and pretty colours.

4 hours ago, CinnamonRoll21 said:

how did you get this?

Is this strikingly similar to the realignment you posted? I swear I just made this myself. I did it in Excel.

On 31/01/2017 at 6:17 PM, Magic Dynasty said:

NHL

  Hide contents

32 Teams, 2 Conferences, 4 Conferences of 8 Teams

 

EASTERN CONF.

Atlantic: Tampa Bay, New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Carolina, New Jersey, Florida, Boston, Washington

Central: Quebec (Expansion), Columbus, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo

WESTERN CONF.

Plains: Minnesota, Chicago, Winnipeg, Dallas, St. Louis, Nashville, Colorado, Detroit (only way to make it work)

Pacific: San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Arizona, Las Vegas (Expansion)

 

(only way to make it work)

Excuse the cheekiness, but I think this could happen instead.

 

I've been sitting on this for a little bit. I thought posting a picture was easier.
 

1 hour ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

The league would love to get into Houston, but with only one viable arena that has an NBA owner guard dog, it's incredibly unlikely.

 

I, personally, would rather see 32 be a "stability market," to temper the risk of Vegas. Seattle, Portland or Milwaukee would fit the bill (all three have their own roadblocks, though).

 

It sounds more and more like Quebec may swoop in and grab up the Hurricanes.

Hey, as long as they get a team, I'm happy. 

2017-18: Vegas Golden Knights!

2019-20: Houston Hockey Players!

Not to sidetrack woodshackzac, but I had to post this:

Lone Star Conference, NCAA FBS

Frontier Division: Baylor, Rice, Houston, North Texas, SMU, TCU

Heartland Division: Texas, A&M, Texas State, Texas Tech, UTEP, UTSA

On 2/9/2016 at 1:44 PM, RandomEuro-AmericanFan said:

Last, but not least, remember the CFL is Spring to Summer, and the NFL is Fall to Winter

 

CFL is actually more like Summer to the edge of Winter here in Canada.

*fingers crossed*

In consideration of Columbus being forced back into the Western Conference, I would offer them the following caveat: All divisional games could be played at the starting time of their choice - so if they were to go to Chicago or Vegas, they could start the game at 7:30 ET instead of 7 Central or 7 Mountain (8 ET/9 ET).

I have always had a problem with the OHL separating Sudbury from the Soo. I believe that the northern teams should all play together. I also made border crossings less frequent for Erie by removing them from a division with 4 Canadian opponents to the other one with US teams Flint and Saginaw.

This chart represents divisional play. In order to minimize road trip distance, 38 divisional games would be played (I know this still screws the Northern Ontario teams, but what alignment wouldn't?), and 30 games would be played out of division - probably 3 road trips of 5 games each and 3 home stands.

Your format looks pretty cool and interesting. Oh, speaking of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL), I have a curious but well-modified and proposed/suggested schedule format of the OHL so that every team can compete in a perfectly well-balanced way. And since there are 2 equal conferences of 10 teams (with 2 equal divisions of 5 teams each), here goes the following:

Schedule Format (72 total games):

a.) Conference play; Division play; Each team will play its other division rivals eight times – four home, four away – for a total of 32 Division games (4 * 8 = 32).

b.) Conference play; Out-of-Division play: Each team will play the five teams from the other division four times – two home, two away – for a total of 20 Out-of-Division games (5 * 4 = 20).

c.) Out-of-Conference play: Each team will play all 10 teams from the other conference twice – one home, one away – for a total of 20 Out-of-Conference games (10 * 2 = 20).

Lemme know your opinions and thoughts about this. And hopefully it would be applied for the upcoming future seasons and many more years to come.

Hi Jlog3000!

I think it is important to note that major junior is a bit of a different beast than the pros. Major junior players are high school and college age. I actually shared high school classes with a couple of former Sudbury Wolves players. (Kevin Beech and Adam McQuaid)

What I think we need to understand about the CHL is that many of these players often don't make hockey a paid career, and some have little to fall back on once that career is over. As well as I would like to see their weekly stipend increase (to where they could either afford a full college scholarship or earn a modest living), I would like to see the schedule reduced, personally. Using my model, instead of the 38 divisional games I listed earlier, knock it down to 30 (8+8+7+7), and keep the rest of the schedule at 30 as well, for a total of 60 regular season games. Keep the schedule to 2 or 3 games a week, largely on weekends, as they try to do now, and bump up the ticket prices to compensate if the team owners are really worried about gate revenue.

I have always had a problem with the OHL separating Sudbury from the Soo. I believe that the northern teams should all play together. I also made border crossings less frequent for Erie by removing them from a division with 4 Canadian opponents to the other one with US teams Flint and Saginaw.

This chart represents divisional play. In order to minimize road trip distance, 38 divisional games would be played (I know this still screws the Northern Ontario teams, but what alignment wouldn't?), and 30 games would be played out of division - probably 3 road trips of 5 games each and 3 home stands.

Mindless: Valid points, all. It may very well be better to stick with 4 divisions of 8, with an optional crossover if the 5th place team in one division is better than the 4th place team in the other. I only grouped the Canadian teams all together out of curiosity. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this was made a reality, assuming QC and Vegas enter the league. It would be touted as a great way to keep Canadian teams in the playoffs, while at the same time hindering their chances of winning it all - which would keep Bettman happy, since he only really cares about US TV ratings come playoff time.

EDIT: An alternate version of it.