BBTV

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Didn't Barkley sign one of those one-day/one-game contracts with Philadelphia after he left Houston? I don't remember. Either way, he still never wore that logo.

Was at the 'Nova vs. Georgetown game yesterday, and noticed some things about the Flyers' and Sixers' banners: 1. Sixers changed the logo on Charles Barkley's retired number banner. For some reason, they used the black-gold logo on it (even though he never wore it). They now use the original (current) logo. 2. Flyers stopped hanging division championship banners. Not sure when this happened, but I just noticed that they just have one "Atlantic Division Champions" banner that just lists all of the years they've won it. They still have individual banners for Patrick Division and Western Division.

That looks much better - I didn't think they could add the middle suite level and separate the decks like that without blowing it up. That looks much closer to some of the modern arenas.