McCall

They're not gonna put both NY teams in one league. Why wouldn't they? It's RE-alignment. This isn't something you are coming up with, it's something someone else is coming up with. Yes, and when you post it in here, it's up for discussion and other people's opinions. And I'm stating, as both opinion and to a degree nearly fact, that, unless you're completely splitting the league into an East-West format, having both NY teams in the same league does not make any sense. In baseball, with the two different types of play between the two leagues, when you have two teams in one market, you split them up so as to appeal to fans of both leagues. THAT'S why they brought in the Mets to replace the Dodgers and Giants in the first place, to get another NL team back in New York. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it, though. The Phillies and Pirates are in the same league, and soon, the Astros and Rangers will be in the same division. Yes, I realize that those are same-state teams and not same-city teams, but if MLB were that hellbent on keeping same-city teams in different leagues, then they'd do the same with same-state teams. Apparently they don't care as much as you think they do. Having same-city teams in the same league isn't that far out of the realm of possibility. As aci illustrated, there is a vast difference between same-state and same-market teams. You'll have to agree to disagree. There have been enough nutty things to happen in the history of pro sports realignment, and just pro sports administration in general, that you can't really count same-city teams in the same division out. It's one of those things like Interleague Play or the Astros moving to the AL West. It might seem crazy 5 years prior, and then BAM, it happens, and people just get used to it. Until I see an official MLB rule stating that two teams from the same city can't be in the same league, your argument does not hold much water. Just because you don't think it should happen, doesn't mean it can't happen. I'LL have to agree to disagree? Self righteous much? It's more likely that, in the current AL-NL format we WON'T see it happening for reasons that have been explained. The Astros switching leagues, albeit stupid, makes more sense than two same city teams in the same league.

They're not gonna put both NY teams in one league. Why wouldn't they? It's RE-alignment. This isn't something you are coming up with, it's something someone else is coming up with. Yes, and when you post it in here, it's up for discussion and other people's opinions. And I'm stating, as both opinion and to a degree nearly fact, that, unless you're completely splitting the league into an East-West format, having both NY teams in the same league does not make any sense. In baseball, with the two different types of play between the two leagues, when you have two teams in one market, you split them up so as to appeal to fans of both leagues. THAT'S why they brought in the Mets to replace the Dodgers and Giants in the first place, to get another NL team back in New York. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it, though. The Phillies and Pirates are in the same league, and soon, the Astros and Rangers will be in the same division. Yes, I realize that those are same-state teams and not same-city teams, but if MLB were that hellbent on keeping same-city teams in different leagues, then they'd do the same with same-state teams. Apparently they don't care as much as you think they do. Having same-city teams in the same league isn't that far out of the realm of possibility. As aci illustrated, there is a vast difference between same-state and same-market teams.

They're not gonna put both NY teams in one league. Why wouldn't they? It's RE-alignment. This isn't something you are coming up with, it's something someone else is coming up with. Yes, and when you post it in here, it's up for discussion and other people's opinions. And I'm stating, as both opinion and to a degree nearly fact, that, unless you're completely splitting the league into an East-West format, having both NY teams in the same league does not make any sense. In baseball, with the two different types of play between the two leagues, when you have two teams in one market, you split them up so as to appeal to fans of both leagues. THAT'S why they brought in the Mets to replace the Dodgers and Giants in the first place, to get another NL team back in New York.

They're not gonna put both NY teams in one league. And who cares if it doesn't benefit Toronto to be in a division with 3 better teams? Get better. Don't move teams around just to give one team a better chance.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Asbestos-Investigation-Nassau-Coliseum-Islanders-Long-Island.html Well what do expect with an arena that's more than 4-years-old?

Would a few seasons there be worth it over remaining in Nassau while trying to figure out their situation?

Except for swapping Phoenix to Quebec, this is essentially what the NHLPA nixed.

A. Other than Bud Selig, East-West seperation of MLB doesn't really fly with most fans. It's basically taking the tradition of the NL and AL and chucking it into an old, burning trash can and then putting the flames out by pissing on it. B.The DH rule you've suggested makes absolutely no sense and would never work. You can't leave it up to individual teams. You may end up with like 21 non-DH and only 9 with the DH or vice versa. It has to be one way or the other for each league or for both, not based on each team's preference. I don't think the DH rule would cause any trouble as long as teams couldn't change year-to-year. Odds are, it'd stay mostly as old NL teams with no DH, and mostly AL teams with the DH. In a perfect world, the designated hitter wouldn't exist, but I think the MLBPA would flip their lids if anyone suggested the DH be abandoned. As far as the AL/NL separation goies, we're already travelling down that slippery slope... first with interleague, plus two teams switching leagues, and then starting in 2013 interleague games being played every day of the year. The sanctity is gone, the names are relics, and the leagues are already merged anyways. Swapping half a dozen more teams to create a more geographically logical layout hardly seems out of the realm of possibility. You're going from "some changes" to "blow the whole damn thing up" in 60 seconds. None of the changes you've mentioned are anywhere near the the apocalypse of the sanctity of the game. Interleague everyday doesn't mean half the league is playing interleague games. Just one series at a time (maybe 3 here and there to meet the minium). In actuallity, interleague every series would reduce the total number of interleague games. However the league decided to maintain the total as it has been. And no, leaving teams to decide their own DH rules will not go as smoothly as you think. It's a rule that can drastically alter the make-up of each individual game and not something that can just be "however you want it ("you" meaning each team). It has to be a leaguewide rule. Either stays as is or both leaguse with or without. No individual teams.

A. Other than Bud Selig, East-West seperation of MLB doesn't really fly with most fans. It's basically taking the tradition of the NL and AL and chucking it into an old, burning trash can and then putting the flames out by pissing on it. B.The DH rule you've suggested makes absolutely no sense and would never work. You can't leave it up to individual teams. You may end up with like 21 non-DH and only 9 with the DH or vice versa. It has to be one way or the other for each league or for both, not based on each team's preference.

I don't think Kansas and Kansas State will be seperated. KSU definitely brings the football angle, which KU lacks, but coupled with KU's basketball (I know, only football dictates) and "academics", they make for a more attractive package than stand-alones. I also believe that their only real shot at a Power conference would be the Big Ten. I don't think the SEC or PAC would really be all that interested. But they do seem to fit well in the Big Ten. I think the Oklahoma schools, also more than likely a package only, could go either PAC (without Texas/Texas Tech) or possibly the SEC. While not AAU schools, I believe, they're not exactly on UConn's level of academia either. And while football is the moneymaker and both would help strengthen the conference in that regard, they also would help bring up the basketball status as well. Both schools are in down periods, like much of the PAC is right now, but that'll probably end.

Missouri's also joining Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, remaining with Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi/MS State, all teams from bordering states or still in their region. Nebraska's joining Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois/Northwestern. Other plains/northern midwest schools. As shown in pro sports alignments, the Western US is a very spread out region and most top teams are gonna be so as well. Although called the "Pacific"-12, it's really the top western conference and so Colorado and Utah actually fit in there regionally.

You can't force geographical rivalries by disbanding history-long rivalries. You've seperated the Cardinals and Cubs, one of the game's best. And even if you did this, why would all the California teams get put together EXCEPT San Diego? This looks more like some College breakdown rather than an appropriate realignment for a league with that had been in, more or less, the same alignment for more than a century.

No more playoff expansion in baseball. 10 teams is already too many. It was just fine the way it was. Only change that needed to made was the top seed playing the wild card team regardless of division.

Losing the Coyotes would lessen the celebration of Arizona's 100th birthday? How many people would even know they're gone? How many even know they're there now?

You move Toronto, but leave New Orleans and Sacramento? Seriously?

Considering you have schools like San Jose State in the Pac-12 and East Carolina/Southern Miss in the ACC, not too well. You can't base NCAA conferences so much on just geography. And saying "there's no such thing as" sounds kind of like this is magical fantasyland.

Oh to be young and naive have more common sense than the BCS. Fixed.

Did the Nats give up on baseball for some reason?

If you're just going off of the NHL realignment scenario, then this does make the most sense. The NFL is actually pretty well set ip geographically for something like this. I know it would never happen because of rivalries and the tradition of te AFC-NFC split, but it is interesting.

Florida won't allow it. And since they're in the east, they're out of the Big East's geographical region. Their best bet would be the Sun Belt.

And then Texas A&M left for the SEC and Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech all flirted with the PAC. It wasn't "any 10-team" Big 12 that they pledged to, it was the current one. And that one became too unstable for them to just sit there and wait to see it go downhill before making a move. Stability came calling in the form of the top conference, so why would they turn that down?

Not gonna happen. WVU's already got two out-of-conference rivalries to maintain (Maryland, which is actually a good competitive rivalry, and Marshall, which is pretty much mandated by the governor of West Virginia). TAMU probably won't play UT if they know the game will be broadcast on the Failhorn Network. And KU-Mizzou probably won't happen with the way Mizzou departed the Big XII. Mizzou wants to keep playing. It's Kansas who's being the whiny crybabies. But is Kansas really being crybabies? They are defending themselves and their conference, in a sense. Mizzou left for a money grab instead of honoring long traditions, so why should Kansas be expected to do the same? No they made a decision based on what was best for the school, stability in the top rated conference over instability in a sinking conference. It's kind of a no-brainer. They're priority is what's best for Missouri, not another school. The rivalry had a chance to continue non-conference. Mizzou wanted to keep it going, KU declined. Fine, but to come out and say Mizzou is abandoning them and that the rivalry should've superseded any reasoning for leaving is just ridiculous. They were upset because they weren't being sought after by other conferences like Mizzou and other schools were. You have no clue why Kansas is terminating the rivalry. To say you do know why is asinine. The Big XII could have remained stable with 10 teams, including aTm and Mizzou, however, neither school wanted to pledge their loyalty to the conference. Sure there is a bunch of BS behind the scenes with Texas and Oklahoma, but bottom line is, Mizzou left the conference for safer waters. They left Kansas. They shouldn't expect Kansas to hold on to the rivalry. In a way, Mizzou, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M leaving is a slap in the face to the remaining schools that don't have options. If those 4 schools didn't want to stand by the conference for stability and loyalty, then why should Kansas stay loyal to those rivalries? This is laughable. There is no way the Big 12 is anywhere near as stable as you've made it out to be. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are more than likely off to the Pac-12 as soon as they get the chance, and Texas Tech is hoping they're included somehow. Texas has pretty much alienated every team in the conference. Even if OU were to stay, them and Texas are now going through a power struggle, so one would eventually get pissed and leave anyway. Mizzou did what was best for them. Kansas is bitter. Yes, I've seen some of their comments. It's pretty well known. If Kansas had the same opportunity, I guarantee you they would jump as well.

Not gonna happen. WVU's already got two out-of-conference rivalries to maintain (Maryland, which is actually a good competitive rivalry, and Marshall, which is pretty much mandated by the governor of West Virginia). TAMU probably won't play UT if they know the game will be broadcast on the Failhorn Network. And KU-Mizzou probably won't happen with the way Mizzou departed the Big XII. Mizzou wants to keep playing. It's Kansas who's being the whiny crybabies. But is Kansas really being crybabies? They are defending themselves and their conference, in a sense. Mizzou left for a money grab instead of honoring long traditions, so why should Kansas be expected to do the same? No they made a decision based on what was best for the school, stability in the top rated conference over instability in a sinking conference. It's kind of a no-brainer. They're priority is what's best for Missouri, not another school. The rivalry had a chance to continue non-conference. Mizzou wanted to keep it going, KU declined. Fine, but to come out and say Mizzou is abandoning them and that the rivalry should've superseded any reasoning for leaving is just ridiculous. They were upset because they weren't being sought after by other conferences like Mizzou and other schools were.

Not gonna happen. WVU's already got two out-of-conference rivalries to maintain (Maryland, which is actually a good competitive rivalry, and Marshall, which is pretty much mandated by the governor of West Virginia). TAMU probably won't play UT if they know the game will be broadcast on the Failhorn Network. And KU-Mizzou probably won't happen with the way Mizzou departed the Big XII. Mizzou wants to keep playing. It's Kansas who's being the whiny crybabies.

From a strict geographic sense, I love this. As a football fan since 1974, I'd miss the rivalries. To me, if I were to realign the NFL I would rename the conferences & the divisions too. AFC renamed the Hunt Conference (For Lamar Hunt, founder of the A.F.L. & Kansas City Chiefs/Dallas Texans) NFC renamed the Halas Conference (For George S. Halas, founder of the N.F.L. & Chicago Bears) AFC East - Shula Division - Dolphins, Patriots, Jets, Bills AFC North - Noll Division - Steelers, Oilers (back to Houston), Browns, Bengals AFC South - Unitas Division - Colts, Ravens, San Antonio Texans, Jaguars AFC West - Madden Division - Raiders, Chargers, Broncos, Chiefs NFC East - Landry Division - Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, Giants NFC North - Grant Division - Vikings, Lions, Packers, Bears NFC South - Thorpe Division - Seahawks, Buccaneers, Panthers, Cardinals NFC West - Walsh Division - Rams, Saints, Falcons, 49ers Playoff format stays the same, 6 teams, 4 division winners + 2 wildcards per conference. Why would Houston be in the North and Baltimore in the South? Their current alignment and rivalries lie in their current divisions. It's rather pointless to make that switch.