Jump to content

max

Banned
  • Posts

    767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2 Prospect

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,454 profile views
  1. Ideally, The Knicks, to take any team in the NBA, should play every team in their league (NBA) once at home once away, every team in their conference (and all "Conferences/Divisions" should have a really good reason for existing) once (more) home and away, and every team in their division once more (than teams just in their Conference) home and away. The last "idea" (divisional games) is really open. Should the Knicks play twice as many games against their Atlantic Division opponents as their Central/Southeast opponents, just like they play twice as many games against the Eastern Conference as the Western Conference? Should the Knicks play 3 or 4 home and home series versus Atlantic Division opponents? Does the amount of games played matter? Getting long, basically, I am an advocate of a shorter schedule, but if Conferences/Divisions must exist, the smallest grouping of teams should be where the preliminary playoff games must exist. There are no clear answers, but I think truly divisional playoff rounds ("Smythe Division") are the could provide a basis for the existence of a playoff (think "should divisional regular season games be three or four home away series?"), with the winners of each divisional playoff playing in a tournament, but... There are six divisions. What system is most often used to determine winners in a group of six? Right. Round-robin.
  2. The current NBA has very few scheduling/alignment deficiencies. The deficiencies are magnified by the massively unbalanced home-court advantage (25%) in the league, second only to the MLS (29%, larger than EPL). The Knicks are 4 games back of 1st in the East: They play the Western Conference 30 times (h/a, even). They play their Atlantic Division teams twice home twice away (16 games). They play three teams in each of the other divisions in the conference twice home and twice away also (24 games). The Knicks remaining 12 games are the cause of the dysfunction, and can be fixed by adding 4 games to the schedule. The missing games: vs. Charlotte, @ Atlanta, @ Milwaukee, vs. Cleveland Vs 4 teams of atlantic HHAA Vs 6 teams of central/southeast HHAA Vs 2 teams of central/southeast HHA Vs 2 teams of central/southeast HAA Vs 15 teams of western conference HA Either go up to 86 (HA vs opp conf, HHAA vs own conf) or go down to 58 and release team schedules from conference/divisional discriminations (or add different discriminations, like regulating league divisions by past performance... ...but what amount of teams should be included in each new conference and what criteria should determine the best teams?). The Home team will beat the Away team in the NBA 30% of the time... From Houston (Rockets are in the Western Conference): Western Conference 143 Eastern Conference 138 Add four games to the schedule and the all-star game will be twice as arbitrary.
  3. Colleges just need to provide more athletic scholarships to make the jump? A full-ride probably averages out to about $20,000 among all current D1 schools, with low variance (in-state/out-of-state, private tuition, etc probably are the only big factors that would raise the average, I think). How many scholarships per team separate these massive divisions of NCAA college teams ("D1 schools give out 10 basketball full-rides, D2 schools give out 5 full-rides," for example)?
  4. "20 factorized?" "The prime factors of 20 are...?" "The prime factorization of 20 is...?" You are right, I don't know how to explain this concept correctly, but I doubt many people on here would rather explain to me how to use the concept (also called "the theory of algebra") than try to kick me off of here. Fact is, and what I have noticed, nobody really ever has new ideas on here. I would have gladly deleted my account if I didn't have some expectation that this forum would be interesting. It used to be a goldmine for great ideas. I'm sure the Concepts and Sports Logos forums are full of ideas that will govern branding in the future. This website is probably the most high-profile it has ever been. I really don't know what you are all asking me to do. Keep in mind that I can just come back whenever I want under a different name, like how RoughRiders99 became MarshallErikson so that the attacks against my posts seem more popular. Whatever. Post your fake leagues and . I'll read all of them. If you don't want my thoughts, don't post them. You can't just say my thoughts are ":censored:ed up." You just have to hit "Send" on the bottom right. Don't be afraid. Don't be a dumb bully. You can write anything. "Fitting your thoughts into the topic" is impossible. Learn to enjoy reading what you consider "off-topic" posts. If the intent of the post is to be off topic, you will become more valuable to the board if you relate the post to what you think the topic "is." This board survives on posts. How does the previous post relate to the topic? People don't like me because my ideas are ":censored:ed up." Wow.
  5. Travel time is probably equal, but he didn't mention that travel time could be a factor. The MLB divisions are linear (a line from west through "central" to east). Basically, there are two coastal divisions and one central division per league. This bothers me because choosing which teams go in each of the three divisions must begin on the coasts. In other words, the 5 "westernmost" teams are automatically put in the west, the 5 easternmost are the East Division, thus the remaining teams are "central" only for being not one of the five easternmost or westernmost teams. The Central Divisions are made up of geographical leftovers. I don't remember why I had to share that idea.
  6. This league alignment is the prime factorization of the number of teams in the league. 2 x 2 x 5 2 conferences 2 divisions per conference 5 teams per division Can't do much better than that. But! The fact that the Gulf Coast is not really located in "the West" is a concern for you in naming the conferences. You have four geographically-based divisions and can't find a way to combine one division with one of the others (leaving the other two to form the other conference). Why didn't you arbitrarily place teams together (based on some other factor than geography)? I don't know what you want, but if you are settled on the division names Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast, Great Lakes, and Atlantic Coast you have already configured the geographical boundaries of each division. Which two division boundaries touch? If they do, why aren't those teams together in one division? - If "Arkansas" is based in Little Rock, it is more west than "St. Louis," and depending on where "Texas" and "Iowa" are based, they would also be more west than St. Louis. - The Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast regions do not overlap. My advice: - Combine the Pacific Coast teams and the Gulf Coast teams into one division. Keep the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes separate. 10 & 5/5. Conversely, if you decided to put "St. Louis" in the Pacific Coast Division because it is too far north to be in the "Gulf Coast" Division (and "Iowa" is already in the Pacific Coast), the "Pacific Coast Division" is actually a "Northern" or "Northwestern" Division. You could combine the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes and keep separate the Pacific Coast and Gulf Coast Division. - Or if you don't like that, combine the Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast (because "Gulf Coast" is more east than "Pacific Coast," theoretically) and combine the Great Lakes with the Pacific Coast. The problem here is that you have to decide which team from the midwestern United States ("Arkansas," "Texas," "Iowa," or "St. Louis") should be the one team incorporated into the Pacific Coast Division. _Not much more to say here. I don't know what you should name the conferences, but if the divisions are based solely on geography, maybe the divisions should incorporate geography into the names. "West and East" would be more accurate than "North and South," though. You chose to put more-northern teams in the Pacific Coast Division. __ The placements of the Gulf Coast teams and the Pacific Coast teams is still up in the air, I think. However, you determined either that Iowa is too close to St. Louis for them to be separated or that being placed in the Gulf Coast Division relies on being more South than West (The Gulf Coast is a region outside of East/West). Maybe because this type of criterion does not exist in the "Eastern Conference" divisions, the "Western Conference" should not be divided? --- What did you decide? You've probably made your decision by now. . . . . . . Oh , I just saw the map. haha. These are your 4 inherent divisions: "St. Louis-Buffalo" Division Des Moines (closest to St. Louis) St. Louis (closest to Chicago) Chicago (closest to Dayton) Dayton (closest to Pittsburgh) Pittsburgh (closest to Buffalo) Buffalo (closest to Rochester) Rochester (closest to Buffalo) Arkansas (closest to St. Louis) Texas (closest to Arkansas) "Long Island Y.-Long Island D." Division Long Island D. (closest to Long Island Y.) Long Island Y. (closest to Long Island D.) New Jersey (closest to New York) New York (closest to Long Island Y/D) Springfield (closest to Long Island Y/D) "Portland" Division Seattle (closest to Portland) Portland (closest to Seattle) Sacramento (closest to Portland) "Atlanta" Division Birmingham (closest to Atlanta) Atlanta (closest to Birmingham) Florida (closest to Atlanta) These are the groups of rivalry-games that cannot be separated in any way at any time in the construction of your league. These rivalries were only determined using geography. St. Louis-Buffalo (9 teams) Long Island Y.-Long Island D.(5 teams) Portland (3 teams) Atlanta (3 teams) Good luck with the rest of this. Here's my idea (you want non-geographically-based division names, but you want to keep the "coast/body of water" themes): Great Lakes League Des Moines St. Louis Chicago Dayton Pittsburgh Buffalo Rochester Arkansas Texas *expansion available from North Dakota to Western New York/Central Pennsylvania, Denver to Washington DC, and New Mexico *expansion available from North Dakota to Western New York/Central Pennsylvania, Denver to Washington DC, and New Mexico *expansion available from North Dakota to Western New York/Central Pennsylvania, Denver to Washington DC, and New Mexico Coastal League Long Island D. Long Island Y. New Jersey New York Springfield Seattle Portland Sacramento Birmingham Atlanta Florida *potential league expansion area in the NW, New-England, Philadelphia, Nashville, and Florida The only problem here is that the leagues are of 9 and 11 teams each, which would require inter-league play, which would make a "league division" completely arbitrary. Two leagues of 11 teams is also arbitrary, so two leagues of 12 or two leagues of 10 is the only possible fix. Add four more expansion teams OR move any Coastal League team to a any place where they would be closer to a Great Lakes League team than any Coastal League team (like moving New York or New Jersey to Washington DC, Sacramento, Portland, or Seattle to Denver, Jacksonville to West Virginia, etc.) The goal is to get a group of 5 in a 20-team league, have 2 leagues, 4 divisions, and have all the teams' rivals be listed in the divisions with the teams. or not. There are many factors in realigning teams. The Rocky Mountains and Appalachian Mountains are probably the biggest influences of climate on the United States and all of the teams in your league here would be situated on the opposite sides of each mountain range as the other teams in the other league in my idea above. Strange how that worked out. Final idea: Coastal League Long Island D. Long Island Y. New Jersey New York Springfield Seattle Portland Sacramento Atlanta Florida Plains League (formerly "Great Lakes Division" and "St. Louis-Buffalo Division") Des Moines St. Louis Chicago Dayton Pittsburgh Buffalo Rochester Arkansas Texas New Orleans (formerly Birmingham, New Orleans is closer to Little Rock than Atlanta and Jacksonville are to New Orleans)
  7. If we're changing the Olympics, I heard a great idea a long time ago: Gold Medal - World Record Silver Medal - Olympic Record Bronze Medal - Making the Olympics So, all competitors get at least a bronze medal, then if they break the OR or WR, they get Silver or Gold along with Bronze, or all three if they break the OR and WR. *I'll venture to say that this would only work in timed sports/strange mixed-event events... I am surprised equestrian hasn't gone yet. Seems a little too "traditional" (stupid clothes, helpless animals).
  8. Leagues for winter sports should pack their teams together for warmth.
  9. so it seems like all-star games embody all of the ideas the original north american league creators had envisioned for their leagues... the harlem globetrotters should be in the nba. balance is the name of the game, but Spain will never play Barcelona.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.