I would keep the new teams separated from the old teams for at least one season and then re-seed probably geographically.

I'm in two minds on this.

1. As John says, keep them separate for one season while they learn and don't get disheartened by being beaten by the likes of Quincy twice. But they will play experienced managers in the trophies anyway. 

2. Break up the Eastern and Western conferences and have those 16 as 4 per new conference with 4 new teams. Or simply go geograohic straight away. I don't know off hand how many Illinois teams there are (one conference could be Illinois) but I'm happy for Columbia to relocate to South Carolina (state capital - or is it north?). Throw the new managers in at the deep end anyway. If non con games are seeded (as a possibility discussed with Al) then the new teams can be seeded bottom 4. And why change twice?

I'm less concerned with protecting new managers than I am with just competitve fairness overall - since older teams have had several seasons to recruit there will be more variation in the older teams than with the newer teams, would allow another season of older conference rivalries, and would guarantee at least some new managers would win something in their first season. I'd actually keep everything completely separate (including non-con) for scheduling purposes except for cups while we integrate, since this is a league where all the major GM actions basically occur off-season.

As a newbie, I'd agree with separate for one season while we learn and don't get disheartened.

I agree keep new teams separate for there first season. Give them a chance to learn the rules.

I don't think we can keep non  con separate. Al doesn't want to have to change the code twice and i think it's looking like (but not certain) 6 non con games with top 2 in a conference playing top 2 in the 

Top 2 in the others. A way that allows us to keep E and W separate from say N and S would be using a similar idea to what we have now where teams A to H are randomly assigned to 1 to 8 and the schedule we have is used.

I can easily adapt this to N and S for teams P to W to 17 to 24 and X to FF for 25 to 32. But that would need me to code 1 and 2 to play 9 10 17 18 25 and 26 etc. 

I think (and I'm no expert) this can be coded where top 2 in E at the end of the previous season are placed into 1 and 2 etc so there would be no need to recode.

All that would be needed is changing the teams into new conferences once. However I don't know what that would mean for the next round if non con games.

How about a system of promotion/relegation with new teams in a lower league and established teams in an upper league?

Pfft, I think you underestimate the newbie at your peril.....is that fear I smell from the established order??!!

(actually, the fear I can smell might be my own ;) )

No reason you can't do well as a newbie. I started in season 2 and didn't really know anything about volleyball or what I was doing. I just kept using CP, playing T7 at home and following section 6 (I think) of the rules 

And i kept asking questions - pretty much every week.

If you don't get some thing, ask. But don't ask me advice about recruitment (auctions). I still haven't cracked that yet 

I'm just concerned about roster balance, not about new coaches not doing well.

There definitely needs to be a Bagby Conference and a Wilkins Conference...and maybe a Bushmann Conference and a Blazel Confer...wait a minute, the last guy resurfaced. Scratch that last one.

Oh! Oh! I got it. Conference Clyde, Conference Calvin, Conference Jaguar....and one more.

Welp...Phil found the conference naming thread...  :-)

You could name a conference for the MSWL inaugural season champion....whomever that might be.