NDL Forum

The realignment gets shot down and we've now had at least 3 separate discussions about some sort of realignment.....in the same season.

I say we do it. Then no more complaining about who's stacked or not as things should stay pretty balanced this way. Mainly I say let's do it just so we can stop talking about realignment

wdoupis wrote:I say we do it. Then no more complaining about who's stacked or not as things should stay pretty balanced this way. Mainly I say let's do it just so we can stop talking about realignment

You don't know this group yet do you?

It would be talked about still and if not more with the new alignment.

Cnasty wrote:

wdoupis wrote:I say we do it. Then no more complaining about who's stacked or not as things should stay pretty balanced this way. Mainly I say let's do it just so we can stop talking about realignment

You don't know this group yet do you?

It would be talked about still and if not more with the new alignment.

Haha, I am sure it would. At least this way it levels it out a bit. I mostly just want realignment so Kevin will smile again

I'm fine with it...am I happy there's most likely 3 100 game winners in my division...not at all. Putting us into 2 big divisions with 5 wild cards is no different to me. It just changes playoff seedings. This is exactly why people are for the idea, because it keeps things essentially the same.

I'd much rather keep us in smaller divisions so at least we can have some divisional rivalries. Who is this proposal beneficial to aside from Boston/Cinci/Washington not getting matched up in 1st round of the playoffs?

Maybe I'm missing the benefit?

The benefit is 2 divisions levels things out in each league. Division winners get the bye so they are rewarded. 3-6 or the wild cards Are ranked by record, it's as fair and balanced as it gets.

From your 5 WC statement I take it you misread it. It's 4 divisions, 2 larger divisions in each league

we should go to 15, 2 team division

Changing for competitive balance is silly. By the time we change, competition changes.

The one constant was cincy and even he is gone. Good teams come and go. Some teams are good for a long time and go. Every time we change we end up wanting to change again because such and such division is stacked.

It happens. Then it unhappens. Leave it alone.

Broken record is here and completely untrue.

That's the espn answer

I agree with seeit though about realignment if we keep the number of divisions the same as it is now.
I said the same thing before. Teams that are good now are not always good.

Now, the 2 divisions thing, that is a completely different conversation that I think the majority would vote for.

Divisions don't matter really and switching to two each really rewards division champs. Also even outs playoffs. Division rivalries don't get created just BC there in the same division. You start shit talking on the boards for various reasons.

see it and niddler, you are flat out wrong. Both of you are good and almost always have been, peay and Texas almost always are not. How much time spent on the game matters. We spend more. But I have a great team and farm. Commissioner is always good. Why the hell should we force three teams to have to deal with us constantly. Two divisions allows wider range of teams. More even.

We have some new owners now though.
If they turn out good, that changes things.

2 divisions is super realistic too. Although we pick and choose our realism so maybe this is one of those times where we selectively don't care

Uuaww wrote:see it and niddler, you are flat out wrong. Both of you are good and almost always have been, peay and Texas almost always are not. How much time spent on the game matters. We spend more. But I have a great team and farm. Commissioner is always good. Why the hell should we force three teams to have to deal with us constantly. Two divisions allows wider range of teams. More even.

News flash. I haven't been good in a while.

And Peay is on his way up, not down as far as being good.

The_Niddler wrote:We have some new owners now though.
If they turn out good, that changes things.

Right.

And they could get good. And then we put them as "good teams" in our new setup. Then they leave. Or suck. Like I said, Reign (and probably ted) have been our only real constant at. And reign just left.

If you plan based on now, you'll always be chasing.
Can't plan based on the future, because who knows what it

Changing based on competitive balance isn't realistic.

16 teams in this league have won 100 games 3 or less times in 30ish seasons.

nick wrote:16 teams in this league have won 100 games 3 or less times in 30ish seasons.

100 games is the benchmark for being good?
There are plenty of teams that are/have been good without winning 100 games.