BBTV

I actually don't know anything about the city or the market, I just hate when people say "city X deserves a team" (or variations of that.) What is the Bucks situation? I know it's been mentioned recently that Milwaukee is the smallest market in MLB, but I also know that market size is a little less important in hockey than in the more mainstream sports.

Well from what I've heard the Bucks aren't exactly the talk of the town. They have trouble generating interest from the fanbase, essentially. Though this may very well be the fault of a poor on-court product, it doesn't scream "lock" for the NHL.

EDIT-

Also, they seem to be having financial problems, if I remember correctly.

I wouldn't say that the Bucks being the "talk of the town" has much to do wtih a potential NHL team's success (or lackthereof.)

Take the Sixers for example. NOBODY cares about the Sixers. They can't give away tickets. But the Flyers have a rabid fan base and sell out (or come damn close) the building every night. The "every day" fans are different for the most part (except for the 10k or so seats that are bought by the corporates.) When the sixers were in the finals, of course everyone had their car flags, and was a Sixers fan. Now, nobody knows they exist. They're overshadowed by at least three of the college programs here, maybe four.

I actually don't know anything about the city or the market, I just hate when people say "city X deserves a team" (or variations of that.) What is the Bucks situation? I know it's been mentioned recently that Milwaukee is the smallest market in MLB, but I also know that market size is a little less important in hockey than in the more mainstream sports.

I'll agree with that. Milwaukee would be a good market for an NHL team.

Based on market size, arena, potential ownership candidates, corportate community, fan interest, or, just because?

They don't use either a raised or lowered C for the "Mc"s? I've seen some teams actually randomly do it both ways. Some just use a space, like MC NABB

Being close to Bal and WAS, and having been to both cities / regions quite a bit, I feel that they are two separate markets. If Baltimore vanished from the Earth, the Washington market would be largely unaffected, and vice versa. If Los Angeles vanished from the face of the Earth, I have a hard time believing that Anaheim wouldn't be incredibly affected.

Sorry to break up the fun, but I have a bit of "real" pointless realignment that local radio was talking about. Driving home yesterday some DJs were talking about how they believe Selig proposed the floating realignment mostly as a way for the Rays to compete and bring in more fans. Selig doesn't want to look bad that a team is failing and with more success he believes a new stadium would have to be built. (Thats their theory, not mine.) They made a simple suggestion which I actually kind of like. Just swap the Rays and Nationals. The Rays then get more natural rivals in Miami and Atlanta and Philly and the Mets will still bring in good crowds, although not as good as Yankees and Red Sox. The Nationals in turn get to play Baltimore more and the added crowds that NYY and BOS bring in.

Of course, the downside of their plan is that then Washington is in the same situation as the Rays.

Hmm... that's not a dumb idea, however I'm not sure that it would benefit the Rays that much, and it would certainly kill the Nationals in the long run (they might get a short term revenue boost though.) Unless the Nationals, who would have to be considered one of the larger-market teams find a way to exploit that somehow, and get in a financial league with the other big guys. Of course, Baltimore is in a similar position, and they can't, so maybe it's not possible.

That's the other thing - leagues like splitting up teams that share large markets, so more teams can benefit by playing against those teams. If both NYs were in the same division, then the other teams in that division would have a disproportionate amount of games against those clubs, and probably earn more revenue because of it. Keeping them in different leagues allows more teams to have dates against NY. I'm not sure if BAL-WSH is considered one large market in the context of sports, but if so, there would be little chance that MLB would want them in the same league.

MLS 2020:

1. Atlanta Silverbacks (expansion club, 2020; club owned by Fulham FC)
2. Boston Minutemen (New England Revolution rebrand)
3. Chicago Fire SC
4. Colorado Rapids
5. Columbus Crew
6. Dallas Sidekicks (FC Dallas rebrand)
7. DC United
8. Houston Dynamo
9. Kansas City Wizards
10. Los Angeles Galaxy
11. Barca Miami (expansion club, 2016; club owned by FC Barcelona)
12. Minnesota Thunder (expansion club, 2020)
13. Montreal Impact (expansion club, 2012)
14. New York Cosmos (Red Bull New York rebrand)
15. Philadelphia Union
16. Portland Timbers
17. Real Salt Lake (club owned by Real Madrid)
18. Saint Louis United (expansion club, 2012; former AC St. Louis)
19. CD San Diego (CD Chivas USA rebrand and relocation; club owned by Toluca)
20. San Jose Earthquakes
21. Seattle Sounders FC
22. Tampa Bay Rowdies (expansion club, 2016)
23. Toronto FC
24. Vancouver Whitecaps

Any expansion / realignment proposal for any sport in any league in any universe in any place in the space-time continuum that doesn't include Winnipeg simply cannot be taken seriously.

Not to start a whole thing, but why are realignment threads so frowned upon?

-Dan

Because every single goddam time someone brings up a realignment, the same 50 idiots show up and post their ideas, and the thread turns in to nothing but postings of realigned leagues with expansion teams that don't make any sense.

In my opinion (which counts for next to nothing, if not nothing), realignment threads aren't the worst thing in the world, except that everyone will feel the need to start their own thread, and the board would be littered with them. You'd need a whole forum just for that.

The worst is when there's a perfectly good thread going on, then one jackass posts his idea for how the league would be aligned if the Jags move to LA, then, like roaches, every other idiot comes out of the woodwork to join the party and derail the thread.

Agree but the people who feel the need to post a picture sentence do as much to derail a thread as the op posting the realignment suggestion. It's along the lines of IBTL and such; pure post padding.

By the time any of those pictures or IBTLs get posted, it's already too late.

Sure, but how many instances of derailment could have been avoided if people had simply ignored the realignment post instead of quoting it and drawing more attention to it?

IMHO, zero.

Once the first idiot chimes in, the others are drawn in somehow. It's like bed bugs or roaches - if you see one, you know there are a hundred others lurking. All it takes is for one realignment post with some stupid suggestion, and then there are others who can't help but think that they can do better, and next thing you know, one stupid post becomes two which becomes four which becomes eight...

Not to start a whole thing, but why are realignment threads so frowned upon?

-Dan

Because every single goddam time someone brings up a realignment, the same 50 idiots show up and post their ideas, and the thread turns in to nothing but postings of realigned leagues with expansion teams that don't make any sense.

In my opinion (which counts for next to nothing, if not nothing), realignment threads aren't the worst thing in the world, except that everyone will feel the need to start their own thread, and the board would be littered with them. You'd need a whole forum just for that.

The worst is when there's a perfectly good thread going on, then one jackass posts his idea for how the league would be aligned if the Jags move to LA, then, like roaches, every other idiot comes out of the woodwork to join the party and derail the thread.

Agree but the people who feel the need to post a picture sentence do as much to derail a thread as the op posting the realignment suggestion. It's along the lines of IBTL and such; pure post padding.

By the time any of those pictures or IBTLs get posted, it's already too late.

Not to start a whole thing, but why are realignment threads so frowned upon?

-Dan

Because every single goddam time someone brings up a realignment, the same 50 idiots show up and post their ideas, and the thread turns in to nothing but postings of realigned leagues with expansion teams that don't make any sense.

In my opinion (which counts for next to nothing, if not nothing), realignment threads aren't the worst thing in the world, except that everyone will feel the need to start their own thread, and the board would be littered with them. You'd need a whole forum just for that.

The worst is when there's a perfectly good thread going on, then one jackass posts his idea for how the league would be aligned if the Jags move to LA, then, like roaches, every other idiot comes out of the woodwork to join the party and derail the thread.

By the time any of those pictures or IBTLs get posted, it's already too late.

Agree but the people who feel the need to post a picture sentence do as much to derail a thread as the op posting the realignment suggestion. It's along the lines of IBTL and such; pure post padding.

Not to start a whole thing, but why are realignment threads so frowned upon?

-Dan

Because every single goddam time someone brings up a realignment, the same 50 idiots show up and post their ideas, and the thread turns in to nothing but postings of realigned leagues with expansion teams that don't make any sense.

In my opinion (which counts for next to nothing, if not nothing), realignment threads aren't the worst thing in the world, except that everyone will feel the need to start their own thread, and the board would be littered with them. You'd need a whole forum just for that.

The worst is when there's a perfectly good thread going on, then one jackass posts his idea for how the league would be aligned if the Jags move to LA, then, like roaches, every other idiot comes out of the woodwork to join the party and derail the thread.

Anyway, FanHouse came up with an interesting idea in this post: have the MLB work like European soccer, with an A league and a B league - contenders go in the A league, and underachievers go in the B league.

Good luck getting fans in Major League cities to pay Major League ticket prices for a team that for all intents and purposes is considered Minor League.

-Dan

The only way this works is if say the playoffs consist of 6 "A League" teams and 2 "B League" teams.

Which would be stupid for a lot of reasons.

The NFL, NBA and NHL are fine the way they are. But the MLB hasn't yet realized that the three other major leagues have actually evened out the teams in each division by now. I mean, do they realize how ridiculous it is to have only four teams in the AL West when there are six teams in the NL Central?

Anyway, FanHouse came up with an interesting idea in this post: have the MLB work like European soccer, with an A league and a B league - contenders go in the A league, and underachievers go in the B league.

Everyone wants to think that their team has at least an outside shot of winning a championship when the season starts. There's always a few surprise teams, and even fans in Pittsburgh have to have some hope (at least on opening day) that this can be their year. Having an A and B league effectively eliminates half of the league before the season even starts, making it unlikely that people are going to turn out, even in the beginning. Why would I want to go to games for what is effectively a minor league team?

Someone has to say it...

cant beleive nobody thot of this but

hornets 2 charlit

jazz back too new orlins

and teh bobcats can go 2 utah it wuld work perfictly!!!!1

ur stupit.

One of Utah's nicknames is "beehive state" (the other one being "Double Z State"), so the Hornetzz would go to Utah, and Charlotte should be the Force, or Flight, or Wind, or Air, or ...

It's good, but I think the NHL needs to expand more in order to get the alignment just right. I'm thinking Birmingham, Tallahassee, San Antonio, and possibly Des Monies. Also, move the Panthers to Winnipeg and rename them the Jets, then move them to Seattle, but keep the name and colors.

Man, all those new NFL proprietary typefaces are such a waste of time. I get the idea, but it's still irritating that it has to be done. Once upon a time, every single team except the Bears used the same varsity block. Simpler times indeed. You'd think those Chargers jerseys were already kinda hard to counterfeit, wouldn't you?

I didn't find the home uniforms bland. You get so much pop between the three colors. Everything's too muddled now.

Well, technically, some teams had the Champion block, and some the Wilson (or whatever the Rams and Seahawks had (though the Seahawks had a really fat version of it.)).

I like the custom numbers - when they make sense. The Vikings, Cardinals, and Bengals (among others) just don't seem to make sense other than the fact that they wanted something custom.

I think that as long as football and basketball are comprised of the same members, it doesn't really cheapen it that much, since the average (read - me) fan doesn't know anything about any other sport anyway. The Big East does seem like kind of a cheap, patchwork organization sometimes since they roll out different teams in every sport*.

*yes, I know this is because of the 1-aa football teams that can't participate in that sport, but still.

I should rephrase my question.

Does the big 10 require that if you field a team in a sport that they sponsor, that team has to be in the big 10? So if Wisconsin decided to field a baseball team, could they join the Big East for some reason? So could Texas maintain their relationship with the big 12 or whatever leagues their lower-budget sports are in? (assuming of course that the big 12 would want anything to do with them, which they'd be foolish not to.)

Does the big 10 require teams to be members in all sports? Could they have a 12-team football league, and then 10 or 11 team other leagues?

I want no part of this. Nothing against the Big Ten whatsoever, but I like seeing teams in my region on a regular basis. I have friends and family etc. that have ties to Tech, Baylor, Gigem U and so on. I know the almighty dollar rules all in college football (hell, in life period), but the backlash UT would get due to this decision would make the powers that be rethink it. Leave it alone.

Then what about the Pac-10? Every year, UT would play Sooner and the Corps, but just replace Baylor and Texas State with Purdue and Indiana. The Purdue game would be great so we could see who REALLY has the World's Biggest Snare Drum! That intrigues me.

Hey, where's "spammy" with all his inside information since he works directly with a D-1 athletic director? ]

Guys, the Big Ten is not going to expand, period. The whole conference would have to vote on it, its just not happening. If it did, however, Missouri or Iowa State would be added, just because of geographical location. Texas will stay in the Big 12, and if Texas were to leave, the would join the PAC 11. Thats really all I have to say on this...

Geographical location is precisely why those schools probably won't be added. It's all about marketing these days, and they already sell their channel in and recruit their players from those markets.

Well most baseball teams put them on flag poles or on the outfield wall (or other visible spots in the stadium). Most football teams don't even display banners. I was more getting at the fact that I despise domes.

Though I understand your "Football belongs outside" angle, domes are meant to house other events, too.

Building the Georgia Dome was the smartest decision the city of Atlanta ever made, and the revenue that's been generated because of the Dome has been astronomical. It has allowed Atlanta to host the Super Bowl, the Olympics, the Final Four, the SEC Football Championship, the ACC and SEC basketball tournaments, and other national and international events. It has also enhanced the quality of play and fan experience for NFL games and the Peach (now Chick-Fil-A) Bowl.

And of course, the Falcons' owners now says that they need a new stadium to compete.

I don't see why the hell Arthur Blank is begging for a new stadium. They just spent money fixing the place up a few years ago, and it's less than 20 years old.

20 years = 1989. Stadium trends changed dramatically around 1998 or 1999 (when Cleveland Browns' stadium, Baltimore stadium opened around then, with Heinz, LFF, Reliant, etc. right around the corner) so the Georgia Dome may not be able to have those extra features and revenue streams no matter how much the renovate it. Note - I've never been inside it, so I don't know for sure. It's kind of like New Comisky - opened only one year behind Camden Yards, yet miles behind it and every stadium to have opened since (except for the Thunderdome, or whatever it's called now.)

I've never questioned it from a business standpoint. But as for the argument that "it's necessary to have a dome in order to play here", how did colleges and high schools play all those years before the technology to build air-conditioned domes existed? Also, why have a retractable dome when it's closed all the time? And when it's not closed, the "opening" barely exposes the whole field? Any time I've seen a dome'd game on TV, it just looks so sterile.

Anyway, back to the topic, I'm not sure what a good solution would be for teams with "traditional" outdoor stadiums. Maybe put accomplishments on the side tarp (the tarp under the first row of seats)? With the amount of thin video boards in the level dividers, the "ring of honor" thing and other accomplishment displays as permanent fixtures will be a thing of the past.

Well most baseball teams put them on flag poles or on the outfield wall (or other visible spots in the stadium). Most football teams don't even display banners. I was more getting at the fact that I despise domes.

There's just something wrong with bannars hanging from the rafters in baseball or football stadiums.

My god the slug looks horrible on those banners.