jlog3000

2 minutes ago, Burmy said:

I think it's more because the CAA wants all-sports members (even though CAA Football and CAA other sports are technically two distinct organizations) and the Spiders don't wanna leave the A-10 in their other sports...similar to why Little Rock and UTA left the Sun Belt, because they didn't and don't have football programs.

I was thinking  about that also, so who would be next in line to upgrade from football-only to all-sports status and become a full member of the CAA? Would it be another AmEast school that would follow the Stony Brook path (i.e.: Albany, etc.)?

P.S.: On the latter about UALR... I mean Little Rock and Texas-Arlington... I mean UTA, they don't and sadly won't have football programs. Hence the Trojans are in the OVC (an FCS conference) and the Mavericks rejoined the soon-to-be decayed WAC (while losing its aspirations to reinstate football).

2 minutes ago, Seadragon76 said:

 

There are rumblings out there that one or two of the Texas schools might want to return to the Southland, but I don't know if it's viable since that bridge seemed to be burnt down when they left.

 

I personally think the WAC is just fine at 8 members. They do lose their best program in Grand Canyon... but let's be honest here - UTRGV and Seattle weren't exactly pulling their weight in the conference as of late. Seeing those two leave will help the conference be better in the long run.

 

Now, if someone from Division II out there wants to make the move from the area, now is their chance. Otherwise, the WAC is probably at eight teams for a long time.

But would they be fine at just eight on the long run? What if another team somehow follows suit like Grand Canyon and Seattle just did?

And from a standpoint of callups, only those that fit the WAC's footprint are technically mutually shared with the Southland's (i.e.: Texas A&M-Commerce from the Lone Star [LSC]), and that's either the Lone Star or the RMAC or the NSIC.

Plus, that bridge was burnt down thanks to Sam Houston State (of the Texas-4 that the WAC was aiming to expand its footprint a bit more) who decided on wanting to move to the FBS like out of nowhere.

Indeed. At least for the WCC, Phoenix will be a new market for them.

Now will the WAC eventually implode and cease operations without having the plan to expand in case another of the remaining 8 schools would somehow look for greater pastures?

2 minutes ago, Seadragon76 said:

 

There will be some panic setting in because they are losing their best performing school in Grand Canyon.

 

But there will be no tears shed to see Seattle leave. The Redhawks were the biggest geographical outlier in the WAC, bar none. With them gone, the conference can their focus on being based in the southwest.

Once Seattle and Grand Canyon leave, wouldnt Utah Tech, Utah Valley and Southern Utah be the next 'geographical outliers' in the conference? If not, maybe Cal Baptist, which I'm a bit surprised that they didn't yet get an invite to the WCC; as they are a religious affiliation-based private school.

Grand Canyon and Seattle expected to join the WCC, effective fall 2025:

https://wccsports.com/news/2024/5/10/general-west-coast-conference-adds-grand-canyon-university-and-seattle-university-as-members.aspx

If that is official, this would spell danger for the WAC as a conference from a standpoint of stability, and lack of interest or will to explore expansion (unless if it's 'strictly and solely' within just D-I schools, which is highly impossible.)

@Seadragon76 Fair points. And prior to Missouri State as well as that insanely inflated amount to pay up to move up for FCS schools to go for FBS status, most people and analysts were expecting other schools like Stephen F. Austin or Tarleton, as C-USA had suffered a big blow on the Texas area; because adding just Sam Houston State alone is still not enough. It would had made sense for another TX school to like create some gap with SH and New Mexico State.

2 hours ago, TrueYankee26 said:

Missouri State joins C-USA in 2025. Which means the Missouri side of the Ozarks will have an FBS team. https://twitter.com/MissouriStBears/status/1788933302033789079?t=37oDBlvFp-5q4lPkY9qfkw&s=19

I'm a bit surprised that C-USA has chosen Missouri State as the next member school to join the conference, although not shocked because it was a potential rumored hopeful since recent years ago, especially when C-USA was being poached by the AAC and the Sun Belt.

As a fan of realignment, I was expecting that the league would like somehow go back west of the Mississippi River to find schools to expand; particularly in the Texas area, as it was hurt the most during the time they got poached in 2021. Many folks thought that schools like Stephen F. Austin or Tarleton would be next in line.

Now the questions are the following:

a.) Will C-USA plan on expanding a bit more and get upto 14 schools, or will it stay at 12 come post-2025?

b.) Will the MVC find a school to replace Missouri State to return back to 12? Because not only it would hurt a bit to that conference (for most non-football sports), but also the MVFC.

Just now, Seadragon76 said:

 

Last season was 15 games and this season is 16 games.

 

That would work... if you took out inter-conference play. My pitch would be for a 18 game schedule that works like this:

 

-10 Divisional Games (5 Home, 5 Away)

-6 Games against the other division in your conference (3 Home, 3 Away)

-2 Games against teams from the other conference based on position (1 Home, 1 Away)

 

As an example of this, let's use Arizona.

 

Home: Bay Area, Northern Arizona, San Diego, Tucson, Vegas, Duke City, Frisco, Nashville, Dakota

Away: Bay Area, Northern Arizona, San Diego, Tuscon, Vegas, New Orleans, San Antonio, Tulsa, Albany

With all due to respect, and I know it's just an opinion I'm about to make; but I'm not a fan of games that are determined based on position from a standings standpoint (whether if its non-division but same conference or non-conference alike [hence that 'odd mess' in the NFL]).

@Seadragon76 That would be a cool realignment on paper. Now I'm curious on how the scheduling format would be during the regular season to assure at least each team face each other in a rotational but well-balanced basis.

If I was one of the top heads of the newly-reorganized league, it would be 16 games:

* have 10 games within division foes (home and away);

* and the other 6 games against 2 teams from other 3 divisions each, with each pair of teams rotate for a home and road standpoint during a 6-year span:

i.e.: Arizona:

Years 1 & 2: Duke City & Frisco; Dakota & Fishers; Albany & Columbus

Years 3 & 4: Nashville & New Orleans; Green Bay & Iowa; Georgia & Jacksonville

Years 5 & 6: San Antonio & Tulsa; Quad City & Sioux Falls; Massachusetts & Orlando

The non-divisonal pairings for the rotational ones would be complex, even from a hypothetical standpoint. But it's the closest I could pull off. Thoughts?

This  has to be a big blow for the WAC, and basically it will be on life support all over again like its 2013. First when they got the Texas-4 in 2021, everyone expected it would be a 12-team plus league with football reinstated as a conference sport. Only for those goals to be slowly perished: from New Mexico State and Sam Houston State to move to the nearly-defeunct C-USA effective this past fall (the latter being SHSU this upgrading to FBS status in the process WITHOUT a longtime rival like Stephen F. Austin State), to its chances to have football again out of the window (hence the sham of a merger called the UAC [alongside A-Sun football schools], to not even caring about exploring expansion candidates after losing Lamar (who just spent one season in the league) and was expecting to have Incarnate Word to join alongside Southern Utah and the returning non-fb. Texas-Arlington (only for UIW to withdraw last minute before the school year had ended). Is it yet safe that the WAC will eventually get to its imminent demise as an athletic conference?

No wonder UTRGV jumping ship to the Southland makes a fitting sense from a geographic standpoint and based on the history of athletics of the 'pseudo-new' school, the Vaqueros were indeed a former member of that conference for a few years back when it was still UTPA and had the Broncs nickname before merging Texas-Brownsville (then an NAIA school) and taking the Ocelots athletic heritage along the way. At least the Southland might potentially expand after this move. But would it involve the remaining Texas schools that are in the WAC currently (being Tarleton, Abilene and SFA) or would it have at least one more D2 callup? Because the WAC would just stay put as is with its current member schools with potential defections if possible. 

Maybe it might, maybe it might not. But regardless, based on this hypothetical, it would be at least the bare minimum for the time being because it would be impossible for one division to have 5 teams and another division 3 teams. That's unless more expansion teams would also be added or created (in order to 'retain' the Cardinals in one same division with the Cubs and Reds and Pirates and Brewers). Meaning that the league would somehow need to expand upto 48 teams max, and possibly kill interleague-play games.

Thanks @BrySmalls At least you got that part of my point, as I was trying to move on from the 'swap' of Detroit and Pittsburgh. Hence I did this alternate variation in case a hypotethical realignment within the MLB would occur after possibly having two new franchises as expansion.

7 minutes ago, McCall said:

You can't seriously be comparing the Brewers and Astros swap to a Tigers and Pirates swap. The years you listed are literally the reason why they weren't as up in arms (although the Astros switch DID get some push back). 27 years and even 50 years are nowhere near the same thing as 124 years and 137 years. You basically answered your own question. And neither had the historical footprint that the Tigers and Pirates did. Two original franchises vs 2 post 1950s expansion teams.

Fine, I'll admit that I got the answer that I expected from said question. So I will drop the subject out by the end of this post momentarily. But before I do, however, I'm getting to a point. If having Detroit and Pittsburgh to remain in the AL and the NL respectively means SO much to an unequivocal and overwhelming majority of fans of the league from a standpoint of historical tradition, etc. (which again I get that, and I'm not dismissing it at all), then would the rest of the fans (and also you) ignore or dismiss this hypothetical alternate format (without the Tigers and the Pirates to swap to opposite leagues, might I add), should the MLB have 4-team divisions in both the AL and the NL; meaning that we could hypothetically see the Tigers in the AL North and the Pirates in the NL North, meaning that the Blue Jays would be in the AL East, and the rest would stay the same, based on that hypothetical proposed format of MLB division realignment? Which is all I ask, nothing more.

36 minutes ago, McCall said:

Who a team plays an extra game against in Interleague play would never justify the 1 for 1 swap of two of the longest tenured teams in each league. The Pirates have been in the National League since 1887. The Tigers in the American League since 1901. If anybody in the league office ever proposed this, they would literally be laughed out of a job. Interleague play is not the top priority when it comes to any realignment. Probably near the bottom. Historical rivalries first, geographical (within their respective leagues) second. Interleague rivals would just fall wherever they may. Especially now that everybody plays everybody.

I'm not ignoring that fact when it comes to Detroit being in the AL and Pittsburgh in the NL since both of their inceptions. Hence I said the swapping part of both the Tigers and the Pirates in opposite leagues was only a "What If" situation, whether it would become a reality or not and if it's upto the league's management themselves. In the end, it's still about making profits with ticket sales. Which is why I like that each team should face the rest at least one series of 3 games maximum (hence the 48 total games for interleague competition, so that each team faces the other 16 of the opposite league for year A, and for year B with locations rotated to compete the 2-year spans of a home-and-road aspect); with the rest of the competition being games within the same league, as each team faces the other 3 4-team division teams (12 in total) twice (meaning a home and road series each), and the division play being just 12 games (or 4 3-game series) against the 3 division foes.

Also later I came up with an alternate situation under a format where a league has 4 divisions with 4 teams each that would retain Detroit in the AL and Pittsburgh in the NL, but only put in different divisions; which would be the Tigers and the Pirates in the same North Division for both of their respective leagues as a natural interleague rivalry. On a sidenote, 2-game and 4-game series are just lame to me. Traditionally 3-game series from a regular-season competition standpoint are proper.

Now if it's bad to talk about swapping Detroit and Pittsburgh to different leagues for realignment purposes, then how come there wasn't any outrage or backlash when Milwaukee went to the NL in 1998 (after competing in the AL that began in like 1970), and also Houston to the AL in 2013 (after competing in the NL that began in 1960 or 1961), which might I add that both are in their current leagues as we speak to this day? And I understand that those two in particular aren't super MLB originals like Pittsburgh and Detroit; they are expansion franchises, I get that.

1 hour ago, McCall said:

I'm not talking about the scheduling, but there is no reason Detroit should be in the NL and Pittsburgh in the AL. And how does what division they're in even effect their interleague rival pairings? It makes no sense.

What do mean it makes no sense? If it were from an interleague standpoint, Detroit and Toronto are somewhat close [as the Motor City is roughly close to Windsor, Ontario], despite not being in the same state or province , just like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are within Pennsylvania.

And for the record, it's only a 'What If' situation (NOT propaganda) in some sort of oversight or foresight, should the MLB would eventually get to 32 teams in the future, with 2 leagues having 4 divisions of 4 teams each instead of 2 divisions of 8 teams each (which would ruin the purposes of proper balanced scheduling).

Hence I added Montreal as the 31st and the 32nd being Charlotte (Carolina) or Nashville (Tennessee) in the AL South [alongside Texas, Tampa Bay and Kansas City] to pair up with Atlanta in the NL South [alongside Houston, Miami (Florida) and St. Louis].

@McCall Based on the point I'm making, yes. What else can you think of? I did it from a standpoint of in-state and/or close proximity rivalries.

I also said this as an alternate format (SHOULD NOT Detroit and Pittsburgh being swapping leagues):

"Maybe put Detroit in the AL North and Toronto in the AL East; and Pittsburgh in the NL North?"

But how would it fair for the natural interleague rivalry pairings (asking in general by the way)? One of the things I can think of is this:

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; TOR/MTL; BOS/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; DET/PIT

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

With this modification, Detroit and Pittsburgh would be a natural rivalry while the Boston and Philly rivalry be retained (like if it was in the current 3-division realignment per league). Other than that, I don't know. But the regular-season schedule format based on what I explain would still be stood by. Just lesser games (taking off 6 games total), and no more 4-game series or 2-game series. And within a normal week between Monday to Sunday, there would be a 'break' (or day-off) in between separate series.

35 minutes ago, McCall said:

No way would Detroit and Pittsburgh swap leagues. They are "original" teams in the AL and NL, respectively. Too storied to do a 1 for 1 swap. Only way either would is if it went straight geographical, East-West leagues.

Realistically they are. Unless you have a better idea to come up with the majority of most in-state natural interleague rivalries. Hence the reason being the following in context:

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; BOS/MTL; PIT/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; TOR/DET

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

Maybe put Detroit in the AL North and Toronto in the AL East; and Pittsburgh in the NL North?

Anyways, aside from that, the scheduling format would be the following:

* inter-league games - 1 series of 3 games each x 16 teams of other league (3x16 = 48 games); with each team switching home-and-home endeavors within a two-year span

* same-league inter-division games - 2 series of 3 games each x 12 teams outside of division (6x12 = 72)

* same-league same-division games - 4 series of 3 games each x 3 teams within division (12x3 = 36)

Total regular-season games = 156 (6 lesser than the regular threshold of 162)

MLB

American League:

* AL East:  NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Pittsburgh

* AL North:  Chicago White Sox, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto

* AL South: Texas, Tampa Bay, Nashville* or Charlotte*, Kansas City

* AL West: Anaheim or LA Angels, Oakland or Las Vegas, Seattle, Arizona

National League:

* NL East: NY Mets, Montreal, Washington, Philadelphia

* NL North: Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Detroit

* NL South: Houston, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis

* NL West: LA Dodgers, San Francisco, San Diego, Colorado

9 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Didn't the Braves throw a fit about not wanting to be in the Central? I may have imagined that because of how much I disliked them in the 90s

That explains how the Braves move to the NL East from the NL West when the 1994 MLB season began.

On 2/25/2024 at 5:43 PM, TrueYankee26 said:

NHL

 

Eastern Conference

North Atlantic Division

• Boston Bruins
• Hartford Whalers
• New Jersey Devils
• New York Islanders
• New York Rangers
• Philadelphia Flyers

Mid-Atlantic Division

• Baltimore Skipjacks
• Buffalo Sabres
• Kentucky Thorougblades
• Norfolk Destroyers
• Pittsburgh Penguins
• Washington Capitals

Great Lakes Division

• Chicago Blackhawks
• Detroit Red Wings
• Montreal Canadiens
• Ottawa Senators
• Quebec City Nordiques
• Toronto Maple Leafs

Southeast Division

• Atlanta Thrashers
• Carolina Hurricanes
• Florida Panthers
• Nashville Predators
• Orlando Solar Bears
• Tampa Bay Lightning

Western Conference

Mountain Division

• Calgary Flames
• Colorado Avalanche
• Edmonton Oilers
• Utah Grizzlies
• Vegas Golden Knights
• Winnipeg Jets

Midwest Division

• Columbus Blue Jackets
• Indianapolis Racers
• Kansas City Scouts
• Milwaukee Admirals
• Minnesota Wild
• St. Louis Blues

Pacific Division

• Anaheim Ducks
• Los Angeles Kings
• Portland Winterhawks
• San Jose Sharks
• Seattle Kraken
• Vancouver Canucks

Southwest Division

• Austin Ice Bats
• Dallas Stars
• Houston Aeros
• New Orleans Brass
• Phoenix Coyotes
• San Antonio Rampage

Under the 4-division format per conference, would it make sense for Columbus to be in the NHL East's Mid-Atlantic, Chicago in the NHL West's Midwest, and Buffalo in the NHL East's Great Lakes Divisions?

On 2/29/2024 at 8:50 AM, McCall said:

Why is San Antonio in the Pacific instead of Vegas? Vegas is literally further west and closer to the other Pacific teams than Phoenix even is.

Agreed.  Also, from a small fix stanpoint, it would make sense if San Antonio would be placed in the 'Central' with the other Texas teams, then have Milwaukee to the Northwest, and later Vegas to the Pacific.

It might not look ideally perfect, due to Milwaukee and Chicago being actually close by; but from a bare minimum standpoint, it's close enough.

@TrueYankee26 - Your customized realignment of the NBA and the NHL looks spectacular. But one small problem. You left out the Quebec Nordiques? Any explanation?

All I ask is that it should bring back the endzones like until SB 48 (having the team logo and the conference logo on the sides, and the wordmark font in the middle), or the ones like until SB 39 (having the helmet on one side [but with the current facemask type], the wordmark in the middle, and the conference logo on the other side).

Finally, Chicago State will have a conference home. However, will it last in the long run? I mean, I can understand why it was needed, as the NEC is a core member school shy to losing the automatic qualifying bids.

But at the same time, it reminded me of how the A-Sun added NJIT due to a similar predicament back in 2015, and it took nearly years for that conference to rebuild after having losses of schools from an expansion standpoint, especially after NJIT left to join the AmEast in 2020.

So I wonder if it eventually happen for the NEC, when it comes to keep stability and later get some expansion schools until those schools fully transition from D-II to D-I, and later Chicago State would eventually move into another fitting conference, as long as they will rebuild themselves to be somewhat competitive.

@sportsfan7 - My point was that it would make a bit more sense to have more a few more conferences than more at-large bids, when it comes to the FCS. Besides, will we ever see an actual superconference like how things are going in the FBS?

5 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

 

I think it does. The Ohio Valley is doing the heavy lifting here and I get the feeling that the Big South might pull the plug on football so both Gardner-Webb and Charleston Southern join the Ohio Valley as affiliates. I mean, let's face it... Presbyterian isn't going back to the Big South for football anytime soon.

And with Campbell, Hampton and NC A&T leaving in the past few years (all to the Coastal, I mean CAA), that didn't help any matters. Hence the 'two-conference' partnership system in my opinion doesn't work at times ; and I believe that every conference should sponsor football, as long as its core/full members could sponsor the sport for conference championships and automatic bids and it reaches the minimum amount for such.

More power to those like the MVFC by having more membership just to fight for one spot (being the auto bid) instead of having 2 conference with at least 7-8 within their cores (i.e.: the MVC and the Summit w/ fb.) for more participation in the FCS tourney. Or even the UAC.