Saturday, June 26, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Why not keep/assign rivalries, fill out the rest of the schedule rotationally and then whichever two teams end up with the best records, they play in the conference championship. Wouldn't the BCS have preferred that Oklahoma play Texas (or Texas Tech) in the Big 12 championship a couple years ago instead of Missouri?
Here's my rivalry table
|Team||Rivalry 1||Rivalry 2||Rivalry 3|
Nothing would be perfect of course. In fact there is quite a disparity in the quality of each teams trios of rivals. Looking at the past 10 years winning percentage and ordinal ranking of those winning percentages of the trios:
|Team||rivalry %||Riv rank||Ordinal||Ord rank|
Funny how PSU fans always think they're getting the shaft from the conference. Looks like they would have the toughest trio. However since the teams would only have 3 rivals every year instead of the 5 they would have in a divisional system, I think it would be more likely the differences would balance out in the remaining 5 or 6 conferences games.
This way you would have had a UM - OSU championship game in 2006 for instance, instead of a geographical OSU vs - Wisconsin(?) or Penn St.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
I was wrong.
The divisions based on 2005-2009
Odds- OSU, Wis, IA, NU, PU, IN
Evens - PSU, Neb, Mich, MSU, MN, IL
Going backwards, the divisions based on a 5 year period one year previous, 2004-2008
Odds - OSU, PSU, IA, NU, MSU, IN
Evens - Wis, Mich, Neb, PU, MN, IL
There are two trades (PSU/MSU for Wis/PU)
Going back another year, 2003-2007
Odds - OSU, Mich, Neb, PU, MSU, IN
Evens-Wis, IA, PSU, MN, NU, IL
This time there are three trades from the following year (Mich/Neb/PU for IA/PSU/NU). That is half of the divisions.
Even with this very small sample, it is clear that assessing each year using a 5 year period would result in more change than they would likely be willing to work through. I think it is still a fun (and probably more fair) idea, and I hope they do something to weigh the division strengths from the recent past, not just the historical past. I'm sure that any way they align the divisions, there will be something to complain about. After a couple years, those complaints will be mostly gone. It takes a long time to build tradition, but only a short time to destroy it. And after it is destroyed, it takes a short time to forget it.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
...but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
First, if you were to use recent years as the measure of who is in the Big 4, and if you used overall winning % as the way to determine who was 'better', you would have to go back 15 years to reach a point when those four teams have the highest winning %(through present) of the 12 teams. Likely, they would continue to be the Big 4 if you kept going back in time, but that does not necessarily make for a balanced league in the present.
Likewise, the Big 4 often fall on hard times. In the past 11 seasons, there has been at least one team of the big 4 with 5 or more losses. Only two of those had only 5 losses (and winning records). The remaining years had at least one of the Big 4 at .500 or below.
In other words, keeping track of the Big 4 is probably not an important factor in deciding how to align the divisions. Also, because teams vary from year to year, I continue to propose using recent results (5 years, say) and re-aligning periodically (every year would be cool). I will go into more detail in a later post.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Doesn't he pay attention? Attorneys for the non super conference schools would make a lot of money with that set up.
Friday, June 4, 2010
I started to compile the various moves I could think of in the major sports.
In MLB by my count there have been 9 teams that have moved a total of 11 times. Five have changed the nickname (Brewers, Nationals, Orioles, Twins and Rangers) and 4 (6) have retained (Braves, Dodgers, Giants and Athletics) the previous name.
Looking at the individual changes:
- Seattle Pilots became the Milwaukee Brewers - The Pilots only existed one season, why not change the name to something more fitting in Milwaukee - Good Choice
- Montreal Expos to Washington Nationals - Expos drew their name from the 1967 World Exposition; there is already too much to expose in DC so the name change is good.
- St. Louis Browns to Baltimore Orioles - The Browns we almost always the worst team in the AL; Although Baltimore Browns would have kept alliteration, I think the change to the aesthetically pleasing Oriole is a good choice.
- Washington Senators to the Minnesota Twins and the 2nd creation of the Senators to the Texas Rangers - Senators really only makes sense for DC, so change makes sense. Twins is a compromise to St. Paul to so they aren't just Minneapolis's team. Rangers works for Texas - Interesting that these two both took regional names instead of city names.
- Brooklyn (Trolley) Dodgers to LA (Traffic) Dodgers? Would have been an opportunity to change
- NY Giants to SF Giants - No problem with me here
- Phily to KC to Oakland Athletics - Love the Elephant on the baseball - great keep
- Boston to Milwaukee to Atlanta Braves - Alliteration in Boston to ?? in Milwaukee and Atlanta - maybe should have been a change?
In the NFL I counted 11 teams (14 total) moving cities. Six (Rams, Redskins, Cardinals, Chargers, Raiders and Colts) kept the nickname, four (Lions, Chiefs, Ravens and Titans) changed immediately and one kept the previous name for a short time then changed (Bears).
- Rams make just a little sense in LA and St. Louis as they made in Cleveland - so I think this would have been a chance to change.
- Redskins - equally offensive in Boston and DC - good chance for a change
- Cardinals - Were the original Chicago Cardinals taking advantage of a C-C naming? It worked in St. Louis to match the baseball team, really doesn't make sense in Arizona, especially when they were the Phoenix Cardinals.
- Chargers and Raiders were moves just up and down the coast of California, and since they both have great logos, I can't blame them for keeping them.
- Colts - see below
- Portsmouth Spartans to Detroit Lions (probably some other nicknames in between too) - Obviously they don;t want to be Spartans - even though the Aggies were long from changing their name - Great move
- Dallas Texans to KC Chiefs - well KC Texans wouldn't work at all so Win
- Houston Oilers to Tennessee Titans - I think a change was needed no Oilers in Tennesse
- Decatur Staleys to Chicago Staleys to Chicago Bears - It's Papa Bear not Papa Staley - Win
Colts/Ravens/Browns - I think if they had known Baltimore was going to steal the Browns from Cleveland in a few years, it would have been great to keep the Colts in Baltimore, Keep the Browns in Cleveland and let Indianapolis become the Ravens -although that makes no sense there. How about the Indy Racers?
Six total moves. (I'm not sure what happened with SF Seals/Cleveland Barons - did the NHL contract?) Four changes (Avalanche, Coyotes, Devils and Hurricanes) one keeper (Flames) and one almost keeper (Stars)
- Quebec Nordiques to Colorado Avalanche - obvious need for change
- Winnipeg Jets to Phoenix Coyotes - not really needing a change, but Coyotes works in the desert SW
- Colorado Rockies to NJ Devils - again NJ Rockies makes no sense, so good change
- Hartford Whalers to Carolina Hurricanes - Not much Whaling in the Carolinas - Win
- Atlanta to Calgary Flames - Atlanta Flames - great name, Calgary Flames? Maybe there was a big fire there I don't know about? Should have changed to Roughriders.
- Minnesota North Stars to Dallas Stars - Obviously needed to drop the North, ties into Cowboys Iconic logo - Win
NBA has lots of changes. Fourteen teams making eighteenish moves. 5 names changes in the bunch (some on the 2nd move).
- Syracuse Nationals to Phily 76ers - I like it
- Cincinnati Royals to KC-Omaha/KC/Sacramento Kings - Kept the royalty of the name, not sure why they changed, especially when you consider the MLB team became the KC Royals. Maybe their was a minor league baseball presence they wanted to avoid?
- Seattle SuperSonics to OK City Thunder. Seattle the home of Boeing, OK City the home of storms? Win
- Buffalo Braves to SD/LA Clippers - Love the original SD Clippers logo so win
- Ft Wayne to Detroit Pistons - originally the Zollner Pistons (Brand Name?) but certainly the auto industry works in Detroit.
- Minneapolis to LA Lakers - fail! From the land of 10,000 lakes to the land that drains lakes in other states.
- Baltimore to Washington Bullets (then Wizards) - should have thought long ago about dropping the violent name, although the "ll" looking like arms grabbing a rebound in the logo is tough to drop.
- NY to NJ Nets - who cares?
- St. Louis to Atlanta Hawks - fine
- Vancouver to Memphis Grizzles - Awful see below
- New Orleans to Utah Jazz - Awful see below
- Philadelphia to SF/GS Warriors - Fine
- SD to Houston Rockets - Makes much more sense in Houston, why were they the Rockets in SD?
- Charlotte to New Orleans Hornets - fine except, why not let Utah be the Grizzles and have New Orleans and Memphis fight is out for the name Jazz with the loser becoming the Hornets? Although maybe Memphis could just be the Blues and NO the Jazz.