Dawn of the New Age...

Sorry for the overdramatic title, but it felt necessary for such a daunting post.
In this venture "Under the Cap," I decided I would take a crack at re-aligning college football.
I started with all the teams currently in so-called power conferences because that would be the only way for a solid re-alignment to hold.
Since six 12-team conferences would seem to be the most logical scenario, this left me with seven spots to hand out to teams outside the six BCS conferences.
Four teams earned their spots in the new conferences via last year's rankings: Boise St., BYU, Utah, and TCU.
One team, Notre Dame, earned its spot based on history.
Two teams, Nevada and Fresno St., earned their spots based on geography and mild success in recent years.
The system isn't perfect, as Central Michigan and Navy may be better candidates for the new re-alignment, but they aren't national title contenders, so I don't really care.
That said, here are my conferences:

NORTHERN CONFERENCE
West Division- Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Boise St., Nevada
Central Division- BYU, Utah, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa State, Iowa
Last year's title game would have most likely been Boise St. and Iowa, which would have made a good one, in my opinion.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Pacific Division- USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Fresno St., Arizona St.
Plains Division- Colorado, Kansas St., Kansas, Baylor, Arizona, Texas Tech
Even adding a few Big 12 teams to the mix couldn't make a Texas Tech-USC matchup all that juicy for a title game.

MIDWEST CONFERENCE
West Division- Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Notre Dame
East Division- Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Cincinnati, Purdue, West Virginia
Ohio St.-Wisconsin would just be what the Big Ten title game should've been anyway, but who doesn't think Cincy would've taken down the Buckeyes?

SUPER SOUTH CONFERENCE
West Division- Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma St., TCU, Arkansas
East Division- LSU, Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Auburn, Alabama, FSU
Yeah, so I don't need to hype up this conference any more than the above names already did. Just realize that last year's national title game would've been this conference's championship game, sponsored by a company who paid a ludicrous amount of money to have their name in someone else's logo.

SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
North Division- Vanderbilt, Tennessee, UNC, Duke, NC State, Clemson
South Division- Florida, Miami, South Florida, Georgia Tech, Georgia, South Carolina
I don't want to talk about the most likely result of the 2009 championship game between Clemson and Florida. Let's just say Clemson got off easy playing Tech in the ACC.

EASTERN CONFERENCE
North Division- Boston College, Syracuse, Connecticut, Rutgers, Penn State, Pittsburgh
South Division- Maryland, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Kentucky
This wouldn't be the toughest conference every year, but Virginia Tech and Penn State would put on an incredible game, I think.

There would be plenty more to sort out, such as how to arrange the national championship tournament. I, of course, would support a six-team bracket with two first-round byes.
Yes, that would mean that only one team per conference would make the playoffs, but the good news is that all those other athletic directors would get their teams in those meaningless pocket-lining bowl games we all love.
I'll not go into the potential playoff games from last year since the conferences would completely change for the most part.
In this way, every conference game would matter because simply winning your conference would give a team a shot at the national championship.
Thus, teams would be more likely to schedule big-time non-conference games because, for a team like Clemson, losses to Oklahoma and Alabama would leave the Tigers more prepared to make a run at the conference title than blowout wins over Louisiana-Monroe and Temple.
Plus, a win in one of those big games might make the difference in a first-round bye and a trip to someone else's turf for the first round of the national playoffs.
When the NCAA wakes up and realizes what they're missing, have them contact me.

Coaching Strategery

So I was almost a coach one time.

That's a long story that I won't share if you don't know it already, but the point is that almost being a coach gave me a bit of an itch to do so.

I would've had the opportunity to coach almost any sport I wanted to, but I was most excited about basketball.

Part of that is because I have a more comprehensive knowledge of basketball than other sports, but it's also because there's so much room for creativity and unique problem-solving.

No ineligible receivers, lots of possessions, no shut-down pitching performances that completely ruin any offensive game plan.

Short of the NBA, organized basketball often comes down your one team's execution of the coach's strategy overcoming the other team's execution of their coach's plan.

Thus, I have spent some time thinking over what I would do if I ever get a chance to coach on the hardwood, and I came up with several thoughts.

1. Players should be conditioned as though they will play the entire game.

After watching the Hawks keep themselves in Game 2 of their series with the Magic by playing more of their starters while Orlando did a hockey-style line change in the second quarter, I had a thought.

What if a coach played the players who were playing the best ball all game, except for a couple of minutes throughout to give other players some playing time?

Even then, there's no reason to have less than three starters on the floor at any given time, unless players are struggling, hurt, or in foul trouble.

Why take out a hot shooter just because it's his turn to rotate off the floor?

To me, that's a sign of what many, including me, call "overcoaching."

If your team has been conditioned to have the energy and stamina to play the entire game, they will perform as such without needing to sit for the second or third quarters.

They'll also be ready for my next idea.

2. My defense would be a full-court zone press.

This portion of my plan has experienced the most changes in the last year or so.

The Missouri Tigers are the main inspiration for me here, as their "40 minutes of hell," which was inspired by NC State teams of old, is one of the most intimidating defenses in college basketball.

Initially, I thought man defense would be the best form of pressure, but that leaves no valid safety valves.

If the point guard gets beat in a stretched-out man press, no one can pick up his man without leaving their own assignment very open.

Thus, I have devised a zone plan very similar to the Cover 2 defense in football.

The point guard, shooting guard, and power forward would divide the backcourt into thirds to contest any inbounds pass.

If the passer is forced to remain stationary after a change of possession, the power forward would get in his face.

If the passer can run the baseline after a made basket, the "four" would drop back a few steps to simply contest any pass that comes towards the middle of the floor.

Any pass to the sides would result in a trap.

The small forward would play around mid court, mainly attempting to intercept long passes, with the center playing deep as the last line of defense.

Perhaps the most important part of this plan is that, when the ball moves past one of the defenders, he will then either help trap or run back to his half-court zone position depending on the scenario.

There are lots of pros and cons to the half-court zone, but I read an article about Jim Boeheim that convinced me towards the pro side with two quick facts.

The zone puts your big bodies closest to the basket for rebounding, and zone teams don't have to game plan for opponents' offenses as much as opposing offenses have to plan for them.

Which brings up my next point...

3. Offense should be as unpredictable as possible.

When I played JV Basketball, we spent an asinine amount of time learning motion plays against man defense and cutting plays against zone defense.

Most of my team mates never really "got" those plays and we lost a lot of games for what I perceive to be two reasons.

First of all, if you know exactly where you're going to go and where the passes are going to go, so will the defense by half time.

Second, it does a player no good to know that he is supposed to set a screen if he doesn't know what the screen is meant to achieve.

In my opinion, set plays work really well if a team runs them to complete perfection and hits the resulting shots at a high percentage.

Let's face it, though, most normal high school kids won't do that enough to win games, and they won't be as developed as they could be.

Instead, I would run what is known as a "blacktop" style offense that uses fundamentals like cutting, screens, and dribble-drive penetration to create shots against any defense.

I think that if you teach young players WHY the screen is set on and off the ball, they can learn to set them in unpredictable yet effective ways to create shots for team mates.

Also, they will learn how to use a screen to make their own shots easier.

The same is true for cuts and the dribble-drive; players that understand the techniques and the purpose for the techniques will make set plays unnecessary.

Furthermore, knowing my set plays without such an understanding of the actual concepts used will be useless if they try to play in college or they transfer to another school.

There are other smaller concepts and more conventional wisdom type ideals that I would also utilize, like "rebounding and defense never go cold," but these are my main unique ideas.

Feel free to critique me or agree with me, but, most importantly, help me out.

If anyone needs a coach, give them my number.