PDA

View Full Version : Baseball needs 4 divisions, 4 wild cards


PatK
08-29-2007, 09:44 AM
I've never been a fan of the realignment of baseball that happened in 1995, when MLB went to 6 divisions and 2 wild cards.

It has always seemed that there is one division in each league that is weaker than the other two. And some years, that weak division is downright pathetic.

With the way the wild card race is shaping up in the NL, their could potentially be 5 teams that don't make the playoffs that have a better record than one of the division winners. To me, it's essentially rewarding something to mediocrity.

Besides getting rid of interleague play (which was cute at first, but is flawed and imbalanced now), I think realignment would make things more interesting and put the best teams in the playoffs. Go back to East and West divisions in both leagues, and have two wild card teams. And do the playoffs with the division winners vs the wild card winners. The division winner with the better record plays the 2nd wild card winner.

This would make things more competative, because other than last year's Cards, it seems that the team from the weak division always gets bounced in the first round.

sox1970
08-29-2007, 09:47 AM
No divisions
No interleague
Balanced schedule
Send top 4 teams in each league.

PatK
08-29-2007, 10:17 AM
I like your idea as well :D:

I just like the four divisions because of travel considerations, and going back to some old divisional rivalries could keep the "purists" happy.

DoItForDanPasqua
08-29-2007, 10:24 AM
I've never been a fan of the realignment of baseball that happened in 1995, when MLB went to 6 divisions and 2 wild cards.

It has always seemed that there is one division in each league that is weaker than the other two. And some years, that weak division is downright pathetic.

With the way the wild card race is shaping up in the NL, their could potentially be 5 teams that don't make the playoffs that have a better record than one of the division winners. To me, it's essentially rewarding something to mediocrity.

Besides getting rid of interleague play (which was cute at first, but is flawed and imbalanced now), I think realignment would make things more interesting and put the best teams in the playoffs. Go back to East and West divisions in both leagues, and have two wild card teams. And do the playoffs with the division winners vs the wild card winners. The division winner with the better record plays the 2nd wild card winner.

This would make things more competative, because other than last year's Cards, it seems that the team from the weak division always gets bounced in the first round.

Something has to be done about average teams making the playoffs, and this is the most practical solution I've seen.

I also agree about eliminating interleague play. Now only does it make the schedule unbalanced; it's a threat to the republic.

ma-gaga
08-29-2007, 10:25 AM
I think realignment would make things more interesting and put the best teams in the playoffs. Go back to East and West divisions in both leagues, and have two wild card teams. And do the playoffs with the division winners vs the wild card winners. The division winner with the better record plays the 2nd wild card winner.


Well, no matter how you re-aling things, there will always be a crap team that sneaks into the playoffs, and a good team that sits at home.

Expand to 32 teams, and then your plan would probably work. But then we'll have the same old tired arguments of "watering down" the game. And I'm sure there'd be territorial issues with a third New York team, etc., etc.

voodoochile
08-29-2007, 10:30 AM
You'd have to expand to 32 teams for that to work. The way attendance is skyrocketing and revenues are climbing it's a possibility and Bud loves anything that would mean more revenue. Expanded playoffs would definitely increase revenue, but would also mean more teams dividing the national money.

I'm not a purist, so I don't hate the idea but there are a lot of things that would need to happen for it to go through.

spiffie
08-29-2007, 10:47 AM
Eliminate the AL and NL.
Expand to 32 teams.
Institute the DH across all of baseball.
186 game season, each team plays every other team 6 times. You make up the added games by making every Saturday or Sunday "Doubleheader Day!" all across baseball. Make it a family-friendly promotion day. Sure the players union might object, but the addition of 50 more jobs should serve to mollify that anger. With 24 weekends during the season there's no reason it can't all fit in.
Top 6 teams make the playoffs. Top 2 records get byes to the second round. #3 plays #6 and #4 plays #5 in best of 5 series. Then it's best of 7 the rest of the way.

You want to make it fair and eliminate the *****ing about a weak team making the playoffs while a better team sits at home? There you go. Otherwise no matter what you do someone is going to be in the playoffs who shouldn't be. All that the other plans will do is shift where the injustice happens. If you're really that up in arms about the unfairness of it all, let's make it truly fair. Every team plays every other team the same number of times both home and away. There would have to be some shifting in the traditional scheduling customs (teams wouldn't play the same team all weekend, they might play in Milwaukee on Friday and Saturday and then Minnesota on Sunday) but there's no reason with air charters and everything else it couldn't work, especially since without the AL/NL consideration the schedule could be much more geographically considered (much less need for teams to have a series in Boston then fly that night to Oakland).

JohnTucker0814
08-29-2007, 10:59 AM
I agree that we need to change the format of who gets into the playoffs. I think the east, central and west divisions would still work even without expansion to 32. What they need to do is send Milwaukee back to the A.L and have 15 teams in each league, 5 teams in each division. Then they need to play interleague play all year. Instead of 2 weeks in May and 2 weeks in June, there should be an interleague series every 3 days. This would allow for the following schedule. 3 games vs one division in the other league plus 3 games extra with your rival (5x3=15+3). 6 games vs other divisions in your league (6x10=60). 18 games vs your division (18x4=72). 6 games vs the team that finished in the same spot as you in your leauge (1st place in East plays 1st place in Central & West an additional 6 games, etc, like the NFL) (6x2=12) this is a total of:

18 games vs NL (interleague play)
60 games vs AL east & west
72 games vs division rivals
12 games vs same finisher last year in your league

162 games! Still an unbalanced schedule, however I think this would work great!

doogiec
08-29-2007, 12:44 PM
I think this is a simple solution to the issue of mediocre teams winning divisions and getting hot in the playoffs:

Five teams from each league make the postseason- three division winners and two wild cards. The first round would be a best of three series involving the two teams with the worst records (could be two division winners, in theory). They would play three consecutive days, two at the home of the better of the teams, and a third if necessary at the other team's park. The winner would advance to the Division Series, which would start the next day.

The worst playoff team, even if they survive the first series, would be at a great disadvantage as they used up two or three starters. If a team with 82 or 83 wins could survive this to the World Series, I'd have to give them credit.

This would also provide great motivation to teams that have clinched the playoffs early to continue to play hard, to avoid the "play in series" and get three days rest.

I would also always give home field advantage to the team with the better record, regardless of wild card or division champs. If the wild card had a better season, they deserve home field.

itsnotrequired
08-29-2007, 12:49 PM
Eliminate the AL and NL.
Expand to 32 teams.
Institute the DH across all of baseball.
186 game season, each team plays every other team 6 times. You make up the added games by making every Saturday or Sunday "Doubleheader Day!" all across baseball. Make it a family-friendly promotion day. Sure the players union might object, but the addition of 50 more jobs should serve to mollify that anger. With 24 weekends during the season there's no reason it can't all fit in.
Top 6 teams make the playoffs. Top 2 records get byes to the second round. #3 plays #6 and #4 plays #5 in best of 5 series. Then it's best of 7 the rest of the way.

You want to make it fair and eliminate the *****ing about a weak team making the playoffs while a better team sits at home? There you go. Otherwise no matter what you do someone is going to be in the playoffs who shouldn't be. All that the other plans will do is shift where the injustice happens. If you're really that up in arms about the unfairness of it all, let's make it truly fair. Every team plays every other team the same number of times both home and away. There would have to be some shifting in the traditional scheduling customs (teams wouldn't play the same team all weekend, they might play in Milwaukee on Friday and Saturday and then Minnesota on Sunday) but there's no reason with air charters and everything else it couldn't work, especially since without the AL/NL consideration the schedule could be much more geographically considered (much less need for teams to have a series in Boston then fly that night to Oakland).

Add 25 games to the season and then hit the postseason, with two teams sitting around for possibly 10-12 days? The union would NEVER approve this.

If anything, expand to 32 teams, make 8 divisions (4 per league), eliminate the wild card and have the division winners play each other with the team having the worst record playing like a wild card would now.

spiffie
08-29-2007, 01:01 PM
Add 25 games to the season and then hit the postseason, with two teams sitting around for possibly 10-12 days? The union would NEVER approve this.

If anything, expand to 32 teams, make 8 divisions (4 per league), eliminate the wild card and have the division winners play each other with the team having the worst record playing like a wild card would now.
Accelerate the first round:
season ends - Oct.1
WC game 1 - Oct. 2
WC game 2 - Oct. 3
Travel day - Oct. 4
WC game 3 - Oct. 5
WC game 4 - Oct. 6
Travel day - Oct. 7
WC game 5 - Oct. 8
Travel Day (if needed) - Oct. 9
Next round begins - Oct. 10 (at the latest)

As for the union and the extra games, add another roster spot or 2. It will be offset by the extra revenue from more home games for each team, since it will be mostly an extra bench guy or two. Between two new teams and roster expansion, it will be hard to fight something that adds 110 or so new MLB spots.

voodoochile
08-29-2007, 01:02 PM
Accelerate the first round:
season ends - Oct.1
WC game 1 - Oct. 2
WC game 2 - Oct. 3
Travel day - Oct. 4
WC game 3 - Oct. 5
WC game 4 - Oct. 6
Travel day - Oct. 7
WC game 5 - Oct. 8
Travel Day (if needed) - Oct. 9
Next round begins - Oct. 10 (at the latest)

As for the union and the extra games, add another roster spot or 2. It will be offset by the extra revenue from more home games for each team, since it will be mostly an extra bench guy or two. Between two new teams and roster expansion, it will be hard to fight something that adds 110 or so new MLB spots.

Why give byes? Why not just keep 8 teams in the playoffs and have 3 rounds?

Lip Man 1
08-29-2007, 01:05 PM
Another suggestion is that wild card teams get ZERO home games in the post season...period.

Or, they get a very reduced amount say in a best of five, one home game... in a best of seven, two home games.

A team that actually wins the division or league should get more of an advantage for doing that. And because it's possible a series doesn't go the distance those home games would be later meaning they might not get any at all if their opponent finishes them off quick. Say in a best of five the home game is game #4 for the wild card team, in a best of seven maybe games #5 and or #6.

I disagree with the notion of adding more playoff teams and or more post season games. The season is to long as it is right now.

I could see maybe more playoff games IF the regular season were shortened to say 130 games (which the owners will never do...)

Lip

spiffie
08-29-2007, 01:09 PM
Why give byes? Why not just keep 8 teams in the playoffs and have 3 rounds?
Make it meaningful to be the best team over that many games. If you can win more games than anyone else, you deserve a reward for it. It would still be three rounds of playoffs, just instead of playing from 8 to 4 to 2 to 1 it would be from 6 to 4 to 2 to 1.

itsnotrequired
08-29-2007, 01:13 PM
Accelerate the first round:
season ends - Oct.1
WC game 1 - Oct. 2
WC game 2 - Oct. 3
Travel day - Oct. 4
WC game 3 - Oct. 5
WC game 4 - Oct. 6
Travel day - Oct. 7
WC game 5 - Oct. 8
Travel Day (if needed) - Oct. 9
Next round begins - Oct. 10 (at the latest)

As for the union and the extra games, add another roster spot or 2. It will be offset by the extra revenue from more home games for each team, since it will be mostly an extra bench guy or two. Between two new teams and roster expansion, it will be hard to fight something that adds 110 or so new MLB spots.

October 2 would need to be a travel day. The schedule must be set up assuming the series go the distance. People make travel plans, etc. and they simply can't move games up if the series ends early. So the LCS would begin October 11. You MIGHT be able to move the WS start up a day but that still leave Game 7 for October 31. Throw in a rain cancelled game and we're in November again.

The playoffs aren't the concern, it is the extra 25 games throught the season. Under your scenario, teams would be playing doubleheaders just two or three days before the playoffs start.

itsnotrequired
08-29-2007, 01:14 PM
Make it meaningful to be the best team over that many games. If you can win more games than anyone else, you deserve a reward for it. It would still be three rounds of playoffs, just instead of playing from 8 to 4 to 2 to 1 it would be from 6 to 4 to 2 to 1.

These guys are going to be completely gassed at the end of the season from the extra 25 games. Then they will sit around for 10+ days? Talk about an injury waiting to happen...

CLR01
08-29-2007, 01:17 PM
Something has to be done about average teams making the playoffs, and this is the most practical solution I've seen.

I also agree about eliminating interleague play. Now only does it make the schedule unbalanced; it's a threat to the republic.


Wait, so doubling the number of teams participating is the most practical solution you have seen to avoiding the problem of average teams making the playoffs? :?:

voodoochile
08-29-2007, 01:20 PM
Make it meaningful to be the best team over that many games. If you can win more games than anyone else, you deserve a reward for it. It would still be three rounds of playoffs, just instead of playing from 8 to 4 to 2 to 1 it would be from 6 to 4 to 2 to 1.

Screw that. Byes suck. Heck, why not get really creative and pick a number and every team with at least that many wins makes the playoffs. I suggest 86 because that's 10 games over .500. Then have set plans based on how many make the playoffs. If it's an odd number, have the bottom two play a 1 game playoff to see who continues or a 3 game set at the team with the better records home park. Then roll the playoffs based on the number of teams left. Yeah, if 11 teams made it, you'd have a 3 game set and then a 4 team playoff while the other 6 teams watched, but if you're going to change things up, get creative.

Personally, I like the unbalanced schedule. It's the interleague play that screws things up. Under the current format, teams should play the teams they are in direct competition for a guaranteed playoff spot a lot more than they play the teams they are only marginally competing with for the WC.

Of course interleague play isn't going anywhere, way to profitable, though games between the Sox and Marlins (for example) really don't mean much to the fans. I would prefer they assigned each team a geographical rival from the opposite league and had them play a home and home with them and did away with the mundane games. Problem is the unbalanced leagues so that will probably have to wait for expansion too.

voodoochile
08-29-2007, 01:22 PM
These guys are going to be completely gassed at the end of the season from the extra 25 games. Then they will sit around for 10+ days? Talk about an injury waiting to happen...

Well they don't have to do nothing. They could practice and stretch and everything else except play meaningful games. It would actually favor the pitchers a lot who would get a good amount of rest and be fresher when they do have to pitch. It would be a big advantage to the teams with the byes, just as it is in football, IMO.

FedEx227
08-29-2007, 01:24 PM
What's wrong with what we have now?

spiffie
08-29-2007, 01:26 PM
Screw that. Byes suck. Heck, why not get really creative and pick a number and every team with at least that many wins makes the playoffs. I suggest 86 because that's 10 games over .500. Then have set plans based on how many make the playoffs. If it's an odd number, have the bottom two play a 1 game playoff to see who continues or a 3 game set at the team with the better records home park. Then roll the playoffs based on the number of teams left. Yeah, if 11 teams made it, you'd have a 3 game set and then a 4 team playoff while the other 6 teams watched, but if you're going to change things up, get creative.

Personally, I like the unbalanced schedule. It's the interleague play that screws things up. Under the current format, teams should play the teams they are in direct competition for a guaranteed playoff spot a lot more than they play the teams they are only marginally competing with for the WC.

Of course interleague play isn't going anywhere, way to profitable, though games between the Sox and Marlins (for example) really don't mean much to the fans. I would prefer they assigned each team a geographical rival from the opposite league and had them play a home and home with them and did away with the mundane games. Problem is the unbalanced leagues so that will probably have to wait for expansion too.
Yes, but those Sox vs. Devil Rays games have the crowds all jacked up and excited. Or those Sox vs. Royals games. There are plenty of games that are essentially meaningless in terms of who will win the World Series.

And really you make it sound like the playoff idea is something totally weird and out there, when the NFL has been using it for years, and no one seems to find it bizarre at all.

voodoochile
08-29-2007, 01:27 PM
What's wrong with what we have now?

It's nice. It works. It's even kind of enjoyable, but you know that grass in that other ballpark is SOOOO much more green.

:tool
"I love more green."

spiffie
08-29-2007, 01:29 PM
What's wrong with what we have now?
I don't mind it, but since people are always *****ing about how unfair it is and how it sucks that mediocre teams make the playoffs and the unbalanced schedule sucks and blah blah blah I figure this is an alternative that eliminates all of those issues.

jdm2662
08-29-2007, 01:29 PM
No matter what system you come up with, there is always going to be a team with a lower record getting into the playoffs with a team with a higher record. It happens all the time in all sports. There are always going to be times where one conference/league/divsion is stronger than the other. The Western Conference has been the stronger conference in the NBA for quite some time. The NFC used to dominate the AFC in the NFL for many years. It's the opposite now. The AL overall is a better league than the NL. It's just how it is.

voodoochile
08-29-2007, 01:29 PM
Yes, but those Sox vs. Devil Rays games have the crowds all jacked up and excited. Or those Sox vs. Royals games. There are plenty of games that are essentially meaningless in terms of who will win the World Series.

And really you make it sound like the playoff idea is something totally weird and out there, when the NFL has been using it for years, and no one seems to find it bizarre at all.

Baseball is different. Teams play every day. A week off just doesn't happen and only happens in the playoffs on very rare occasions.

Oh and I don't particularly like the bye week in football either because it so heavily favors the teams with the byes. I'd prefer if they expanded to 8 teams and played it straight through.

voodoochile
08-29-2007, 01:30 PM
No matter what system you come up with, there is always going to be a team with a lower record getting into the playoffs with a team with a higher record. It happens all the time in all sports. There are always going to be times where one conference/league/divsion is stronger than the other. The Western Conference has been the stronger conference in the NBA for quite some time. The NFC used to dominate the AFC in the NFL for many years. It's the opposite now. The AL overall is a better league than the NL. It's just how it is.

Not with my every team over 85 wins gets in proposal you aren't.

Edit: and think of how this would affect the regular season where suddenly every game mattered as teams strictly put forth effort to win 86 games from the very first game played. It wouldn't greatly affect the pennant races either because teams struggling to get there would be fighting tooth and nail to get to the elusive barrier and teams who were shoe ins would still be fighting for wins to get easier opponents in the opening round which would be seeded ala the NBA and NFL playoffs.

TDog
08-29-2007, 01:37 PM
If baseball had four divisions, wild cards would be unnecessary.

itsnotrequired
08-29-2007, 02:08 PM
Well they don't have to do nothing. They could practice and stretch and everything else except play meaningful games. It would actually favor the pitchers a lot who would get a good amount of rest and be fresher when they do have to pitch. It would be a big advantage to the teams with the byes, just as it is in football, IMO.

I wasn't suggesting they would just sit around but ten days would seem like an eternity after a 186 game season. For better or worse, the team would be completely different than the team that ended the season.

FedEx227
08-29-2007, 02:17 PM
I gotta agree with INR on this one. A bye-week for baseball is not that beneficial. First off pitchers are regimented and throwing that off will throw them off. Yes, they could throw a simulated game but it's not the same as live game action.

Same deal with hitters, one week out could mess their entire timing up. BP is not at all like the real game.

getonbckthr
08-29-2007, 02:25 PM
Add 2 expansion teams to the League, complete realignment. Go 8 divisions of 4 teams each. Keep it at 162 games. Division winners only in playoffs. If you win your division you really win your division because you play the 3 other teams 30 times a year (15 home, 15 away). The remaining 72 games are split up amongst the other 12 in your league (6 games home and home), No more interleague.
Realignment I have may be a little crazy but here we go:
AL EAST- NYY, NYM, BOS and Philly
AL North- Sox, Cubs, Cards, Mil
AL South- Tex, HOU,COL,KC
AL WEST- VEGAS (EXPAN), Sea, ARI,SD
NL EAST- BAL, TOR, WAS,PIT
NL North-Min, Cle, DET, Cin
NL South- ATL,FLA,TBay,North Carolina(EXPAN)
NL WEST- OAK, Sf, LAD, LAA
Reason for the alignment how it is.
I tried keeping rivalries alive best I could without using interleague play. Also the close proximity of 90 games could mean starting later in April and less off days. The only problem I had was Milwaukee and Kansas City. Perhaps it makes more sense from KC's point of view to be with STL. However that would mean Milwaukee in the South. Also we would lose 2 potentially good rivalries in Mil-Sox and Mil-Cubs. Expansion wise I just threw 2 potential targets out there. Why baseball would do this the close territorial rivalries should draw bigger gates for most of the teams again with KC being a problem.

soxinem1
08-29-2007, 02:57 PM
I think eliminating divisions and going with the top four finishers in each league is the fairest, and best way to do things.

Then, balance out the schedule and eliminate inter-league play.

getonbckthr
08-29-2007, 03:16 PM
Ya but eliminating divisions eliminate rivalries.

Frater Perdurabo
08-29-2007, 04:16 PM
I think eliminating divisions and going with the top four finishers in each league is the fairest, and best way to do things.

Then, balance out the schedule and eliminate inter-league play.

I like the first part of your plan. Two leagues. No divisions. Top four in each league advance to the playoffs.

But I want season-long interleague play. Everybody plays everybody else home and away each season.

So, eliminate Tampa Bay and Florida, expand rosters to 27 (net result is six more MLB jobs), have every team play six "neutral site" games in Florida and implement the DH everywhere (but make it possible to double switch the DH so that a DH could move to the field and a fielder could move to DH within a game).

27 opponents x 6 games (3 home, 3 away) = 162 games!

PatK
08-29-2007, 04:17 PM
Ya but eliminating divisions eliminate rivalries.

Rivalries were eliminated back when there was realignment in 95.

I miss the Brewers series and remember it was a pretty good rivalry at times.

I'm sick of playing the Cubs six times a year and not playing the Brewers at all.

getonbckthr
08-29-2007, 04:21 PM
Rivalries were eliminated back when there was realignment in 95.

I miss the Brewers series and remember it was a pretty good rivalry at times.

I'm sick of playing the Cubs six times a year and not playing the Brewers at all.
Really? NYY-Bos 19x, SF-LAD 19x, Cubs - Cards 19x, Braves-Mets 19x, Cubs - Brewers 19x rivals are still there. Check out my proposal.

chaerulez
08-29-2007, 04:41 PM
I don't understand why MLB doesn't have 32 teams by now. There certainly is a market for it I think, especially in places like Portland, Vegas, Oklahoma City, Northern Cali...

At the very least, it would make scheduling more balanced.

skottyj242
08-29-2007, 04:53 PM
I like the way it is now. I think it makes it interesting that somewhere in the league pretty much until the last game of the year. What's the point in eliminating divisions and the top two or four spots are wrapped up by September first? What fun is that to watch?

PKalltheway
08-29-2007, 06:41 PM
No matter what system you come up with, there is always going to be a team with a lower record getting into the playoffs with a team with a higher record. It happens all the time in all sports. There are always going to be times where one conference/league/divsion is stronger than the other. The Western Conference has been the stronger conference in the NBA for quite some time. The NFC used to dominate the AFC in the NFL for many years. It's the opposite now. The AL overall is a better league than the NL. It's just how it is.
Exactly. A lot of people here wouldn't be talking if it was the White Sox who squeaked into the playoffs with just 84 wins. Back in the old East/West divisonal format, you still had teams like the 1987 Twins, 1984 Royals, and 1973 Mets making it to the playoffs with horse**** records. That's just how it is. Even if you try to switch it around, you're still gonna likely have someone in the playoffs who doesn't deserve to go.

I don't see what the problem is with the current format now. Personally, I like seeing a lot of teams in it, and I find the NL Central race to be exciting. There are 3 teams battling for one playoff spot in that division.

Daver
08-29-2007, 07:07 PM
Go back to the winner of the NL plays the winner of the AL, do away with the playoffs, and start the season a week later.

Brian26
08-29-2007, 09:09 PM
Keep it the way it is. Don't change a thing.

itsnotrequired
08-29-2007, 09:18 PM
Go back to the winner of the NL plays the winner of the AL, do away with the playoffs, and start the season a week later.

Too many teams to make this feasible. Over half the teams would be out of it by June.

Brian26
08-29-2007, 09:20 PM
Rivalries were eliminated back when there was realignment in 95.

On the contrary, new rivalries were established, and some rivalries were made even stronger. Look at the Sox vs. Cleveland. This was a meaningless match-up prior to 1994, but it's been a huge rivalry ever since then.

Daver
08-29-2007, 09:28 PM
Too many teams to make this feasible. Over half the teams would be out of it by June.


Make your team better then.

FarWestChicago
08-29-2007, 10:02 PM
But I want season-long interleague play. Everybody plays everybody else home and away each season.Interleague play needs to be eliminated, period. It's the biggest, most boring abortion in all of the major sports.

Daver
08-29-2007, 10:08 PM
Interleague play needs to be eliminated, period. It's the biggest, most boring abortion in all of the major sports.

Nope, that honor goes to NASCAR's chase for the cup. Dumbest idea ever.

FarWestChicago
08-29-2007, 10:15 PM
Nope, that honor goes to NASCAR's chase for the cup. Dumbest idea ever.Well, at least top two worst ideas. :D:

itsnotrequired
08-29-2007, 10:22 PM
Make your team better then.

I'm working on it.

ChiSoxRowand
08-30-2007, 12:33 AM
First of all, they need to get rid of interleague play. They can have each team play three interleague games so they can keep the rivalries.

If it was completely up to me I would go back to the four division format and eliminate the first round of the playoffs. Although that will never happen ($). This would look good.

AL

West
Oakland
Texas
LAA
Seattle
Chicago
Kansas City
Minnesota

East
New York
Boston
Baltimore
Tampa Bay
Detroit
Cleveland
Toronto

NL
East
Atlanta
Florida
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Houston
West
Arizona
LA
San Diego
Colorado
San Francisco
St. Louis
Chicago
Milwaukee

Nellie_Fox
08-30-2007, 12:49 AM
Go back to the winner of the NL plays the winner of the AL, do away with the playoffs, and start the season a week later.Yes!

Interleague play needs to be eliminated, period. It's the biggest, most boring abortion in all of the major sports.Yes, Yes!

Nope, that honor goes to NASCAR's chase for the cup. Dumbest idea ever.And yet, NHRA jumped on it and copied it this year.

Noneck
08-30-2007, 01:23 AM
NL
East
Atlanta
Florida
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Houston
West
Arizona
LA
San Diego
Colorado
San Francisco
St. Louis
Chicago
Milwaukee

Houston has to be West, Milwaukee goes east.

dcb56
08-30-2007, 03:54 AM
There's nothing really wrong with the way things are, horse**** teams have always been able to sneak into the playoffs from time to time.

However, if I were to change things I certainly wouldn't add more playoff teams to the mix, that just further devalues the 162 game grind and would only further reward mediocre teams who qualify for the playoffs and get hot at the right time. If it were up to me, I'd expand baseball by two teams and go somewhat old school by creating four eight team leagues:

American- Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, New York, Washington
National- Atlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis
Pacific- Arizona, Colorado, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Portland (relocated from Oakland), San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle
International- Florida, Houston, Mexico City*, Montreal*, San Juan*, Santo Domingo*, Texas, Toronto (*=two teams would be expansion franchises, the other two would be relocated from Tampa Bay and Kansas City)

Each team plays the others in their league 16 times, with each team playing 48 interleague games against another league on a three year rotating basis (year 1 AL plays NL, PL plays IL, year 2 AL plays PL, NL plays IL, etc.) for a total of 160 games, and the pennant winner in each league advances to the League Champions Series. Pennant from the various leagues play each other on a yearly rotating basis for a 7 game series to determine who advances to the World Series.

This plan is a win-win for all: interleague is maintained and in fact enhanced because each fan in every city would be guaranteed to see all the other teams at least once every three years, for the old school folks we see a return to the traditional eight team league format with only the pennant winners advancing to the postseason, and baseball benefits because it would expand into the international market by capitalizing on areas in Latin America that are hotbeds for baseball.

Obviously the biggest cons would be having two teams in Los Angeles in the same league and some travel issues for IL teams, but the 16 game schedule vs. league opponents would mitigate travel issues, for example Montreal and Mexico City would play two four game series vs. each other to minimize trips between cities...

voodoochile
08-30-2007, 08:48 AM
Yes!

Yes, Yes!

And yet, NHRA jumped on it and copied it this year.

So did the PGA. FedEx Cup? *** is that all about?

Frontman
08-30-2007, 09:03 AM
So did the PGA. FedEx Cup? *** is that all about?

That was because their final Major happens a full two months prior to the Golf season ending. (And with that, no Tiger Woods until the following year. Tiger=ratings.) They wanted an event that kept fans attention (ie Tiger involved) and the FedEx Cup does that.

Granted, Tiger had already earned enough points to sit out the first week, but hey, that's their system.

voodoochile
08-30-2007, 09:41 AM
That was because their final Major happens a full two months prior to the Golf season ending. (And with that, no Tiger Woods until the following year. Tiger=ratings.) They wanted an event that kept fans attention (ie Tiger involved) and the FedEx Cup does that.

Granted, Tiger had already earned enough points to sit out the first week, but hey, that's their system.

Yeah, I know. It's all about the money. "Every lap matters!" :rolleyes:

:tool
"Chicks dig the lap leaders..."

Fenway
08-30-2007, 09:56 AM
That was because their final Major happens a full two months prior to the Golf season ending. (And with that, no Tiger Woods until the following year. Tiger=ratings.) They wanted an event that kept fans attention (ie Tiger involved) and the FedEx Cup does that.

Granted, Tiger had already earned enough points to sit out the first week, but hey, that's their system.

I'm stuck working it all weekend....Tiger is playing Boston this week

DEUTSCHE BANK NOTEBOOK: Playoffs have been a big boon for Beem (http://www.boston.com/sports/golf/articles/2007/08/30/playoffs_have_been_a_big_boon_for_beem)
(By Jim McCabe, Globe Staff)
For all the moaning and groaning some have made about the first playoffs on the PGA Tour, Rich Beem is one who can vouch for the positive aspects.

Malgar 12
08-30-2007, 09:58 AM
I know, split into 30 divisions, the travel savings will be amazing, and then take the top team from each division, no team will ever be eliminated, it will be great!

skottyj242
08-30-2007, 11:09 AM
I'm stuck working it all weekend....Tiger is playing Boston this week

DEUTSCHE BANK NOTEBOOK: Playoffs have been a big boon for Beem (http://www.boston.com/sports/golf/articles/2007/08/30/playoffs_have_been_a_big_boon_for_beem)
(By Jim McCabe, Globe Staff)
For all the moaning and groaning some have made about the first playoffs on the PGA Tour, Rich Beem is one who can vouch for the positive aspects.

I'll take Tiger against Boston any day of the week.

soxinem1
08-30-2007, 05:17 PM
Interleague play needs to be eliminated, period. It's the biggest, most boring abortion in all of the major sports.

At the time it was instituted I sure did not like it, but for awhile it was a good idea, as it helped make the game popular again. Sure, that ARI and SEA or CHW and COL rivalry is not very exciting, but the battle of NYY and NYM and CHW and CHC, among others, were great at the time.

I just cannot figure out why the Sox rivalry with MIL had to end just because the Brewers switched leagues. That one should have been kept alive, not us against HOU, PIT, or CIN.

But now it has definitely lost its luster, and I'd feel the same way if we'd have won five of six against the cubs this year, or ran through IL play like in 2005. I am all in favor of removing IL play now.