jlog3000

How about the CFL try the US experiment again? But with a little twist: CFL Canadian Conference: West: B.C., Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg; Saskatoon (expansion) East: Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto; Nova Scotia (expansion), Quebec City (expansion) CFL United States Conference (all expansions): West: Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Shreveport East: Orlando, Birmingham, Chicago, Memphis, New York/New Jersey, Baltimore Each team will face 5 division foes twice, plus facing 2 teams of other 3 divisions for every 3 years (and on a home-and-home basis for every 6 years). Your thoughts?

Why would the ACC be the raid target to the Big TEN and the SEC? Just wondering. And I know it'll be impossible for Maryland to re-join the ACC. But for the Big TEN to have 18, for example, I would add Mizzou (Missouri) from the SEC along with Iowa State. Then, the SEC would try to add 3 ACC schools, which would force the ACC to add 5 schools. You get an idea or such?

Nice realignment preview Muggens. But I don't see Iowa State in there. However, what if the max cap number of members is upto 20 instead of 16, who would you add those 4 more members on each super-conference?

What would happen if conference realignment was today, but involving the Sun Belt? Currently, the Sun Belt membership will consist with the following as of 2014-15: Sun Belt - East: Appalachian State Georgia Southern Georgia State South Alabama Troy Sun Belt-12 Sun Belt - West: Arkansas State Arkansas-Little Rock (non-fb) Louisiana-Lafayette Louisiana-Monroe Texas-Arlington (non-fb) Texas State Idaho (fb-only) New Mexico State (fb-only) In case the Sun Belt loses potential members to C-USA such as UL-Lafayette, Arkansas St., and/or Troy, I would say that the conference should focus on finding full members with football from the FCS (i.e.: Southland, SoCon, Big South, OVC or A-Sun), such as: Sam Houston State Stephen F. Austin State Northwestern State Southeastern Louisiana Nicholls State McNeese State Lamar Liberty Tennessee-Chattanooga Jacksonville State Eastern Kentucky If successful, that would leave those conferences raid on some D-II members from the following: SoCon/Big South - South Atlantic Southland - Lone Star A-Sun - Sunshine State or Peach Belt OVC - GLVC or GLIAC

What would happen if conference realignment was today, but involving the CAA? Currently, the CAA membership consists with the following: Delaware (w. fb) James Madison (w. fb) Towson (w. fb) William & Mary (w. fb) Col. of Charleston (n-fb) Elon (w. fb) (coming in 2014-15) Drexel (n-fb) Hofstra (n-fb) Northeastern (Mass.) (n-fb) UNC-Wilmington (n-fb) I would say that the CAA should focus on having full members with football and put aside with the non-football members. So I was thinking that the CAA should raid the America East and grab the full members whose football programs are in the CAA, such as: SUNY-Albany Maine New Hampshire Rhode Island (from the A-10) SUNY-Stony Brook Also, the CAA should bring along Vermont and SUNY-Binghamton. That would leave the AmEast to raid on the Northeastern U.S. D-II conferences (such as the Northeast-10, the CACC and the former NYCAC turned ECC). As far as the non-football members (excluding Hofstra, Drexel and Northeastern), CoC should join either the Big South or re-join the A-Sun, while UNC-Wilmington should be either in the Big South or in the SoCon.

Yeah, I bet that's the unfortunate part. But who knows if the MLS staff would plan to test in out under consideration?

Sounds simple, but the schedule format would be like vintage league/conference play (without inter-league/inter-conference play) back in the old MLB days until 1996. But it might work out. Who'll know? Nice. But imagine if it was in 4 divisions: 1.) East a.) Atlantic - Atlanta, Miami, New York City FC, N.Y. Red Bulls, Orlando City, D.C. United b.) Northeast - New England, Montreal, Toronto, Philadelphia, Columbus, Chicago 2.) West a.) Midwest - Real Salt Lake, Colorado, Sporting K.C., Houston, Dallas, Minnesota or San Antonio b.) Pacific - Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Chivas U.S.A., L.A. Galaxy, San Jose

I can approve the realignment, but how come Houston is not in the list?Houston should be west And I'd put Chicago in the east Having them in the west requires so much more travel for them with all the other west teams being so far away You have a point right there wonderbread, and I can understand that. Chicago should be in the East, if Houston is included. But that would leave an empty spot on the West with 11 teams, needing a 24th franchise in general for the league. I think that it should be either in Phoenix or another city in Texas. Just my opinion. And both East and West conferences should be divided equally into 2 6-team divisions. You feel me?

I can approve the realignment, but how come Houston is not in the list?

Interesting on how you put Memphis in the East while putting New Orleans in the West. Geographically, sounds truly logic. But like the mini-division idea, which it should be like this: 1. - Eastern Conference: 1.1. - Atlantic Division: 1.1.1. - Northeast: Boston, Brooklyn, N.Y. Knicks, Philadelphia 1.1.2. - Southeast: Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Washington 1.2. - Central Division: 1.2.1. - Great Lakes: Toronto, Detroit, Indiana, Cleveland 1.2.2. - Mideast: Atlanta, Memphis, Chicago, Milwaukee 2. - Western Conference: 2.1. - Midwest Division: 2.1.1. - Southwest: Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans 2.1.2. - Midwest: Minnesota, Denver, Utah, Oklahoma 2.2. - Pacific Division: 2.2.1. - Northwest: Portland, Sacramento, ''Seattle'', ''expansion team'' of either Las Vegas, San Diego, San Jose or Vancouver 2.2.2. - West Coast: Phoenix, L.A. Clippers, L.A. Lakers, Golden State

Nice format, nearly much like the same one from 1996 to almost to 2004 (way before the Charlotte Bobcats joined). But you forgot the 32nd possible expansion team for having to represent the Pacific Division. You have the Seattle SuperSonics (as a return team, but from scratch). But how about another team, but from Vancouver (except having the Grizzlies name since it belongs to Memphis, franchise-wise)? And good thing that you put the new Charlotte Hornets as part of the Atlantic Division since it's more near to the other Atlantic teams instead of those from its former division (the Central Division) as well as having Oklahoma City as part of the Midwest Division.

I sincerely agree. So I go re-modify like this: 1. - Campbell Conference: 1.1. - Smythe Division: 1.1.1. - Northwest: Calgary/Edmonton/Vancouver/Seattle 1.1.2. - Pacific: Anaheim/LA Kings/Phoenix/San Jose 1.2. - Norris Division: 1.2.1. - Central: Chicago/Detroit/Milwaukee/St. Louis 1.2.2. - Midwest: Colorado/Houston/Minnesota/Winnipeg 2. - Wales Conference: 2.1. - Adams Division: 2.1.1. - Northeast: Boston/Buffalo/Quebec/Montreal 2.1.2. - Mideast: Cleveland/Ottawa/Pittsburgh/Toronto 2.2. - Patrick Division: 2.2.1. - Atlantic: Philadelphia/NJ Devils/NY Islanders/NY Rangers 2.2.2. - Southeast: Carolina/Florida/Tampa Bay/Washington Plus, I have other possibilities based on my division alignment format.

After seeing the previous posts, I like the Milwaukee one in the Norris Division. However, no "sections"? You know, 2 4-team sub-divisions? I would group like this: 1. - Campbell Conference: 1.1. - Smythe Division: 1.1.1. - Northwest: Calgary/Edmonton/Vancouver/Seattle 1.1.2. - Pacific: Anaheim/LA Kings/Phoenix/San Jose 1.2. - Norris Division: 1.2.1. - Central: Chicago/Detroit/Milwaukee/St. Louis 1.2.2. - Midwest: Colorado/Houston/Minnesota/Winnipeg 2. - Wales Conference: 2.1. - Adams Division: 2.1.1. - Northeast: Boston/Buffalo/Quebec/Montreal 2.1.2. - Mideast: Cleveland/Ottawa/Pittsburgh/Toronto 2.2. - Patrick Division: 2.2.1. - Atlantic: Hartford/NJ Devils/NY Islanders/NY Rangers 2.2.2. - Southeast: Carolina/Philadelphia/Tampa Bay/Washington Any thoughts?

Which type of font are the following photo samples that I'm about to post?: a.) b.) To be honest, I wish the letters should be well-represented as part of the SEC logo. Just my opinion.

Can someone tell me the name of this font? I believe that it should had stayed within the Temple Owls athletics program as part of its typeface system.

Any one of you guys a fan of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL)? Just wondering, because here's the format of the teams so far: 1. - Eastern Conference 1.1. - East Division Belleville Bulls Kingston Frontenacs Oshawa Generals Ottawa 67's Peterborough Petes 1.2. - Central Division Barrie Colts Mississauga Steelheads Niagara IceDogs North Bay Battalion Sudbury Wolves 2. - Western Conference 2.1. - Midwest Division Erie Otters Guelph Storm Kitchener Rangers London Knights Owen Sound Attack 2.2. - West Division Plymouth Whalers Saginaw Spirit Sarnia Sting Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds Windsor Spitfires So far, the current number of total games played for a team per season is 68. But I have a curious but well-modified and proposed/suggested schedule format of the OHL so that every team can compete in a perfectly well-balanced way. Here goes the following: Schedule Format (72 total games): a.) Conference play; Division play; Each team will play its other division rivals eight times – four home, four away – for a total of 32 Division games (4 * 8 = 32). b.) Conference play; Out-of-Division play: Each team will play the four teams from the other division four times – two home, two away – for a total of 20 Out-of-Division games (5 * 4 = 20). c.) Out-of-Conference play: Each team will play all 10 teams from the other conference twice – one home, one away – for a total of 20 Out-of-Conference games (10 * 2 = 20). Lemme know your opinions and thoughts about this guys.

So you're not impressed with my well-balanced scheduling formats on my top sports realignments. I can understand that. My intention was to explain it that the pure pro staff member cannot. And your MLS playoff format looks amazing, along with the spots being in stake (or up for grabs). But since there are like 20 teams, it'll be like 38 total games (facing all 19 others twice).

Can someone guess the name of this font?

Just re-edited my previous post: http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/21954-name-that-font/?p=2171620 Just hope that someone could see the image well and lemme know the font of that image.

What seems complex? My MLB alignment? To me, it's the most balanced format I can think of. Besides, interleague play for each team can occur at least one series on each of the 16 teams, and a home/away basis for every two years. Unless, I take out the 12 games from the "League play; Division play, Out-of-Section play" section to make it like this: (4 * 6) and put those 12 games onto the "Inter-League" section, but parallel to the same division that team is on. For instance: the Boston Red Sox, representing the AL East. They would face the other 4 NL East teams 6 times (2 series, 1 home and 1 road) for a total of 24. Hope this helps on clarifying.

Hey guys. I made an MLB realignment, only for schedule format purposes: 1. – AL: 1.1. – North-West Division: 1.1.1. – North Section: Chicago White Sox Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers Minnesota Twins 1.1.2. – West Section: Los Angeles (Anaheim) Angels Oakland Athletics Seattle Mariners Portland Beavers (expansion) 1.2. – South-East Division: 1.2.1. – South Section: Houston Astros Kansas City Royals Tampa Bay Rays Texas Rangers 1.2.2. – East Section: Baltimore Orioles Boston Red Sox New York Yankees Toronto Blue Jays 2 – NL: 2.1. – North-East Division: 2.1.1. – North Section: Chicago Cubs Cincinnati Reds Milwaukee Brewers Pittsburgh Pirates 2.1.2. – East Section: Montreal Expos (return) New York Mets Philadelphia Phillies Washington Nationals 2.2. – South-West Division: 2.2.1. – South Section: Atlanta Braves Colorado Rockies Miami Marlins St. Louis Cardinals 2.2.2. – West Section: Arizona Diamondback Los Angeles Dodgers San Diego Padres San Francisco Giants Schedule Format (168 total games): a.) League play; Division play, : Each team will play with all of their three rival teams within the division 12 times (in 12 total series; 6 home, 6 away) – 18 home, 18 away – for a total of 36 Intra-Division, Intra-Section games (3 * 12 = 36). b.) League play; Division play, Out-of-Section play: Each team will play all four teams from the other section within the same division nine times (in 12 total series; 6 home, 6 away) – 18 home, 18 away – for a total of 36 Inter-Division, Out-of-Section games (4 * 9 = 36). Home-and-home basis will rotate every two years. c.) League play; Out-of-Division play: Each team will play all eight teams of the other division within the same league six times (in 16 total series; 8 home, 8 away) – 24 home, 24 away – for a total of 48 Out-of-Division games (8 * 6 = 48). d.) Inter-League play: Each team will play all 16 teams from the other league three times (in 16 total series; 8 home, 8 away) – 24 home, 24 away – for a total of 48 Inter-League games (16 * 3 = 48). Home-and-home basis will rotate every two years. Your thoughts guys?

Does anyone know the logo of this font? I believe that the ECU font on that helmet from the early 90's looked legit and unique at that time before the current modern fonts on college sports.

Despite the realignment, it STILL leaves the league with 2 unbalanced conferences, if you know what I mean. How about this to balance it out? 3 divisions, no conferences. EASTERN DIVISION Elmira Jackals Florida Everblades Greenville Road Warriors Orlando Solar Bears Reading Royals South Carolina Stingrays Wheeling Nailers CENTRAL DIVISION Cincinnati Cyclones Evansville Icemen Ft. Wayne Komets Gwinnett Gladiators Indianapolis Fuel Kalamazoo Wings Toledo Walleye WESTERN DIVISION Alaska Aces Bakersfield Condors Colorado Eagles Idaho Steelheads Las Vegas Wranglers Ontario Reign Stockton Thunder Utah Grizzlies Sounds fair, but I was expecting 4 divisions and no conferences. lol

Despite the realignment, it STILL leaves the league with 2 unbalanced conferences, if you know what I mean.