NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:11 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:37 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
FSA, from what I've been told by reliable sources, if there was a move by Jaguars or Vikings, etc, to LA, there would be alignment changes. The only 3 scenarios that wouldn't would be (as you said) Chargers or Raiders to LA...or the longshot of Rams leaving StL for LA (as they are in the NFC west).

But the goal is if there is a move to LA, for that team to be in the AFC west because of the Chargers being 2 hours south and the Raiders having such a strong historical base still in LA.

Unfortunately, if team moves to LA and it's not Raiders or Chargers, the two that make the most sense, then it would require 1 AFC west team to move. KC being 2 time zones away from the other 3 in this case, would put them as the logical candidate to move, regardless of their own preference. Especially when the easiest move should Jacksonville lose the NFL would be swapping the Jaguars for Chiefs: LA, SD, Oak, Den in West, with KC, Hou, Ten, and Ind in the south...but would be best to do that while Manning is still playing.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:45 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
Goodbye Sacramento Kings, hello Anaheim Royals http://bit.ly/eO5qGA

This is very telling about NBA in Las Vegas too. If the Maloofs, who need to relocate but want to remain on the west coast to be close to their Vegas businesses are passing on moving to Las Vegas for Anaheim, then the Anaheim deal must be a good one...and the Vegas arena plan slowing down.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:47 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
frankthetank wrote:
Interesting discussion. A few overarching thoughts:

(1) Contraction in any league isn't realistic

(2) Personal preferences of owners matter (even if they're irrational)

(3) Stadiums (AKA corporate suites) matter more than markets

(4) Predictions (within next 5 years):

NHL: Nothing. Gary Bettman has his head so far in the sand regarding the failed Sun Belt experiment along with continuing to ignore the Canadian markets that actually watch hockey that this league will be stuck. I wish that I could say differently.

NFL: Jaguars move to new NFL stadium in downtown LA (assuming that this gets built, which is certainly not a guarantee). That's the one NFL team that really has a true need for a relocation (as opposed to, say, the Vikings, who have a bad stadium but a great fan base).

MLB: Nothing. I'd love to see MLB switch an NL team to the AL for a 15/15 balance (and I really don't care if that requires at least one interleague series going on at any point in time during the season), but you're not going to get any takers from the NL. Without a volunteer from the NL, there isn't going to be any realignment in baseball (which I personally believe is needed).


1-3 are very good observations.
As for predictions...

I agree that "nothing" will probably happen with regard to MLB's alignment. With the possible exception of the Oakland A's or Tampa Bay Rays. However, MLB really doesn't have any where for them TO GO. Baseball is THE toughest sport franchise for a city to support because of inequities in payroll and the number of games. Virtually everyone in the top 40 in US market size has massive issues in the way of getting an MLB team. Portland and Charlotte are really the only possible places to go (outside of OAK to SJ), but they also have pretty big issues.

As for the NHL, I would have a strong disagreement about your Bettman comments.
#1 - "The Sun Belt Experiment" was NOT Gary Bettman's idea. The NHL announced plans to expand to 28-30 in 1989. Four years before Bettman was named commish. Expansion teams in FLA, TB, ANA and SJ were already awarded by the time he took control. Teams in PHX, DAL and CAR were also not his idea. Those were owners who sold to be moved, and he tried to find local ownership for WIN and QUE, while the owners of MIN and HAR were hell bent on leaving their cities. They were ARENA ISSUES, not "we need to add southern markets" issues.

Bettman was in charge of awarding four expansion teams. Columbus and Minnesota are not Southern. He awarded four teams to cities that HAD NHL teams and lost them (MIN, ATL) or were teased with a relocation and didn't get them (Hartford was on tap to go to Columbus, New Jersey was exploring a move to Nashville). And he's an out-spoken advocate for a team in Winnipeg and Quebec.

He's put seven-year no relocate clauses in ALL ownership transfers since losing QUE, HAR, WIN and MIN. He's fought to keep every team in its current location regardless of destination. He made an exception to NHL ownership rules to keep the Edmonton Oilers from moving to Houston.

#2 - There's absolutely zero factual evidence to support the idea that a "southern experiment" exists or has failed. What was "experimental" about putting teams in massive markets? A lot of those teams are at the low-end of the spectrum in terms of attendance and revenue... well, no s#&%. They're also the teams with the least history, least tradition, and least on-ice success. PHX, NASH, CBJ, ATL have never made it out of the first round of the playoffs. SJ, DAL, ANA, CAR, TB all have (all five have either won the Presidents Trophy for best regular season record, OR a Stanley Cup) and are all doing quite well financially and attendance wise. FLA has made it out of the first round before, but not in like 12 years.

Furthermore, the success of the "Sun Belt Experiment" isn't measured in the revenue each team brings in individually. It's measured in "what have they done for the league." The NHL had teams where 24% of the US/CAN population lived in 1989. They now have teams were 37% of the population lives. They had a US TV contract that gave them $15 million a year in 1989. They now have one that gives them six times that amount and for a 10-year stretch was getting even MORE from ESPN.

#3 - Phoenix DOES need to move. Atlanta needs an owner and might move. It would not surprise me if nothing happened in the next five years in terms of teams and their locations in the NHL. But it also wouldn't surprise me if Houston, Quebec, Winnipeg and or Kansas City landed an NHL team, either through relocation, an expansion to 32 teams, or both.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:25 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:50 pm
Posts: 268
Why does Phoenix NEED to move? Give it stable ownership, and it will be fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:50 am 
Online
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1459
MLB: move the Houston Astros to the AL West this would balance the leagues and give the Rangers a travel partner, NTM the Astros don't exactly fit in the NL Central, plus it would give both some regional interest.

Vegas: send the extra Northern California teams to Vegas, Kings/A's/Raiders would fit great in Vegas, Raider NAtion would hate it but most people in that area are 49er's fans 1st.

NFL: besides the Vegas move, I think Jacksonville should relocate to San Antonio/Austin and the Rams should move back to LA

NBA: wow is all I can say, 1st I'm for extreme contraction but still wish Seattle had a team, that being said, assuming no teams are added or die off, I don't understand why the NBA can't just make the divisions more simple.
I hate that Memphis is in the SW and Minnesota in the NW. If they just did away with the conferences and made 5 divisions this could work out extremely well.

Pacific (West) - Suns, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, Warriors, and Trailblazzers
Southwest - Jazz, Nuggets, Thunder, Mavs, Spurs, Rockets
Southeast - Hornets, Grizzlies, Bobcats, Hawks, Magic, and Heat
Central (Midwest) Timberwolves, Bucks, Bulls, Pacers, Pistons, and Cavs
Atlantic (Northeast) Raptors, Celtics, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, and Wizards

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:01 am 
Online
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1459
Frank the Tank's take on pro realignment...
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -overview/

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:17 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
I forgot about this thread. It was a good one.

I keep hearing people talk about how balancing the leagues in the MLB will be so wonderful. Not one of them has ever said how they would do schedules. The plan was to eliminate divisions. Would anyone really be ok with only 10 games against each team (10*15=150 + 12 IL games)? I know if the Giants only played the Dodgers 10 times I would be disappointed. And I certainly don't want to replace the other 8 Dodger games with more against Pittsburgh and Milwaukee or anyone else out east. This would be terrible for attendance. Not to mention, 5 home and 5 away games means a 2 game series and a 3 game series. That means a lot more travel (on top of the fact that teams are already making 2 trips to every city instead of currently only going to some cities twice).

So let's throw that out since we know any team with a big time rival in their division won't go for that (NY, Bos, Stl, Chi, SF, LA ect). So we assume we keep the divisions. But now we have to have interleague play all year round. So that means at the end of the season with playoff spots on the line, teams will be playing games outside of their division. September is the best time for baseball because of how teams play themselves in and out of the playoffs. This is also something that shouldn't be eliminated.

If any of those two will happen, it will be the second. I still say go to 32 and follow the football model but I'd be surprised if anything happened any time soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group