I've done more thinking about this since then, and after referring with Zev, here's my suggestion:
Every ten seasons, starting with this offseason, we:
- Tally up the number of wins each team has over the previous ten seasons.
- Rank each team 1-12 based on the average number of wins in that time (SEA, BRI, MAU, SHK, BRK, ANT, APP, MEP, NOR, ATL, HOU, HIG for 2020-2029).
- Put teams ranked 1, 6, 7, and 12 in division A, teams ranked 2, 5, 8, and 11 in division B, and teams ranked 3, 4, 9, and 10 in division C.
- Use history/sentimentality to determine how to name the three new divisions after Adams, Signorino, and Zotti.
- The three division winners, plus the next one (or two)* teams who win the most games each year, would make the playoffs.
* We're not going to discuss the expansion of the playoffs in this post, but you can use your opinions on if we should do that or not in forming your thoughts on the current discussion.
Division A (average number of wins in 2020-2029: 85.4)
- Seattle (115.7 wins)
- Antelope Valley (79.8 wins)
- Appalachian (78.2 wins)
- Highland (63 wins)
- Brick (91.5 wins)
- Brooklyn (80.5 wins)
- Mepkin Abbey (75.7 wins)
- Houston (69 wins)
- Maui (88.8 wins)
- Shackamaxon (81.2 wins)
- Norfolk (74.3 wins)
- Atlanta (69.5 wins)
How does this sound?
i think what you proposed for divisions works in mixing it up....assign the names how you see fit Michael/Zev
ReplyDeleteMy concern about realignment has been somewhat lessened by the fact we play a balanced schedule (I didn't realize that before the last discussion). Seems if you get stuck with the 800 lb gorilla in your division (Seattle), you still have an equal chance to get a wild card. The only possibility you lose out on (if you're stuck with Seattle) is sneaking in with a poor record but winning a division title, a weak team in weak division. But not a lot of sympathy there. I'm cool with any methodology we devise, right up to it being unnecessary
ReplyDeleteI am ok with realignment as a general principle, and your proposed methodology is fine with me too, Michael. My only concern is that I question whether it will really do much to address the significant competitive imbalance in the league.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to address competitive balance is owner engagement and activity. There are a lot of ways to address that, but giving more teams something to compete for each season is one way. Balancing the divisions is one step towards that goal, and if/when we discuss adding a second Wild Card team, I will definitely make that argument then.
DeleteAs far as other ways, I have some ideas that I've started sharing with Zev. If anyone has any other ideas, please let us know. We just lost one owner and we want to keep all of the others.
If it makes anyone feel any better, the break up of Seattle is coming. In a few years I will have about $20M in salary room to resign free agents who are currently demanding a total of about $100M/year for extensions.
DeleteAs I return from vacation, I want to belatedly chime in that I'm in favor of realignment and that this proposal seems a solid approach.
ReplyDelete