The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[rams80]

None of that happens, because the Pac 10 won't expand unless they can get Colorado, and Colorado's a better cultural fit in the Pac 10/12 anyway. The added money for their broke-arse athletic department just makes the decision even easier.

Which isn't what I was asking. So thank you for ignoring the post completely.

I was specifically asking if Colorado stayed loyal to the Big XII, how would the PAC-10 (11) and Big XII (11) react. Out of Utah State, Colorado State and Brigham Young, what 2 colleges would be the most likely to move up to a major conference, what conference would it be, or would there be other schools who would be a more likely and better fit for each conference.

And you missed what I said. The Pac-10 stands pat at 10 if they don't get Colorado, but its a moot point, because once the Big XII starts showing signs of collapse, only the intervention of Alien Space Bats keeps Colorado in the Big XII. Colorado doesn't have anything tying it to the Big XII, especially once Nebraska leaves. On and off the field the school draws more from California than Texas.

[CLEstones]

None of that happens, because the Pac 10 won't expand unless they can get Colorado, and Colorado's a better cultural fit in the Pac 10/12 anyway. The added money for their broke-arse athletic department just makes the decision even easier.

Which isn't what I was asking. So thank you for ignoring the post completely.

I was specifically asking if Colorado stayed loyal to the Big XII, how would the PAC-10 (11) and Big XII (11) react. Out of Utah State, Colorado State and Brigham Young, what 2 colleges would be the most likely to move up to a major conference, what conference would it be, or would there be other schools who would be a more likely and better fit for each conference.

And you missed what I said. The Pac-10 stands pat at 10 if they don't get Colorado, but its a moot point, because once the Big XII starts showing signs of collapse, only the intervention of Alien Space Bats keeps Colorado in the Big XII. Colorado doesn't have anything tying it to the Big XII, especially once Nebraska leaves. On and off the field the school draws more from California than Texas.

But again, that ignores my post. The scenario is Utah joins the PAC-10, Colorado stay loyal to the Big XII, leaving both conferences at 11.

• Does Utah and Colorado then pull for their "State" school to join their respective conferences?
• Do they push for other teams to expand the footprint i.e. Colorado pushes for Utah State and Utah pushes for Colorado State?
• Would Brigham Young be invited by either conference?
• Are there other schools that would be higher on the invitation list for each conference to reach 12?

[rams80]

Does Utah and Colorado then pull for their "State" school to join their respective conferences?

LOL NO First rule of major college sports: Don't promote Little Brother unless the state legislature points a gun at your head. The second rule of modern major college sports: Don't double down on markets you already have (again with the state legislature qualifier).

Do they push for other teams to expand the footprint i.e. Colorado pushes for Utah State and Utah pushes for Colorado State?

If Colorado were to propose WAC-confined and struggling Utah State to the Big XII in 2010, the response would be hysterical laughter. If Colorado got wind the Pac 10 was trying to grab Little Brother, they'd shove him out of the way.

Would Brigham Young be invited by either conference?

The Pac 10 kicked the tires on BYU in the 1990s. It was voted down because certain Pac 10 members (Stanford) didn't feel a school full of religious zealots fit their overall mission and BYU's (in)famous refusal to play on the Sabbath made scheduling problematic. You can add to that nowadays the "don't double down on markets you have" bit. The Big XII has had all of the opportunities in the world to grab BYU over the last 4 years. It hasn't. That speaks for itself.

Are there other schools that would be higher on the invitation list for each conference to reach 12?

There is only one scenario in which the Pac 10 would add Utah and not Colorado. The one where Texas joins. Of course Utah then loses out because tagalongs would be insisted upon by the Texas legislature, but that's the only remotely conceivable pickup. Salt Lake City is not a big enough market to grab on its own; it only has value because its the best regional market after Denver. If the Big XII feels really compelled to replace Nebraska they toss feelers out to Arkansas. Once they are laughed off the phone line, they reluctantly pick up TCU.

[ESTONES6]

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

Anyone else have thoughts on this scenario?

[rams80]

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear.

[CLEstones]

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear.

I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12.

[Sanic]

AAAAAAAAND.... this

PAC 14

North

Oregon, Oregon St, Boise St, Washington, Washington St, Utah, BYU

South

UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Hawaii, Arizona, Arizona St

Big 8 (logical)

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Colorado, Nevada, UNLV, Baylor

American

East Carolina, South Florida, UCF, Temple, Houston, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinatti

B1G (16)

West

Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Iowa St, Mizzou, Kansas, K-State

East

Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Illinois, Northwestern (???)

ACC

Atlantic

Virginia Tech, Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Duke, Florida St, North Carolina, Penn St

Coastal

UConn, NC State, Wake Forest, Maryland, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Boston College

SEC

West

A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Alabama, Auburn

East

Georgia, Carolina, Kentucky, Louisville, Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Independents

West Virginia, Air Force, Army, Navy, TCU, Rutgers

*Not treating the MWC like the Big East

[rams80]

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear.

I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12.

And I'm saying, as someone who followed those realignment rounds very closely, Utah State and Colorado State were not on anybody's radar. Much of this was because of football considerations, as well as markets and intra-state politics. Colorado State kind of collapsed in the late 2000s/early 2010s, and Utah State flat out sucked before Gary Andersen could get stuff working there beginning in 2011. Please note the Mountain West only grabbed Utah State, despite the loss of both Utah schools, when it did its killshot raid on the WAC, not the first crippling raid. BYU sort of was on the radar for the Big XII, but the "won't play on the Sabbath" thing and Texas and Oklahoma's dissatisfaction with the championship game format precluded that.

[CLEstones]

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear.

I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12.

And I'm saying, as someone who followed those realignment rounds very closely, Utah State and Colorado State were not on anybody's radar. Much of this was because of football considerations, as well as markets and intra-state politics. Colorado State kind of collapsed in the late 2000s/early 2010s, and Utah State flat out sucked before Gary Andersen could get stuff working there beginning in 2011. Please note the Mountain West only grabbed Utah State, despite the loss of both Utah schools, when it did its killshot raid on the WAC, not the first crippling raid. BYU sort of was on the radar for the Big XII, but the "won't play on the Sabbath" thing and Texas and Oklahoma's dissatisfaction with the championship game format precluded that.

The only reason I leaned toward Utah and Utah State to the PAC and Colorado and Colorado State to the XII is how their Conferences are already aligned. The PAC as both Washington, Oregon, and Arizona schools, as well as 4 California schools. It almost would seem off to add Colorado State in favor of Utah State or Brigham Young. Same goes for the XII. They have both Kansas schools, both Oklahoma, and at the time, had 4 Texas schools. Again, seemed off to add a Utah school in favor of Colorado State.

Not adding schools where you already have a state-presence makes more sense to me when we talk about the B1G and the SEC. But it seems like the PAC-10 and Big XII were more interested in regional expansion as opposed to expanding the foot print.

[DS729]

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear.

I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12.

And I'm saying, as someone who followed those realignment rounds very closely, Utah State and Colorado State were not on anybody's radar. Much of this was because of football considerations, as well as markets and intra-state politics. Colorado State kind of collapsed in the late 2000s/early 2010s, and Utah State flat out sucked before Gary Andersen could get stuff working there beginning in 2011. Please note the Mountain West only grabbed Utah State, despite the loss of both Utah schools, when it did its killshot raid on the WAC, not the first crippling raid. BYU sort of was on the radar for the Big XII, but the "won't play on the Sabbath" thing and Texas and Oklahoma's dissatisfaction with the championship game format precluded that.

The only reason I leaned toward Utah and Utah State to the PAC and Colorado and Colorado State to the XII is how their Conferences are already aligned. The PAC as both Washington, Oregon, and Arizona schools, as well as 4 California schools. It almost would seem off to add Colorado State in favor of Utah State or Brigham Young. Same goes for the XII. They have both Kansas schools, both Oklahoma, and at the time, had 4 Texas schools. Again, seemed off to add a Utah school in favor of Colorado State.

Not adding schools where you already have a state-presence makes more sense to me when we talk about the B1G and the SEC. But it seems like the PAC-10 and Big XII were more interested in regional expansion as opposed to expanding the foot print.

Did you even read rams80's post?

[CLEstones]

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear.

I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12.

And I'm saying, as someone who followed those realignment rounds very closely, Utah State and Colorado State were not on anybody's radar. Much of this was because of football considerations, as well as markets and intra-state politics. Colorado State kind of collapsed in the late 2000s/early 2010s, and Utah State flat out sucked before Gary Andersen could get stuff working there beginning in 2011. Please note the Mountain West only grabbed Utah State, despite the loss of both Utah schools, when it did its killshot raid on the WAC, not the first crippling raid. BYU sort of was on the radar for the Big XII, but the "won't play on the Sabbath" thing and Texas and Oklahoma's dissatisfaction with the championship game format precluded that.

The only reason I leaned toward Utah and Utah State to the PAC and Colorado and Colorado State to the XII is how their Conferences are already aligned. The PAC as both Washington, Oregon, and Arizona schools, as well as 4 California schools. It almost would seem off to add Colorado State in favor of Utah State or Brigham Young. Same goes for the XII. They have both Kansas schools, both Oklahoma, and at the time, had 4 Texas schools. Again, seemed off to add a Utah school in favor of Colorado State.

Not adding schools where you already have a state-presence makes more sense to me when we talk about the B1G and the SEC. But it seems like the PAC-10 and Big XII were more interested in regional expansion as opposed to expanding the foot print.

Did you even read rams80's post?

I read every word of his posts, because he is obviously knowledgeable on the topic. My responses are to how these Conferences would react under different circumstances. I understand the logistics and economics that he is spelling out. However, I am speaking to different ideas/circumstances.

The idea of Colorado pushing Colorado State to the PAC is interesting. It would make sense for the PAC to want to expand the footprint, and it would make sense for Colorado to be interested in Utah State or Brigham Young for the same reasons. However, the other point I was making was hope the PAC and XII were currently aligned at the time. They were the definition of regional. They contained the major schools in each state (Washington, Oregon Arizona, California, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma), so I was curious as to RAM's thoughts on that front.

[Evil G]

If Gary Bettman was fired...

Pacific:

Anaheim Ducks

Calgary Flames

Edmonton Oilers

Los Angeles Kings

Portland Rosebuds (expansion)

San Jose Sharks

Seattle Metropolitans (formerly Phoenix Arizona)

Vancouver Canucks

Midwest:

Chicago Blackhawks

Colorado Avalanche

Dallas Stars

Detroit Red Wings

Minnesota Wild

Nashville Predators (debating on whether to move them or not)

St. Louis Blues

Winnipeg Jets

Northeast:

Boston Bruins

Buffalo Sabres

Columbus Blue Jackets

Hailfax Highlanders (expansion, I guess)

Montreal Canadiens

Ottawa Senators

Quebec Nordiques (formerly Florida)

Toronto Maple Leafs

Atlantic:

Carolina Hurricanes (also debating whether to move them)

New Jersey Devils

New York Islanders

New York Rangers

Philadelphia Flyers

Pittsburgh Penguins

Tampa Bay Lightning

Washington Capitals

[Roger Clemente]

I just thought of an unusual idea for MLB re-alignment that could also help make the playoffs more straightforward...and it also adds a twist.

Each league only has two divisions, East and West. One division will have 8 teams, the other will have 7 teams. However, the opposite divisions in each league will have 8 teams. (i.e. AL East and NL West will have 8 teams, while AL West and NL East have 7 teams).

Playoffs could just be straight up two Division winners face off in the LCS or do 1 vs 2 in each division for an LDS, then LCS. (You could have be the highest of the #2's faces the lowest of the #1s, but whatever).

Now, with a twist...whoever finishes 7th and 8th in the division of 8 and 7th in the division of 7 SWAP LEAGUES the next season and remains there until they finish last again. It also alters the balance each season so one year one East division and one West division will always have 8 teams.

It could wreak havoc on existing rivalries if one of the teams finishes last and is sent to the other league, but it could also spawn new rivalries.

What do you think?

[CLEstones]

I just thought of an unusual idea for MLB re-alignment that could also help make the playoffs more straightforward...and it also adds a twist.

Each league only has two divisions, East and West. One division will have 8 teams, the other will have 7 teams. However, the opposite divisions in each league will have 8 teams. (i.e. AL East and NL West will have 8 teams, while AL West and NL East have 7 teams).

Playoffs could just be straight up two Division winners face off in the LCS or do 1 vs 2 in each division for an LDS, then LCS. (You could have be the highest of the #2's faces the lowest of the #1s, but whatever).

Now, with a twist...whoever finishes 7th and 8th in the division of 8 and 7th in the division of 7 SWAP LEAGUES the next season and remains there until they finish last again. It also alters the balance each season so one year one East division and one West division will always have 8 teams.

It could wreak havoc on existing rivalries if one of the teams finishes last and is sent to the other league, but it could also spawn new rivalries.

What do you think?

First and foremost, I think unbalanced divisions are one of the worst ideas in sports. I understand sometimes the numbers don't allow for it, but it should be avoided at all costs. I think it would be better to do 3x5 divisions.

Second, I think I would be more open to the swap scenario if it was NOT baseball. Baseball just seems to have too much tradition to mess with that sort of swapping on such a regular basis. I think it would be a fun idea for the first season or two, but then it would get incredibly annoying.

[Norva]

I don't get why people want balanced schedules with a division structure, it makes divisions entirely meaningless and arbitrary. Might as well not have divisions at all if everyone has an equal schedule. In a divisional structure you should always play your fellow divisional teams more imo.

[wdm1219inpenna]

I don't get why people want balanced schedules with a division structure, it makes divisions entirely meaningless and arbitrary. Might as well not have divisions at all if everyone has an equal schedule. In a divisional structure you should always play your fellow divisional teams more imo.

That's a very valid and logical argument. On the reverse side, one could argue in baseball for example, the Blue Jays, who haven't made post season since Bill Clinton still had dark hair, every year have to play about half of their games against only 4 teams, two of them being the high-spending Yankees & Red Sox. Meanwhile a team like Oakland gets cream puffs like the Astros and Mariners (although the M's are up and comers if their 2014 record is any indications). As for as baseball seeding goes, I don't think that really matters much anymore. The top seeds were once again eliminated in the first round of the playoffs this year.

I rather liked the balanced schedule used by the A.L. from 1977 - 1993 and the N.L. in 1993 when they too expanded to 14 teams. The Yankees/Red Sox rivalry would be a bit more special I believe if they only met 4 times a year, 3 game series for 3 times and one 4 game series. Seems to me with all the games baseball has, a balanced schedule could certainly work. One disadvantage to that though would be in theory, more travel.

But it was great once upon a time too, when the schedules were unbalanced. When there were just 12 NL teams, folks who live near Philly and who are Dodger fans would get to have 6 chances a year to see the Dodgers play. Now with 15 teams per league and so much interleague play and divisional play, the Dodgers (and all other teams outside of the NL East) come to Philly only once a year.

[wdm1219inpenna]

My NFL:

And I'd keep the 16 week schedule, and either get rid of the bye week during the regular season, or if they have to have it, give one conference off one week (week 8), the other conference off the following week (week 9). That would never fly due to television only getting 8 games to televise vs. 13, 14, 15 or 16. It would also never fly in this day and age because of fantasy :-\

[Evil G]

These mergers feel uneccessary....

[JH42XCC]

My NFL:

And I'd keep the 16 week schedule, and either get rid of the bye week during the regular season, or if they have to have it, give one conference off one week (week 8), the other conference off the following week (week 9). That would never fly due to television only getting 8 games to televise vs. 13, 14, 15 or 16. It would also never fly in this day and age because of fantasy :-\

Step 7 - De-merge the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Jacksonville Jaguars (Jags move to Orlando).

Step 8 - De-merge the Houston Oilers and Tennessee Titans (Houston keeps the Oilers name).

Step 9 - Return the NFL to its 2002 realignment format (That means the Seattle Seahawks return to the Halas Conference).

[Magnus]

I don't get why people want balanced schedules with a division structure, it makes divisions entirely meaningless and arbitrary. Might as well not have divisions at all if everyone has an equal schedule. In a divisional structure you should always play your fellow divisional teams more imo.

That's a very valid and logical argument. On the reverse side, one could argue in baseball for example, the Blue Jays, who haven't made post season since Bill Clinton still had dark hair, every year have to play about half of their games against only 4 teams, two of them being the high-spending Yankees & Red Sox. Meanwhile a team like Oakland gets cream puffs like the Astros and Mariners (although the M's are up and comers if their 2014 record is any indications). As for as baseball seeding goes, I don't think that really matters much anymore. The top seeds were once again eliminated in the first round of the playoffs this year.

I rather liked the balanced schedule used by the A.L. from 1977 - 1993 and the N.L. in 1993 when they too expanded to 14 teams. The Yankees/Red Sox rivalry would be a bit more special I believe if they only met 4 times a year, 3 game series for 3 times and one 4 game series. Seems to me with all the games baseball has, a balanced schedule could certainly work. One disadvantage to that though would be in theory, more travel.

But it was great once upon a time too, when the schedules were unbalanced. When there were just 12 NL teams, folks who live near Philly and who are Dodger fans would get to have 6 chances a year to see the Dodgers play. Now with 15 teams per league and so much interleague play and divisional play, the Dodgers (and all other teams outside of the NL East) come to Philly only once a year.

I did a little number crunching a while back and it was easy to see that the current slate of 162 games is easily divisible by 3.

This means to me that 3-game series can form the basis of a schedule where each team can see each other team in both leagues every couple of seasons, while still playing their divisional rivals more often.

Start with a team playing each team in their league 9 times, plus one team from the other 9 times. That's 135 games. For the remaining 27, the team would play the 4 remaining teams in the opposite league rival's division 3 times, as well as 3 games against each team in one of the two other divisions - which would alternate each year.

This setup would allow, say, the Cubs to see the White Sox 9 times a year, every year.

As far as the postseason goes, I do like the strategy behind the Wild Card Showdown (to eliminate the use of the best starting pitcher on the wild card team that advances), but I also don't think that, given that wild card teams have proven they can go all the way year after year, we need to worry about letting more teams into the postseason.

I think that 8 teams per league, as is done in the NBA and NHL, would provide a lot more baseball fans with reason to watch late in the season. You could make the resulting 4 playoff rounds shorter (best-of-5s, 3s, or single-game knockouts), but I think the time has come for this to happen.