PDA

View Full Version : Radical MLB scheduling proposal from ESPN


Baby Fisk
01-20-2004, 03:29 PM
Just saw this snippet on ESPN page 2:

State of MLB: Baseball comes off its best postseason ever, followed by a riveting offseason of dealmaking (and, in A-Rod's case, near-dealmaking). Anticipation couldn't be higher for next season.

Key 2004 proposal: Eliminate divisions within each league and add a limited form of weighted scheduling; why should talented third-place teams in the loaded AL East and West be penalized for the AL Central's mediocrity?

Palehose13
01-20-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
Just saw this snippet on ESPN page 2:

Key 2004 proposal: Eliminate divisions within each league and add a limited form of weighted scheduling; why should talented third-place teams in the loaded AL East and West be penalized for the AL Central's mediocrity?
Sometimes **** happens that way. Remember 1990 when the Sox finished 2nd in the AL West with 94 wins and didn't make the playoffs, but Boston of the AL East made it with 88 wins? It sucks, but I think that is why they made the wildcard.

One thought: How do you "weight" the schedule before the season begins? No one thought the Roayls would do as well as they did last year, or the Marlins for that matter. If championships were won on paper, why play the games?

Tekijawa
01-20-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
One thought: How do you "weight" the schedule before the season begins? No one thought the Roayls would do as well as they did last year, or the Marlins for that matter. If championships were won on paper, why play the games?


MLB BCS!!! Let the computers decide, or just let Peter Gammons pick the team that go to the Play Off!



WHAT A GREAT IDEA!
:chunks

SSN721
01-20-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
MLB BCS!!! Let the computers decide, or just let Peter Gammons pick the team that go to the Play Off!



WHAT A GREAT IDEA!
:chunks

So then I guess Boston would be ranked number one all year every year, might as well dump the series too since I am sure they are such a superior team every year why even subject another team to losing to them.

longshot7
01-20-2004, 03:58 PM
I've been saying to eliminate the divisions forever - they're arbitrary at this point. Do it like the NBA/NHL playoffs - go back to a balanced schedule and let the top 4 teams play each other in a seeded playoff system. There is no way any team from the Central deserved to be in the playoffs last year.

rmusacch
01-20-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
I've been saying to eliminate the divisions forever - they're arbitrary at this point. Do it like the NBA/NHL playoffs - go back to a balanced schedule and let the top 4 teams play each other in a seeded playoff system. There is no way any team from the Central deserved to be in the playoffs last year.

In the NBA and the NHL, the top team in each division still goes to the playoffs and has a top seed.

ewokpelts
01-20-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
Sometimes **** happens that way. Remember 1990 when the Sox finished 2nd in the AL West with 94 wins and didn't make the playoffs, but Boston of the AL East made it with 88 wins? It sucks, but I think that is why they made the wildcard.

One thought: How do you "weight" the schedule before the season begins? No one thought the Roayls would do as well as they did last year, or the Marlins for that matter. If championships were won on paper, why play the games? if it's based on win/loss the previous year...then it might work...
Gene

Palehose13
01-20-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
if it's based on win/loss the previous year...then it might work...
Gene
But that is what I am saying is the problem. There are surprises every year, for example the Marlins, Cubs, and Royals last year. Would it be fair to have weighted those teams to only win 65-70 games when they actually end up winning 80+? Unfortunately there are going to be teams that are division winners that have less wins than second place teams (cubs and marlins), but that is what the wildcard is for.

Jerko
01-20-2004, 05:13 PM
I used to like the old NHL rules. They ranked the top 16 teams by points, no matter what. 1 played 16, 2-15, 3-14 and so on. Then they went to 4 5-team divisions and 1-4 in EVERY division made it. Imagine all 4 AL central teams in the playoffs. Now it's screwed up because a team who wins a bad division gets #3 automatically. So, this year, a team like TB or Atlanta will be ahead of the Devils if the Devils don't win their division. Pretty bad. Maybe they should just take top 4 teams in each league, no matter what division they are in. They would have to redo the schedule though, no more playin the Reds, Pirates and Brewers 19 times each, and probably no more interleague play either unless every team played every team. I don't see any of that happening though.

Palehose13
01-20-2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
I used to like the old NHL rules. They ranked the top 16 teams by points, no matter what. 1 played 16, 2-15, 3-14 and so on. Then they went to 4 5-team divisions and 1-4 in EVERY division made it. Imagine all 4 AL central teams in the playoffs. Now it's screwed up because a team who wins a bad division gets #3 automatically. So, this year, a team like TB or Atlanta will be ahead of the Devils if the Devils don't win their division. Pretty bad. Maybe they should just take top 4 teams in each league, no matter what division they are in. They would have to redo the schedule though, no more playin the Reds, Pirates and Brewers 19 times each, and probably no more interleague play either unless every team played every team. I don't see any of that happening though.
If they were to get rid of divisions, I could buy playing everyone in your league the same amount of times and the teams with the 4 best schedules play and are seeded. I just really don't like "weighing" the schedule.

soxtalker
01-20-2004, 07:00 PM
I remember and long for the days of the single-division American and National Leagues. Of course, the number of teams is now significantly increased. And the playoffs (+ wildcard) do add excitement the last month of the season. But gradually I see the regular season games being reduced in importance -- particularly those early in the season.

Whatever route they take -- realignment into different divisions, no divisions, etc. -- I hope that they avoid increasing the number of playoff teams. My real concern with any such discussions is that the owners and players union will opt for expanded playoffs to generate more cash. When I look at the NBA and NHL, the regular season often is little more than a warm-up period for the real playoff season. Did it happen all at once? No. Instead there was always incentive to add another couple of teams to the playoffs. Baseball is already moving down that path.

beckett21
01-20-2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Whatever route they take -- realignment into different divisions, no divisions, etc. -- I hope that they avoid increasing the number of playoff teams. My real concern with any such discussions is that the owners and players union will opt for expanded playoffs to generate more cash.

:tool

"You mean to tell me we can generate MORE cash???"

doogiec
01-20-2004, 09:03 PM
If you have to have 30 teams, and I suppose we're stuck with that, I think divisional play is the only way to maintain real interest in August and September in a majority of cities.

And the divisional thing works out even in the long run, anyway. If MLB had put the White Sox in the AL East in 1972 instead of Milwaukee (which would have been logical) the Sox would have won three division titles before 1994, (72,83,90) instead of two. Which is strange since I've spent virtually my entire life hearing how lucky the Sox were not to be in the East.

StepsInSC
01-20-2004, 09:42 PM
I hate that phrase 'talent-loaded'. Just b/c Baltimore has been on a blind spending spree means they should automatically get an advantage?? Bull.

Human beings do the least they have to do to get by, which is exactly what the Central teams are doing. The division is winnable with a team on a low budget, so why should they overpay for talent?

At least thats what I tell myself.

cubhater
01-20-2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
If they were to get rid of divisions, I could buy playing everyone in your league the same amount of times and the teams with the 4 best schedules play and are seeded. I just really don't like "weighing" the schedule.

I like scrapping the divisions, but won't that mean this year's Sox will be out of contention by Memorial Day?