The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[The_Admiral]

Seriously, your like a cross between Rainman and Cousin Eddie from "Christmas Vacation".

This truly is a thread in which the sh-tter is full.

[Joshawaggie]

Seriously, your like a cross between Rainman and Cousin Eddie from "Christmas Vacation".

This truly is a thread in which the sh-tter is full.

Sh-tters full, definitely, definitely full. Yeah, sh-tters full.

[ESTONES6]

How exactly does beating the team closest to you earn a playoff spot? Proximity means nothing in deciding who is in and who's out of the playoffs. You set up divisions. Who ever has the best record, that means WINS the most games, goes to the playoffs. He absolutely makes 0% sense.

I could understand if he set them up according to Time Zone, but he doesn't even follow that rigidly. Or even if he put it according to market size/team revenue. He acts like he is so profound (Illuminati), like we are too much of simpletons do understand is moronic divisions. The whole point of the playoffs is to have a large enough sample size to definitevely say you are the best in the division.

By organizing a 2 team division and a 7 team division in the same league, its pretty much makes the playoffs pointless, in any league, in any sport. If you are in a 2 team division, all you gotta do is match up well against ONE other opponent. Like when the Warriors beat the Mavericks in the first round. The Mavs were one of the best teams in the ENTIRE league that year, but they had a poor match up against Golden State.

Can we just give this guy the boot?

[max]

I could understand if he set them up according to Time Zone, but he doesn't even follow that rigidly.

Why would you want me to do that? I've explained the method.

This is the point: Beat your rivals, go to the playoffs. This is the same logic all the current familiar professional sports leagues follow now (by arranging divisions with names like "east/west/central/northwest/southwest/southeast/atlantic/pacific/midwest by which the 1st place team is guaranteed a playoff spot). I am taking that idea to its seemingly most extreme case to better understand the other factors why major pro sports leagues group their teams the way they do (it's not really based on strict geographical/rivalry boundaries). The reasons why I post or my ideas about my own work are arguments you can make, you cannot argue my math unless it is right (wrong).

(28 teams in Pacific/Northwest Time Zones, 96 in Central/Eastern Time Zones in NCAA FBS football). Time zone was a big factor a couple years ago specifically for college sports teams' conference alignment. It wasn't just a scare after all, Boise State decided not to join the Big East (for football, obviously). More factors more difficult to understand:

The NFL has measured the distance from the Dallas Cowboys "arena" to E. Rutherford and Landover, but the league would rather have the Cowboys play the Giants and Redskins twice a year, so they can have a Cowboys vs. Indians game on Thanksgiving Day - for TV. Understood.

Of course you could argue against purely geographical groupings, but I think the community rejects it and all ideas ultimately lead back to accepting the current paradigm - The current paradigm requires the sacrifice of balance in geographical rivalries for even divisions (which asserts an even schedule), but does not create any separation in the playoffs (like the early 90s NHL playoff format which is a popular realignment option now) or an even schedule. If TV is the biggest factor, I think rivalries have been proven to override geographical constraints (or the appearance of deviation from the geographical divisions in which a team sits creates an identity purely anti-league - Dallas Cowboys in the East Division). The Oakland Raiders are not in the AFC North for what reasons? I mean, even the Hawaii Rainbow Warriors have their own team plane...

I think it is true that rivalries become big enough that they overtake the league's structure itself, or appear to. That is, what do you think the importance of Jerry Jones is? The Yankees cannot play themselves, they have to play (the Red Sox) other teams. The biggest rivalries can overtake the Super Bowl/World Series/MLS Cup in importance, and why would the league reject that idea?

Leagues are based on rivalries. What are playoffs? Does East vs. West matter? What about North-Northeast vs. South-Southwest? Hawaii is closer to San Francisco than Los Angeles, so does a 11-hour flight instead of a 12-hour flight mean that the Hawaii Warriors should play Fresno State more than UCLA? You can argue this, but there's probably somebody out there who knows (TV network boss, Athletic Director, Senator Inouye).

I think the biggest point I think goes unsaid on this board is that we are trying to make comparisons between teams in leagues (and I argue "except for two teams which are rivals" - the easiest way to prove this is whether they are geographically closest to each other than every other team in the league) balanced. Are "re-aligners" concerned with the balance on the field? I could come up with a reason why football teams that play on turf should not play teams that play on grass. Is this a "good enough reason" for the Redskins to never play the Saints? Does climate play a part in divisional alignment? It is absolutely true that the schedule influences the health of the players...

We will never stop arguing about this line of balance between our "teams." There are so many factors in grouping teams as well as the ranked list of "hated" opponents your favorite football team plays:

If there's a list of the order which Chiefs fans "hate" the other teams in the league, why shouldn't the top 15 be in the same conference as the Chiefs, according to the Chiefs?

Safe to say that sports are built on two teams playing.

Safe to say that leagues are built on three or more teams playing.

-My postulate to these facts: the third team in the league also, already, has a rival in one of the two teams already in the league.

I have created entirely new radical realignments purely based on geography, a factor in grouping teams already used by sports leagues, a factor in determining rivals for expansion teams, and the number one factor in determining favorite sports teams among young kids. It is also an easy factor to use to realign groups. Although, the easiest factor to use to group teams together is probably helmet color (just costs about $8 worth of quarters).

Lock in your answers now.

[McCall]

STOP! JUST STOP! You are not doing anything you say you are. There's is no correlation between the crap you actually write and what you say it means. And where the hell did you come up with the Cowboys being in the NFC East because the NFL wants Cowboys vs Indians on Thanksgiving? It makes no sense. YOU make no sense. Geography is a factor, but not the end all in determining division alignments. Especially not in college as you seem to do where there are wa-ay too many other factors.

You aren't contributing anything valuable to this thread. You're uniting all of us only because of how dumbfounded we are by your meaningless posts.

[GriffinM6]

STOP! JUST STOP! You are not doing anything you say you are. There's is no correlation between the crap you actually write and what you say it means. And where the hell did you come up with the Cowboys being in the NFC East because the NFL wants Cowboys vs Indians on Thanksgiving? It makes no sense. YOU make no sense. Geography is a factor, but not the end all in determining division alignments. Especially not in college as you seem to do where there are wa-ay too many other factors.

You aren't contributing anything valuable to this thread. You're uniting all of us only because of how dumbfounded we are by your meaningless posts.

Amen man. AMEN. I reported one his posts today too. Hopefully that will fix the problem.

[max]

Ok I'll quit.

[Raysfan12]

STOP! JUST STOP! You are not doing anything you say you are. There's is no correlation between the crap you actually write and what you say it means. And where the hell did you come up with the Cowboys being in the NFC East because the NFL wants Cowboys vs Indians on Thanksgiving? It makes no sense. YOU make no sense. Geography is a factor, but not the end all in determining division alignments. Especially not in college as you seem to do where there are wa-ay too many other factors.

You aren't contributing anything valuable to this thread. You're uniting all of us only because of how dumbfounded we are by your meaningless posts.

Amen man. AMEN. I reported one his posts today too. Hopefully that will fix the problem.

Amen as well.

[CS85]

*marks forum as read* *repeats*

[DaytonBlue]

Thinking about the Kings/Seattle situation made me think of a scenario like this...

If Maloofs won't sell to Sacramento buyer...

-sell Kings to Hansen, move franchise to Seattle and become Sonics (leave history behind)

-immediately give expansion team to Sacramento, inheriting Kings history

-Thunder only claim Thunder history as their own

-Make team 32 Vancouver Dragons

-No name swaps other than Seattle takes Sonics name again and Charlotte takes Hornets name again.

Divisions:

Pacific: LAL, LAC, GSW, SEA, VAN, POR, SAC, PHX

Southwestern: DEN, UTA, OKC, MEM, NOLA, HOU, DAL, SA

Central: MIN, MIL, CHI, IND, DET, CLE, TOR, ATL

Atlantic: NYK, BRK, BOS, PHI, WAS, CHA, ORL, MIA

Play your division 4x, other division 3x, other conference 2x=84 games

To compensate for two extra games, cut preseason from 8 to 4 games.

Playoffs: Just like now, except division winners and two next best teams ranked 1-4.

32 seems to be a really good number for sports realignment

[aci]

Thinking about the Kings/Seattle situation made me think of a scenario like this...

If Maloofs won't sell to Sacramento buyer...

-sell Kings to Hansen, move franchise to Seattle and become Sonics (leave history behind)

-immediately give expansion team to Sacramento, inheriting Kings history

-Thunder only claim Thunder history as their own

-Make team 32 Vancouver Dragons

-No name swaps other than Seattle takes Sonics name again and Charlotte takes Hornets name again.

Divisions:

Pacific: LAL, LAC, GSW, SEA, VAN, POR, SAC, PHX

Southwestern: DEN, UTA, OKC, MEM, NOLA, HOU, DAL, SA

Central: MIN, MIL, CHI, IND, DET, CLE, TOR, ATL

Atlantic: NYK, BRK, BOS, PHI, WAS, CHA, ORL, MIA

Play your division 4x, other division 3x, other conference 2x=84 games

To compensate for two extra games, cut preseason from 8 to 4 games.

Playoffs: Just like now, except division winners and two next best teams ranked 1-4.

32 seems to be a really good number for sports realignment

Atlanta kinda kills that one, but there isn't much you can do without going to 8 divisions of 4 instead of 4 divisions of 8.

[McCall]

The NBA doesn't need more games. If anything, they need to cut down. And it's highly unlikely Vancouver gets another expansion team.

[ESTONES6]

The NBA doesn't need more games. If anything, they need to cut down. And it's highly unlikely Vancouver gets another expansion team.

In all honesty, with the the way they NBA playoffs are set up now with 8 teams per conference, a division alignment of 4 teams per division, with 8 divisions might be ideal. It would eliminate all of the issues with the 3 division winner and next highest record getting home court. It would force it to be ONLY division winners.

[McCall]

The NBA doesn't need more games. If anything, they need to cut down. And it's highly unlikely Vancouver gets another expansion team.

In all honesty, with the the way they NBA playoffs are set up now with 8 teams per conference, a division alignment of 4 teams per division, with 8 divisions might be ideal. It would eliminate all of the issues with the 3 division winner and next highest record getting home court. It would force it to be ONLY division winners.

Agreed.

[DaytonBlue]

I feel like with 8 divisions of 4, you'd have to play more division games to make the division championships legitimate.

One possibility:

division 6x=18 games

interconference=32 games

in conference=32 games (on a rotating basis, play two of the other three divisions 3x and one 2x)

This would mean every team in a division plays just about the same schedule (only difference is home/away for a few opponents.)

82 game season, division winners seeded 1-4

If they were worried about a prime matchup taking place in the 2nd round instead of 3rd, they could reseed a la the NHL.

I only mentioned Vancouver as a possibility because Stern has said it was a mistake leaving there so soon (it worked out for my city though).

With 8 divisions of four, it's hard to come up with something they'd go for.

This was the best I could do, but the Pistons, Celtics, and New York teams probably would not like it.

Pacific: SEA, VAN, POR, PHX

California: LAL, LAC, GSW, SAC

Southwest: HOU, DAL, SA, NO

Central: UTA, DEN, OKC, MIN

Midwest: IND, CHI, MIL, CLE

Northeast: DET, TOR, BOS, PHI

Atlantic: NYK, BRK, WAS, CHA

Southeast: MEM, ATL, MIA, ORL

[Telemundo219]

I feel like with 8 divisions of 4, you'd have to play more division games to make the division championships legitimate.

One possibility:

division 6x=18 games

interconference=32 games

in conference=32 games (on a rotating basis, play two of the other three divisions 3x and one 2x)

This would mean every team in a division plays just about the same schedule (only difference is home/away for a few opponents.)

82 game season, division winners seeded 1-4

If they were worried about a prime matchup taking place in the 2nd round instead of 3rd, they could reseed a la the NHL.

I only mentioned Vancouver as a possibility because Stern has said it was a mistake leaving there so soon (it worked out for my city though).

With 8 divisions of four, it's hard to come up with something they'd go for.

This was the best I could do, but the Pistons, Celtics, and New York teams probably would not like it.

Pacific: SEA, VAN, POR, PHX

California: LAL, LAC, GSW, SAC

Southwest: HOU, DAL, SA, NO

Central: UTA, DEN, OKC, MIN

Midwest: IND, CHI, MIL, CLE

Northeast: DET, TOR, BOS, PHI

Atlantic: NYK, BRK, WAS, CHA

Southeast: MEM, ATL, MIA, ORL

Why would you put/name a division the Midwest in the Eastern conference then have a central division in the west? Doesn't seem right. Additionally, some of these alignments are wacky (NY in the same division as Charlotte but not Philadelphia????)

[JH42XCC]

I think

I feel like with 8 divisions of 4, you'd have to play more division games to make the division championships legitimate.

One possibility:

division 6x=18 games

interconference=32 games

in conference=32 games (on a rotating basis, play two of the other three divisions 3x and one 2x)

This would mean every team in a division plays just about the same schedule (only difference is home/away for a few opponents.)

82 game season, division winners seeded 1-4

If they were worried about a prime matchup taking place in the 2nd round instead of 3rd, they could reseed a la the NHL.

I only mentioned Vancouver as a possibility because Stern has said it was a mistake leaving there so soon (it worked out for my city though).

With 8 divisions of four, it's hard to come up with something they'd go for.

This was the best I could do, but the Pistons, Celtics, and New York teams probably would not like it.

Pacific: SEA, VAN, POR, PHX

California: LAL, LAC, GSW, SAC

Southwest: HOU, DAL, SA, NO

Central: UTA, DEN, OKC, MIN

Midwest: IND, CHI, MIL, CLE

Northeast: DET, TOR, BOS, PHI

Atlantic: NYK, BRK, WAS, CHA

Southeast: MEM, ATL, MIA, ORL

Why would you put/name a division the Midwest in the Eastern conference then have a central division in the west? Doesn't seem right. Additionally, some of these alignments are wacky (NY in the same division as Charlotte but not Philadelphia????)

I think this would make much more sense:

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Atlantic

• Brooklyn Nets
  
• New York Knicks
  
• Philadelphia 76ers
  
• Washington Wizards
  

Northeast

• Boston Celtics
  
• Cleveland Cavaliers
  
• Detroit Pistons
  
• Toronto Raptors
  

Southeast

• Atlanta Hawks
  
• Charlotte Hornets
  
• Miami Heat
  
• Orlando Magic
  

Central

• Chicago Bulls
  
• Indiana Pacers
  
• Memphis Grizzlies
  
• Milwaukee Bucks
  

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Midwest

• Kansas City (expansion)
  
• Minnesota Timberwolves
  
• New Orleans Pelicans
  
• Oklahoma City Thunder
  

Southwest

• Dallas Mavericks
  
• Houston Rockets
  
• Phoenix Suns
  
• San Antonio Spurs
  

Northwest

• Denver Nuggets
  
• Portland Trail Blazers
  
• Seattle SuperSonics (expansion)
  
• Utah Jazz
  

Pacific

• Golden State Warriors
  
• Los Angeles Clippers
  
• Los Angeles Lakers
  
• Sacramento Kings
  

[max]

Western Conference

pacific division

Phoenix Suns

Los Angeles Lakers

Los Angeles Clippers

Golden State Warriors

Sacramento/Seattle Kings/Sonics

northwest division

Portland Trail Blazers (should be with PHX, LAL, LAC, GSW, SAC)

Utah Jazz

Denver Nuggets

Minnesota Timberwolves (should be with CHI, MIL)

Oklahoma City Thunder (should be with DAL, HOU, SAS, NOLA)

midwest division

Dallas Mavericks

Houston Rockets

San Antonio Spurs

New Orleans Pelicans

Memphis Grizzlies (should be with MIA, ORL, CHA, ATL)

Eastern Conference

central division

Detroit Pistons

Cleveland Cavaliers

Indiana Pacers

Chicago Bulls (should be with MIN)

Milwaukee Bucks (should be with MIN)

southeast division

Atlanta Hawks

Washington Wizards (should be with PHI, BOS, NYK, BRK)

Charlotte Bobcats/Hornets

Orlando Magic

Miami Heat

atlantic division

Toronto Raptors (should be with DET, CLE, IND)

Philadelphia 76ers

Boston Celtics

New York Knicks

Brooklyn Nets

[McCall]

Western Conference

pacific division

Phoenix Suns

Los Angeles Lakers

Los Angeles Clippers

Golden State Warriors

Sacramento/Seattle Kings/Sonics

northwest division

Portland Trail Blazers (should be with PHX, LAL, LAC, GSW, SAC)

Utah Jazz

Denver Nuggets

Minnesota Timberwolves (should be with CHI, MIL)

Oklahoma City Thunder (should be with DAL, HOU, SAS, NOLA)

midwest division

Dallas Mavericks

Houston Rockets

San Antonio Spurs

New Orleans Pelicans

Memphis Grizzlies (should be with MIA, ORL, CHA, ATL)

Eastern Conference

central division

Detroit Pistons

Cleveland Cavaliers

Indiana Pacers

Chicago Bulls (should be with MIN)

Milwaukee Bucks (should be with MIN)

southeast division

Atlanta Hawks

Washington Wizards (should be with PHI, BOS, NYK, BRK)

Charlotte Bobcats/Hornets

Orlando Magic

Miami Heat

atlantic division

Toronto Raptors (should be with DET, CLE, IND)

Philadelphia 76ers

Boston Celtics

New York Knicks

Brooklyn Nets

What's with all the "should be's"? And why should Portland be with Phoenix? Do you not understand the geography of the western United States? I thought you were all big on "beating their neighbors"?

And this isn't even a realignment idea. It's just the current actual alignment only with Sacramento listed as "Sacramento/Seattle".

[DaytonBlue]

I think this would make much more sense:

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Atlantic

• Brooklyn Nets
  
• New York Knicks
  
• Philadelphia 76ers
  
• Washington Wizards
  

Northeast

• Boston Celtics
  
• Cleveland Cavaliers
  
• Detroit Pistons
  
• Toronto Raptors
  

Southeast

• Atlanta Hawks
  
• Charlotte Hornets
  
• Miami Heat
  
• Orlando Magic
  

Central

• Chicago Bulls
  
• Indiana Pacers
  
• Memphis Grizzlies
  
• Milwaukee Bucks
  

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Midwest

• Kansas City (expansion)
  
• Minnesota Timberwolves
  
• New Orleans Pelicans
  
• Oklahoma City Thunder
  

Southwest

• Dallas Mavericks
  
• Houston Rockets
  
• Phoenix Suns
  
• San Antonio Spurs
  

Northwest

• Denver Nuggets
  
• Portland Trail Blazers
  
• Seattle SuperSonics (expansion)
  
• Utah Jazz
  

Pacific

• Golden State Warriors
  
• Los Angeles Clippers
  
• Los Angeles Lakers
  
• Sacramento Kings
  

Yeah that's definitely better. Again I think 32 is going to be the ideal number of franchises for scheduling/alignment purposes and MLB/NBA/NHL will expand to it over the next decade or so. Then hopefully they stop.