Thursday, May 17, 2012

The Seattle Dream & Why the SoDo arena deal means so much

Recently there has been a lot of buzz about a potential new NBA/NHL arena in the SoDo portion of Seattle.  Chris Hansen and his investment group is willing to pay ~$300 million to further the cause of bringing the Sonics back to Seattle.  Let me start by disclosing I am a Portland native.  Having the Blazers in my hometown, I didn't go through the anguish that the Sonics faithful went through when the team relocated.  I won't even pretend to understand the emotional turmoil that ensued.  Yet despite never having lived in Seattle, I find myself incredibly emotionally invested in this project.  Perhaps it is the sports fanatic in me that loves a good rivalry, whether it is the Sounders-Timbers (I am a Sounder for life for all my readers just fyi), Yankees-Red Sox or any of the numerous other combinations.  So one could argue I am biased by the potential of a Blazer-Sonics revival or a Seattle-Vancouver Canucks rivalry.  And they would probably be right to some extent.  But for me. this arena project is something much, much more.  In order to understand what this arena deal means to my vision of the Seattle dream, I need to provide context for how this dream developed.

In 2009 when MLS decided to expand to Seattle, I thought it would be cool to support the league's efforts to establish a Northwestern presence.  I assumed that they would expand to Seattle and stop right there, so I became a Sounders fan.  Additionally, having been a musician for 9 years of my life, I thought it was really cool that a sports management group would strive to incorporate music (not just recorded Billboard Top 100 hits) into the fan experience.  That definitely helped win me over.  But what really did it was watching how the city embraced the Sounders and developed a passion for the franchise.  Even when the Timbers joined a few years later, I had already become committed to Keller and Montero and loved the enthusiasm, passion and the culture of Sounders FC.  

Despite my limited athletic capabilities, I became a huge sports fan.  Yes I played soccer for 4-5 years when I was a wee lad, but my lack of talent quickly became apparent (when an attacker only gets one goal in a career of 4-5 that isn't great numbers).  Yet some of my memories from childhood involve attending sporting events.  I remember seeing Greg Popovich and the Spurs play the Blazers. I remember being a huge Baron Davis and Charlotte Hornets fan growing up, and developing a admiration for Cal Ripkin Jr that I still to this day cannot explain.  You never know what athlete or team a kid will become passionate about.  And when I finally do have kids, it won't matter to me what franchise or athlete they become a loyal supporter of.  As long as I can support them in that effort.

It will be awhile before I have children, and just recently graduating from college, that is probably how it should be.  I still have other dreams I need to pursue.  And that is fine, as there should be no rush.  But when I finally do have kids, I want to ensure I have the greatest possible environment for them to cultivate their passions and interests.  Whether they fall in love with the outdoors (I've heard Rainier and the Olympics are nice) or music or sports, I won't know until they start growing up.  And Seattle has a great nature and outdoor presence, and is sufficiently urbanized for a plethora of musical opportunities.  What is missing is the full sports scene.

You see, my son or daughter may become a huge fan of soccer, baseball or football.  If that is the case, living in Seattle would be more than adequate.  If I am lucky they will become a Sounders, Mariners and Seahawks fan, ensuring that their favorite team always has a home game we can attend.  But they may become a fan of some random franchise like the Charlotte Hornets, or an athlete like Cal Ripkin Jr.  And in cases like these, it would be nice to know that every once in a while (unless they pick an NL team), we can go see their favorite team or player.  If they become an NBA or NHL enthusiast, I would probably have to drive 3 hours north or south.  And for my kids I would do it.  But it is easier to stay passionate about a team if you are surrounded by them.  That's why I hope the NBA and NHL come to Seattle.  I couldn't inspire a love of hockey or basketball in my kids on my talents alone.  But maybe seeing their Lebron James or Gary Payton or Alex Ovechkin would.  

I know this arena deal has a few big issues that need to be addressed.  The amount of initial investment by the city of Seattle and King county have a few people worried.  As does the potential traffic issues for the current SoDo franchises and the Port of Seattle.  Their concerns are all valid and should be addressed, as they do play a major role in this city.  But I know with some creativity the leaders of this city can make something happen that will mitigate these issues and help people like me live the Seattle dream.


Monday, February 20, 2012

Scheduling a 32 team NBA

Alright, so I laid out a proposal of a 32-team NBA.  In my previous post I split it up into four 8-team divisions.  There is an alternate system that might work just as well, so to all three of my readers, let me know if you like it or not.

Northwest-
Seattle Supersonics
Portland Trailblazers
Utah Jazz
Denver Nuggets

West-
Sacramento Kings
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers

Southwest-
Phoenix Suns
San Antonio Spurs
Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets

South-
Oklahoma City Thunder
Kansas City expansion
New Orleans Hornets
Memphis Grizzlies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast-
Miami Heat
Orlando Magic
Atlanta Hawks
Charlotte Bobcats

Northeast-
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Wizards

East-
Brooklyn Nets
Toronto Raptors
Cleveland Cavaliers
Detroit Pistons

North-
Milwaukee Bucks
Minnesota Timberwolves
Chicago Bulls
Indiana Pacers

Personally, I think the league should avoid expanding the season beyond 82 games.  I would hate to see the NBA become MLB where you have too many (162) games in a season.  If you wanted to add a few you could, but here is my schedule which would keep the season at exactly 82 games:

Each team in the league will play a home and away game with everyone else in the league.  Not including your franchise, there are 31 other teams * 2 games = 62 games

How to get the other 20 games becomes a little bit more interesting...for starters lets add another home and away with the teams in your division.  3 teams in your division * 2 additional games = 6 more games.  We are now up to 68 games of the 82.

Next I would add one more game against each team in your conference (western or eastern) That would be 12 more games leading to an 80 game season.

For the final two games, I would add one more home and away series between the doublets.  If you notice how the league is set up, the majority of teams have a natural rivalry pair associated.  Above I listed the natural rivals as right underneath each other (Ex for NW division, natural rivals=Seattle and Portland; Denver and Utah)

Would love some feedback on this expansion of my previous idea.  Alternatively, if you wanted to retain the four 8-team conferences, I would probably cut the season to 76 games (62 against everyone + 14 for an additional home and away series against the other 7 teams in the division) or expand to 84 games ( same as above but add one more game against the other 8 teams in your conference).

The point was brought up that bringing in two expansion teams might cause considerable talent dilution.  I think this is a very real concern that people have, and think it might be wise to introduce the two expansion franchises over a time period of 5-10 years to help ease this process.  Let me know what you all think!

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Gary Bettman for a day: How to fix the NHL alignment issues

After examining what I would do if I were David Stern for a day, I thought it would be fun to follow that up with what I would do if I were Gary Bettman for a day.  The NHL is an interesting situation that wasn't as easily fixable as the NBA, due to the heavy Canadian presence.  Nevertheless, I found an option I personally like that would provide for the needs of our neighbors up north.  Once again I want to disclose my bias for the PNW as an Oregonian.

As commissioner of the NHL, I would start by increasing the league to 32 teams.  I would add an expansion team in Quebec and Milwaukee and move the Phoenix Coyotes to Seattle.  Aftewards, a little bit of re-arrangement would be necessary.  Here's how I would organize it-

Division 1: The West:
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Vancouver Canucks
Seattle Expansion or relocation
San Jose Sharks
Los Angeles Kings
Anaheim Ducks
Colorado Avalanche

Division 2: The Midwest
Winnipeg Jets
Minnesota Wild
Chicago Blackhawks
Detroit Red Wings
Milwaukee Expansion or relocation
Pittsburgh Penguins
Toronto Maple Leafs
Buffalo Sabres

Division 3: The Northeast
Quebec Nordiques
Montreal Canadians
Ottawa Senators
Boston Bruins
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils
Philadelphia Flyers

Division 4: The Southeast
Florida Panthers
Tampa Bay Lightning
Carolina Hurricanes
Nashville Predators
Washington Capitols
Columbus Blue Jackets
St. Louis Blues
Dallas Stars

This proposal leaves out a number of markets that could have been considered.  Due to the struggles of the southern expansion, I elected to expand to Milwaukee instead of Houston, Phoenix, or Atlanta.  Wisconsin seems like more of a hockey market.

Most people reading this will wonder why the hell I would put the southeast in its' own division.  All of the struggling markets are in one division.  According to current rankings, the #4 & #5 teams in the west would be in this division.  If the Capitols ever figure out how to utilize Alex Ovechkin, they have a headliner right there.  The #3 team in the East would also be in this division, meaning approximately 3/16 of the playoffs would come from this division.  To expect a perfect 4-4-4-4 would be unrealistic however, so 3/16 isn't too bad.  Additionally, I feel keeping teams geographically close allows these markets to promote rivalries.  No one cares about a Tampa/Toronto rivalry.  But an in-state matchup between the Panthers and Lightning might make for a good turnout.  Maybe Nashville develops a rivalry with Carolina or St. Louis.  Or Both for that matter.  If necessary, the two eastern divisions could rearrange.  But at least this would provide a way to instill geographic rivalries while preserving the legacy of some of the Northeastern rivalries.  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

David Stern for a day: Fixing the NBA musical chairs

The NBA is arguably the most frustrating league in the professional sports world.  With recent turmoil, the Kings and Hornets both are in positions of losing their teams.  I want to disclose my bias from the beginning.  I am an Oregonian.  As such, I have a strong bias for the Pacific Northwest.  To see the Sonics leave Seattle, and the heartbreak that ensued was quite perturbing.  To see the league do nothing to remedy the situation?  Even worse.  The Sonics met their demise to greedy and selfish politics of David Stern.  Despite all of these recent rumors and efforts to bring a team to Seattle, whether the Kings will stay or go and ditto for the Hornets, there exists a simple solution that would solve this NBA problem for many years.  It's too simple to work and would eliminate the ability to leverage vulnerable franchises, which is why it would never be approved.  Which leads me to this post of what I would do if I were David Stern for a day.

I would start by adding two teams:  one in Seattle and one in Kansas City.  The NFL has thrived at 32 teams and I believe the NBA has the popularity to do the same.  Why would I do this?  Because Seattle, home to a loyal fan base deserves a team.  Because Kansas City (alternatively, you could put it in St. Louis) makes sense for the big picture of the NBA.

Next I would realign the entire structure of the conferences.  My proposal would involve four 8-team divisions , two in the west and two in the east.  Afterwards, I would keep everything else the same. Each division winner gets an automatic berth to the tournament.  16 playoff teams would make sense in a 32-team league.  As of right now, over half the teams make postseason play.  Allow me to lay out the divisions (names to be determined):

Division 1: The Most-West:
Seattle Supersonics
Portland Trailblazers
Sacramento Kings
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Lakers
Los Angeles Clippers
Utah Jazz
Denver Nuggets

Division 2: The Southwest:
Phoenix Suns
San Antonio Spurs
Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
Oklahoma City Thunder
Kansas City/St. Louis Expansion team
New Orleans Hornets
Memphis Grizzlies

Division 3: The Midwest:
Minnesota Timberwolves
Chicago Bulls
Indiana Pacers
Detroit Pistons
Milwaukee Bucks
Cleveland Cavaliers
Toronto Raptors
Unfortunately there is no logical 8th team for this division.  For placeholder sake, let's put the Brooklyn Nets here

Division 4: The East:
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Wizards
Charlotte Bobcats
Atlanta Hawks
Miami Heat
Orlando Magic

You now have at least one team representing the major states or metropolitan areas.  Sure, some small(er) cities like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh would have to commute to Philadelphia and Cleveland, but they at least have one team servicing their state.  And despite what anyone says, Anaheim does NOT deserve an NBA team.  If you want a team in Anaheim, move the Clippers and call it good.  But we do not need a repeat of hockey where 3 teams are concentrated and service one market.  Especially not when that market already has 2 hockey teams, 2 baseball teams, 2 soccer teams, 2 high profile colleges and 2 basketball teams.  The LA area needs NFL, not a 3rd basketball team.

Still, I find the Kings an interesting dilemma.  I ponder why nobody has considered moving them to the Bay Area (San Jose or San Fran) to serve as a 2nd team there.  That market is close to saturation, but could handle one more team if in the right season (with NBA primarily winter and only 1 NHL team, it would work).  Personally, I would like to see the Kings stay in Sacramento.  If you move them to SJ or SF however, you might be able to retain part of your fan base, without having to compete against 6 other teams in your season.  But then money will always overpower logic.  If it didn't this mess would have been fixed a long time ago.

*as a side note, I put the Brooklyn Nets in with the Midwestern teams because I wanted to preserve the natural rivalries associated with the cities of Boston, NY, Philadelphia and Washington DC.  These 4 cities all have similar heritage and I would hate to see any of them moved, even if it makes more geographical sense.  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

How the survival of the Big 12 could impact the college football landscape

The Big 12 has survived.  Texas, Tex Tech, Oklahoma and Ok St are committed to the success of this conference.  Dan Bebee is out and the Big 12 has become a proactive conference rather than reacting to poaching.  The Big 12 is stable now.  Missouri will soon be gone but replaced.  Unfortunately, Missouri leaving provides a great opportunity for college football reform.  What is my suggestion?  5 14 team almost super-conferences.

Let's start with the easiest one to predict, the SEC:
SEC East:
Florida
Georgia,
South Carolina,
Kentucky
Tennessee,
Vanderbilt
Missouri

SEC West:
Alabama,
Auburn,
Ole Miss,
Mississippi St,

LSU,
Arkansas,
Texas A&M

Next up let's look at what the Big 12 could do to establish themselves as one of the premier conferences
Big 12 East:
Baylor,
TCU,
USF,
UCF,
Louisville,
Cincinnati,
West Virginia

Big 12 West:
Texas,
Texas Tech,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma St,
Kansas,
Kansas St,
Iowa St

The ACC has already committed to 14 teams:
ACC North:
Boston College,
Syracuse,
Pittsburgh,
Maryland,
Virginia,
Virginia Tech
Miami

ACC South
Duke,
UNC,
NC State,
Wake Forest,
Clemson,
Georgia Tech,
Florida State

Next would be the Big 10 who would take up the remnants of the Big East like so...
Big 10 East:
Ohio State,
Wisconsin,
Indiana,
Purdue,

Penn State,
Rutgers,
UConn,


Big 10 West:
Michigan,
Michigan State,
Illinois,
Northwestern,

Minnesota,
Nebraska,
Iowa,

and finally, the fifth conference of 14, the Pac:
Pac 14 North:
Washington
Washington State,
Oregon,
Oregon State,
Stanford,
California,

Pac 14 South:
Arizona,
Arizona State,
Colorado,
Utah,
USC,
UCLA,

Notre Dame: The embodiment of everything wrong in college athletics

Disclaimer: I have nothing against Notre Dame or the Catholic religion.  I recognize Notre Dame as being a program rich in tradition, with a national following and respectable athletics

However, I feel that Notre Dame embodies everything that is currently wrong with college athletics...don't believe me? That's your call, but let me share my two cents.

1. Notre Dame is viewed as the holy grail- tons of revenue.  Instant prestige and credibility.  As of today, the ACC, Big 10 and Big 12 all would love to welcome Notre Dame to their fold.  What is the problem?  The closest school in the ACC would be Pittsburgh, an 8 hour drive to Indiana.  If Notre Dame joins the ACC, UConn will probably be team #16.  The Big 10 has no reason to expand unless Notre Dame is available.  Ya Louisville will probably get picked up by the Big 12.  Maybe Cincy will too in this scenario.  But Rutgers and South Florida will be alone with no AQ conference potential and none of that BCS money.

Big 12?  Now that West Virginia is joining has their closest school 7 hours away.  Everyone is giving up the potential to develop great regional rivalries for the almighty dollar of Notre Dame.  The Big 12 could pick up West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati, three programs with similar cultures, history and rivalries stemming from the Big East days.  UConn and Rutgers would probably get picked up by the ACC to create regional rivals with Syracuse and Boston College.But Cincy and South Florida would be left out in the cold if the Big 12 can make Notre Dame join..even if it means adding BYU for football and Notre Dame for everything else.

How about the Big 10, who has everything they want?  I'll be honest, I don't know who the Big 10 would pick up as team 14 if Notre Dame joined. I have heard Rutgers, and that would probably be my first guess. ACC won't add anyone unless Notre Dame is part of the deal...sorry UConn. How about you, USF with the Tampa market?  Nah, we got that covered with Florida State.

Regardless of what happens, if Notre Dame joins ANY conference and gives up their independence, it will be at the expense of someone else.  Regardless of whether Notre Dame is a better geographical or cultural fit is a moot point.  Because with the money of Notre Dame, who cares?  Someone is gonna get left out.

Nevermind the incredible rivalry opportunities of the Big 12 adding WVU, Louisville, Cincy, USF and UCF to make a 14 team conference with a triad of close rivals and a rivalry in-state that would be passionate and intense every year.

Nevermind the Big 10 adding UConn and Rutgers to reach 14 and pick up NY and NE markets while retaining that Big East rivalry.

Nevermind the ACC adding UConn and Rutgers to develop a NE rivalry between Boston College and UConn, and a NY rivalry between Rutgers and Syracuse.

Finally, Notre Dame's approach regarding conference affiliations embodies the current collegiate psyche.  I am a strong advocate of Notre Dame staying independent because it works out nicer.  But let's face it.  Notre Dame has decided it would rather put it's schools own interests ahead of what is best for the college landscape.  It is this attitude which has been adopted by the Pac 12, the Big 10, the Big 12, the SEC and even the ACC which is truly disturbing.  Despite the options laid out to develop 5 14 team conferences loosely based on geographic rivals (like the Pac) everyone has decided they are too content with what they have.  Which will leave the remnants of the Big East stranded in isolation.  Why?  Because Cincinnati isn't an attractive option for the Big 10 with Ohio State around.  The SEC wouldn't dare consider USF, UCF or Louisville because they already have Florida and Kentucky.

The simple matter is teams will get left out for one of two reasons:
1. They got replaced by the more attractive beauty queen known as Notre Dame.
2. The greediness of conferences and lack of desire to seek what is in the best interest of college football as a collective, but rather solely what is in the best interest of the 12-14 conference members.

None of these will happen despite the attractiveness of these options because none of these programs bring in the financial revenue of Notre Dame.  Which is too bad.  It really is a damn shame that the almighty dollar is more important than the rivalries which have made college football great for so long.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Saving the Big 12

Well nonexistent readers, we have some interesting developments.  Let's catch you up...
Texas and Oklahoma have set their differences aside to try and make the Big 12 work.  As a result, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are staying put as well.  Texas A&M has left the conference and Missouri is looking for the exit sign, hoping the SEC calls their name.  Meanwhile, The ACC picked up Syracuse and Pittsburgh to expand to 14 teams.

Jim Delaney has stated that the Big 10 is sitting out this round of re-alignment roulette.  Ditto for Larry Scott and the Pac 12.  The SEC has 1 or 3 vacancies depending on if they are looking at going to 14 or 16.  The Big 12 (which just picked up TCU) is currently at 10 teams, and looking into further expansion.  The Big East is also looking to expand, but no one wants to join until they know what they are getting into.

I have a new plan.  One which allows the Big 10 and the Pac 12 to sit by and enjoy their new companions.  One in which the current members of the Big East all get to retain the BCS bowl berth, as well as the Big 12, albeit in a different format.  The one flaw to my plan?  The ACC would have to pick up UConn and Rutgers to expand to 16 teams.  Let's also assume the SEC decides to pick up West Virginia to get to 14 teams and pick up an Eastern team instead of splitting up Alabama & Auburn.  My plan works almost as well if the SEC picks up Missouri, but not quite as neat.  For now let's assume WVU is off to the SEC

Our new look Big East:
Rutgers
Syracuse
Uconn
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Louisville
Cincinnati
South Florida

The Big 12 currently looks like:
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Iowa State
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State

Strategy: We want to improve the strength of the conference while expanding the conference footpirnt.  Let's add BYU and Air Force from Independence and the Mountain West to pick up the Utah (and actually national Mormon) TV sets as well as Denver.  Next let's pick up South Florida and Central Florida to gain the Tampa and Orlando markets.  Yes USF, it is time to let in your little brother UCF.  The Big 12 would pick up  more TV markets, but you get to keep your BCS eligibility which you would have otherwise lost.  Lastly, if any conference knows what it is like to be a smaller market team in a state and get passed over it should be the Big 12.  Don't be jerks and pick up Cincinnati and Louisville.  They actually do increase the conference footprint.  We have expanded to 6 new markets (I guess 5 if you count Orlando and Tampa together), and have acquired a number of up-and-coming programs (UCF, USF, Cincinnati) as well as some with a history of success (BYU, TCU, AF).

Next up is how to organize our new super-conference .  I propose an East West split with certain rivalries preserved.  There are two options...here is option 1:

Big 12 West:
Air Force
BYU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Kansas
Kansas State

Big 12 East:
UCF
USF
Baylor
TCU
Iowa State
Missouri
Louisville
Cincinnati

Alternatively, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State could be shifted to the East to make them more competitively balanced.  In addition, if Missouri decides they still want out and the SEC takes them, you can substitute West Virginia.  No one gets left out in the cold.  Well except Boise State...
This would however spell the ultimate demise of the Big East.  Let's look at the damages left for our basketball only compadres:

Big East Basketball Conference:

DePaul (Chicago)
Georgetown (Washington DC)
Maquette (Milwaukee)
Notre Dame (The Notre Dame National TV Market)
Providence (New England/Rhode Island)
St. Johns (New York City)
Seton Hall (New Jersey)
Villanova (Philadelphia)

If this is not satisfactory, Army and Navy could also join this conference as basketball only members and maintain Independence in football.  Other schools potentially available include UMass, Charlotte and Temple. By adding these any of these schools, the quality and strength of the conference will improve.