McCall

This is what I believe SHOULD happen. Now, does that mean it's actually going to?

This is a good example of how geography can't be the only reason behind a realignment. If you look at this map, you'll see that the geographically, the 8 teams out west, the 10 in the south and the 12 up north would be the best geographical alignment for what you were trying to do. But that leaves the total number of teams in each division uneven. So then you're forced to break up a good grouping (South) which actually has 10 teams, to even out the west. And then move south teams into a Central and East divisions and thus breaking up a pretty good north layout. If I was doing this, at this point, I would realize it's not a plan that's really going to work, and move on to another one. It sometimes comes down to a process of elimination. You have an idea, but once you start putting it down on paper, or MS Word, then you start to see some flaws that really kind of complicate the whole plan. This was a good idea to pursue, but the current team locations just kind of make the whole "Time Zone" plan a difficult one.

This is how the bracket would look based on this seasons records: 1 Chicago 16 Philadelphia 8 Orlando 9 Denver 5 Dallas 12 Memphis 4 L.A. Lakers 13 Atlanta 6 Boston 11 New Orleans 3 Miami 14 Houston 7 Oklahoma City 10 Portland 2 San Antonio 15 New York I'd be happy with this. I think the NBA's conference seperations aren't as "sacred" as NL/AL in baseball or NFC/AFC in football (not sure about NHL so I'm leaving it alone.) This gives it more of a tournament feel ala March Madness, though still inferior to the Big Dance.

Kind of a half bump/half if anyone has any specific request for any league outside of Division 1 College Basketball which I am currently working on, I can do it as well. Damn, I was working on something like that for college football, except it was driving distances (except for Hawaii). Anyway, here's my (and probably other people's) NBA idea. No more conferences, just five divisions of six teams. PACIFIC Lakers Clippers Warriors Kings Blazers Suns SOUTHWEST Jazz Nuggets Spurs Mavericks Rockets Thunder SOUTH Grizzlies Hornets Heat Magic Hawks Bobcats CENTRAL Timberwolves Bucks Bulls Pacers Pistons Cavaliers EAST Wizards Raptors 76ers Knicks Nets Celtics Top 16 make playoffs, division champions guaranteed home court advantage in first round. All-Star teams picked same way as in the NHL. Ha. That's the exact same plan I have (haven't posted it in this thread, I don't think, so I'm not crying plagiarism here). I think this could work for the NBA and them just go top however 16 teams and just basically have a playoff tournament regardless of conference/division.

To be fair, Pennsylvania has two NL teams (in-state rivals, if you will) in real life. They're not really rivals though. Philadelphia's sports rivalries are with the New York and New Jersey teams. The non-sports "jealous younger brother" rivalry that some (albeit few) idiots think exists would clearly be with New York. Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia is only really a rivalry in Pittsburgh - though there, I'd say that the non-sports factor is even greater than the sports factor. True, but the point was that PA's only two teams are in the same league. And one of JH4XCC's objections was that having CIN and CLE be in the same league was a problem. Oh, well then it's certainly not a problem. It's only a problem when they're in the same market, as in a non-shared-revenue league, keeping them split gives more of the smaller teams access to dates with the bigger / higher-revenue-generating clubs. Or in the case of the NFL, it allows them to sell NY as a market to two separate networks. Cleveland and Cincinnati, both being relatively smaller markets, would cause no such issues if grouped together. Yeah, there's no market issues, but in MLB, it falls under tradition. The Reds have always been an NL team, and the Indians an AL team. So grouping them in one division or league would not be a good move. Any re-alignment is going to break tradition. The Brewers were an AL team for almost 30 years before they were moved to the NL. 28 seasons for a team with a limited success in their AL history in a once NL city is nothing compared to the history of the Reds and Indians.

To be fair, Pennsylvania has two NL teams (in-state rivals, if you will) in real life. They're not really rivals though. Philadelphia's sports rivalries are with the New York and New Jersey teams. The non-sports "jealous younger brother" rivalry that some (albeit few) idiots think exists would clearly be with New York. Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia is only really a rivalry in Pittsburgh - though there, I'd say that the non-sports factor is even greater than the sports factor. True, but the point was that PA's only two teams are in the same league. And one of JH4XCC's objections was that having CIN and CLE be in the same league was a problem. Oh, well then it's certainly not a problem. It's only a problem when they're in the same market, as in a non-shared-revenue league, keeping them split gives more of the smaller teams access to dates with the bigger / higher-revenue-generating clubs. Or in the case of the NFL, it allows them to sell NY as a market to two separate networks. Cleveland and Cincinnati, both being relatively smaller markets, would cause no such issues if grouped together. Yeah, there's no market issues, but in MLB, it falls under tradition. The Reds have always been an NL team, and the Indians an AL team. So grouping them in one division or league would not be a good move.

I disagree. I can't speak for college, but I think when the NBA changed to 6 divisions in 2004, they almost strictly did it using geographical layout. If any teams stayed in their "historical" division, I'm pretty sure that was purely coincidence or luck. I'm glad they based it more on geography (especially since the divisions are named after geographic regions) instead of trying to maintain old divisions as much as possible based on history. It just makes more sense. Also, in the NBA at least, using a strictly geographical layout ensures that teams close to each other play each other more often, which reinforces regional rivalries. The NBA has always been Eastern/Western conferences. MLB, NFL and NCAA are different. They have different leagues/conferences that stretch across the country. You can't simply start at the east or west and just group every 4 or 5 teams that come up as you make your way. Obviously with the NBA, as MLB did in 1994, when you go from divisions of 8 teams down to 5, some are gonna split. But you have to look at which teams need to stay together, and then figure it out. With the NBA's realignment, the only major move were the Hornets going from the East to the West. Other than that, it was just splitting the existing conferences into smaller divisions, where teams still play conference opponents not in their division at least 3 times a season. Besides, most of their traditional rivalries stayed in tact. Look at the Central and the Atlantic. Or even the Pacific, where the Blazers (and at the time the Sonics) were really the only ones split away.

When doing a realignment, you can't only look at geographical layout, whether college or pro. You have to look at tradition (yes at this point in time, some teams have been in conferences/leagues/divisons and rivalries for quite some time), current placement (such as if they have been in a certain league for awhile, would it be a good idea to actually move them to another) and geography. And it's not exactly one first, then the second and then the third. You have to look at which one stands out the most as a reason to keep or move a team. And with colleges, you have to look at school size and athletic department sizes, as some schools may geographically fit, but you may put a small time school in a conference with all big schools, leaving them no chance. Or vice versa with a big school dominating a conference of smaller ones.

Wow. So many comments to make here. I'm just gonna focus on baseball for now: - Splitting up the Cubs and Cardinals? Mistake numero uno. - Then, you put the Braves with the Chicago teams, Milwaukee and Cincinnati instead of St. Louis, even though they're much closer to those cities. And you put the Florida teams, who are closer to Atlanta, with St. Louis and the Texas teams... in the WEST league. How in the world is Florida teams in the West League? Florida and Texas teams in one divison works, in the AL/NL format, but you should swap St. Louis and Atlanta. - All this on top of the fact that you ditched the NL and AL. As far as the splitting up the Cubs and Cards, the NL/AL or any division rivalry, I'm not really going much for realisim. There's obviously problems. I'm just simply going for closest distance. The west league is kind of a bad name for what I was going for, and I don't really know why I put it. It's really more of a south-west league. How many of those teams are above the mason dixon line, versus what I had for the NFL? Atlanta was a tough team to place. I threw them in there mainly because of their relation in regards to everyone else in their league moreso then their division. I will agree that St. Louis is a better for that division, but not not for the league. If it was a serious proposition, I wouldn't be completely closed minded to the idea of swapping Atlanta for St. Louis. St. Louis is also closer fit then Atlanta for that division, but not the overall league. I like it the way I had it, but its a good point to bring up. I don't even think of it because I had it sorted by league first and then division. Better fit for the league? What does that even mean? There are 3 rivalries you NEVER split up divisionally in baseball: Yanks/Sox, Cards/Cubs and Dodgers/Giants. There is nothing logical, geographically or "fit-wise", about the way you have the Cardinals and Braves placed.

Wow. So many comments to make here. I'm just gonna focus on baseball for now: - Splitting up the Cubs and Cardinals? Mistake numero uno. - Then, you put the Braves with the Chicago teams, Milwaukee and Cincinnati instead of St. Louis, even though they're much closer to those cities. And you put the Florida teams, who are closer to Atlanta, with St. Louis and the Texas teams... in the WEST league. How in the world is Florida teams in the West League? Florida and Texas teams in one divison works, in the AL/NL format, but you should swap St. Louis and Atlanta. - All this on top of the fact that you ditched the NL and AL.

To be fair, Pennsylvania has two NL teams (in-state rivals, if you will) in real life. Cincinnati will never switch leagues. They were the first team and will ways be in the NL. Hmm. Maybe in that case Cincinnati and Charlotte can switch places. Or, if that's not good enough, move CIN to the NL North, STL to the NL south, and CHA to the AL South. You're not seriously proposing splitting up the Cards and the Cubs, are you? As an alternate suggestion, yes. Do you have any comments about my initial suggestion? Because if you are okay with that one, then the second one becomes moot. For Portland and Charlotte? NL West: Arizona, LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco Central: St. Louis, Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee East: NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington South: Atlanta, CHARLOTTE, Miami, Tampa Bay AL West: Colorado, LA Angels, Oakland, Seattle Central: Chicago Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota East: Baltimore, Boston, NY Yankees, Toronto Um, South, I guess you could call it: Colorado, Houston, Kansas City, Texas I switched Tampa Bay and Houston for no other reason than it worked out the best without really taking any traditional teams out of their natural habitats. Using Charlotte is a kind of tricky one. I actually have worked one out better with these 2 expansions before, but I can't remember it off the top of my head. I have it written out somewhere, so I may try and find it. Portland and San Antonio are the easiest ones, if you're just going by the easiest way to realign.

To be fair, Pennsylvania has two NL teams (in-state rivals, if you will) in real life. Cincinnati will never switch leagues. They were the first team and will ways be in the NL.

Nice... except I would keep Arizona in the NL West, move Colorado to the NL North, and Cincinnati to the NL South, while expanding to Charlotte (AL South) and Portland (AL West). It's pretty similar to my main plan I usually do, except there's no way Ndw Orleans or Nashville get a team. NOLA is in danger of losing their basket all team as it is and Nashville won't build a stadium for their triple-a team or any other level. I usually do Portland and either San Antonio or Cbarlotte, but usually move Colorado to the AL something with KC, Texas and usually the San Antonio franchise. You gotta keep the Cards, Cubs, Reds and Brewers together.

No. Keep college and pros separate. Colleges are still institutions of education and players choose where they want to go to college, not be told by a pro basketball team. That's what minor leagues are for.

I was just noting how, alignmentwise, the divisions would fall into the very similar STATE layout of the corresponding NCAA power conferences. I'm not suggesting affiliation or anything.

I usually do an NBA realignment where I put them in 5 divisions of 6, no conferences, and they just do basically an NBA "tournament" for the playoffs. Anyway, I realized that if Sacramento were to actually move to Kansas City (I know it's not happening), then I could do this 5 of 6 scenario and all the divisions would line up almost exactly with a corresponding power conference from the NCAA. Here's the plan with corresponding conference and school(s) that correspond with the NBA team. And I go by the state as a whole, not if there is a school in that particular city. And with Sacramento, and New Jersey, as the only impending moves, so-to-speak, I'm leaving the rest of the league as current locations: Pacific Division (PAC-10/12) LA Clippers (USC/UCLA) LA Lakers (UCLA/USC) Golden State (Stanford/Cal) Phoenix (Arizona/Arizona St.) Portland (Oregon/Oregon St.) Utah (Utah-future member) Midwest Division (Big 12) Dallas (Texas School-there are 6 so...) Denver (Colorado-current member) Houston (Texas school) Kansas City (Mizzou/even a middle ground between Mizzou and, yuck, the 2 Kansas schools) Oklahoma City (Oklahoma/Oklahoma St) San Antonio (Texas school) Central Division (Big Ten) Chicago (Illinois/Northwestern) Cleveland (Ohio St) Detroit (Michigan/Michigan State) Indiana (Indiana/Purdue) Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Minnesota (Minnesota) East Division (Big East) Brooklyn (St. John's/Syracuse-currently as NJ: Seton Hall/Rutgers) Boston (Boston College-former member) New York (St. John's/Syracuse) Philadelphia (Villanova/Pitt-[repping the whole state]) Washington (Georgetown) Toronto (odd one out since they're Canada) South Division (SEC) Atlanta (Georgia) Charlotte (Ok, an ACC state, but could represent the Carolinas in which case, South Carolina) Memphis (Tennessee/Vanderbilt) Miami (Miami/Florida St) New Orleans (LSU) Orlando (Florida St/Miami) (I included all the teams from the state just as a reference, except with California which is so large, I regionalized them. There are 3 Texas NBA teams and 6 Texas schools in the Big 12 so I didn't really specify which school and just generalized it as Texas. And I used the SEC instead of ACC cuz 5 of the 6 teams are in SEC states, but only 4 of the 6 are in ACC states.)

North Texas. You're serious? It was them or UTEP UTEP.

North Texas. You're serious?

Who knew? They had to do something with the old outhouses.

Without commenting on the uniforms, which I'm just going to assume have no bearing and are just there to illustrate the team itself, why so many conference switches? Why are the Jets and Giants in the same division now? The only way these amount of switches would occur is if they went to an Eastern/Western geographical conferences... but that's not what you did. It's like you just switched teams for the hell of it.

Would the Big East also jettison some of the basketball only schools in this scenario? I could see the Big East creating two "sub-conferences" out of their football and non-football members. The Big East Tournament would then just be a one-and-done version of the NBA Playoffs. And a big effin "yes" to La. Tech in C-USA. Of all the "out-of-footprint" placements, Tech in the WAC is probably the one that bugged me the most since they were already well within the footprint of two much more suitable conferences. I did a realignment where I made all the conferences (for football) 12 teams, with the exception of a 14-member MWC and the MAC and Sun Belt at like 13 and 7 or something. They weren't really my focus. But anyway, what I did with the Big East was had enough to get 12 football members and 12 non-football members. I then split them into 2 seperate conferences for non-football sports. I originally was gonna have one conference of football members and one of non-members, but that would divided Georgetown, a pretty traditional Big East basketball school, away from the other "original" Big East members. So instead, I put the teams in the midwest (including TCU and USF) into one "midwest" conference and put the eastern schools, which actually was most of the original members, into the Big East basketball. The breakdown is on my computer at home so I may try and post it tomorrow.

Without having read through all the breakdown stuff, why exactly are the Dodgers, one of the teams with the longest use of blue caps, in the black cap when they've never even used a black cap?

No, I believe it had something to do with BYU being in the MWC or something. But that was before BYU left to go Independent.

Yeah, but if they end up losing some teams, with Memphis and maybe Houston being the most likely, then they'd probably look at adding to maintain 12 teams. Louisiana Tech may not be a major market, but there's really not much else. And Seadragon, just because Idaho doesn't go to the MWC wouldn't mean San Jose State or Utah State wouldn't either. The MWC offered a spot to Utah State before, but that's befor BYU left. Now they're saying there's a possibility Utah State would except an invitation. It's definately a bump up. And if they bring in SJSU as well, that would give them the magic 12 number for a championship game. I think Idaho and New Mexico State only get in in the case that the WAC dissolves (as a football conference at least) and they don't want to go Independent. Then the MWC may take them simply as a pity, I don't know. But the WAC is definately in trouble as far as football goes. If they bring in those Texas schools from FCS, then that would probably just make it more likely SJSU and Utah State, more FBS schools, would want to get into a better conference. So I see either the WAC football conf dying out/unofficially merging into MWC or becoming one of the lower FBS conferences with the MAC and Sun Belt.

The thing is, if Idaho, San Jose State and Utah State all do indeed jump to the MWC, that would only leave Louisiana Tech and New Mexico State in the WAC. If you assume Idaho does not go, which they would be the 13th MWC member, then that still only leaves 3 schools, with La Tech having a penalty-free opt out at anytime if they want to join Conference USA, which right now is at 12 members. But who knows if Memphis and maybe even Houston jump to the Big 12 or even the possibility of the Big East. Either the remaining schools will have to go independent in football or try to get in the MWC cuz the only other conference in the west is the Pac and they're obviously not getting in there. In football, at least, I could see the WAC and MWC merging, while maintaining seperate conferences in non-football sports.