Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in sports? - Page 8

ClarkNasty · #71 10-03-2007, 10:03 AM

The issue with the first round isn't the number of games (though I agree that 5 would be better). It's that it takes two full weeks to do the round. Some schedules are like 7 games in 15 days. That's absurd.

Needle77 · #72 10-03-2007, 12:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We need these, if for no other reason than to ensure that one NL central team will make the post-season each year.lol

Seriously though, I think the rivalries are important. I just feel sorry for the teams that are artificially stuffed in divisions or conferences just because is seems like there is no better place (or there is no will) to move them.

For example:

MLB
Texas Rangers
Pirates
Devil Rays (to some extent)

NFL
Rams (yes, I know they used to be in LA)
Colts??

NHL
Washington, Dallas, and Colorado are the odd teams out in their divisons when it comes to "region".

[/ QUOTE ]

With regards to the Colts, the AFC North and AFC East already had "rivalries" set, Browns/Bengals, Steelers/Browns, Browns/Ravens, Jets/Dolphins, Bills/Dolphins, Pats/everyone.

Colts were just stuck into the South with nowhere else to put them, but it's turned out ok. Colts/Jags, Jags/Titans have turned into rather good rivalries(though Jags/Titans was set back on Jan 23, 2000).

jstnrgrs · #73 10-03-2007, 06:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as the BCS is around, college football should abolish conferences. Hell, I'd like them gone either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the conferences in college FB. I like that you have to win the conference to really go anywhere.

I still like the Serie system the best.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think that conferences in CFB are very important. Teams that will never compete for a national championship need to have something to aim for other than a winning record. The conference championships provide this.