RoughRiders99

You can't compare European soccer leagues to American sports leagues. There are too many factors, like market size, television, stadium/arena size and attendance, as well as traveling. It wouldn't work with our major leagues and quite frankly, I personally don't ever want it to.

I def. agree with you. But would it, possibly, work if they were to start a brand new league?

Most likely in the soccer sport. Basically "restart" the MLS because...they aren't THAT popular yet and they could combine the MLS with all of the other leagues throughout North America and install the promotion/regulation system?

Just a thought off the top of my head.

In order to put things back on track I decided to make a new division realignment of the NBA so that I can put Portland and the possible Seattle team in the same division and make the conferences less lopsided in the process.

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Atlantic

New York

Boston

Brooklyn

Philadelphia

Washington

Central

Toronto

Chicago

Indiana

Detroit

Cleveland

Southeast

Memphis*

Miami

Orlando

Charlotte

Atlanta

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Pacific

Lakers

Clippers

Golden State

Portland

Seattle

Midwest (renamed from Northwest)

Oklahoma City

Milwaukee*

Minnesota

Utah

Denver

Southwest

Phoenix

San Antonio

Dallas

Houston

New Orleans

*Swapped Memphis for Milwaukee to make the East more equal to the West

I like this realignment a lot. It always baffles me a little bit about why Memphis is in the WESTERN Conference.

Also, another note; I always think that the Thunder should at least be in the same conference as the Mavericks, Rockets and Spurs. "Pelicans" too, probably.

I would only do that if the division winners were guaranteed top four seeds. I think giving division winners top four seeds would be more legitimate if they played in their division more. I personally prefer this way because it makes division races more important. Now when I load the NBA standings I always change it to conference standings immediately because division standings mean nothing.

I imagine more people would rather have divisional winners only guaranteed playoff spots and then seed the teams by record. In that case, RoughRiders arrangement is pretty good too.

Actually, I like your set up too. I'm also a fan of rewarding the top seeds to the division winners (home field advantage, etc etc), so in that case, there'll need to be a little more divisional games to make the divisional a little more meaningful. The 4 division winners get seed 1-4. Next top 4 with the best record, regardless of division, get seed 5-8.

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

::**** he said::

Ok, let's ban him and bring back Cody21. Less painful.

PLEASE!!!

I hate this.

Go away forever.

I like this a lot. Wonder how the scheduling would work though?

Let's just assume that all leagues have 32 teams, 8 divisions of 4 teams, split up in two conferences. How would their schedules work?

NFL - Already done, lol

MLB- 162 games. It could get a little tricky here with interleague games

NBA/NHL- They both play 82 games, so their format should be pretty much similar.

This is what I've come up with if all leagues had 32 teams, 8 divisions of 4 teams split in 2 conferences/leagues.

NBA/NHL

- 4 games against the other 3 division opponents, (4 x 3 = 12 games)

- 4 games against 2 (out-of-division) conference opponents, (4 x 2 = 8 games)*

- 3 games against 10 (out-of-division) remaining conference opponents, (3 x 10 = 30 games)

- 2 games against teams in the opposing conferences, (2 x 16 = 32 games)

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

MLB

- 18 games against the other 3 division opponents, (18 x 3 = 54 games)

- 8 games against 12 (out-of-division) league opponents, (8 x 12 = 96 games)

- 3 games against 4 opponents from one opposing league division, (3 x 4 = 12 games) *

* - A 3-year rotation determines which opposing league division are played for interleague

I think this would make much more sense:

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Atlantic

• Brooklyn Nets
  
• New York Knicks
  
• Philadelphia 76ers
  
• Washington Wizards
  

Northeast

• Boston Celtics
  
• Cleveland Cavaliers
  
• Detroit Pistons
  
• Toronto Raptors
  

Southeast

• Atlanta Hawks
  
• Charlotte Hornets
  
• Miami Heat
  
• Orlando Magic
  

Central

• Chicago Bulls
  
• Indiana Pacers
  
• Memphis Grizzlies
  
• Milwaukee Bucks
  

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Midwest

• Kansas City (expansion)
  
• Minnesota Timberwolves
  
• New Orleans Pelicans
  
• Oklahoma City Thunder
  

Southwest

• Dallas Mavericks
  
• Houston Rockets
  
• Phoenix Suns
  
• San Antonio Spurs
  

Northwest

• Denver Nuggets
  
• Portland Trail Blazers
  
• Seattle SuperSonics (expansion)
  
• Utah Jazz
  

Pacific

• Golden State Warriors
  
• Los Angeles Clippers
  
• Los Angeles Lakers
  
• Sacramento Kings
  

Yeah that's definitely better. Again I think 32 is going to be the ideal number of franchises for scheduling/alignment purposes and MLB/NBA/NHL will expand to it over the next decade or so. Then hopefully they stop.

I like this a lot. Wonder how the scheduling would work though?

Let's just assume that all leagues have 32 teams, 8 divisions of 4 teams, split up in two conferences. How would their schedules work?

NFL - Already done, lol

MLB- 162 games. It could get a little tricky here with interleague games

NBA/NHL- They both play 82 games, so their format should be pretty much similar.

Do you think it's OK if I report his posts?

Please do. Even though he's 'trying' to contribute to the thread, which I can see, but what he's posting is just completely full of non-sense and is basically killing this thread.

I've always enjoyed reading through this thread to see some interesting and 'out-of-the-box-that-still-makes-sense' ideas here and there because that makes for a fun read. But this guy wouldn't just stop giving up and post confusing things.

Just stop. None of your realignments are making any sense at all.

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know you're saying it's PURELY geographically, but you aren't making ANY effort in making it more logical (even divisions, conferences, etc etc). You're also missing a few teams in your Pacific Coast League realignment.

So yeah. All of your "geographic" realignment are stupid.

Please do us a favor and stop. Thanks.

How did you map those points on that map?

P.S. I'll do an NFL one later today and explain it better then.

I did a screenshot from google maps and then added the points in photoshop with a little 'outer glow' with it.

Okay, I've been away from my home (Central Iowa) for a couple of years for college and when I came back home for the holidays, I just saw that the CIML (Central Iowa Metro League, highest HS sports level in Iowa) has undergone a major realignment and I think it ended up being stupid.

Before when I was growing up and attending high school, the CIML had a nice, easy 18-team, 3-divisions of 6 teams like it've always been.

Now with a new high school joining the CIML, making 19 schools, there are now two "conferences," the Metro Conference with 7 teams (the 5 Public Schools of Des Moines and two random schools), and the other conference, Central Iowa Conference, which has its own three divisions (North, West and East) with four teams per division.

Yes, I know there's 19 schools which is a little bit odd number, but that's how it is, I guess.

What I would suggest is maybe have 4 divisions, 3 with 5 teams and 1 with 4 teams (North. They have enough traveling to do anyway).

The image you see here is how the CIML currently have their divisions/conferences set-up. It just seems so wacky to me, don't you agree?

How would you set up the new CIML with 19 teams? How many divisions here and there?

*note - Yes, I realize you don't know where exactly the 'schools' are and what their names are, but if you're coming up with something, just describe the school to the best ability using the map above (i.e. "southern-most pink school" should go to Division "A" while "west red" should go to "B" and so on forth"

I guess this is how I would set it up, no conferences, 4 divisions:

Metro

5 blue dots in Des Moines

North

Same as it is (only 4 teams)

Eastern

The two "south blues"

The two "north reds" and the "east red"

Western

Same as it is now, plust the "far west red"

That's how I would set it up. How about you guys? How would you set up the CIML? Or show your high school set up? Is it pretty straight up, or is it somewhat wacky like what you currently see in the map above here.

Thought High School Realignment would make an interesting discussion....

The current USA/Canada hockey to-date attendance rankings (this includes these leagues:

FHL,

USHL,

NAHL,

SPHL,

CHL,

ECHL,

AHL,

NCAA Div. I,

WHL,

QMJHL,

OHL,

-of 236 junior, college, and minor league hockey teams included in the 11 leagues listed above, the average home attendance was 3,480 fans per game.

-the team with the lowest attendance (#236) currently is "American International," an NCAA Division I hockey team averaging 186 fans per home game.

5 Standard Deviations Away From the Mean:

1. North Dakota - NCAA Div. I - 11,750 fans per game

4 Standard Deviations Away From the Mean:

2. Quebec Remparts - QMJHL - 10,492 fans per game

3. Minnesota Golden Gophers - NCAA Div. I - 9,771 fans per game

3 Standard Deviations Away From the Mean:

4. Wisconsin Badgers - NCAA Div. I - 9,419 fans per game

5. Hershey Bears - AHL - 9,209 fans

6. London Knights - OHL - 8,962

7. Calgary Hitmen - WHL - 8,286

8. Halifax Mooseheads - QMJHL - 8,173

2 Standard Deviations Away From the Mean:

9. Fort Wayne Komets - ECHL - 7,476

10. Kitchener Rangers - OHL - 7,171

11. Hamilton Bulldogs - AHL - 7,067

12. Providence Bruins - AHL - 6,950

13. Colorado College Tigers - NCAA Div. I - 6,940

14. Lake Erie Monsters - AHL - 6,911

15. Ontario Reign - ECHL - 6,760

16. Vancouver Giants - WHL - 6,751

17. Boston College Eagles - NCAA Div. I 6,672

18. Edmonton Oil Kings - WHL - 6,634

19. Houston Aeros - AHL - 6,566

20. Chicago Wolves - AHL - 6,518

21. Grand Rapids Griffins - AHL - 6,492

22. Rochester Americans - AHL - 6,294

23. St. John's IceCaps - AHL - 6,287

24. Orlando Solar Bears - ECHL - 6,265

25. San Antonio Rampage - AHL - 6,221

26. MN-Duluth Bulldogs - NCAA Div. I - 6,200

27. Toronto Marlies - AHL - 6,188

28. Spokane Chiefs - WHL - 6,038

29. Victoria Royals - WHL - 5,845 (this is the attendance figure from 2011-12, the CHL junior leagues are tough to track)

30. Bridgeport Sound Tigers - AHL - 5,827

31. Ottawa 67‘s - OHL - 5,686

32. Michigan State Spartans - NCAA Div. I - 5,650

33. Toledo Walleye - ECHL - 5,603

34. Windsor Spitfires - OHL - 5,553

notables:

39. Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins - AHL - 5,381

41. Michigan Wolverines - NCAA Div. I - 5,315

44. Missouri Mavericks (highest-rated CHL team) - 5,276

52. Gwinnett Gladiators (Atlanta-based) - 4,923

53. San Francisco Bulls (some current San Jose Sharks participate w/ this ECHL team during the lockout) 4,823

62. Alaska Aces (Alaska's highest-level professional team) 4,606

102. Springfield Falcons (average attendance per game - closest to mean) - 3,473

131. Huntsville Havoc (Huntsville, Alabama SPHL team) - 2,847

136. Alaska U - NCAA Div. I - 2,751

140. Alaska-Anchorage - NCAA Div. I - 2,721

158. Arizona Sundogs (CHL team located in Prescott Valley, AZ) - 2,351

173. Alabama-Huntsville - NCAA Div. I (Huntsville's college team) - 2,199

189. Penn State Nittany Lions - (university's new hockey team, started this year) - 1,982

198. Army Cadets - NCAA Div. I - 1,607

1 Standard Deviation Away From the Mean (below average):

202. Fort Worth Brahmas - CHL - 1,469

209. Aberdeen Wings (wow, that little town in South Dakota has a junior hockey team!) - 1,218 (and draws 1,218 fans per game!)

231. Cape Cod Bluefins (FHL team that has moved mid-season to 'Central New York') - 452

233. Sacred Heart - NCAA Div. I - 433

234. Kalamazoo Jr. K-Wings - USHL - 404

235. Team USA - NAHL - 310

236. American International - NCAA Div. I - 186

Would it be possible for you to post the entire list? I'm really liking this! I applaud your hard work and reserach and the time that you've surely given into this project!

If the Triple-A Baseball did a realingment just like the MLB, by putting 15 teams in each league, this is how it would look like:

International League

Northeast

Buffalo Bisons

Pawtucket Red Sox

Rochester Red Wings

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders

Syracuse Chiefs

Atlantic

Lehigh Valley IronPigs

Charlotte Knights

Durham Bulls

Gwinnett Braves

Norfolk Tides

Midwest

Columbus Clippers

Indianapolis Indians

Louisville Bats

Toledo Mud Hens

Nashville Sounds

Pacific Coast League

Central

Iowa Cubs

Memphis Redbirds

Omaha Storm Chasers

New Orleans Zephyrs

Oklahoma City RedHawks

Southwest

Albuquerque Isotopes

Round Rock Express

Colorado Springs Sky Sox

Tucson Padres

Salt Lake Bees

Pacific

Tacoma Rainers

Fresno Grizzlies

Las Vegas 51s

Reno Aces

Sacramento River Cats

I have two possible schedule options:

4 games vs one outer-league division [5 teams], division rotates on six-year basis (20 games)

4 games vs outer-divisions [10 teams], home/away alts yearly (40 games)

28 games vs division members [3 teams], 14 home, 14 away (84 games)

4 games vs one outer-league division [5 teams], division rotates on six-year basis (20 games)

8 games vs outer-divisions [10 teams], home-home series (80 games)

14 or 15 games vs division members [3 teams], 7/8 games home, 7/8 games away (44 games)

The basic rules would reamin the same. Using DH if an AL-affiliated team is in the game. If both teams are NL, then no DH. All-Star game will still be PCL vs IL. Playoffs would have 3 division winners and 1 wild-card team. "Champions" of each league play against each other for the AAA Championship (Perhaps best-of-five instead of single game like before?)

This whole idea is just simple. It would have "inter-league" for the first time in AAA baseball. I think it would be great for fans as they can see "unusual" teams coming into their stadium to play their favorite teams while they would see their favorite team go on the road to new cities. I guess it's the same idea that MLB originally had when they first added inter-league.

Now, personally, I'm not a fan of interleague because it makes the schedule unbalanced. But I guess it could work for AAA baseball since the minor leagues aren't usually too big on the playoffs.

I was just wondering if anybody have any opinion on this post I made a while back....

Thanks

If the Triple-A Baseball did a realingment just like the MLB, by putting 15 teams in each league, this is how it would look like:

International League

Northeast

Buffalo Bisons

Pawtucket Red Sox

Rochester Red Wings

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders

Syracuse Chiefs

Atlantic

Lehigh Valley IronPigs

Charlotte Knights

Durham Bulls

Gwinnett Braves

Norfolk Tides

Midwest

Columbus Clippers

Indianapolis Indians

Louisville Bats

Toledo Mud Hens

Nashville Sounds

Pacific Coast League

Central

Iowa Cubs

Memphis Redbirds

Omaha Storm Chasers

New Orleans Zephyrs

Oklahoma City RedHawks

Southwest

Albuquerque Isotopes

Round Rock Express

Colorado Springs Sky Sox

Tucson Padres

Salt Lake Bees

Pacific

Tacoma Rainers

Fresno Grizzlies

Las Vegas 51s

Reno Aces

Sacramento River Cats

I have two possible schedule options:

4 games vs one outer-league division [5 teams], division rotates on six-year basis (20 games)

4 games vs outer-divisions [10 teams], home/away alts yearly (40 games)

28 games vs division members [3 teams], 14 home, 14 away (84 games)

4 games vs one outer-league division [5 teams], division rotates on six-year basis (20 games)

8 games vs outer-divisions [10 teams], home-home series (80 games)

14 or 15 games vs division members [3 teams], 7/8 games home, 7/8 games away (44 games)

The basic rules would reamin the same. Using DH if an AL-affiliated team is in the game. If both teams are NL, then no DH. All-Star game will still be PCL vs IL. Playoffs would have 3 division winners and 1 wild-card team. "Champions" of each league play against each other for the AAA Championship (Perhaps best-of-five instead of single game like before?)

This whole idea is just simple. It would have "inter-league" for the first time in AAA baseball. I think it would be great for fans as they can see "unusual" teams coming into their stadium to play their favorite teams while they would see their favorite team go on the road to new cities. I guess it's the same idea that MLB originally had when they first added inter-league.

Now, personally, I'm not a fan of interleague because it makes the schedule unbalanced. But I guess it could work for AAA baseball since the minor leagues aren't usually too big on the playoffs.

What the MLB should have done with the whole 15-team per league thing:

AL East

Yankees

Red Sox

Rays

Blue Jays

Orioles

AL Central

Twins

White Sox

Indians

Tigers

Royals

AL West

Angels

Mariners

Athletics

Rangers

Rockies/D-backs

NL East

Marlins

Mets

Phillies

Nationals

Braves

NL Central

Cubs

Cardinals

Brewers

Pirates

Reds

NL West

Giants

Dodgers

Padres

Astros

Rockies/D-backs

That way, both West divisions would have 3 teams in the Pacific Time Zone, 1 team in Mountain Time and 1 team in Central Time. Perfectly balanced.

"locked interleague rivals"

Cubs - White Sox

Yankees - Mets

Athletics - Giants

Dodgers - Angels

Rays - Marlins

Orioles - Nationals

Cardinals - Royals

Twins - Brewers

Indians - Reds

Pirates - Tigers

Phillies - Blue Jays

Braves - Red Sox

Padres - Mariners

Astros - Rangers

Rockies - D-backs