max

http://www.rawstory....ctoral-college/

To all gerrymanderers,

Bring your best work. Show off your talent.

Quote from article:

Look, you go from the electoral college to proving you're a Wichita Wranglers fan. What the hell, man?

I'm saying you can't prove bias if I change my avatar. "Gerrymandering" is notorious, and probably synonymous with "biased realignment."

I should change this theory, bold added:

should the electoral college be done away with? If you say yes, you think that every vote should count, regardless of geography (indicating a penchant for a balanced schedule and therefore less interest in a playoff championship like the Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup). If you say no, you believe states should gather more votes depending on their populations and the structure of Congress (to be interpreted as a penchant for grouping teams based on playoff format or having divisions/conferences for the sake of divisions/conferences because of tradition, etc.).

Or this one:

Same idea as the geographic rivals baby-feed, but with team sanctioned "dates of establishment."

And this question:

should the electoral college be done away with? If you say yes, you think that every vote should count, regardless of geography (indicating a penchant for a balanced schedule). If you say no, you believe states should gather more votes depending on their populations and the structure of Congress (to be interpreted as a penchant for grouping teams based on playoff format or having divisions/conferences for the sake of divisions/conferences because of tradition, etc.).

Maybe I'm trying to gerrymander with no bias (prove I am a fan of the Wichita Wranglers, better yet, I'll change my avatar - I just remember the logo on Minor League Baseball cards I bought a long time ago).

Like this one:

P.S. > Let me post whatever I want that "pertains to" realignment. I am not sure what you all think I am ruining for you here. That said, you can judge my trolling (I have no idea what a troll is, but you all seem to know pretty well).

How to align divisions based on "time" (past performance like the NFL schedule, I don't want to explain this again) does not require a definition of whether time has passed, in this case, but rather the answering of the question, "when does time start?"

If we want to go back to the 1400s, where history really starts (according to Anatoli Fomenko, author of "New Chronology"), we can start the placement of current NFL teams like this, based on geographical location (for grouping purposes and in comparing team identities that "match" identities established in the past) and a qualitative analysis of current team nicknames as representations of identity, representations established in history. The Los Angeles Lakers: Lakers moved from Minneapolis, therefore the city of Los Angeles has no bearing on placement within league groups until the Lakers move there and whether "Lakes" or basketball existed upon establishment of the city.

Beginning in 1400, Native American Indian populations were spread throughout the continent...

How's this one?

Popularity is the only way to articulate time's passage.

Lacanian theories could be used to form new league realignments...

The first NCAA Football Game was played between two teams with no apparent "playoff incenive" to motivate either team.

Today NCAA Division I playoffs are totally determined by factors weighed by statistical referees (BCS Standings and RPI for football and basketball, respectively)

In 100 years, Princeton and Rutgers will play the last "college football" game with computers.

I imagine that, before then, college sports will become non-profit, the NFL will fold, and "Watson" will hand us a print-out of the league standings on Super Bowl Sunday and people will be more excited for this than an actual football game.

I think the ultimate goal here is to create balance among the teams in a league in all possible ways we can and we need to prove our theories.

Now is the time for more pointless theories.

Begin by answering my question, Griffinmarlins...

Central Hockey League with (parenthetical NHL affiliations) listed:

South

Allen, TX Americans (Stars)

Fort Worth Brahmas (None)

North

Wichita Thunder (None)

Missouri Mavericks (Canucks)

Tulsa Oilers (None)

West

Denver Cutthroats (Avalanche)

Arizona Sundogs (Coyotes)

Rapid City Rush (None)

East

Bloomington, IL Blaze (None)

Quad City, IL Mallards (None) *owned by the CHL, league offices located in Arizona

Division Champs to the playoffs.

Key point: The "division" (the sole geographic factor I used to base this formulation on) already "exists" in the geography of league and is based on all teams' geographical relative location to every other team. Every team is partnered with their closest geographical neighbor within the group; if that team is not the closest geographical neighbor of the first team, the third team is included until two teams are each others' closest geographical neighbors.

*Missouri closest to Wichita, Tulsa closest to Wichita, Wichita closest to Missouri, therefore, Wichita, Missouri, and Tulsa are in one group because they all share "Wichita" as a rival. The group names above are arbitrary.

**In fact, in the groups with three teams, there is one city that both of the other cities are rivals with, and those two other cities cannot be rivals with each other (this formulation is not based on pairing teams' "two closest geographical rivals," so the most descriptive names of these groups are inherently "Wichita Division" and "Denver Division."

***As it stands now, in the 2012-13 season standings, Wichita and Denver would be the leaders of their respective groups...

Is it unfair?

*Reports poster to Chinese authorities for recreational drug abuse.*

"Dianhua yao yao ling ruguo ni yao jingcha zai zhongguo."

Dial 110 if you need the police in China.

"Pointless" being that its impossible to predict but not void of reason or logic. This kid claims he has reason for his realignments, but he can never articulate what the reasoning or logic is. Even though the title says its pointless, you still have to stay on track. You can't just on the carpet and call it art.

I am creating the science of dreams. Like the art of , anybody can weigh in at any time in hopes that their two cents (or usually about two sentences) are committed to the work we appreciate doing collectively for no reason.

- While you have been climbing the walls of text I have posted, I have at the same time been repelling down the cliff handing out water and Cracker-Jack. *I read upside-down*

We'll see if I'm interested in you

max: 7.41 PV/AP

Have you ever heard of one of the biggest rivalries in college football called Notre Dame vs. USC? The two places are over 1,000 miles apart, and they are big rivals. You say beat your neighbor, but you don't even understand that there are plenty of long distance rivalries.

I hate responding to posts immediately after I posted something, but I feel like there is a complete lack of understanding here and it's based on something invaluable that I think a lot of posts could take into consideration.

I am almost done, let me finish.

I don't know anything about Notre Dame's TV contract with USC. I don't know how independence from all other conferences in the FBS works and why every college isn't independent. I don't follow Notre Dame or USC football. Notre Dame and USC have never been in a division together. My fault, but here's the thing: We will never agree on division realignment, which is why I posted the four things you must know and use if you want to understand our possible goals on this thread. Repost:

Playoffs (unknown known): Will there be playoffs? Who will win? Balanced? Does the structure encourage a team to beat their neighbor (what is the point of sports, for god's sake?)

Scheduling (known unknown): There is no way to prove that a single game is balanced (the fact that there are home teams and away teams, "neutral" sites)

Rivalry (known known): A team has a home stadium, they are closer to one team than all others geographically, they are the neighbors in the same "group," they are the rivals (without even playing a game, the Florida Marlins became the Devil Rays rival when St. Petersburg got the team)

Everything I don't know (unknown unknowns): Television contracts, business, is my math right? Most everything.

The previous post in which I said that you must beat your neighbor to win your division to go to the playoffs (as an example of "winning a season" - the Browns are just happy to go 1-15 if they beat the Steelers in Cleveland, for example) I assumed was the whole point of sports leagues.

___

My question to you Griffinmarlins, would you rather the Marlins win the World Series (the biggest prize in baseball), beat the Rays in the season series (all at a neutral site), or finish the season schedule with a winning record having played each team in MLB (29 teams) 3 games at home, 3 games on the road (174 games per team)?

Playoffs-If you pick the Marlins to win the World Series; the Marlins don't play the Rays during the season, but play the Mariners 174 times to reach the playoffs.

Rivalry-If you pick the Marlins to beat the Rays during the season series; the Marlins lose the World Series after beating the Rays 174 times in the regular season.

Scheduling-If you pick the Marlins to finish first in the Round Robin 174-game tournament; the Marlins are crowned League Champion, no World Series is played, and the Marlins lose the season series with the Rays.

I don't know - I don't care which one you choose. It means nothing. All three aspects I have listed above are popular with every sports league, for some reason. I have written my observation. I don't know.

Proven pointlessness. That's the best I can do.

I have no idea what you will respond with.

BTW: Because I am responding to a response, I want you all to know that all of your responses are helpful in some reason. I am coming up with new ideas all the time.

And the idea to make all MLB divisions based on a team joining with its closest geographic neighbor and its closest geographic neighbor's closest geographic neighbors is just a template. I think those concepts are groups of teams that could be fit (pretty unevenly into "Eastern/Western Conferences") into the current division structure, a kind of overlay or second set of divisional "rivalry" realignment, that could prove to fans who is truly the best team in the "true" geographical divisions, or something. I also noticed that the NHL's eight "true geographic rival" divisions would work perfectly with the similar knock-out tournament the NHL already uses. I think this was haphazard to suggest that the uneven divisions, however purely based on geography that they are, would require the playoffs to become more like the Caribbean Series or Memorial Cup in which the teams take on the identity of their geographic region. The resulting posts from then have led me to believe that team identity trumps geographical affiliation, however, I think the closest geographic rival of your favorite team, not your favorite team, may actually be the most important team in the league for the fans of your favorite team. I hypothesize that this idea will become less apparent the more the favorite team is separated from the closest geographical rival in each of the four criteria above.

The Broncos are the Chiefs closest geographical rivals, the Rams are the Chiefs closest geographical rivals.

The Broncos can cause the Chiefs to miss the playoffs more than the Rams.

The Chiefs will play the Rams once every four years.

Obviously the Broncos are popularly considered "better rivals" with the Chiefs than the Rams, but that the Rams play the Chiefs once every four years almost makes the game is as important as the Olympics.

Borders create the division (and subsequently bring inter-division teams closer together in more profound once-every-four-years-matchups), so maybe the answer is more division? More reasons to make every Bobcat-Thunder game mean something (The people who are descendants of North Carolinian Indian tribes moved to Oklahoma reservations in the past perhaps have some reason to assume that the Thunder represent the regrettable present the Bobcats the idyllic past; this as an example of some possible future criteria potentially used to map groupings of sports team locations and for our immediate use in expanding a conversation to the most necessary concepts next).

The NBA by far has the weakest divisional rivalries. Why place a premium on those?

The only factor used to group teams, traditionally in major North American sports, has been the geographic location of the team's home. This is proven by the names of the divisions and the format of the names of the teams themselves (i.e. Los Angeles Lakers). Is the only "balanced" schedule a home and home series between each of the 30 teams, essential no conferences, no divisions, a 58-game schedule? This should be the basis, the first step, in scheduling a season for any league. I think it is the case with the NBA, they are known for having more inter-conference games than other major leagues.

__

I don't know where this idea will float, but, arguably, the biggest sporting events in the world (World Cup, Olympics, most international tournaments) adopt a strict balanced schedule and divisional formats that include the host city. What could be the effect of a city like Kansas City during the 2012 All-Star season upon the Kansas City Royals? Could they have been awarded a playoff spot for their participation (the winner of the game between the leagues earned home field advantage in the World Series on their field, during their valuable 3-day vacation, etc.)?

What about after the Super Bowl, in place of the Pro Bowl, or for the first game of the following season, or even after the Super Bowl (!) the Super Bowl champ of the previous year playing a game at home or away against the Super Bowl host of the year the Super Bowl champ won or the Super Bowl host for the upcoming year? Call it the NFL Bowl or Kickoff Bowl or something. This could work like this:

NFL: Kickoff Bowl, previous year/upcoming year Super Bowl host vs. previous year Super Bowl winner.

NHL: Outdoor Classic, previous year/upcoming year All-Star Game host vs. previous year Stanley Cup winner (could really only happen after the 2014-15 season, if the All-Star Game is played in 2014-15)

MLB: Spring Classic, previous year/upcoming year All-Star Game host vs. previous year World Series winner

NBA:

If these games count in the regular season standings, does that place a premium on teams that performed well in the previous season? The NFL is the only league to schedule its games using past season results (The 2011 AFC West 3rd place team played the 2011 AFC North 3rd place team in 2012, etc.), should teams be aligned into divisions based on past performance? This is where an questions of an "Original Six" NHL group comes into question.

I remember seeing a Peter Gammons article in Sporting News explaining that he liked the European soccer style of relegation/promotion and placed each team in ranked divisions. If that were a viable idea when would results pertaining to this new alignment be considered as a starting point? England? Should teams be placed in divisions according to time or geographical location? Do the Miami Marlins take on the baseball history of Ponce de Leon's crew members playing "stool ball" in 1556 (I made most of that up)?

Baseball-Reference has the all-time standings of MLB teams, here are the standings, breaks are definitions of standard deviation and average winning percentage:

1. Yankees A

Giants N

Dodgers N

Cardinals N

Red Sox A

Cubs N

Indians A

Reds N

Tigers A

White Sox A

Pirates N

Braves N

Angels A

Diamondbacks N

Blue Jays A

Athletics A

Twins A

Royals A

Nationals N

Mets N

Brewers N

Rangers A

Orioles A

Marlins N

Phillies N

Rockies N

Mariners A

Padres N

Rays A

30. Astros A

Go away forever.

C'mon. Would you want to wait 6 years for your Calgary Roughriders to play those hated Ottawa Rough Riders, RoughRiders?

* - A 6-year rotation determines which out-of-division conference teams are played 4 times

I hate this.

For us:

Playoffs: Playoffs are inherently unbalanced with an unbalanced schedule. Necessary?

Scheduling: Scheduling is necessary, and could be based on many factors including geographical proximity, other rivalries, and questions of home team arena.

Rivalry: Rivalry is inherent in sports league structures with teams with geographical identity. In all major sports leagues, league divisions are based on rivalry and geography.

Everything I can't explain: these factors exist or don't, but I don't know about them.

Western Conference

pacific division

Phoenix Suns

Los Angeles Lakers

Los Angeles Clippers

Golden State Warriors

Sacramento/Seattle Kings/Sonics

northwest division

Portland Trail Blazers (should be with PHX, LAL, LAC, GSW, SAC)

Utah Jazz

Denver Nuggets

Minnesota Timberwolves (should be with CHI, MIL)

Oklahoma City Thunder (should be with DAL, HOU, SAS, NOLA)

midwest division

Dallas Mavericks

Houston Rockets

San Antonio Spurs

New Orleans Pelicans

Memphis Grizzlies (should be with MIA, ORL, CHA, ATL)

Eastern Conference

central division

Detroit Pistons

Cleveland Cavaliers

Indiana Pacers

Chicago Bulls (should be with MIN)

Milwaukee Bucks (should be with MIN)

southeast division

Atlanta Hawks

Washington Wizards (should be with PHI, BOS, NYK, BRK)

Charlotte Bobcats/Hornets

Orlando Magic

Miami Heat

atlantic division

Toronto Raptors (should be with DET, CLE, IND)

Philadelphia 76ers

Boston Celtics

New York Knicks

Brooklyn Nets

Ok I'll quit.

I could understand if he set them up according to Time Zone, but he doesn't even follow that rigidly.

Why would you want me to do that? I've explained the method.

This is the point: Beat your rivals, go to the playoffs. This is the same logic all the current familiar professional sports leagues follow now (by arranging divisions with names like "east/west/central/northwest/southwest/southeast/atlantic/pacific/midwest by which the 1st place team is guaranteed a playoff spot). I am taking that idea to its seemingly most extreme case to better understand the other factors why major pro sports leagues group their teams the way they do (it's not really based on strict geographical/rivalry boundaries). The reasons why I post or my ideas about my own work are arguments you can make, you cannot argue my math unless it is right (wrong).

(28 teams in Pacific/Northwest Time Zones, 96 in Central/Eastern Time Zones in NCAA FBS football). Time zone was a big factor a couple years ago specifically for college sports teams' conference alignment. It wasn't just a scare after all, Boise State decided not to join the Big East (for football, obviously). More factors more difficult to understand:

The NFL has measured the distance from the Dallas Cowboys "arena" to E. Rutherford and Landover, but the league would rather have the Cowboys play the Giants and Redskins twice a year, so they can have a Cowboys vs. Indians game on Thanksgiving Day - for TV. Understood.

Of course you could argue against purely geographical groupings, but I think the community rejects it and all ideas ultimately lead back to accepting the current paradigm - The current paradigm requires the sacrifice of balance in geographical rivalries for even divisions (which asserts an even schedule), but does not create any separation in the playoffs (like the early 90s NHL playoff format which is a popular realignment option now) or an even schedule. If TV is the biggest factor, I think rivalries have been proven to override geographical constraints (or the appearance of deviation from the geographical divisions in which a team sits creates an identity purely anti-league - Dallas Cowboys in the East Division). The Oakland Raiders are not in the AFC North for what reasons? I mean, even the Hawaii Rainbow Warriors have their own team plane...

I think it is true that rivalries become big enough that they overtake the league's structure itself, or appear to. That is, what do you think the importance of Jerry Jones is? The Yankees cannot play themselves, they have to play (the Red Sox) other teams. The biggest rivalries can overtake the Super Bowl/World Series/MLS Cup in importance, and why would the league reject that idea?

Leagues are based on rivalries. What are playoffs? Does East vs. West matter? What about North-Northeast vs. South-Southwest? Hawaii is closer to San Francisco than Los Angeles, so does a 11-hour flight instead of a 12-hour flight mean that the Hawaii Warriors should play Fresno State more than UCLA? You can argue this, but there's probably somebody out there who knows (TV network boss, Athletic Director, Senator Inouye).

I think the biggest point I think goes unsaid on this board is that we are trying to make comparisons between teams in leagues (and I argue "except for two teams which are rivals" - the easiest way to prove this is whether they are geographically closest to each other than every other team in the league) balanced. Are "re-aligners" concerned with the balance on the field? I could come up with a reason why football teams that play on turf should not play teams that play on grass. Is this a "good enough reason" for the Redskins to never play the Saints? Does climate play a part in divisional alignment? It is absolutely true that the schedule influences the health of the players...

We will never stop arguing about this line of balance between our "teams." There are so many factors in grouping teams as well as the ranked list of "hated" opponents your favorite football team plays:

If there's a list of the order which Chiefs fans "hate" the other teams in the league, why shouldn't the top 15 be in the same conference as the Chiefs, according to the Chiefs?

Safe to say that sports are built on two teams playing.

Safe to say that leagues are built on three or more teams playing.

-My postulate to these facts: the third team in the league also, already, has a rival in one of the two teams already in the league.

I have created entirely new radical realignments purely based on geography, a factor in grouping teams already used by sports leagues, a factor in determining rivals for expansion teams, and the number one factor in determining favorite sports teams among young kids. It is also an easy factor to use to realign groups. Although, the easiest factor to use to group teams together is probably helmet color (just costs about $8 worth of quarters).

Lock in your answers now.

Find your favorite college team within the post above, the closest geographical rival of your favorite team and the closest geographical rival of your favorite team's rival (and so on until two teams are closest to each other) are in the same division.

*I am listening to a podcast and trying to explain how this works at the same time. Sorry for any confusion.

NCAA FBS teams in divisions with their closest geographical neighbors. 16 regional divisions of between 6-11 teams each. 10 games per season per team. 16-team tournament at the end of the year.

(west - 8 divisions, 4 in Pacific/Mountain time zones, 4 in Central time zone)

Oregon

Oregon State

Boise State

Washington State

Washington

Idaho

Stanford

San Jose State

Fresno State

Cal

Nevada

Hawaii

Utah State

BYU

Utah

Wyoming

Air Force

Colorado State

Colorado

Arizona State

USC

UCLA

Arizona

San Diego State

UTEP

New Mexico

UNLV

New Mexico State

(beginning of central time zone)

Kansas State

Oklahoma

Nebraska

Oklahoma State

Missouri

Tulsa

Arkansas

Kansas

Texas A&M

Texas

Baylor

TCU

Texas Tech

SMU

Rice

Houston

UTSA

North Texas

Texas State

LSU

LA-Lafayette

LA-Monroe

Louisiana Tech

Tulane

South Alabama

Southern Miss

Vanderbilt

Mississippi

Mississippi State

Arkansas State

Middle Tennessee State

Western Kentucky

Memphis

(east - 8 divisions)

Northwestern

Wisconsin

Northern Illinois

Iowa State

Minnesota

Iowa

Notre Dame

Michigan

Michigan State

Toledo

Bowling Green

Central Michigan

Western Michigan

Eastern Michigan

Louisville

Cincinnati

Ball State

Purdue

Indiana

Kentucky

Miami OH

Illinois

Ohio State

Penn State

West Virginia

Kent State

Pittsburgh

Ohio

Marshall

Akron

Florida

Florida State

UCF

Miami FL

South Florida

FIU

FAU

North Carolina

Virginia Tech

North Carolina State

Duke

East Carolina

Wake Forest

Alabama

Georgia

South Carolina

Clemson

Georgia Tech

Tennessee

Auburn

Troy

UAB

Syracuse

Rutgers

Navy

Connecticut

Virginia

Temple

Maryland

Boston College

Buffalo

Army

Massachusetts

FBS Playoffs Round 1

Oregon

Stanford

Utah State

Arizona State

Kansas State

Texas A&M

LSU

Vanderbilt

Northwestern

Notre Dame

Louisville

Ohio State

Florida

North Carolina

Alabama

Syracuse

Round 2

Oregon

Utah State

Texas A&M

LSU

Notre Dame

Ohio State

Florida

Alabama

Semifinals

Oregon

Texas A&M

Notre Dame

Alabama

Championship Game

Oregon

Alabama

*Free. Developed. Can't post everything.

Using the same logic that NHL, MLB, NFL, MLS, NCAA, NBA, and most American professional sports leagues use when they organize their divisions, a 2-team division (two teams are each others' closest rivals, the "team with the better record" between the two making the playoffs...) in a league in which the teams are geographically close and (what I am postulating as necessary because playoff formats in these sports leagues are based on regional proximity) a scheduling format that weighs geographical proximity among opponents (only one other team) as the most important factor in scheduling games.

I think you all already have all the sports teams organized in your brain pretty efficiently. For some reason you associate the Atlanta Falcons with the Cleveland Browns because you had a football card of some linebacker on the Falcons named "Gregg Williams" spearing the 1993 quarterback of the Browns. You grew up to hate the Browns and move to Atlanta. This seemingly innocuous football card is stuck in your brain for the rest of eternity subconsciously and every time you see the Cleveland Browns logo, you think of the Atlanta Falcons, and vice versa. This is just one "realignment" or grouping of parts of a whole that you have created for a very common pastime (a pastime that brought all of us to this message board). Now we have the chance to talk about this phenomenon.

It should take a long time to figure out your subconscious realignment format. Get to work.

That being said, the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA, etc. already have realignments planned out pretty well (you see, their jobs depend on it and they are aware of factors that you and I don't even get to see!) and it's all fine.

Fine, I'll do the NBA seriously. It's hideous:

Phoenix

Lakers

Clippers

Golden State

Kings/Seattle

Portland

Utah

Denver

Dallas

Houston

San Antonio

New Orleans

Oklahoma City

Minnesota

Milwaukee

Chicago

Toronto

Detroit

Cleveland

Indianapolis

Atlanta

Memphis

Charlotte

Orlando

Miami

Philadelphia

Boston

New York

Brooklyn

Washington

One more thing, these teams are listed in the order I remembered they were a team in the NBA (the order is based on God?)

It is subconscious? I'm not saying my subconscious is the only subconscious out there (I mean there's a collective unconscious which IS the current division alignment, is that incomprehensible?)

76ers

Knicks

Nuggets

Sonics/Kings

Thunder

Mavericks

Hornets (#1)

Bobcats

Hawks

Heat

Magic

Wizards

Nets

Knicks (they're listed here twice, this is the second time, maybe a good division/conference break)

Suns

Lakers

Clippers

Raptors

Pacers

Pistons

Bucks

Timberwolves

Jazz

Bulls

Hornets (#2)

Celtics

(really running out of teams at this point)

Spurs

Rockets

(really)

Cavaliers

(3 more!?)

Warriors

Trailblazers

Memphis (ah, the most forgotten)

Right now, my best idea:

Division 1 (13 teams)

Philadelphia 76ers

New York Knicks

Denver Nuggets

Sacramento/Seattle Kings

Oklahoma City Thunder

Dallas Mavericks

New Orleans Hornets

Charlotte Bobcats

Atlanta Hawks

Miami Heat

Orlando Magic

Washington Wizards

Brooklyn Nets

Division 2 (10 teams)

Phoenix Suns

Los Angeles Lakers

Los Angeles Clippers

Toronto Raptors

Indiana Pacers

Detroit Pistons

Milwaukee Bucks

Minnesota Timberwolves

Utah Jazz

Chicago Bulls

Division 3 (7 teams)

Boston Celtics

San Antonio Spurs

Houston Rockets

Cleveland Cavaliers

Golden State Warriors

Portland Trailblazers

Memphis Grizzlies

This is a one-man show.

I think I need something more creative than the "Seattle Kings to the Northwest Division/Pacific Division" logic. Something new from the regulars.

Sometimes you can't help it,

All leagues have at least two teams. This is the First Commandment of the Pointless Realignment Outpost. Baseball. There is a certain amount of teams per league that require a certain length to the season (because MLB has 30 teams - if they had 29 one team would have to be 'off' every day/series every 29th day/series while the other 28 teams played). One team in an 11-team baseball league would have to be 'off' every 11th day for at least one day (and because baseball schedules are blocked into series' for traveling purposes, a team would have to sit out for perhaps one full series every 10th series)

but the NBA is not one of those instances. They can easily be evenly divided.

The NBA's divisions matter because the top three division winners get a home playoff game. An NBA team's schedule is mostly balanced (home and home vs every other NBA team), but the remaining games could be played anywhere within their conferences as many times as possible - and the Milwaukee Bucks are in the opposite conference of the Minnesota Timberwolves. The schedules are uneven, conferences/divisions create this unevenness (not a problem of European soccer). Why have geographical divisions at all?

The schedules should fit the grouping arrangements. My idea is that you play your closest geographical rivals more often than other teams and if you win the series, you go to the playoffs (think NHL divisional playoffs of the four-division days).

Look at it from the perspective of the Central Hockey League:

10 teams

No divisions

Missouri plays Quad City like 11 times this year (Missouri's closest geographical rival is the Wichita Thunder who they play like 4 times).

The logic I think somebody needs to apply must relate to current or proposed or potential scheduling formats to divisional alignment ('inherent divisions' could be based on the largest number of home and home series played between teams, real rivals, created by scheduling, placed together (rather than grouping teams based closest geographically to each other - AND ANOTHER REASON why geographical proximity is useful in grouping teams together: it's the top criteria used by sports fans in forming their favorite teams >> see the other thread named "How many teams can I root for" or something like that)...if divisions are going to exist at all...

I think if you have created a mock-up of the NBA in which the Pacific (westernmost Western Conference division) Division has 8 teams, the Atlantic (easternmost Eastern Conference division) Division must also have 8 teams.

I think balanced opportunity will help us determine World Champions (not the BCS system), and this activity we involve ourselves in here is probably a never-ending engagement.

Sorry, I meant to explain, but I was so upset with the trolls on here.

The Nashville Sounds should be in a group with the Louisville Bats, Indianapolis Indians, etc... not the PCL.

Pacific Coast League:

Reno

Sacramento

Tacoma

Fresno

Salt Lake

Las Vegas

Iowa

Omaha

Albuquerque

Colorado Springs

Tucson

Oklahoma

Round Rock

*I think it's obvious where a conference line should be drawn.

I am giving you the geographical tools I have devised by asserting that divisions exist because this maxim at one time existed in sports，"if you can't beat your neighbor, you shouldn't be in the playoffs."

Divisions inherently exist. My alignments are purely geographical.

There's much to argue about like changing the maxim to perhaps reflect current high-profile sports leagues and high school districts to "if you can't beat your rival, you shouldn't be in the playoffs," although, if your team has one geographic location, your team automatically has a rival. Expansion teams begin with no rivals but their geographic neighbors (and there must be one neighbor that is closer to the team than the others).

BTW, my calculations are "as the crow flies" and take no considering into the distance traveled to airports (I haven't checked which airports are regional or international) or interstates accessibility; and I think that if I calculated these metrics, I think I would also have to know which sports leagues/sports teams have their own team planes/team busses (high school teams take the school bus to games, so using distance based on roads is absolutely more useful than "as the crow flies").

tl;dr: I think my calculations only work in leagues where "Winnipeg" is in the same division as "Tampa Bay," "Dallas" with "New York."

Chinese Basketball Association

North Division

遼寧

吉林

East Division

山東

烏魯木齊

北京

山西

天津

青島

Central Division

八一

浙江

江蘇

上海

福建

廣廈

South Division (this region plays the best basketball)

廣東

東莞市

佛山