The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[TheLavisShow]

Ok so I don't know if anyone has stated this earlier in the thread or not but can't we all agree in about 20 years we'll all be screwed with the notion of relocations and the rising population centers.

Last time I checked all the young people are moving to Austin, in 20 years they'll all be in their 40s, and last time I checked Austin has zero pro teams.

Houston will be the 4th or 5th largest metro area in the US and yet they have no NHL team near them.

Cinicinnati will want a team that plays in an arena.

Baltimore will wonder why it can't have an NBA team when it's an obvious basketball talent hotbed (for those who think Philly and DC are too close that didn't squash the Ravens and Orioles from being born).

Canada might want to get in on the action, in particular Vancouver, in the major sports they don't have or have only one team in.

Conneticut might want a team in a sport since are slowly becoming NYC's largest suburb.

The point is in times like this I look at the model in England and the rest of Europe in terms of soccer. Every city and even suburb (sometimes two in one suburb) has a soccer team, and if the owners want the club to do good it's up to them at what extent. Imagine if every city in America that was over 50,000 people managed to have at least one team in a promotion-relegation system within a pro sport. Imagine if we had a more glorious cup (I know we have the Lamar Hunt Cup for US soccer and the Memorial Cup for Canadian minor league teams) in every sport that was as sought after as the top tier's championship is and is as open to everyone as the FA Cup. Just imagine a third round cup match between Los Angeles and Bakersfield or for the East Coasters a match between NYC and Burlington, VT. I'm sorry if I'm a little soccer heavy but after all this Bradford City stuff in the Capital One Cup I'm really hoping one day a baseball team from Eugene, OR could take down Houston or Chicago in a serious game.

[ESTONES6]

Ok so I don't know if anyone has stated this earlier in the thread or not but can't we all agree in about 20 years we'll all be screwed with the notion of relocations and the rising population centers.

Last time I checked all the young people are moving to Austin, in 20 years they'll all be in their 40s, and last time I checked Austin has zero pro teams.

Houston will be the 4th or 5th largest metro area in the US and yet they have no NHL team near them.

Cinicinnati will want a team that plays in an arena.

Baltimore will wonder why it can't have an NBA team when it's an obvious basketball talent hotbed (for those who think Philly and DC are too close that didn't squash the Ravens and Orioles from being born).

Canada might want to get in on the action, in particular Vancouver, in the major sports they don't have or have only one team in.

Conneticut might want a team in a sport since are slowly becoming NYC's largest suburb.

The point is in times like this I look at the model in England and the rest of Europe in terms of soccer. Every city and even suburb (sometimes two in one suburb) has a soccer team, and if the owners want the club to do good it's up to them at what extent. Imagine if every city in America that was over 50,000 people managed to have at least one team in a promotion-relegation system within a pro sport. Imagine if we had a more glorious cup (I know we have the Lamar Hunt Cup for US soccer and the Memorial Cup for Canadian minor league teams) in every sport that was as sought after as the top tier's championship is and is as open to everyone as the FA Cup. Just imagine a third round cup match between Los Angeles and Bakersfield or for the East Coasters a match between NYC and Burlington, VT. I'm sorry if I'm a little soccer heavy but after all this Bradford City stuff in the Capital One Cup I'm really hoping one day a baseball team from Eugene, OR could take down Houston or Chicago in a serious game.

It could. I think you'll end up seeing cities that used to have 3 or 4 teams get narrowed down to 1 or 2 team, just based on population. A city like Cleveland I don't think can FULLY support 3 professional franchises any more. There are only so many dollars in an area.

You will still have your major cities like Chicago, LA, NY, Dallas, Boston etc. that have the population and interest to support 3-4 professional teams. That being said, there are other economic factors that go in to it.

[Philsphan]

Really interesting and insightful. I have not ever followed European club soccer or how it is organized until I got Fifa13 for Christmas. Now, I am obsessed with bringing European club soccer ideas (and Soccer in general- it's the world's game after all), like Promotion and Relegation, good derbies, 6 teams in NY London style, Cups, champions leagues and 20 team leagues.

I agree with you that Austin will have 2-3 teams in 20 years and other cities (especially Midwestern) will lose teams. Vancouver, and among others Raleigh, San Jose, Las Vegas, Albuquerque might also have teams.

[McCall]

You can't compare European soccer leagues to American sports leagues. There are too many factors, like market size, television, stadium/arena size and attendance, as well as traveling. It wouldn't work with our major leagues and quite frankly, I personally don't ever want it to.

[RoughRiders99]

You can't compare European soccer leagues to American sports leagues. There are too many factors, like market size, television, stadium/arena size and attendance, as well as traveling. It wouldn't work with our major leagues and quite frankly, I personally don't ever want it to.

I def. agree with you. But would it, possibly, work if they were to start a brand new league?

Most likely in the soccer sport. Basically "restart" the MLS because...they aren't THAT popular yet and they could combine the MLS with all of the other leagues throughout North America and install the promotion/regulation system?

Just a thought off the top of my head.

[Nyk33]

You can't compare European soccer leagues to American sports leagues. There are too many factors, like market size, television, stadium/arena size and attendance, as well as traveling. It wouldn't work with our major leagues and quite frankly, I personally don't ever want it to.

I def. agree with you. But would it, possibly, work if they were to start a brand new league?

Most likely in the soccer sport. Basically "restart" the MLS because...they aren't THAT popular yet and they could combine the MLS with all of the other leagues throughout North America and install the promotion/regulation system?

Just a thought off the top of my head.

Promotion and Relegation would never work in the North America. We have never really been exposed to that kind of concept in our sports and the general public would be turned off by it.

[Still MIGHTY]

You can't compare European soccer leagues to American sports leagues. There are too many factors, like market size, television, stadium/arena size and attendance, as well as traveling. It wouldn't work with our major leagues and quite frankly, I personally don't ever want it to.

I def. agree with you. But would it, possibly, work if they were to start a brand new league?

Most likely in the soccer sport. Basically "restart" the MLS because...they aren't THAT popular yet and they could combine the MLS with all of the other leagues throughout North America and install the promotion/regulation system?

Just a thought off the top of my head.

Promotion and Relegation would never work in the North America. We have never really been exposed to that kind of concept in our sports and the general public would be turned off by it.

That, and the fans, cities, and owners that put the amount of money they do into stadiums and player contracts and whatever for the "top flight" teams in North American pro sports would never even entertain the idea of being sent down to a lower league.

[McCall]

MLS, maybe, because its so new. Otherwise to have any type of relegation format, the only way you could do it is dividing the current leagues into a couple levels. Like maybe the top 15 NHL teams in one and the lower 15 in the other. And even that is probably not plausible because of aforementioned contracts, television deals and such. Plus it just doesn't sit well here in North America.

[joechicago]

I have to disagree that relegation/promotion would never work in North America.

The reason Europe has it and we don't is that European soccer leagues were formed as large associations of dozens/hundreds of teams under one umbrella, where most of the teams formed organically and entry into the association is fairly open. Leagues are not seen as profit-maximizing units where all the teams are dependent upon each other; the profit-maximizing unit is the team itself.

Very early, America's major sports formed exclusive small leagues, and it was the leagues themselves that competed against each other. The NL v. the AL v. the Federal League. The NFL v. the AFL. The NBA v. the ABA. So on and so forth. Because these leagues took off when their sports were in their infancy instead of being post-hoc reactions to an already popular sport with hundreds of existing teams, owners essentially colluded together and centrally planned leagues, dividing market shares and all that, to maximize the spread of the game's popularity.

In England, a multi-millionaire could have founded a brand new team and worked their way from the ground up into the top flight in a decade. In America, that same entrepreneur could never just start a baseball team in Chicago and have them play at the highest level.

In a weird quirk of sports economic history, America's model is either quasi-socialist or flagrantly antitrust, whereas the European model is a much closer embodiment to the American ideals of capitalism and meritocracy. If you're a businessman and you can start a team in Las Vegas that can be a better NFL team than the Lions or the Chiefs, why shouldn't you get to start that team and compete? It's only the anti-competitive conduct by the remainder of the league that prevents that from happening. Same with putting a 3rd team in New York, a 2nd NFL team in Chicago, etc. In Europe, if the market demands a soccer team, there's an opportunity for investment and for the team to grow. In America, you have to buy out a franchise and get your competitors to approve.

If it weren't for the antitrust law exceptions, we might have already broken the league v. league mindset. As it is, there's really no reason for it to continue in the major sports. And if there's one idea you can sell in American culture, it's that freedom and capitalism and open markets always triumph over socialist planning and market restrictions. Plus, the pyramid model allows for much stronger development in middle markets. No one cares about the minor leagues in America because the players are all contracted elsewhere. Britain has probably 40 or so clubs that are supported better than the bottom third of the MLB.

Right now, the 4th largest urban area in Britain has its flagship team in the 2nd tier. Same with the 8th largest urban area. Same with the 12th. The primary team for the 2nd largest city plays there. Bournemouth is the 16th largest metro area and their flagship team is in the 3rd tier. Yes, they make less money in those leagues, but they still have vibrant fan support and the world didn't end. Nor would it if the Royals had to go to the next tier down for a year.

In short, I think the American public would absolutely welcome the concept if they were exposed to it and saw the benefits. However, the current ownership groups in the major sports have no incentive to give up their monopolies, even if it advanced the greater good of the game.

[rams80]

I have to disagree that relegation/promotion would never work in North America.

The reason Europe has it and we don't is that European soccer leagues were formed as large associations of dozens/hundreds of teams under one umbrella, where most of the teams formed organically and entry into the association is fairly open. Leagues are not seen as profit-maximizing units where all the teams are dependent upon each other; the profit-maximizing unit is the team itself.

Ummmm.....No. Leagues in Europe are seen as profit-maximizing units and moreso they inhabit the highest level of the table. The Premiership didn't break away from the Football League over a disagreement over how to handle penalty kicks, but in order to create a league-wide TV deal for themselves. Promotion/Relegation still exists....for now....because of the anticipated uproar that would accompany any attempt to close that off, although eventually you are going to get enough wealthy owners who will want to do that to protect the value of their investments.

Very early, America's major sports formed exclusive small leagues, and it was the leagues themselves that competed against each other. The NL v. the AL v. the Federal League. The NFL v. the AFL. The NBA v. the ABA. So on and so forth. Because these leagues took off when their sports were in their infancy instead of being post-hoc reactions to an already popular sport with hundreds of existing teams, owners essentially colluded together and centrally planned leagues, dividing market shares and all that, to maximize the spread of the game's popularity.

I would not say any of those major league wars happened when the sport was "in its infancy". Rather they were reactions to the lack of teams in viable new markets on the professional level. You did see millionaires buy their way into the league en masse.

In England, a multi-millionaire could have founded a brand new team and worked their way from the ground up into the top flight in a decade. In America, that same entrepreneur could never just start a baseball team in Chicago and have them play at the highest level.

No, but its not that simple in England either. For starters there are minimal stadium requirements to gain entry into the Football League, and wage caps to prevent you from running roughshod up the ladder with a team that has the payroll of Real Madrid.

In a weird quirk of sports economic history, America's model is either quasi-socialist or flagrantly antitrust, whereas the European model is a much closer embodiment to the American ideals of capitalism and meritocracy. If you're a businessman and you can start a team in Las Vegas that can be a better NFL team than the Lions or the Chiefs, why shouldn't you get to start that team and compete? It's only the anti-competitive conduct by the remainder of the league that prevents that from happening. Same with putting a 3rd team in New York, a 2nd NFL team in Chicago, etc. In Europe, if the market demands a soccer team, there's an opportunity for investment and for the team to grow. In America, you have to buy out a franchise and get your competitors to approve.

With the exception of Milton Keynes Dons (which was a move of the old Wimbledon team, interestingly enough), I don't think there's been a legitimately new market brought into the Football League for decades. (i.e. not an organization formed to replace a recently folded team) I suspect there are rather pronounced barriers to entry after all.

If it weren't for the antitrust law exceptions, we might have already broken the league v. league mindset. As it is, there's really no reason for it to continue in the major sports. And if there's one idea you can sell in American culture, it's that freedom and capitalism and open markets always triumph over socialist planning and market restrictions. Plus, the pyramid model allows for much stronger development in middle markets. No one cares about the minor leagues in America because the players are all contracted elsewhere. Britain has probably 40 or so clubs that are supported better than the bottom third of the MLB.

Oh damn right there is. Can you say "taxpayer-funded major stadium?" I can. Promotion/Relegation would go over like a lead balloon precisely because taxpayers don't like seeing their dollars completely wasted (instead of mostly wasted *rimshot*) As for Britain's support vis-a-vis America, it's not fair to compare teams that have 19 home games (plus cup matches) with teams that have 81 or 40-ish; the nature of the sport is different. There's also the issue of soccer being the only game in town when it is not in America and well-supported college athletics, which are an alien concept in Britain.

Right now, the 4th largest urban area in Britain has its flagship team in the 2nd tier. Same with the 8th largest urban area. Same with the 12th. The primary team for the 2nd largest city plays there. Bournemouth is the 16th largest metro area and their flagship team is in the 3rd tier. Yes, they make less money in those leagues, but they still have vibrant fan support and the world didn't end. Nor would it if the Royals had to go to the next tier down for a year.

Show me their taxpayer-funded sacred cows of stadiums. Now, as for your metro areas, Metro Leeds would go between Milwaukee and Jacksonville, Birmingham between Pittsburgh and Portland, Nottingham is a touch larger than Syracuse, Brighton's a touch smaller than Lansing, Michigan, and Bournemouth is on the same tier as Anchorage, the Quad Cities, and ing Peoria, Illinois. Only two of your name metro areas would be considered "major" markets over here, and none of them critical to the leagues in question. That might help explain why relegation isn't ending everything over there.

In short, I think the American public would absolutely welcome the concept if they were exposed to it and saw the benefits. However, the current ownership groups in the major sports have no incentive to give up their monopolies, even if it advanced the greater good of the game.

I think the risk of becoming the next Leeds or Portsmouth puts paid to that notion.

[max]

so it seems like all-star games embody all of the ideas the original north american league creators had envisioned for their leagues...

the harlem globetrotters should be in the nba.

balance is the name of the game, but Spain will never play Barcelona.

[aci]

so it seems like all-star games embody all of the ideas the original north american league creators had envisioned for their leagues...

the harlem globetrotters should be in the nba.

balance is the name of the game, but Spain will never play Barcelona.

You are aware that the Harlem Globetrotters are essentially theatrical performers, right?

[McCall]

so it seems like all-star games embody all of the ideas the original north american league creators had envisioned for their leagues...

the harlem globetrotters should be in the nba.

balance is the name of the game, but Spain will never play Barcelona.

Thanks for these 3 nuggets of random, nonsensical crap.

[ESTONES6]

so it seems like all-star games embody all of the ideas the original north american league creators had envisioned for their leagues...

the harlem globetrotters should be in the nba.

balance is the name of the game, but Spain will never play Barcelona.

Thanks for these 3 nuggets of random, nonsensical crap.

Please, just ignore him. Fight the urge of pointing out his moronic statements and just ignore him. My hopes are if ALL of us continue this thread by ourselves, communicating only to each other and ignore him, eventually he will stop posting. Even if he does keep posting, we should strive to only comment on each others' posts/ideas.

[RoughRiders99]

so it seems like all-star games embody all of the ideas the original north american league creators had envisioned for their leagues...

the harlem globetrotters should be in the nba.

balance is the name of the game, but Spain will never play Barcelona.

Thanks for these 3 nuggets of random, nonsensical crap.

Please, just ignore him. Fight the urge of pointing out his moronic statements and just ignore him. My hopes are if ALL of us continue this thread by ourselves, communicating only to each other and ignore him, eventually he will stop posting. Even if he does keep posting, we should strive to only comment on each others' posts/ideas.

a.k.a. Don't feed the troll.

[RoughRiders99]

Hey guys,

Thought this might be a good place to post this, as I need your help.

I'm planning a fantasy baseball league with my friends for this season and we've got 16 members with "realistic team names" here and there and thought we could use your keen eye on where to realign the teams.

Here are the teams:

Arkansas Travelers

Atlanta xxxxxx

Birmingham Barons

Chicago Zephyrs

Dayton Hunters

Florida Suns

Iowa Oaks

Long Island Ducks

Long Island Yanks

New Jersey Mobsters

New York xxxxx

Pittsburgh xxxxx

Rochester Red Wings

Seattle Cascades

Springfield Isotopes

St. Louis Pitchers

(Yes, I know some of the teams are named after minor league teams, but whatever, lol)

I'm not sure if we could go with an "East/West" thing or "AL/NL" thing. The way I see it, it could be 2 "confernces" with 2 divisions within each conference.

If we do the "east/west" thing, we'd like to call East - Pioneer and West - Frontier. And as for the divisions, yeah it's "logical" to place the teams geographically close with each other, but I still wouldn't want to call the division after "X" direction (i.e. West, Central, South, Northeast, etc etc). I want something creative, like the old NHL days, I guess.

But if we do the "AL/NL" thing, I'm not sure on how to divide up the teams....

What do you guys think??

Thanks for the help!

---

Here's my idea so far:

Pioneer League

Metropolitan

Long Island Ducks

Long Island Yanks

New Jersey Mobsters

New York XXXXXXX

Industrial

Florida Suns

Springfield Isotopes

Pittsburgh XXXXXXX

Rochester Red Wings

Frontier League

Heartland

Iowa Oaks

Chicago Zephyrs

Dayton Hunters

St. Louis Pitchers

Sunbelt

Seattle Cascades

Arkansas Travelers

Birmingham Barons

Atlanta XXXXXX

[Philsphan]

Move Atlanta to Industrial and Florida Suns to the Sunbelt Division. Otherwise, looks good.

[RoughRiders99]

Move Atlanta to Industrial and Florida Suns to the Sunbelt Division. Otherwise, looks good.

Why is that? Just curious, that's all.

[illwauk]

King illwauk's Alternate Universe NHL

Eastern Conference

Canadian Division

Montreal Canadiens

Ottawa Senators

Quebec Nordiques

Toronto Maple Leafs

Central Division

Buffalo Sabres

Chicago Blackhawks

Detroit Red Wings

Pittsburgh Penguins

Coastal Division

Boston Bruins

Hartford Whalers

New York Rangers

Philadelphia Flyers

Western Conference

Canadian Division

Calgary Flames

Edmonton Oilers

Vancouver Canucks

Winnipeg Jets

Central Division

Brew City Outlaws

Colorado Avalanche

Dallas Lone Stars

Minnesota North Stars

Coastal Division

Los Angeles Kings

Portland Winterhawks

San Jose Sharks

Seattle Thunderbirds

Schedule Breakdown: 2 games (1H, 1A) vs. interconference opponents, 4 games (2H, 2A) vs. non-divisional conference opponents, 8 games (4H, 4A) vs. divisional opponents (80 games overall).

Playoff Format: Division champs get bye to second round. Two wildcards from each conference play in first round with winner going on to play one-seed. 5-game series in rounds 1 & 2, 7-game series for conference championships and Stanley Cup finals.

[McCall]

Dallas gets to stay but St. Louis is gone?