The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[Jacobseye]

1 hour ago, neo_prankster said:

Omaha Saints?

I ended up moving the Saints as I figured New Orleans wasn't going to be able to support pro sports anymore due to climate change taking a toll on the city's population. Just one more Katrina-type event and that city's gone (okay I'm exaggerating a bit but case in point) As for Omaha of all cities, I entertained several other major cities, I ruled out Texas and Oklahoma as I thought Jerry's son would oppose a team in those areas much like his father, I also considered Louisville, but I thought it be a better fit for an NBA Franchise than a NFL side. I ultimately decided on Omaha as it was a fast-growing metro area with a strong football heritage.

 

Other moves I wanted to address were putting the Dolphins in the AFC South, with the Jags gone and putting a team in Toronto, I figured it is more geographically fitting to put Miami in the South, while the Toronto team gets put in the East. I thought about putting Toronto in the north, but its mean breaking up the Ravens-Steelers Rivalry or the Browns Bengals Rivalry, which I wanted to keep intact. As well as the Bucs moving across I-4 to Orlando (More Tourism $$)

[McCall]

21 minutes ago, Jacobseye said:

I ended up moving the Saints as I figured New Orleans wasn't going to be able to support pro sports anymore due to climate change taking a toll on the city's population. Just one more Katrina-type event and that city's gone (okay I'm exaggerating a bit but case in point) As for Omaha of all cities, I entertained several other major cities, I ruled out Texas and Oklahoma as I thought Jerry's son would oppose a team in those areas much like his father, I also considered Louisville, but I thought it be a better fit for an NBA Franchise than a NFL side. I ultimately decided on Omaha as it was a fast-growing metro area with a strong football heritage.

 

Other moves I wanted to address were putting the Dolphins in the AFC South, with the Jags gone and putting a team in Toronto, I figured it is more geographically fitting to put Miami in the South, while the Toronto team gets put in the East. I thought about putting Toronto in the north, but its mean breaking up the Ravens-Steelers Rivalry or the Browns Bengals Rivalry, which I wanted to keep intact. As well as the Bucs moving across I-4 to Orlando (More Tourism $$)

[neo_prankster]

1 hour ago, Jacobseye said:

I ended up moving the Saints as I figured New Orleans wasn't going to be able to support pro sports anymore due to climate change taking a toll on the city's population. Just one more Katrina-type event and that city's gone (okay I'm exaggerating a bit but case in point) As for Omaha of all cities, I entertained several other major cities, I ruled out Texas and Oklahoma as I thought Jerry's son would oppose a team in those areas much like his father, I also considered Louisville, but I thought it be a better fit for an NBA Franchise than a NFL side. I ultimately decided on Omaha as it was a fast-growing metro area with a strong football heritage.

 

Other moves I wanted to address were putting the Dolphins in the AFC South, with the Jags gone and putting a team in Toronto, I figured it is more geographically fitting to put Miami in the South, while the Toronto team gets put in the East. I thought about putting Toronto in the north, but its mean breaking up the Ravens-Steelers Rivalry or the Browns Bengals Rivalry, which I wanted to keep intact. As well as the Bucs moving across I-4 to Orlando (More Tourism $$)

So basically New Orleans becomes the next Oakland?

[Jacobseye]

23 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

So basically New Orleans becomes the next Oakland?

Sadly, that would pretty much be it for NOLA as a pro sports market. Regarding Oakland, I do have plans for it to be a sports city again in this series, most likely it's the MLS though I've been toying with the idea of the Sharks moving up there instead.

[neo_prankster]

Revised 36 team NHL

 

Division A

Boston

Buffalo

Detroit

Montreal

Ottawa

Toronto

 

Division B

Columbus

New Jersey

NY Islanders

NY Rangers

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

 

Division C

Atlanta

Carolina

Florida

Nashville

Tampa Bay

Washington

 

Division X

Anaheim

Colorado

Los Angeles

San Jose

Vegas

Utah

 

Division Y

Calgary

Edmonton

Portland

Seattle

Vancouver

Winnipeg

 

Division Z

Chicago

Dallas

Houston
Milwaukee

Minnesota

St. Louis

[Seadragon76]

The the reborn Arena League is falling apart, it might be time for the IFL to be the new standard bearer for Indoor Football.

 

To accomplish this, they add five of the current teams from the Arena Football League to join the incoming franchises in Columbus, Dakota and Fishers. These teams would be Albany, Georgia, Nashville, New Orleans and Orlando

 

Realignment would be like this...

 

Eastern Conference

Atlantic Division

-Albany

-Columbus

-Georgia

-Jacksonville

-Massachusetts

-Orlando

 

Central Division

-Dakota

-Fishers

-Green Bay

-Iowa

-Quad City

-Sioux Falls

 

Western Conference

Southwest Division

-Duke City

-Frisco

-Nashville

-New Orleans

-San Antonio

-Tulsa

 

Pacific Division

-Arizona

-Bay Area

-Northern Arizona

-San Diego

-Tucson

-Vegas

 

[jlog3000]

@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?

[Seadragon76]

4 hours ago, jlog3000 said:

@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?

 

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

[jlog3000]

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]

4 hours ago, jlog3000 said:

 

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]).

 

It's an example idea. Another route would be rotating opponents each season so that each team can play everyone else at least once in a six year span OR a pairing rotation that switches after two years.

 

So, in the case of Arizona...

 

Year/Pairing 1 - Albany and Dakota

Year/Pairing 2 - Columbus and Fishers

Year/Pairing 3 - Georgia and Green Bay

Year/Pairing 4 - Jacksonville and Iowa

Year/Pairing 5 - Massachusetts and Quad City

Year/Pairing 6 - Orlando and Sioux Falls

[Magnus]

Edited Tuesday at 03:39 PM by officeglenn
Embedded the image

[McCall]

1 hour ago, Magnus said:

In this scenario, you can just call the Metropolitan Division the "North".

[jlog3000]

To me, it's a no-brainer to have the 'division rivals' part play 4 times each (hence its 7 teams x 4 gpt [games per team]); plus the 32 interconference games plus the 24 non-division games for a total of 84. I just don't get how the NHL does NOT see this common sense-based solution in front of them (as long as the league itself remains at 32 teams in total and no future expansion plans in the works, even if the Arizona Coyotes might potentially not return back).

 

And for a bit funsies, have the divisions from both conferences create small 4-team sections, and with that 84-game scheduling, it would still also work the same as the 4 8-team division style.

 

But for a smaller tweak, it would be just taking out the games from a different section within the same division to put it as bonus in-division games:

 

* Sectional games: 3 t x 6 g/t = 18

* Non-sectional games within same division: 4 t x 3 g/t = 12

* Games within same conference but opposite division: 8 t x 3 g/t = 24

* Games from opposite conference: 16 t x2 g/t = 32

 

Total season games: 86

Edited Tuesday at 05:51 PM by jlog3000

[Magnus]

On 6/18/2024 at 1:44 PM, jlog3000 said:

To me, it's a no-brainer to have the 'division rivals' part play 4 times each (hence its 7 teams x 4 gpt [games per team]); plus the 32 interconference games plus the 24 non-division games for a total of 84. I just don't get how the NHL does NOT see this common sense-based solution in front of them (as long as the league itself remains at 32 teams in total and no future expansion plans in the works, even if the Arizona Coyotes might potentially not return back).

 

And for a bit funsies, have the divisions from both conferences create small 4-team sections, and with that 84-game scheduling, it would still also work the same as the 4 8-team division style.

 

But for a smaller tweak, it would be just taking out the games from a different section within the same division to put it as bonus in-division games:

 

* Sectional games: 3 t x 6 g/t = 18

* Non-sectional games within same division: 4 t x 3 g/t = 12

* Games within same conference but opposite division: 8 t x 3 g/t = 24

* Games from opposite conference: 16 t x2 g/t = 32

 

Total season games: 86

I worry that increasing the number of games played any more than what it is currently is going to face significant backlash from players (and season ticket holders).

I'd keep the schedule at 80 games, personally. 

[jlog3000]

1 minute ago, Magnus said:

I worry that increasing the number of games played any more than what it is currently is going to face significant backlash from players (and season ticket holders).

I'd keep the schedule at 80 games, personally. 

 

So you rather be in favor of unfairness and against a pure well-balanced format from a scheduling standpoint. It's your perrogative after all.

 

Then, another solution needs to happen. Simply have just one 'home-and-home' series with ALL other teams (including those from the same conference and not within same division), meaning 2 x 24 = 48; and the divisional games would be just 2 'home-and-home' series, meaning 4x7 = 28; for a total of 76 games. There, it reaches the under-80-game threshold.

 

Here's an alternate variation, based on my last post, with the 8-section format (by eliminate that 3rd 'home-and-home' series):

 

* Sectional games: 3 t x 4 g/t = 12

* Non-sectional games within same division: 4 t x 3 g/t = 12

* Games within same conference but opposite division: 8 t x 3 g/t = 24

* Games from opposite conference: 16 t x2 g/t = 32

 

That way, this format evenly reaches the 80-game threshold.

[McCall]

2 hours ago, jlog3000 said:

 

So you rather be in favor of unfairness and against a pure well-balanced format from a scheduling standpoint. It's your perrogative after all.

 

Then, another solution needs to happen. Simply have just one 'home-and-home' series with ALL other teams (including those from the same conference and not within same division), meaning 2 x 24 = 48; and the divisional games would be just 2 'home-and-home' series, meaning 4x7 = 28; for a total of 76 games. There, it reaches the under-80-game threshold.

 

Here's an alternate variation, based on my last post, with the 8-section format (by eliminate that 3rd 'home-and-home' series):

 

* Sectional games: 3 t x 4 g/t = 12

* Non-sectional games within same division: 4 t x 3 g/t = 12

* Games within same conference but opposite division: 8 t x 3 g/t = 24

* Games from opposite conference: 16 t x2 g/t = 32

 

That way, this format evenly reaches the 80-game threshold.

It's not "prerogative", its basic sports operation guidelines. Adding games is something that both ownership and players usually have to agree to. And if players already feel like the season is long enough, they may not be willing to extend it any further simply just so it can "balance out". Calling it "unfairness and against pure well-balanced format from a scheduling standpoint" is essentially you saying "I want everything my way and everyone has to accept it". Not a very flattering look on you and quite honestly may lead one to the conclusion that you really don't know what you're talking about, thus torpedoing any credibility you may have.

 

Also, the NHL is an 82-game season, like the NBA.

[jlog3000]

@McCall Whatever man. It's not about "my way" as you like to blatantly say over and over. Trying to display me as if I'm such a hypocrite or something. What I have explained is simply me doing a favor for them in terms of scheduling, even if it's just a hypothetical opinion. Besides, I'm not asking for your opinion or criticism. So quit portraying me that if I'm some 'I'm above everyone else' type of person.

[McCall]

16 minutes ago, jlog3000 said:

@McCall Whatever man. It's not about "my way" as you like to blatantly say over and over. Trying to display me as if I'm such a hypocrite or something. What I have explained is simply me doing a favor for them in terms of scheduling, even if it's just a hypothetical opinion. And if I was a leader of such league, I would have it such format when I could. Besides, I'm not asking for your opinion or criticism. So quit portraying me that if I'm some 'I'm above everyone else' type of person.

These two bolded sentences contradict each other.

 

Not to mention your sarcastic, snotty remarks to Magnus for simply pointing out the obvious.

 

But hey, you do you.

[jlog3000]

Just re-edited my previous post, to just to prove my point, if that's alright with anyone else. But then again. who cares? I'm just an average viewer of these forums, after all.

[BrySmalls]

1 hour ago, jlog3000 said:

Just re-edited my previous post, to just to prove my point, if that's alright with anyone else. But then again. who cares? I'm just an average viewer of these forums, after all.

 

Fine by me, it's all pointless anyway!