PDA

View Full Version : Why No Buckeye battle for interleague?


Railsplitter
05-24-2006, 09:45 AM
Why aren't Cleveland and Cinncy considered natural rivals for interleague? All other in state rivals squared off last weekend, by the Reds played the Tigers and the Indians played the Pirates.

This better not be due to that Browns-Steelers thing.

EastCoastSoxFan
05-24-2006, 10:20 AM
Why aren't Cleveland and Cinncy considered natural rivals for interleague? All other in state rivals squared off last weekend, by the Reds played the Tigers and the Indians played the Pirates.

This better not be due to that Browns-Steelers thing.
Cleveland is only about 60 miles away from Pittsburgh, as opposed to a few hundred miles away from Cincinnati; and the Cleveland-Pittsburgh sports rivalry, while mostly centered around football, has been far more eventful than rivalry between Cleveland and Cincy.
If there were a major league team in Louisville they would probably be a much stronger geographical rival for Cincy...

RKMeibalane
05-24-2006, 10:33 AM
Cleveland is only about 60 miles away from Pittsburgh, as opposed to a few hundred miles away from Cincinnati; and the Cleveland-Pittsburgh sports rivalry, while mostly centered around football, has been far more eventful than rivalry between Cleveland and Cincy.
If there were a major league team in Louisville they would probably be a much stronger geographical rival for Cincy...

There could be once MLB allows Florida to look for a new home.

gbergman
05-24-2006, 01:19 PM
then it ould have to become a Tigers/Pirates series which makes no sense

SoxFan64
05-24-2006, 02:57 PM
With the Expos coming to DC (my current hometown) they flipped the O's from playing the Phillies to the Nationals. I am guessing -- and that's all it is -- that the League offices felt it made sense to switch some of the other rivlaries at the same time as well.

Around here (DC) there are several Clevelanders and Pittsburhgers and they all like the new set up. Detroit and Pittsburgh made no sense and the Ohio clash was nice but not a major one.

So it is now Cleveland vs Pittsburgh, Detroit vs Cincinnati, and DC vs Baltimore. Philly vs. Boston (where it used to be Boston vs. Atlanta to capture the Boston Braves fans vs. the BoSox fans).

It leaves Toronto vs. Colorado. And Cincinnati and Atlanta without a rival.

Seems to me they should switch leagues for Toronto and Arizona so there would be be Arizona vs. Colorado (or San Diego with Colorado vs. Seattle) and Detroit vs. Toronto.

Still would leave Cincinnati and Atlanta without a rival. But until both leagues have the same number of teams there will be someone without a rival.

mrfourni
05-24-2006, 04:23 PM
With the Expos coming to DC (my current hometown) they flipped the O's from playing the Phillies to the Nationals. I am guessing -- and that's all it is -- that the League offices felt it made sense to switch some of the other rivlaries at the same time as well.

Around here (DC) there are several Clevelanders and Pittsburhgers and they all like the new set up. Detroit and Pittsburgh made no sense and the Ohio clash was nice but not a major one.

So it is now Cleveland vs Pittsburgh, Detroit vs Cincinnati, and DC vs Baltimore. Philly vs. Boston (where it used to be Boston vs. Atlanta to capture the Boston Braves fans vs. the BoSox fans).

It leaves Toronto vs. Colorado. And Cincinnati and Atlanta without a rival.

Seems to me they should switch leagues for Toronto and Arizona so there would be be Arizona vs. Colorado (or San Diego with Colorado vs. Seattle) and Detroit vs. Toronto.

Still would leave Cincinnati and Atlanta without a rival. But until both leagues have the same number of teams there will be someone without a rival.

Seems to me they should do away with the whole interleague experience, at least the part where teams play "rivals" six times a year.

PKalltheway
05-25-2006, 12:02 AM
Why aren't Cleveland and Cinncy considered natural rivals for interleague? All other in state rivals squared off last weekend, by the Reds played the Tigers and the Indians played the Pirates.

This better not be due to that Browns-Steelers thing.
Regardless of what some of the other posters have said, I live here in Cincinnati and for several years, the Reds have had the 3 at home/3 away series against Cleveland much like the White Sox/Cubs, Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/Angels, etc. They ARE considered natural rivals, and have ALWAYS been considered natural rivals since the start of interleague play. In fact, the Reds go to Cleveland for a 3 game series on June 23-25 and Cleveland comes here for a 3 game series from June 30-July 2. They just made the schedule differently this year, that's all. Pittsburgh does not face Cleveland twice this year.

BNLSox
05-25-2006, 12:35 AM
Don't you guys love the Padres v. Mariners natural rivalry :)

Take that you tree hugging umbrella user... not on my watch cabana boy!

The battle for the west coast? Weird!

HotelWhiteSox
05-25-2006, 01:03 AM
They still play each other twice, just later on

dcb56
05-25-2006, 01:15 AM
With the Expos coming to DC (my current hometown) they flipped the O's from playing the Phillies to the Nationals. I am guessing -- and that's all it is -- that the League offices felt it made sense to switch some of the other rivlaries at the same time as well.

Around here (DC) there are several Clevelanders and Pittsburhgers and they all like the new set up. Detroit and Pittsburgh made no sense and the Ohio clash was nice but not a major one.

So it is now Cleveland vs Pittsburgh, Detroit vs Cincinnati, and DC vs Baltimore. Philly vs. Boston (where it used to be Boston vs. Atlanta to capture the Boston Braves fans vs. the BoSox fans).

It leaves Toronto vs. Colorado. And Cincinnati and Atlanta without a rival.

Seems to me they should switch leagues for Toronto and Arizona so there would be be Arizona vs. Colorado (or San Diego with Colorado vs. Seattle)
and Detroit vs. Toronto.

Still would leave Cincinnati and Atlanta without a rival. But until both leagues have the same number of teams there will be someone without a rival.

That Toronto/Colorado "natural" rivalry is some rowdy ****.

Interleague play stinks. It needs to go away.

TheKittle
05-25-2006, 01:19 AM
When the Expos moved to DC, I heard they were going to make the Blue Jays and Phils "natural rivals" since they have some history together.

So instead of just switching two teams (Toronto and Philly) they screwed around with ten teams. Typical ****ing Dud.

SOXintheBURGH
05-25-2006, 01:27 AM
This better not be due to that Browns-Steelers thing.


:rolling:

:roflmao:

If you haven't noticed my sig; the five rings on Unregistered's mom's hand that you are talking to are the Steelers five Super Bowl rings.

Between the Brownies as a Steelers fan and the Tribe as a Sox fan.....Oh, how I loathe Cleveland.


http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/7333/pictures/BobRake.jpg

"Uhhooooohhuuuhhhoooo.... Cleveland."

goofymsfan
05-25-2006, 06:19 AM
Don't you guys love the Padres v. Mariners natural rivalry :)

Take that you tree hugging umbrella user... not on my watch cabana boy!

The battle for the west coast? Weird!

LOL! They see enough of each other in spring training since they share a complex. Do we really have to call them natural Rivals? The Rockies would be a closer rival, but oh well. Round 1 went to the M's in a sweep!