The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[McCall]

I think I might hate you.

[CS85]

[ESTONES6]

There are also only five "states" in the United States, North-West, North-East, South, Alaska and Hawaii (because they have no land borders with other states). List includes Washington, DC:

North-West

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan

North-East

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, DC, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois

South

Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, California, Nevada, Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia

Alaska, Hawaii, *Puerto Rico

These are the "states" that exist within the current structure geographical structure of the United States.

States are paired with the one state they share the longest border with, and then those groupings of states are paired with the one group they share the longest border with (a border that could include more than one State).

Electoral College:

North-West = 82, 61 to Obama in 2012

North-East = 238, 163 to Obama in 2012

South = 211, 104 to Obama in 2012

Others (AK, HI) = 7, 4 to Obama in 2012

A third iteration would group the North-West and South groups together and create two "states" ("East," which would include Missouri and Arkansas, and "West," which would include the Southeastern States, Iowa, and Michigan).

East = 238, 163 to Obama in 2012

West = 293, 165 to Obama in 2012

Others (AK, HI) = 7, 4 to Obama in 2012

Here is the first iteration, 14 divisions, 12 groups from contiguous USA:

Alaska

Hawaii

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Florida

Georgia

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Michigan

Arizona

New Mexico

Texas (Texas' electoral vote would override the sum of all other states in this group)

Oklahoma

Colorado

Kansas

Nebraska

South Dakota

North Dakota

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

New York

Oregon

Washington (Washington's electoral vote overrides Oregon's)

Arkansas

Missouri

Illinois (Illinois' electoral vote overrides the sum of all other states in the group)

California (California's electoral vote overrides the sum of all others in the group)

Nevada

Utah

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Vermont

Maine

Rhode Island

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia

DC

North Carolina

Ohio

South Carolina

Idaho

Montana

Wyoming

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

*Now I want to do this with counties!

Source: There are 109 land-borders in the USA

Dude... seriously. No one here cares about what you are posting. You have brought this thread to a complete stop. This used to be a funny but still legitimate thread. Now its bull because you are a pretentious assclown. We are on a sports forum. No one is coming here to read about the Electoral College. Everyone knows the Electoral College is BS, which makes me think you would be in support of it.

Im not trying to be a d!ck, but please can you get lost? You are driving everyone insane.

[The_Admiral]

My soundtrack to this thread

[McCall]

Well it was a good thread until that nutjob started showing up.

[ESTONES6]

Well it was a good thread until that nutjob started showing up.

I've actually been working a full college re-landscape, including new conference logos, footprint maps, school location and color maps, and a standard helmet for each school. Now I'm not sure I want to work on it anymore.

[GriffinM6]

Well it was a good thread until that nutjob started showing up.

I've actually been working a full college re-landscape, including new conference logos, footprint maps, school location and color maps, and a standard helmet for each school. Now I'm not sure I want to work on it anymore.

Please don't stop working on it. I really want to see this. Sounds like a really good idea.

[Philsphan]

Yes please let's stop reacting to max cause all he wants is attention. I love this thread and I'll comment to almost any realignemnt but I've completely ignored max.

ESTONE please keep working on that!! It'll get this thread back on line. In the mean time, I've also started brainstorming for a possible concept series about where big club soccer teams would be in the US...

EPL: Northeast

Chelsea- New York

Arsenal- The Bronx

Spurs- Boston

Manchester United/Manchester City- Washington DC

Liverpool- Philadelphia

Newcastle- Buffalo

And so on...

Serie A: Southeast

AC Milan/Inter- Atlanta

Juventus- Charlotte

Palmero- Miami

Roma/Lazio- Orlando

Udinese- New Orleans

La Liga: California

Real Madrid/Athletico Madrid: San Francisco

Barcelona: Los Angeles

Bundesliga: Midwest

Bayern Munich: St. Louis

Borussia Dortmund: Chicago

Werder Bremmen: Minneapolis

Wolfsburg: Detroit

Ligue 1: Texas

Marseille: Houston

Lyon: Austin

PSG: Dallas

Again, just the start of a project and I'm not really sure where this is going. I'll appreciate any feedback that isn't along the lines of "this is stupid."

[ESTONES6]

Well it was a good thread until that nutjob started showing up.

I've actually been working a full college re-landscape, including new conference logos, footprint maps, school location and color maps, and a standard helmet for each school. Now I'm not sure I want to work on it anymore.

Please don't stop working on it. I really want to see this. Sounds like a really good idea.

I've been piecing it together, little by little. Usually the winter is when our industry gets slow, but that hasn't been the case the last 2 years.

I actually have written a narrative to go along with the realignment. I wrote it almost as if someone was doing a comprehensive summary of the shuffling, including time frames and thought process as to why certain schools jumped to different conferences. Once I have time to get moving on helmets, I will.

I've been wrestling with helmet designs. I'm debating if I want to a sort of complete classic look where its mostly standard stripes (Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Florida) or basic logos (Iowa, Michigan State) without the crazy new sublimated patterns or newer style stripes (new Mizzou, Rutgers).

[max]

Cameroon says that the CAF 'deserves' more than the five World Cup places the African Confederation currently receives

Current FIFA Rankings (31 teams because the host country is granted a spot):

UEFA: 18 teams in top 31 (58%, currently receives 13 places in the World Cup, #32-ranked team also belongs to UEFA - Hungary)

CONMEBOL: 6 teams in top 31 (19%)

CAF: 4 teams in top 31 (13%, maybe Africa deserves only four places???)

CONCACAF: 2 teams in top 31 (6%)

AFC: 1 team in top 31 (3%, Japan)

*OFC: 0 teams in top 31 (Australia is part of the AFC now, the first team from the AFC appears ranked 91st - New Zealand)

*The problem is the disparity in World Cup allocation spots for international soccer team confederations compared to the format the FIFA Rankings use to determine disparity among teams.

I think winning is the ultimate goal of a game (although losers have become an object of interest to me lately - more later), so a ranking format should incorporate winning games, strength of schedule becomes an issue when small, isolated island nations in the South Pacific do not play enough games with opponents who have played more difficult teams (that is, the rankings are subject to the dates international teams can play). When those rare games when Papua New Guinea plays Luxembourg occur, this is helpful and problematic because so much of the rankings of the regional teams surrounding PNG and Lux depend on the outcome of this one game.

Last place in the Current FIFA Rankings: tied-for-207th: Bhutan (AFC), San Marino (UEFA), Turks and Caicos Islands (CONCACAF) - pretty scattered geographically, which could suggest that a win/loss/draw-based strength of schedule rating could be a viable way to rank individual teams (but would not technically necessitate a team from 'Oceania' make the World Cup).

[McCall]

Cameroon says that the CAF 'deserves' more than the five World Cup places the African Confederation currently receives

Current FIFA Rankings (31 teams because the host country is granted a spot):

UEFA: 18 teams in top 31 (58%, currently receives 13 places in the World Cup)

CONMEBOL: 6 teams in top 31 (19%)

CAF: 4 teams in top 31 (13%, maybe Africa deserves only four places???)

CONCACAF: 2 teams in top 31 (6%)

AFC: 1 team in top 31 (3%, Japan)

*OFC: 0 teams in top 31 (Australia is part of the AFC now, the first team from the AFC appears ranked 91st - New Zealand)

*The problem is the disparity in World Cup allocation spots for international soccer team confederations compared to the format the FIFA Rankings use to determine disparity among teams.

I think winning is the ultimate goal of a game (although losers have become an object of interest to me lately - more later), so a ranking format should incorporate winning games, strength of schedule becomes an issue when small, isolated island nations in the South Pacific do not play enough games with opponents who have played more difficult teams (that is, the rankings are subject to the dates international teams can play). When those rare games when Papua New Guinea plays Luxembourg occur, this is helpful and problematic because so much of the rankings of the regional teams surrounding PNG and Lux depend on the outcome of this one game.

Last place in the Current FIFA Rankings: tied-for-207th: Bhutan (AFC), San Marino (UEFA), Turks and Caicos Islands (CONCACAF) - pretty scattered geographically, which could suggest that a win/loss/draw-based strength of schedule rating could be a viable way to rank individual teams (but would not technically necessitate a team from 'Oceania' make the World Cup).

This has nothing to do with realignment, genius.

[max]

I didn't expect this issue (currently on the front page of ESPN's soccer page) to produce any serious viewpoints in this forum, but I thought I could just prove to the chairman of the Cameroon soccer association that the method the World Cup committee uses, to allot the amount of places in the tournament for each continental confederation (FIFA Rankings), should produce an argument against the CAF not being issued more allotments, but fewer.

WTF is realignment?

[McCall]

I didn't expect this issue (currently on the front page of ESPN's soccer page) to produce any serious viewpoints in this forum, but I thought I could just prove to the chairman of the Cameroon soccer association that the method the World Cup committee uses, to allot the amount of places in the tournament for each continental confederation (FIFA Rankings), should produce an argument against the CAF not being issued more allotments, but fewer.

WTF is realignment?

For the love of G... Get the hell outta here.

[max]

7,893...7,894...

[ESTONES6]

I didn't expect this issue (currently on the front page of ESPN's soccer page) to produce any serious viewpoints in this forum, but I thought I could just prove to the chairman of the Cameroon soccer association that the method the World Cup committee uses, to allot the amount of places in the tournament for each continental confederation (FIFA Rankings), should produce an argument against the CAF not being issued more allotments, but fewer.

WTF is realignment?

Does this kid ever use GD punctuation? Everything is a giant run on with commas everywhere.

[GriffinM6]

I didn't expect this issue (currently on the front page of ESPN's soccer page) to produce any serious viewpoints in this forum, but I thought I could just prove to the chairman of the Cameroon soccer association that the method the World Cup committee uses, to allot the amount of places in the tournament for each continental confederation (FIFA Rankings), should produce an argument against the CAF not being issued more allotments, but fewer.

WTF is realignment?

Really? If you're going to post stuff in a thread, know what the hell realignment is. Go back to China and harvest my rice where you belong.

[max]

I'm not sure what it means for this thread (the "pointlessness" of this thread to me is very important and profound, and I don't know how you interpret it), but you all must forgive me for "reporting" ESTONES6 and Griffinmarlins. I hope nothing happens to either of you, and I may have ruined this topic for everyone.

ESTONES6 for being "Genius."

Griffinmarlins for being "Homophobe."

I'm truly sorry I have ruined this for myself.

[McCall]

I'm not sure what it means for this thread (the "pointlessness" of this thread to me is very important and profound, and I don't know how you interpret it), but you all must forgive me for "reporting" ESTONES6 and Griffinmarlins. I hope nothing happens to either of you, and I may have ruined this topic for everyone.

ESTONES6 for being "Genius."

Griffinmarlins for being "Homophobe."

I'm truly sorry I have ruined this for myself.

What? You reported these guys? How was Griffinmarlins being Homophobic?

The entirety of the thread is "REALIGNMENT" not the "pointless" part. That was just someone trying to be funny. You are the one and only one who is derailing this thread with your "pointless" crap that really has no "point" being anywhere in any thread. You make absolutely no sense. You contribute absolutely nothing. And honestly you should be the one reported for being an utter pain in the ass.

[max]

McCall, post an original idea that relates to "REALIGNMENT" before I force you to write one (Griffinmarlins should be aware that all the long, :censored:ty Atlanta Falcons fan blog articles and racist comments on "pointless" forums stay on the Internet forever).

However, the "Human Flesh Search" (ren2 rou4 suo3 sou1) would be nothing without the :censored:ty mistakes people have made on the Internet.

Don't be stupid.

[McCall]

Force me to? How big of a narcissistic jerk are you? You control nothing around here. Neither do we, but we keep this tread on its appropriate topic and you don't. And then you're attacking others as if you're this glorious being and we're your pathetic little minions.

Seriously, you need to just go away.