PDA

View Full Version : Future of Interleague?


ondafarm
11-21-2006, 10:12 AM
I hate how interleague is now. Which of these four choices should MLB go to?

Plan A: Make it once every three years.

Plan B: Make it better with every team playing every team for three games each year.

Plan C: Only play your rivalry team.

Plan D: Kill it entirely.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-21-2006, 10:19 AM
http://www.geocities.com/chincult/poster1a.jpg or http://thecia.com.au/reviews/k/images/kill-bill-volume-2-poster-0.jpg

Interleague should be World Series only.

EastCoastSoxFan
11-21-2006, 10:32 AM
As one of the many Sox fan living in a National League city, my recommendations are
1) Play all the teams from one division in the other league each season, rotating the division each year (i.e., 2007 - east, 2008 - west, 2009 - central, etc.) -- pretty much the way it is now.
2) Either lose the annual yearly geographic/natural rivalry series or limit them to one series each season instead of two. I realize that it's somewhat of a pipe dream to hope that the teams in New York, Chicago, LA, and SF/Oakland would throw away 3-6 guaranteed sellouts a season, but I think the whole geographic/natural rivalry thing has pretty well run its course (besides which, those are the only four cities that even have true geographic rivalries, i.e., fans of both teams within a public transportation ride of the stadium).

On the other hand, with all due respect to the hometown legions of Sox Army, unless you've lived in another city (especially a National League city), you probably don't have any idea what a big deal interleague games are for us out-of-market types.
I happen to live in a city that's within reasonable driving distance of several ballparks; but for those fans who live in places like Denver, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh, interleague games might be the only chance many fans get to see a live Sox game in several years.
And if you've either been to any Sox interleague away games in the last few years or seen them on TV, you know that there have been enough Sox fans at these games to produce audible cheering.

So in short, I would lose the geographic rivalry games but keep the rotating division games...

sox1970
11-21-2006, 10:35 AM
No Divisions

No Interleague Play

Balanced Schedule

Send top 4 teams in each league to the playoffs

#1 seed gets 4 home games in LDS

Fenway
11-21-2006, 10:38 AM
I wish they would play NL rules when they play in an AL park and let NL fans see the DH when an AL team comes in.

Since the Red Sox don't have a real NL rival I really would not miss it. Who cares about 6 games with the Phillies?

Oblong
11-21-2006, 10:45 AM
I prefer limited interleague play that's rotated.

As a kid growing up I wish I could have watched someone like Mike Schmidt play.

I want Mags back
11-21-2006, 12:49 PM
more interleague= more ****ty NL teams we can beat the **** out of.

who remembers when we put 34 runs up in just 3 games against the "World Champs" from this year

As much as all you hate it, interleague is great for the game

ondafarm
11-21-2006, 12:50 PM
No Divisions

No Interleague Play

Balanced Schedule

Send top 4 teams in each league to the playoffs

#1 seed gets 4 home games in LDS

Don't even get me started on the unbalanced schedule.

Ol' No. 2
11-21-2006, 01:12 PM
I have no problem with the interleague play the way it is.

The balance schedule is a chimera.

chaerulez
11-21-2006, 01:38 PM
Isn't it virtually impossible to balance the schedule with the number of teams and the amount of games in a season? That being the reason we have one six team divison and one four team division.

the gooch
11-21-2006, 03:04 PM
No Divisions

No Interleague Play

Balanced Schedule

Send top 4 teams in each league to the playoffs

#1 seed gets 4 home games in LDS
You had me until the home games.

Isn't it virtually impossible to balance the schedule with the number of teams and the amount of games in a season? That being the reason we have one six team divison and one four team division.Of course it's not possible to have something exactly balanced. The problem is how unbalanced they have it.

19 games against 1 team and 9 against another is silly. We play only 3 fewer games against the Cubs than we do against 2/3 of AL teams each.

DoItForDanPasqua
11-21-2006, 03:16 PM
Interleague takes away from what is unique in baseball. The AL and NL, though both entities of MLB, are still viewed by many as two different baseball leagues. It makes the World Series and All-Star game more exciting when these teams don't play during the regular season.

jcw218
11-21-2006, 03:17 PM
Isn't it virtually impossible to balance the schedule with the number of teams and the amount of games in a season? That being the reason we have one six team divison and one four team division.

The real reason that we have one six team division and a four team division is to prevent having to play one interleague series constantly.

johnr1note
11-21-2006, 03:58 PM
I agree that interleague play has run its course. It was new and novel for a few years, but I agree that other than the series with the Cubs, I really didn't get too ramped up for games vs. treams like the Rockies, the Cardinals, the Padres etc. I'd rather see the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels or A's (or just about any AL rival) a few more times on the schedule.

I like the unbalance of the schedule for the fact you play your division rivals more often, but I agree with whoever commented on how far the balance is out of whack. 19 games in division and 9 against out of division opponents seems too severe. If you had no interleague play, the AL could schedule 14 or 15 games against division opponents, and have 11 or 12 games against the remaining teams in the other divisions. Then you have the schedule weighted more heavily against your own division in September. This would offer a little more balance while keeping intradivisional rivalries at a higher priority.

MDF3530
11-21-2006, 05:32 PM
I would be a fan of getting rid of the AL & NL too and having divisions and conferences, assigned roughly by geography (let's say that the dividing line between the Eastern and Western conferences would roughly be the Mississippi River) like the NBA & NHL, and I would keep the DH. Pitchers are pretty much automatic outs when they are at bat.

JB98
11-21-2006, 06:46 PM
Get rid of interleague play. I would rather have more games against traditional AL rivals like the Yankees, as opposed to the novelty of playing the Padres and Rockies.

And I love the DH, so I'd rather not have to watch the so-called National League style of play.

I want Mags back
11-21-2006, 06:54 PM
I agree that interleague play has run its course. It was new and novel for a few years, but I agree that other than the series with the Cubs, I really didn't get too ramped up for games vs. treams like the Rockies, the Cardinals, the Padres etc. I'd rather see the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels or A's (or just about any AL rival) a few more times on the schedule.

I like the unbalance of the schedule for the fact you play your division rivals more often, but I agree with whoever commented on how far the balance is out of whack. 19 games in division and 9 against out of division opponents seems too severe. If you had no interleague play, the AL could schedule 14 or 15 games against division opponents, and have 11 or 12 games against the remaining teams in the other divisions. Then you have the schedule weighted more heavily against your own division in September. This would offer a little more balance while keeping intradivisional rivalries at a higher priority.


are u maroons trying to get us more trips to oakland and anaheim, instead of letting the boys go to Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cincy

JB98
11-21-2006, 06:56 PM
are u maroons trying to get us more trips to oakland and anaheim, instead of letting the boys go to Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cincy

As a matter of fact, yes. Anaheim has been very kind to the White Sox the last couple years.

ondafarm
11-21-2006, 07:39 PM
The other possibility is, and this especially works out if every team played every other team, would be to even out the leagues at 15, have each league have 3 five-team divisions and always have at least one interleague series going on. I would support that or making interleague once every three years.

chisoxfanatic
11-21-2006, 09:12 PM
I'd like it to be rotated, playing each team. It levels the playing field and lessens the "well, they did not play anyone" argument. I've wanted this since Interleague play began.

SOXSINCE'70
11-21-2006, 09:18 PM
I voted that teams should rotate.

FarWestChicago
11-21-2006, 10:22 PM
Interleague is played out, tired and used up. Put it out of it's misery.

Trav
11-21-2006, 10:36 PM
I was against it when they first put it in but I did like playing the Windy City Classic during the regular season. I was all for the playoff type atmosphere but now I say get rid of it. We ought to have a playoff like atmosphere every year now and it doesn't include the cubs.

Brian26
11-21-2006, 10:56 PM
I was against it when they first put it in but I did like playing the Windy City Classic during the regular season. I was all for the playoff type atmosphere but now I say get rid of it. We ought to have a playoff like atmosphere every year now and it doesn't include the cubs.

The Sox/Cubs thing is the exception to the rule. A majority of the teams don't have a similar rivalry to play off of, so you get inane match-ups like San Diego vs. Tampa Bay or Colorado vs. Detroit. There's an argument to be made that adding additional divisional games to the schedule in place of these silly interleague games would only help foster regional rivalries and help MLB in the longrun. I think we're seeing a little bit of that already with the unbalanced schedule in place.

Frater Perdurabo
11-21-2006, 11:20 PM
The other possibility is, and this especially works out if every team played every other team, would be to even out the leagues at 15, have each league have 3 five-team divisions and always have at least one interleague series going on. I would support that or making interleague once every three years.

Agreed. I like this idea and have advocated it in the past.

sox1970
11-22-2006, 08:57 AM
Interleague is played out, tired and used up. Put it out of it's misery.

Not only that, I just don't like how it comes down to the final week of the season, and a team can be left out because their interleague and/or unblanced schedule is tougher than another team's.

I say play every team in the AL 12 games for 156, and send the top 4 teams to the playoffs.

Plus reward the best record in the league with 4 home games in the first round of the playoffs. Since the 4th seed would essentially be a wildcard, the #1 seed should be given an advantage to make it to the LCS.

ondafarm
11-22-2006, 10:03 AM
Not only that, I just don't like how it comes down to the final week of the season, and a team can be left out because their interleague and/or unblanced schedule is tougher than another team's.

I say play every team in the AL 12 games for 156, and send the top 4 teams to the playoffs.

Plus reward the best record in the league with 4 home games in the first round of the playoffs. Since the 4th seed would essentially be a wildcard, the #1 seed should be given an advantage to make it to the LCS.

For any idea like this I would say play each team in your division once or twice more (to get to 162.)

johnr1note
11-22-2006, 10:54 AM
Not only that, I just don't like how it comes down to the final week of the season, and a team can be left out because their interleague and/or unblanced schedule is tougher than another team's.

I say play every team in the AL 12 games for 156, and send the top 4 teams to the playoffs.

Plus reward the best record in the league with 4 home games in the first round of the playoffs. Since the 4th seed would essentially be a wildcard, the #1 seed should be given an advantage to make it to the LCS.

For any idea like this I would say play each team in your division once or twice more (to get to 162.)

I think it would be more ideal for intradivisional rivalries to play 11 games against each of the other AL teams, and then have 4 games each more against each division rival, with one game left over to be assigned anywhere that fits.

But the problem arises when you then try and schedule the NL with its two additional teams. You can say that we don't care about the NL, but its MLB now, and the leagues don't have any autonomous control over thier schedules, so we would have to come up with a system that was similar for both leagues that worked.

The other possibility is, and this especially works out if every team played every other team, would be to even out the leagues at 15, have each league have 3 five-team divisions and always have at least one interleague series going on. I would support that or making interleague once every three years.

I have advocated something similar for many years. There was a proposal in one of the SABR journals years ago for a total realignment of MLB on regional lines.

Why? The beauty of the old 8 team leauges with 154 game schedules was you played everybody 22 times a year on a balanced schedule. As a fan of the White Sox, I had an opportunity to really get to know the nuances, strengths, weaknesses, and even the personalities of each of my leauge rivals simply out of familiarity. I don't even know who's on the roster of some AL teams now a days. I can't keep up. Having all the teams on one side of the Mississipi also had all the teams in similar time zones, so watching/listening to games was never an issue. The close proximity made the rivalries deeper.

The SABR proposal would require expansion of two more teams to make 32 teams. (I know this is somewhat odious, but it really makes the scheduling work). Then, you realign baseball into 4 regional league divisions of 8 teams each. Each of these leagues would play a schedule of 154 games against each other, or perhaps a schedule of 140 games within thier league or division, with the remaining 22 games to be used for a limited interleague schedule to come up with 162.

The all star game could be a two game schedule, pairing 2 of the leauges on a first night, and then after a travel day, having the winner of the first game play a second game. Playoffs would be winner of each league, with match ups based on record. If you wanted to have an additional two teams involved via wildcard, that would be simple to add, especially if you use the slightly more involved interleague schedule.

In addition, travel expenses would be cut, and the wear and tear of crossing over 4 time zones and then play an afteroon game would be minimized, if not eliminated.

I'm not sure which cities would be added, but for the sake of argument, I'll choose Las Vegas and New Jersey (suburban New York) as the expansion teams.

The Four leagues/Divisions divided regionally could then look like this:

East: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT, TOR, CLE, NJ
South: BAL, WAS, CIN, HOU, TEX, ATL. TB, FLA
Central: CHW, CHC, MIL, MIN, STL, KC, COL, DET
West: LAD, LAA, SD, SF, OAK, SEA, ARI, LV

The concern with losing some traditional rivalries (like the White Sox playing the Yankees, Indians, or Red Sox) would fade over time as the new rivalries heated up.

The idea intrigues me.

FoxsMightyMite
11-23-2006, 11:25 AM
I think it would be more ideal for intradivisional rivalries to play 11 games against each of the other AL teams, and then have 4 games each more against each division rival, with one game left over to be assigned anywhere that fits.

But the problem arises when you then try and schedule the NL with its two additional teams. You can say that we don't care about the NL, but its MLB now, and the leagues don't have any autonomous control over thier schedules, so we would have to come up with a system that was similar for both leagues that worked.



I have advocated something similar for many years. There was a proposal in one of the SABR journals years ago for a total realignment of MLB on regional lines.

Why? The beauty of the old 8 team leauges with 154 game schedules was you played everybody 22 times a year on a balanced schedule. As a fan of the White Sox, I had an opportunity to really get to know the nuances, strengths, weaknesses, and even the personalities of each of my leauge rivals simply out of familiarity. I don't even know who's on the roster of some AL teams now a days. I can't keep up. Having all the teams on one side of the Mississipi also had all the teams in similar time zones, so watching/listening to games was never an issue. The close proximity made the rivalries deeper.

The SABR proposal would require expansion of two more teams to make 32 teams. (I know this is somewhat odious, but it really makes the scheduling work). Then, you realign baseball into 4 regional league divisions of 8 teams each. Each of these leagues would play a schedule of 154 games against each other, or perhaps a schedule of 140 games within thier league or division, with the remaining 22 games to be used for a limited interleague schedule to come up with 162.

The all star game could be a two game schedule, pairing 2 of the leauges on a first night, and then after a travel day, having the winner of the first game play a second game. Playoffs would be winner of each league, with match ups based on record. If you wanted to have an additional two teams involved via wildcard, that would be simple to add, especially if you use the slightly more involved interleague schedule.

In addition, travel expenses would be cut, and the wear and tear of crossing over 4 time zones and then play an afteroon game would be minimized, if not eliminated.

I'm not sure which cities would be added, but for the sake of argument, I'll choose Las Vegas and New Jersey (suburban New York) as the expansion teams.

The Four leagues/Divisions divided regionally could then look like this:

East: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT, TOR, CLE, NJ
South: BAL, WAS, CIN, HOU, TEX, ATL. TB, FLA
Central: CHW, CHC, MIL, MIN, STL, KC, COL, DET
West: LAD, LAA, SD, SF, OAK, SEA, ARI, LV

The concern with losing some traditional rivalries (like the White Sox playing the Yankees, Indians, or Red Sox) would fade over time as the new rivalries heated up.

The idea intrigues me.

Not sure I would do anything quite that radical.

viagracat
11-23-2006, 11:58 AM
I like interleague play. No need to change anything. It's good for the game. Look at the attendance numbers for some of the games.

Besides, I like the fact that more often than not, the Sox kick Cub ass when we play them.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-23-2006, 12:28 PM
are u maroons trying to get us more trips to oakland and anaheim, instead of letting the boys go to Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cincy

I love the Maroons!!!

The Real Monsters of the Midway!!!!

Chicago 2, Michigan 0 :supernana:


http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbart/aofimage/1905chil.jpg

Your 1905 National Champions!!!

Cuck_The_Fubs
11-23-2006, 12:41 PM
I would be a fan of getting rid of the AL & NL too and having divisions and conferences, assigned roughly by geography (let's say that the dividing line between the Eastern and Western conferences would roughly be the Mississippi River) like the NBA & NHL, and I would keep the DH. Pitchers are pretty much automatic outs when they are at bat.
I agree of getting rid of the NL and AL, but i disagree on the ground rules. NL rules are much more naturaly, and i prefer them better, honestly.

23Ventura
11-24-2006, 12:34 PM
No Divisions

No Interleague Play

Balanced Schedule

Send top 4 teams in each league to the playoffs

#1 seed gets 4 home games in LDS
This is exactly what they should do, and the #1 seed should get 4 home games because every series should be best of 7.

TheKittle
11-24-2006, 01:20 PM
One other option is to just shut the **** up and deal with inter league play. It's what 10 years old now? There are some good match ups and some good games. I hear the constant crying about inter league play in June, I sure as hell don't want to hear about in Nov. Just deal with it. It's hear to stay.

PKalltheway
11-24-2006, 10:38 PM
One other option is to just shut the **** up and deal with inter league play. It's what 10 years old now? There are some good match ups and some good games. I hear the constant crying about inter league play in June, I sure as hell don't want to hear about in Nov. Just deal with it. It's hear to stay.
Thank you.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-24-2006, 11:23 PM
I have advocated something similar for many years. There was a proposal in one of the SABR journals years ago for a total realignment of MLB on regional lines.

Why? The beauty of the old 8 team leauges with 154 game schedules was you played everybody 22 times a year on a balanced schedule. As a fan of the White Sox, I had an opportunity to really get to know the nuances, strengths, weaknesses, and even the personalities of each of my leauge rivals simply out of familiarity. I don't even know who's on the roster of some AL teams now a days. I can't keep up. Having all the teams on one side of the Mississipi also had all the teams in similar time zones, so watching/listening to games was never an issue. The close proximity made the rivalries deeper.

The SABR proposal would require expansion of two more teams to make 32 teams. (I know this is somewhat odious, but it really makes the scheduling work). Then, you realign baseball into 4 regional league divisions of 8 teams each.......

The Four leagues/Divisions divided regionally could then look like this:

East: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, PIT, TOR, CLE, NJ
South: BAL, WAS, CIN, HOU, TEX, ATL. TB, FLA
Central: CHW, CHC, MIL, MIN, STL, KC, COL, DET
West: LAD, LAA, SD, SF, OAK, SEA, ARI, LV

The concern with losing some traditional rivalries (like the White Sox playing the Yankees, Indians, or Red Sox) would fade over time as the new rivalries heated up.

The idea intrigues me.

:supernana: :supernana: :supernana:

Too bad the powers that be would reject this for numerous reasons:

1. The owners denied trips into town from the Yankees and Red Sox would vote against it as they will lose major revenue.

2. The owners would never vote to contract the playoffs.

I love the fact that you have to win something to make the playoffs which is not the case since 1995. Also, winning an eight team division is much more impressive than winning the bogus four / five team divisions post strike.

Division Playoffs (8 teams), steroids and interleague have denied baseball's rightful place as America's supreme professional sports league. The current setup makes MLB indistinguishable from the NBA, NHL or NFL as far as the worth of the regular season and the special nature of their championship series. Bud sells the wild card whore for a few extra bucks whereas a fight for the division championship would be remembered for generations vs. the anticlimax of playoff seeding and one extra home game as is the case nearly every season. Races effected over the past six seasons:

2006: Minnesota (96) vs. Detroit (95) - What would have been an excellent battle between these two clubs ended up being a minor tussle to secure an extra home game in the playoffs.

2006: Los Angeles vs. San Diego (88 wins each - yet another reason divsions need to be expanded to eight teams) - An exciting 162 game division race ending in a tie would have meant a 1 or 3 game playoff between the two clubs ala NY Giants vs. Brooklyn Dodgers in 1951 or Yankees vs. Red Sox in 1978. Speaking of Red Sox vs. Yankees...

2005: Boston vs. New York (95 wins each) - Another exciting race for the division championship rendered meaningless except for the one extra home game in the sham called the divisional playoffs. We were denied another Bucky Dent or Bobby Thompson moment.

2004: New York (101) vs. Boston (98) - Once again, both teams were several games ahead of everyone else in the "wild card" race rendering the close divisional race meaningless.

2002: Arizona (98) vs. San Francisco (95) - Both teams over a dozen better in the wild card. Their division race was rendered meaningless in early September.

2002: Oakland (103) vs. Anaheim (99) - See Arizona vs. San Francisco.

2001: Houston vs. St. Louis (Both with 93 wins)- See 2005 Boston vs. New York.

Six seasons, seven races for a division championship rendered meaningless due to the wild card.

Grzegorz
11-25-2006, 05:58 AM
Interleague should be World Series only.

Yes, interleague play should only occur in the World Series. More head to head within the division especially down the stretch.

johnr1note
11-25-2006, 01:50 PM
:supernana: :supernana: :supernana:

Too bad the powers that be would reject this for numerous reasons:

1. The owners denied trips into town from the Yankees and Red Sox would vote against it as they will lose major revenue.

2. The owners would never vote to contract the playoffs.

I love the fact that you have to win something to make the playoffs which is not the case since 1995. Also, winning an eight team division is much more impressive than winning the bogus four / five team divisions post strike.

Division Playoffs (8 teams), steroids and interleague have denied baseball's rightful place as America's supreme professional sports league. The current setup makes MLB indistinguishable from the NBA, NHL or NFL as far as the worth of the regular season and the special nature of their championship series. Bud sells the wild card whore for a few extra bucks whereas a fight for the division championship would be remembered for generations vs. the anticlimax of playoff seeding and one extra home game as is the case nearly every season.

How much revenue does the 3 to 4 games you get with the Red Sox or Yankees really generate? If you accept my proposal, and realign regionally, the money you save on travel alone would more than make up for that, I would think. Plus, the rivalries deepened by more head to head play within each league/division would solidify within a generation. When I was a kid, games vs. the Tigers, Indians, or Twins were pretty much meaningless -- why? Tigers and Tribe were in the other division. The Twins were pretty much non-competitive for many of those years. But today, well, head to head competition has bred a very heated rivalry. If the Royals were at all competitive, we'd be trash talking with thier fans too. The Yankees, who everyone supposedly hates, are almost non-factors. The Yankees are to the White Sox what the Soviet Union was to President Reagan -- the "evil empire" across the sea we all could hate and was useful for propaganda, and would be a threat if we had to confront them, but the need to confront them was rare (for the Sox, if we met them in the playoffs). I think the "we need to keep our rivalry with the Yankees" is a weak argument borne out of tradition alone. Tradition is good -- but its not the only reason we make decisions in MLB. If tradition controlled, the Dodgers would still be in Brooklyn.

As for contracting the playoffs, its not necessarily so. In one of my proposals, you would still have limited inter-divisional play. For example, if the intramural schedule was 20 games vs each opponent within the division (instead of the old traditional 22 in the 154 game schedule), that would leave 22 games to get the schedule up to 162. Add two more games to the regular season (Total of 164) and each team gets 3 games each against the 8 teams of another division. You could rotate the interleague schedule the way it theoretically works today (and because you're realigned regionally, you don't have to worry about scheduling in an interleague series against your cross town rival as you already play 20 games a year against them) or, just mix it up so that over a 4 year rotation, you play every other team at least one 3 game set. The playoffs would still use 2 wild card teams, the two best second place teams, or, the 2 teams who didn't win the pennant in each of the 4 leagues who have the next best record (theoretically both teams could come out of the same league).

This would be a compromise that would keep some of the excitement over the potential of making the playoffs as a wildcard with ensuring that playoff bound teams will have deserved to be there because of thier records -- a team in the playoffs with less than 85 wins would be practically impossible.

FoxsMightyMite
11-25-2006, 02:57 PM
The only eight and eight (and eight and eight) divisions that I would suggest would be the original eight teams in the AL, the original eight NL teams and then the eight and eight new fangled ones. I think the travel savings you are envisioning are pretty much imaginary. All teams travels on chartered jets nowdays and mileage just isn't a huge factor (500 miles vs. 1000 miles only slight cost savings.)

johnr1note
11-25-2006, 04:41 PM
The only eight and eight (and eight and eight) divisions that I would suggest would be the original eight teams in the AL, the original eight NL teams and then the eight and eight new fangled ones. I think the travel savings you are envisioning are pretty much imaginary. All teams travels on chartered jets nowdays and mileage just isn't a huge factor (500 miles vs. 1000 miles only slight cost savings.)

With the cost of jet fuel today, you're saying there won't be a considerable cost savings for the White Sox if the furthest they have to fly is to Minneapolis or St. Louis?

FoxsMightyMite
11-25-2006, 08:03 PM
With the cost of jet fuel today, you're saying there won't be a considerable cost savings for the White Sox if the furthest they have to fly is to Minneapolis or St. Louis?

The cost of charters for that size of an airplane vary considerably less on a mile per mile basis than passenger ticketing.

Short answer. Yes. The cost of the plane, the aircrew, the airport storage, etc are all pretty much flat.

MRM
11-26-2006, 11:17 AM
Interleague play is profitable therefore it's here to stay. You may see some tweaking here and there but it's like the DH, no sense complaining about it because they aren't getting rid of it.

Besides, other than from the standpoint of tradition what difference does it really make? And baseball isn't about tradition anymore, anyhow.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-26-2006, 09:09 PM
How much revenue does the 3 to 4 games you get with the Red Sox or Yankees really generate?...
This would be a compromise that would keep some of the excitement over the potential of making the playoffs as a wildcard with ensuring that playoff bound teams will have deserved to be there because of thier records -- a team in the playoffs with less than 85 wins would be practically impossible.

For Tampa, they account for close to half of ticket sales IIRC. For other teams, they probalby draw 60 thousand more fans to the park for the six games for say $1.5 million (just a guess).

If they are not scrapping the wild card and not contracting the divisions, I really don't care if they realign the divisions (outside of bringing Milwaukee back to the AL Central which I would support).

Interleague play is profitable therefore it's here to stay. You may see some tweaking here and there but it's like the DH, no sense complaining about it because they aren't getting rid of it.

Besides, other than from the standpoint of tradition what difference does it really make? And baseball isn't about tradition anymore, anyhow.

Play the games in the ****ty April and early May weather and see how profitable they are. Outside of three or four series, the attendence increase (if any) is marginal vs. other games during late May, June, early July.

Perhaps Fox bids more for the interleague games. :dunno: