Realignment: Did the CBA address this?
View Single Post
01-24-2013, 11:43 AM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Originally Posted by
I see what you are saying here. However, I am confused. Not arguing, just confused. In your prior post 63, your southern division didn't look like this at all. It was:
CHI, STL, NASH, TB, FLA, CAR, DAL
Now, you are exchanging Phil, Pitts, and Was in place of Chi and St L?
Not sure how to take that.
Otherwise, I agree. No way to get Pitts and Phil to even think of separating from the New York teams. And, those kind of strong opinions are part of the problem the BoG has.
That post at #63 wasn't referring to any "southern" Division. Relating to that other thread I created, I probably now wouldn't curse any Division with a "southern" label. That Division, as you can see it extends up to Chicago, I'd probably call something like the Central Division.
My post directy above is simply responding to your idea (which I've also presented before in other threads) about having all Divisions with 2 TZs and putting 2 CTZ teams in each of three eastern Divisions.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by MoreOrr