The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[RoughRiders99]

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.

I like this a lot. Wonder how the scheduling would work though?

Let's just assume that all leagues have 32 teams, 8 divisions of 4 teams, split up in two conferences. How would their schedules work?

NFL - Already done, lol

MLB- 162 games. It could get a little tricky here with interleague games

NBA/NHL- They both play 82 games, so their format should be pretty much similar.

[RoughRiders99]

I like this a lot. Wonder how the scheduling would work though?

Let's just assume that all leagues have 32 teams, 8 divisions of 4 teams, split up in two conferences. How would their schedules work?

NFL - Already done, lol

MLB- 162 games. It could get a little tricky here with interleague games

NBA/NHL- They both play 82 games, so their format should be pretty much similar.

This is what I've come up with if all leagues had 32 teams, 8 divisions of 4 teams split in 2 conferences/leagues.

NBA/NHL

- 4 games against the other 3 division opponents, (4 x 3 = 12 games)

o 2 home, 2 away

- 4 games against 2 (out-of-division) conference opponents, (4 x 2 = 8 games)*

o 2 home, 2 away

- 3 games against 10 (out-of-division) remaining conference opponents, (3 x 10 = 30 games)

o 1 home, 1 away, 3

rd

game alternates home/away yearly

- 2 games against teams in the opposing conferences, (2 x 16 = 32 games)

o 1 home, 1 away

* - A 6-year rotation determines which out-of-division conference teams are played 4 times

MLB

- 18 games against the other 3 division opponents, (18 x 3 = 54 games)

o 9 home, 9 away

- 8 games against 12 (out-of-division) league opponents, (8 x 12 = 96 games)

o 4 home, 4 away

- 3 games against 4 opponents from one opposing league division, (3 x 4 = 12 games) *

o 6 or 9 home, 6 or 9 away. Home/away rotates in 3- or 6-year rotation.

* - A 3-year rotation determines which opposing league division are played for interleague

[max]

For us:

Playoffs: Playoffs are inherently unbalanced with an unbalanced schedule. Necessary?

Scheduling: Scheduling is necessary, and could be based on many factors including geographical proximity, other rivalries, and questions of home team arena.

Rivalry: Rivalry is inherent in sports league structures with teams with geographical identity. In all major sports leagues, league divisions are based on rivalry and geography.

Everything I can't explain: these factors exist or don't, but I don't know about them.

[max]

* - A 6-year rotation determines which out-of-division conference teams are played 4 times

I hate this.

[RoughRiders99]

I hate this.

Go away forever.

[max]

Go away forever.

C'mon. Would you want to wait 6 years for your Calgary Roughriders to play those hated Ottawa Rough Riders, RoughRiders?

[McCall]

For us:

Playoffs: Playoffs are inherently unbalanced with an unbalanced schedule. Necessary?

Scheduling: Scheduling is necessary, and could be based on many factors including geographical proximity, other rivalries, and questions of home team arena.

Rivalry: Rivalry is inherent in sports league structures with teams with geographical identity. In all major sports leagues, league divisions are based on rivalry and geography.

Everything I can't explain: these factors exist or don't, but I don't know about them.

Stop talking. You're making it worse.

[ESTONES6]

For us:

Playoffs: Playoffs are inherently unbalanced with an unbalanced schedule. Necessary?

Scheduling: Scheduling is necessary, and could be based on many factors including geographical proximity, other rivalries, and questions of home team arena.

Rivalry: Rivalry is inherent in sports league structures with teams with geographical identity. In all major sports leagues, league divisions are based on rivalry and geography.

Everything I can't explain: these factors exist or don't, but I don't know about them.

You are some kind of stupid.

Yes rivalry exists in sports and it's what makes sports great. But no league, in any sport, at amy level, is stupid enough to construct playoffs and season schedules souly on rivalries. That defeats the whole :censored:ing purpose of having a season and playoffs. It's a complete failure of logic.

Seriously. Your poor attempts to be cheeky and coy are failing miserably. You are not being profound in the least. Just give it a rest.

[DaytonBlue]

]I like this a lot. Wonder how the scheduling would work though?

This is what I've come up with if all leagues had 32 teams, 8 divisions of 4 teams split in 2 conferences/leagues.

NBA/NHL

- 4 games against the other 3 division opponents, (4 x 3 = 12 games)

o 2 home, 2 away

- 4 games against 2 (out-of-division) conference opponents, (4 x 2 = 8 games)*

o 2 home, 2 away

- 3 games against 10 (out-of-division) remaining conference opponents, (3 x 10 = 30 games)

o 1 home, 1 away, 3

rd

game alternates home/away yearly

- 2 games against teams in the opposing conferences, (2 x 16 = 32 games)

o 1 home, 1 away

* - A 6-year rotation determines which out-of-division conference teams are played 4 times

MLB

- 18 games against the other 3 division opponents, (18 x 3 = 54 games)

o 9 home, 9 away

- 8 games against 12 (out-of-division) league opponents, (8 x 12 = 96 games)

o 4 home, 4 away

- 3 games against 4 opponents from one opposing league division, (3 x 4 = 12 games) *

o 6 or 9 home, 6 or 9 away. Home/away rotates in 3- or 6-year rotation.

* - A 3-year rotation determines which opposing league division are played for interleague

For NHL/NBA I came up with this:

division: 6 times against 3 opponents (18 games)

two of the three other divisions in conference, 3 times (24 games)

one of the three other divisions in conference, 2 times (8 games), rotates annually

other conference, two times, 32 games

=82 game season

Everyone in a division would play the other teams the same number of times, with only the 3rd game between 8 teams in-conference varying between home and away.

If they were to do a 8 division proposal, I would hope the NHL/NBA would give the top four seeds to the division winners. I know most people would disagree, but I think this arrangement would give more value to winning the division like baseball does.

That's why I'm a fan of the 2nd wild card. They're not going to reduce playoffs ever, so at least a second wild card makes it much more important to win your division. For those who complain of a wild card losing a one-game playoff, I would argue that next time they should win the division.

Full disclosure: I'm a Cardinals fan, but this has always been my opinion on the 2nd wild card. Although the 2-2-1 LDS format needs to return next year (I read that the 2-3 format was only for this year because they added the 2nd wild card.)

[The_Admiral]

The NBA by far has the weakest divisional rivalries. Why place a premium on those?

[DaytonBlue]

I would only do that if the division winners were guaranteed top four seeds. I think giving division winners top four seeds would be more legitimate if they played in their division more. I personally prefer this way because it makes division races more important. Now when I load the NBA standings I always change it to conference standings immediately because division standings mean nothing.

I imagine more people would rather have divisional winners only guaranteed playoff spots and then seed the teams by record. In that case, RoughRiders arrangement is pretty good too.

[GriffinM6]

For us:

Playoffs: Playoffs are inherently unbalanced with an unbalanced schedule. Necessary?

Scheduling: Scheduling is necessary, and could be based on many factors including geographical proximity, other rivalries, and questions of home team arena.

Rivalry: Rivalry is inherent in sports league structures with teams with geographical identity. In all major sports leagues, league divisions are based on rivalry and geography.

Everything I can't explain: these factors exist or don't, but I don't know about them.

Have you ever heard of one of the biggest rivalries in college football called Notre Dame vs. USC? The two places are over 1,000 miles apart, and they are big rivals. You say beat your neighbor, but you don't even understand that there are plenty of long distance rivalries.

[max]

The NBA by far has the weakest divisional rivalries. Why place a premium on those?

The only factor used to group teams, traditionally in major North American sports, has been the geographic location of the team's home. This is proven by the names of the divisions and the format of the names of the teams themselves (i.e. Los Angeles Lakers). Is the only "balanced" schedule a home and home series between each of the 30 teams, essential no conferences, no divisions, a 58-game schedule? This should be the basis, the first step, in scheduling a season for any league. I think it is the case with the NBA, they are known for having more inter-conference games than other major leagues.

__

I don't know where this idea will float, but, arguably, the biggest sporting events in the world (World Cup, Olympics, most international tournaments) adopt a strict balanced schedule and divisional formats that include the host city. What could be the effect of a city like Kansas City during the 2012 All-Star season upon the Kansas City Royals? Could they have been awarded a playoff spot for their participation (the winner of the game between the leagues earned home field advantage in the World Series on their field, during their valuable 3-day vacation, etc.)?

What about after the Super Bowl, in place of the Pro Bowl, or for the first game of the following season, or even after the Super Bowl (!) the Super Bowl champ of the previous year playing a game at home or away against the Super Bowl host of the year the Super Bowl champ won or the Super Bowl host for the upcoming year? Call it the NFL Bowl or Kickoff Bowl or something. This could work like this:

NFL: Kickoff Bowl, previous year/upcoming year Super Bowl host vs. previous year Super Bowl winner.

NHL: Outdoor Classic, previous year/upcoming year All-Star Game host vs. previous year Stanley Cup winner (could really only happen after the 2014-15 season, if the All-Star Game is played in 2014-15)

MLB: Spring Classic, previous year/upcoming year All-Star Game host vs. previous year World Series winner

NBA:

If these games count in the regular season standings, does that place a premium on teams that performed well in the previous season? The NFL is the only league to schedule its games using past season results (The 2011 AFC West 3rd place team played the 2011 AFC North 3rd place team in 2012, etc.), should teams be aligned into divisions based on past performance? This is where an questions of an "Original Six" NHL group comes into question.

I remember seeing a Peter Gammons article in Sporting News explaining that he liked the European soccer style of relegation/promotion and placed each team in ranked divisions. If that were a viable idea when would results pertaining to this new alignment be considered as a starting point? England? Should teams be placed in divisions according to time or geographical location? Do the Miami Marlins take on the baseball history of Ponce de Leon's crew members playing "stool ball" in 1556 (I made most of that up)?

Baseball-Reference has the all-time standings of MLB teams, here are the standings, breaks are definitions of standard deviation and average winning percentage:

1. Yankees A

Giants N

Dodgers N

Cardinals N

Red Sox A

Cubs N

Indians A

Reds N

Tigers A

White Sox A

Pirates N

Braves N

Angels A

Diamondbacks N

Blue Jays A

Athletics A

Twins A

Royals A

Nationals N

Mets N

Brewers N

Rangers A

Orioles A

Marlins N

Phillies N

Rockies N

Mariners A

Padres N

Rays A

30. Astros A

[McCall]

The NBA by far has the weakest divisional rivalries. Why place a premium on those?

The only factor used to group teams, traditionally in major North American sports, has been the geographic location of the team's home. This is proven by the names of the divisions and the format of the names of the teams themselves (i.e. Los Angeles Lakers). Is the only "balanced" schedule a home and home series between each of the 30 teams, essential no conferences, no divisions, a 58-game schedule? This should be the basis, the first step, in scheduling a season for any league. I think it is the case with the NBA, they are known for having more inter-conference games than other major leagues.

__

I don't know where this idea will float, but, arguably, the biggest sporting events in the world (World Cup, Olympics, most international tournaments) adopt a strict balanced schedule and divisional formats that include the host city. What could be the effect of a city like Kansas City during the 2012 All-Star season upon the Kansas City Royals? Could they have been awarded a playoff spot for their participation (the winner of the game between the leagues earned home field advantage in the World Series on their field, during their valuable 3-day vacation, etc.)?

What about after the Super Bowl, in place of the Pro Bowl, or for the first game of the following season, or even after the Super Bowl (!) the Super Bowl champ of the previous year playing a game at home or away against the Super Bowl host of the year the Super Bowl champ won or the Super Bowl host for the upcoming year? Call it the NFL Bowl or Kickoff Bowl or something. This could work like this:

NFL: Kickoff Bowl, previous year/upcoming year Super Bowl host vs. previous year Super Bowl winner.

NHL: Outdoor Classic, previous year/upcoming year All-Star Game host vs. previous year Stanley Cup winner (could really only happen after the 2014-15 season, if the All-Star Game is played in 2014-15)

MLB: Spring Classic, previous year/upcoming year All-Star Game host vs. previous year World Series winner

NBA:

If these games count in the regular season standings, does that place a premium on teams that performed well in the previous season? The NFL is the only league to schedule its games using past season results (The 2011 AFC West 3rd place team played the 2011 AFC North 3rd place team in 2012, etc.), should teams be aligned into divisions based on past performance? This is where an questions of an "Original Six" NHL group comes into question.

I remember seeing a Peter Gammons article in Sporting News explaining that he liked the European soccer style of relegation/promotion and placed each team in ranked divisions. If that were a viable idea when would results pertaining to this new alignment be considered as a starting point? England? Should teams be placed in divisions according to time or geographical location? Do the Miami Marlins take on the baseball history of Ponce de Leon's crew members playing "stool ball" in 1556 (I made most of that up)?

Baseball-Reference has the all-time standings of MLB teams, here are the standings, breaks are definitions of standard deviation and average winning percentage:

1. Yankees A

Giants N

Dodgers N

Cardinals N

Red Sox A

Cubs N

Indians A

Reds N

Tigers A

White Sox A

Pirates N

Braves N

Angels A

Diamondbacks N

Blue Jays A

Athletics A

Twins A

Royals A

Nationals N

Mets N

Brewers N

Rangers A

Orioles A

Marlins N

Phillies N

Rockies N

Mariners A

Padres N

Rays A

30. Astros A

Ok, let's ban him and bring back Cody21. Less painful.

[RoughRiders99]

I would only do that if the division winners were guaranteed top four seeds. I think giving division winners top four seeds would be more legitimate if they played in their division more. I personally prefer this way because it makes division races more important. Now when I load the NBA standings I always change it to conference standings immediately because division standings mean nothing.

I imagine more people would rather have divisional winners only guaranteed playoff spots and then seed the teams by record. In that case, RoughRiders arrangement is pretty good too.

Actually, I like your set up too. I'm also a fan of rewarding the top seeds to the division winners (home field advantage, etc etc), so in that case, there'll need to be a little more divisional games to make the divisional a little more meaningful. The 4 division winners get seed 1-4. Next top 4 with the best record, regardless of division, get seed 5-8.

The NBA by far has the weakest divisional rivalries. Why place a premium on those?

::**** he said::

Ok, let's ban him and bring back Cody21. Less painful.

PLEASE!!!

[Mac the Knife]

Today is the first time I've ever bothered reading this thread. I've missed out on some high-class derp, as well as some serious comedy, both intentional and otherwise. Thanks for the chuckles; I needed them today.

[max]

Have you ever heard of one of the biggest rivalries in college football called Notre Dame vs. USC? The two places are over 1,000 miles apart, and they are big rivals. You say beat your neighbor, but you don't even understand that there are plenty of long distance rivalries.

I hate responding to posts immediately after I posted something, but I feel like there is a complete lack of understanding here and it's based on something invaluable that I think a lot of posts could take into consideration.

I am almost done, let me finish.

I don't know anything about Notre Dame's TV contract with USC. I don't know how independence from all other conferences in the FBS works and why every college isn't independent. I don't follow Notre Dame or USC football. Notre Dame and USC have never been in a division together. My fault, but here's the thing: We will never agree on division realignment, which is why I posted the four things you must know and use if you want to understand our possible goals on this thread. Repost:

Playoffs (unknown known): Will there be playoffs? Who will win? Balanced? Does the structure encourage a team to beat their neighbor (what is the point of sports, for god's sake?)

Scheduling (known unknown): There is no way to prove that a single game is balanced (the fact that there are home teams and away teams, "neutral" sites)

Rivalry (known known): A team has a home stadium, they are closer to one team than all others geographically, they are the neighbors in the same "group," they are the rivals (without even playing a game, the Florida Marlins became the Devil Rays rival when St. Petersburg got the team)

Everything I don't know (unknown unknowns): Television contracts, business, is my math right? Most everything.

The previous post in which I said that you must beat your neighbor to win your division to go to the playoffs (as an example of "winning a season" - the Browns are just happy to go 1-15 if they beat the Steelers in Cleveland, for example) I assumed was the whole point of sports leagues.

___

My question to you Griffinmarlins, would you rather the Marlins win the World Series (the biggest prize in baseball), beat the Rays in the season series (all at a neutral site), or finish the season schedule with a winning record having played each team in MLB (29 teams) 3 games at home, 3 games on the road (174 games per team)?

Playoffs-If you pick the Marlins to win the World Series; the Marlins don't play the Rays during the season, but play the Mariners 174 times to reach the playoffs.

Rivalry-If you pick the Marlins to beat the Rays during the season series; the Marlins lose the World Series after beating the Rays 174 times in the regular season.

Scheduling-If you pick the Marlins to finish first in the Round Robin 174-game tournament; the Marlins are crowned League Champion, no World Series is played, and the Marlins lose the season series with the Rays.

I don't know - I don't care which one you choose. It means nothing. All three aspects I have listed above are popular with every sports league, for some reason. I have written my observation. I don't know.

Proven pointlessness. That's the best I can do.

I have no idea what you will respond with.

BTW: Because I am responding to a response, I want you all to know that all of your responses are helpful in some reason. I am coming up with new ideas all the time.

And the idea to make all MLB divisions based on a team joining with its closest geographic neighbor and its closest geographic neighbor's closest geographic neighbors is just a template. I think those concepts are groups of teams that could be fit (pretty unevenly into "Eastern/Western Conferences") into the current division structure, a kind of overlay or second set of divisional "rivalry" realignment, that could prove to fans who is truly the best team in the "true" geographical divisions, or something. I also noticed that the NHL's eight "true geographic rival" divisions would work perfectly with the similar knock-out tournament the NHL already uses. I think this was haphazard to suggest that the uneven divisions, however purely based on geography that they are, would require the playoffs to become more like the Caribbean Series or Memorial Cup in which the teams take on the identity of their geographic region. The resulting posts from then have led me to believe that team identity trumps geographical affiliation, however, I think the closest geographic rival of your favorite team, not your favorite team, may actually be the most important team in the league for the fans of your favorite team. I hypothesize that this idea will become less apparent the more the favorite team is separated from the closest geographical rival in each of the four criteria above.

The Broncos are the Chiefs closest geographical rivals, the Rams are the Chiefs closest geographical rivals.

The Broncos can cause the Chiefs to miss the playoffs more than the Rams.

The Chiefs will play the Rams once every four years.

Obviously the Broncos are popularly considered "better rivals" with the Chiefs than the Rams, but that the Rams play the Chiefs once every four years almost makes the game is as important as the Olympics.

Borders create the division (and subsequently bring inter-division teams closer together in more profound once-every-four-years-matchups), so maybe the answer is more division? More reasons to make every Bobcat-Thunder game mean something (The people who are descendants of North Carolinian Indian tribes moved to Oklahoma reservations in the past perhaps have some reason to assume that the Thunder represent the regrettable present the Bobcats the idyllic past; this as an example of some possible future criteria potentially used to map groupings of sports team locations and for our immediate use in expanding a conversation to the most necessary concepts next).

[McCall]

Have you ever heard of one of the biggest rivalries in college football called Notre Dame vs. USC? The two places are over 1,000 miles apart, and they are big rivals. You say beat your neighbor, but you don't even understand that there are plenty of long distance rivalries.

I hate responding to posts immediately after I posted something, but I feel like there is a complete lack of understanding here and it's based on something invaluable that I think a lot of posts could take into consideration.

I am almost done, let me finish.

I don't know anything about Notre Dame's TV contract with USC. I don't know how independence from all other conferences in the FBS works and why every college isn't independent. I don't follow Notre Dame or USC football. Notre Dame and USC have never been in a division together. My fault, but here's the thing: We will never agree on division realignment, which is why I posted the four things you must know and use if you want to understand our possible goals on this thread. Repost:

Playoffs (unknown known): Will there be playoffs? Who will win? Balanced? Does the structure encourage a team to beat their neighbor (what is the point of sports, for god's sake?)

Scheduling (known unknown): There is no way to prove that a single game is balanced (the fact that there are home teams and away teams, "neutral" sites)

Rivalry (known known): A team has a home stadium, they are closer to one team than all others geographically, they are the neighbors in the same "group," they are the rivals (without even playing a game, the Florida Marlins became the Devil Rays rival when St. Petersburg got the team)

Everything I don't know (unknown unknowns): Television contracts, business, is my math right? Most everything.

The previous post in which I said that you must beat your neighbor to win your division to go to the playoffs (as an example of "winning a season" - the Browns are just happy to go 1-15 if they beat the Steelers in Cleveland, for example) I assumed was the whole point of sports leagues.

___

My question to you Griffinmarlins, would you rather the Marlins win the World Series (the biggest prize in baseball), beat the Rays in the season series (all at a neutral site), or finish the season schedule with a winning record having played each team in MLB (29 teams) 3 games at home, 3 games on the road (174 games per team)?

Playoffs-If you pick the Marlins to win the World Series; the Marlins don't play the Rays during the season, but play the Mariners 174 times to reach the playoffs.

Rivalry-If you pick the Marlins to beat the Rays during the season series; the Marlins lose the World Series after beating the Rays 174 times in the regular season.

Scheduling-If you pick the Marlins to finish first in the Round Robin 174-game tournament; the Marlins are crowned League Champion, no World Series is played, and the Marlins lose the season series with the Rays.

I don't know - I don't care which one you choose. It means nothing. All three aspects I have listed above are popular with every sports league, for some reason. I have written my observation. I don't know.

Proven pointlessness. That's the best I can do.

I have no idea what you will respond with.

BTW: Because I am responding to a response, I want you all to know that all of your responses are helpful in some reason. I am coming up with new ideas all the time.

And the idea to make all MLB divisions based on a team joining with its closest geographic neighbor and its closest geographic neighbor's closest geographic neighbors is just a template. I think those concepts are groups of teams that could be fit (pretty unevenly into "Eastern/Western Conferences") into the current division structure, a kind of overlay or second set of divisional "rivalry" realignment, that could prove to fans who is truly the best team in the "true" geographical divisions, or something. I also noticed that the NHL's eight "true geographic rival" divisions would work perfectly with the similar knock-out tournament the NHL already uses. I think this was haphazard to suggest that the uneven divisions, however purely based on geography that they are, would require the playoffs to become more like the Caribbean Series or Memorial Cup in which the teams take on the identity of their geographic region. The resulting posts from then have led me to believe that team identity trumps geographical affiliation, however, I think the closest geographic rival of your favorite team, not your favorite team, may actually be the most important team in the league for the fans of your favorite team. I hypothesize that this idea will become less apparent the more the favorite team is separated from the closest geographical rival in each of the four criteria above.

The Broncos are the Chiefs closest geographical rivals, the Rams are the Chiefs closest geographical rivals.

The Broncos can cause the Chiefs to miss the playoffs more than the Rams.

The Chiefs will play the Rams once every four years.

Obviously the Broncos are popularly considered "better rivals" with the Chiefs than the Rams, but that the Rams play the Chiefs once every four years almost makes the game is as important as the Olympics.

Borders create the division (and subsequently bring inter-division teams closer together in more profound once-every-four-years-matchups), so maybe the answer is more division? More reasons to make every Bobcat-Thunder game mean something (The people who are descendants of North Carolinian Indian tribes moved to Oklahoma reservations in the past perhaps have some reason to assume that the Thunder represent the regrettable present the Bobcats the idyllic past; this as an example of some possible future criteria potentially used to map groupings of sports team locations and for our immediate use in expanding a conversation to the most necessary concepts next).

Why are you acting like you've been anointed to determine the rules for how we come up with realignments here? You're not. Your "rules" are extremely flawed. They completely lack any common sense. They're nonsensical ramblings. They mean absolutely zilch. You're doing nothing but flooding this thread with what amounts to spam. Totally useless information.

[DaytonBlue]

And this is the pointless realignment outpost. The place for us to share all the crazy realignment ideas that run through our heads while keeping us from posting a new NCAA realignment in the NCAA realignment thread every time one new team jumps conferences.

[ESTONES6]

And this is the pointless realignment outpost. The place for us to share all the crazy realignment ideas that run through our heads while keeping us from posting a new NCAA realignment in the NCAA realignment thread every time one new team jumps conferences.

"Pointless" being that its impossible to predict but not void of reason or logic. This kid claims he has reason for his realignments, but he can never articulate what the reasoning or logic is. Even though the title says its pointless, you still have to stay on track. You can't just on the carpet and call it art.