McCall

8 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

Crazy thought experiment time...

 

In my perfect world, the NCAA Tournament would only have 32 teams in it, and all would be conference champions.

 

In this example, this is how the tournament would work:

 

South Region

(8) Norfolk State (MEAC) vs. (1) Houston (Big XII)

(5) High Point (Big South) vs. (4) Grand Canyon (WAC)

(6) Oakland (Horizon League) vs. (3) Samford (Southern)

(7) Eastern Kentucky (ASUN) vs. (2) Richmond (Atlantic 10)

 

East Region

(8) Merrimack (NEC) vs. (1) Purdue (Big Ten)

(5) College of Charleston (CAA) vs. (4) Vermont (America East)

(6) Quinnipiac (MAAC) vs. (3) Princeton (Ivy League)

(7) Morehead State (Ohio Valley) vs. (2) Connecticut (Big East)

 

North Region

(8) Colgate (Patriot League) vs. (1) Tennessee (SEC)

(5) Sam Houston State (Conference USA) vs. (4) St. Mary's (WCC)

(6) Toledo (Mid-American) vs. (3) Indiana State (Missouri Valley)

(7) McNeese State (Southland) vs. (2) North Carolina (ACC)

 

West Region

(8) Grambling (SWAC) vs. (1) Utah State (Mountain West)

(5) Appalachian State (Sun Belt) vs. (4) UC Irvine (Big West)

(6) Eastern Washington (Big Sky) vs. (3) South Florida (American)

(7) South Dakota State (Summit) vs. (2) Arizona (Pac-12)

 

TV wise, the four network system will still be in use. Now, each network gets their own region - meaning that they get seven games over a weekend to broadcast. CBS and TBS still has rotating Final Four duties.

 

The NIT is also 32 teams, but it is only open to schools in Top 16 in terms of conference RPI. For this season, the following conferences are allowed to send two teams to the NIT:

 

Big XII, SEC, Big Ten, Mountain West, ACC, Big East, Pac-12, Atlantic 10, Missouri Valley, American, Ivy League, Southern, West Coast, WAC, America East and Big West.

 

The remaining 16 conferences are then allowed to send teams to the CBI and CIT, with the second placed teams going to the CBI and third placed teams going to the CIT.

That would be the lowest rated tournament ever. You have only 5 or 6 "power conference" teams, a few mid-majors and the rest smaller conference schools. You automatically lose more than half your viewership just by cutting the number from 68. Then taking out all but 6 bigger conference schools. CBS couldn't get out of this deal fast enough.

3 hours ago, tBBP said:

And in other offseason moves I'm sure people care about , Mac Jones is now T-Law's new backup in Duval.

Wait... someone traded FOR Mac Jones?

2 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

So the NBA in season tournament was a whole new league? So the Bucks play in two leagues? 

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a single person outside your brain that thinks that. 

It was a typo, but you don't have to be a d*** about it.

2 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

So the NBA in season tournament was a whole new league? So the Bucks play in two leagues? 

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a single person outside your brain that thinks that. 

That was supposed to say "AREN'T" leagues. Just noticed it.

3 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

well it looks like Denver is having a garage sale now. A 5 and 6 for Jeudy? If he gets 800 yards and helps the Browns advance in the playoffs he's an absolute steal. 

 

Just like his cousin, Doug.

On 3/8/2024 at 9:11 PM, BrySmalls said:

 

The UEFA Champions League stands out as the sole major soccer (football) league that comes to mind for me.

Tournaments aren't leagues.

EDIT: Correct word.

2 hours ago, HOOVER said:

This uniform builder is for the sublimated uniforms only, which are actually manufactured/fulfilled by Alleson Athletics.

 

UA’s cut & sew has less available colors.  Sadly, no Plum or equivalent, which explains the change.  In textile manufacturing, there are limitations on color availability, which I never quite understood, but is frustrating.  Plum could be made, but to do so, a certain amount of fabric has to be dyed and used, and if it’s not all going to be used, they won’t make it.   This is where sublimation came in handy, at the expense of quality.

 

There is simply no forgiving them for :censored:ing up the pant stripe, though.

Michigan's "Plum" is pantone 505, a very common shade of maroon used by many colleges. You'd think, given how many schools use maroon in general, Under Armour would be able to create some maroon uniform that would be available for general usage.

This thread has derailed.

24 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

Ah yeah, thats right.  Yankees and Detroit have navy jerseys this spring that wont be worn in the regular season, so I guess I'm surprised the Phils didnt keep the red around for that reason.

They're getting City Connect uniforms which puts them at 4+1. They had to drop one, so red was chosen.

5 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

I just get the vibe that Atlanta just isn't a hockey town and never will be. 

I see what you did there.

2 hours ago, jlog3000 said:

Maybe it might, maybe it might not. But regardless, based on this hypothetical, it would be at least the bare minimum for the time being because it would be impossible for one division to have 5 teams and another division 3 teams. That's unless more expansion teams would also be added or created (in order to 'retain' the Cardinals in one same division with the Cubs and Reds and Pirates and Brewers). Meaning that the league would somehow need to expand upto 48 teams max, and possibly kill interleague-play games.

I didn't say you had to keep all 5 together, just the Cardinals and Cubs. The 3 historic rivalries that absolutely cannot be split up divisionally are Yankees-Red Sox, Cardinals-Cubs and Dodgers-Giants. Mets-Phillies are borderline undividable, since the Mets have only existed since 1962, but given their proximity, it's highly unlikely they ever would be separated.

1 hour ago, BrySmalls said:

 

This is perfect.

Actually it's not. I just noticed he also separated the Cardinals and Cubs into different divisions. That will never happen.

5 minutes ago, jlog3000 said:

 

I'm not ignoring that fact when it comes to Detroit being in the AL and Pittsburgh in the NL since both of their inceptions. Hence I said the swapping part of both the Tigers and the Pirates in opposite leagues was only a "What If" situation, whether it would become a reality or not and if it's upto the league's management themselves. In the end, it's still about making profits with ticket sales. Which is why I like that each team should face the rest at least one series of 3 games maximum (hence the 48 total games for interleague competition, so that each team faces the other 16 of the opposite league for year A, and for year B with locations rotated to compete the 2-year spans of a home-and-road aspect); with the rest of the competition being games within the same league, as each team faces the other 3 4-team division teams (12 in total) twice (meaning a home and road series each), and the division play being just 12 games (or 4 3-game series) against the 3 division foes.

 

Also later I came up with an alternate situation under a format where a league has 4 divisions with 4 teams each that would retain Detroit in the AL and Pittsburgh in the NL, but only put in different divisions; which would be the Tigers and the Pirates in the same North Division for both of their respective leagues as a natural interleague rivalry. On a sidenote, 2-game and 4-game series are just lame to me. Traditionally 3-game series from a regular-season competition standpoint are proper.

 

Now if it's bad to talk about swapping Detroit and Pittsburgh to different leagues for realignment purposes, then how come there wasn't any outrage or backlash when Milwaukee went to the NL in 1998 (after competing in the AL that began in like 1970), and also Houston to the AL in 2013 (after competing in the NL that began in 1960 or 1961), which might I add that both are in their current leagues as we speak to this day? And I understand that those two in particular aren't super MLB originals like Pittsburgh and Detroit; they are expansion franchises, I get that.

You can't seriously be comparing the Brewers and Astros swap to a Tigers and Pirates swap. The years you listed are literally the reason why they weren't as up in arms (although the Astros switch DID get some push back). 27 years and even 50 years are nowhere near the same thing as 124 years and 137 years. You basically answered your own question. And neither had the historical footprint that the Tigers and Pirates did. Two original franchises vs 2 post 1950s expansion teams.

8 minutes ago, jlog3000 said:

 

What do mean it makes no sense? If it were from an interleague standpoint, Detroit and Toronto are somewhat close [as the Motor City is roughly close to Windsor, Ontario], despite not being in the same state or province , just like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are within Pennsylvania.

 

And for the record, it's only a 'What If' situation (NOT propaganda) in some sort of oversight or foresight, should the MLB would eventually get to 32 teams in the future, with 2 leagues having 4 divisions of 4 teams each instead of 2 divisions of 8 teams each (which would ruin the purposes of proper balanced scheduling).

 

Hence I added Montreal as the 31st and the 32nd being Charlotte (Carolina) or Nashville (Tennessee) in the AL South [alongside Texas, Tampa Bay and Kansas City] to pair up with Atlanta in the NL South [alongside Houston, Miami (Florida) and St. Louis].

Who a team plays an extra game against in Interleague play would never justify the 1 for 1 swap of two of the longest tenured teams in each league. The Pirates have been in the National League since 1887. The Tigers in the American League since 1901. If anybody in the league office ever proposed this, they would literally be laughed out of a job. Interleague play is not the top priority when it comes to any realignment. Probably near the bottom. Historical rivalries first, geographical (within their respective leagues) second. Interleague rivals would just fall wherever they may. Especially now that everybody plays everybody.

3 hours ago, jlog3000 said:

@McCall Based on the point I'm making, yes. What else can you think of? I did it from a standpoint of in-state and/or close proximity rivalries.

 

I also said this as an alternate format (SHOULD NOT Detroit and Pittsburgh being swapping leagues):

 

"Maybe put Detroit in the AL North and Toronto in the AL East; and Pittsburgh in the NL North?"

 

But how would it fair for the natural interleague rivalry pairings (asking in general by the way)? One of the things I can think of is this:

 

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; TOR/MTL; BOS/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; DET/PIT

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

 

With this modification, Detroit and Pittsburgh would be a natural rivalry while the Boston and Philly rivalry be retained (like if it was in the current 3-division realignment per league). Other than that, I don't know. But the regular-season schedule format based on what I explain would still be stood by. Just lesser games (taking off 6 games total), and no more 4-game series or 2-game series. And within a normal week between Monday to Sunday, there would be a 'break' (or day-off) in between separate series.

I'm not talking about the scheduling, but there is no reason Detroit should be in the NL and Pittsburgh in the AL. And how does what division they're in even effect their interleague rival pairings? It makes no sense.

5 hours ago, jlog3000 said:

 

Realistically they are. Unless you have a better idea to come up with the majority of most in-state natural interleague rivalries. Hence the reason being the following in context:

 

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; BOS/MTL; PIT/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; TOR/DET

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

Are you saying you would swap Detroit and Pittsburgh purely for Interleague Rival purposes?

1 hour ago, jlog3000 said:

MLB

 

American League:

 

* AL East:  NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Pittsburgh

* AL North:  Chicago White Sox, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto

* AL South: Texas, Tampa Bay, Nashville* or Charlotte*, Kansas City

* AL West: Anaheim or LA Angels, Oakland or Las Vegas, Seattle, Arizona

 

National League:

 

* NL East: NY Mets, Montreal, Washington, Philadelphia

* NL North: Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Detroit

* NL South: Houston, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis

* NL West: LA Dodgers, San Francisco, San Diego, Colorado

 

  

 

That explains how the Braves move to the NL East from the NL West when the 1994 MLB season began.

No way would Detroit and Pittsburgh swap leagues. They are "original" teams in the AL and NL, respectively. Too storied to do a 1 for 1 swap. Only way either would is if it went straight geographical, East-West leagues.

3 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

The Cardinals, Cubs, and Pirates have all been in the same division since divisions were created in 1969. I think Cincy (was in the West until '93) would be the better team to separate from the pack

As long as the Cardinals and Cubs are in the same division, it's fine. Those two teams being in the same league with the Pirates is good enough.

4 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

The NFLPA is going to want some things in return for accepting 18 games other than money.  

Add a second bye week? The CFL plays 18 games and (now) has 3 bye weeks.

12 hours ago, DustDevil61 said:

What I feel is the best possible realignment option for a 32-team MLB, probably the better half of 10 years out, preserving the AL/NL setup, assuming the next 2 expansion teams are Nashville and Salt Lake City (in italics).

 

AL East

Baltimore

Boston

Cleveland

Chicago White Sox

Detroit

NY Yankees

Tampa Bay

Toronto

 

AL West

Houston

Kansas City

LA Angels

Oak/LV

Minnesota

Seattle

Texas

Utah*

 

NL East

Atlanta

Cincinnati

Miami

Nashville*

NY Mets

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Washington

 

NL West

Arizona

Colorado

Chicago Cubs

LA Dodgers

Milwaukee

St. Louis

San Diego

San Francisco

 

I at least find 4 divisions of 8 to work better for leagues that play so many games as opposed to 8 divisions of 4 (which is basically every Big 4 league except the NFL). The goal here was to preserve as many rivalries as possible while minimizing the number of time zones in each division, which gets tougher the further west you go. Part of me wanted to see if I could put the Astros back into the NL West, but ultimately decided against it due to the success they've had as an AL team, though you could effectively swap them with Milwaukee.

 

*You can easily interchange Nashville with a Carolina team (whether Charlotte or Raleigh) and Utah with Las Vegas, Oakland, or Portland (and that IMO includes the outside chance that the A's themselves wind up in Salt Lake City permanently), but I'm going with what appears to be the likeliest outcome at the time of typing.

Going with Nashville and Salt Lake, here are a few 8 divisions of 4 options:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This one keeps the West, Central and East between leagues, but one gets the "South" while the other a "North" since Minnesota would be put with KC and the Texas teams (you can get by with Colorado in a division called the "South", but Minnesota would just necessitate a divisional name change).

Cincinnati and Washington are basically interchangeable here. It just matters if they'd rather keep the Atlantic coast teams together. Cincinnati is closer to Nashville and Atlanta than Washington is.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And here's an unconventional one. Make the NL Central the "North" and then a Central out of Cincinnati, Nashville, Atlanta and Pittsburgh. The NL East would essentially mimic the current AL East minus Toronto.

1 hour ago, FrutigerAero said:

To me this shows that SLC is probably THE #1 spot (for NOW), possibly exceeding Nashville.

No, they're not. Nashville is still the top choice (assuming Las Vegas as being off the list) with Montreal still probably 2nd. Next tier would be Portland (who has been trending downward for several years now), San Antonio and Charlotte. Salt Lake may be on that level, but primarily because they're new and making a lot of noise for expansion via being a temporary home for the A's. Doesn't necessarily mean they've jumped to or near the top of the list.

9 hours ago, BrySmalls said:

 

 

Hey @TrueYankee26, here's my take on your NHL 2054 if the league had 3 divisions in each conference.
 

Northeast	Atlantic	Southeast	Central	Northwest	Pacific
Boston	Baltimore	Atlanta	Austin	Calgary	Anaheim
Buffalo	Columbus	Carolina	Chicago	Colorado	Los Angeles
Hartford	Kentucky	Florida	Dallas	Edmonton	Phoenix
Detroit	New Jersey	Nashville	Houston	Kansas City	Portland
Montreal	New York I.	Norfolk	Indianapolis	Minnesota	San Antonio
Ottawa	New York R.	Orlando	Milwaukee	Utah	San Jose
Quebec City	Philadelphia	Tampa Bay	New Orleans	Vegas	Seattle
Toronto	Pittsburgh	Washington	St. Louis	Winnipeg	Vancouver

Why is San Antonio in the Pacific instead of Vegas? Vegas is literally further west and closer to the other Pacific teams than Phoenix even is.

2 hours ago, VDizzle12 said:

 

So the Cavs got away with this?

 

I mean yeah we know it's supposed to be a basketball, but it's literally just a circle. 

28 minutes ago, BadSeed84 said:

Maybe the basketball net gives them points.

And preliminary Cleve-jacking has commenced.

According to TruColor, their pantones are:

Navy 289

Red 186

Pacific Blue 279

Gray 422

These are the same pantones used by the Tennessee Titans except the Titans use Silver 421. The other three are the same. Also the Wizards use the same Navy and Red pantones, which are both very common.

8 minutes ago, bowld said:

 

I REALLY want to know who thought this was a good idea. Right up there with OKC as the worst logo of all time