PDA

View Full Version : Realigning the Divisions


gobears1987
03-03-2008, 08:39 PM
If you were the Commissioner of baseball and could realign the divisions, how would you do it?

I would contract the Marlins and D-Rays (excuse me it's rays now:rolleyes:). Neither team is doing well with fan bases, and neither team has a new stadium. You obviously cannot contract a team like the Nationals when a brand new stadium was just built for them.

I eliminated the AL Central and NL Central. To get each league to 14 teams, the Brewers were moved to the AL to replace the D-Rays. The NL of course gets to 14 by contracting the Marlins and moving the Brewers back to their proper league.

With my new alignment, each league has two divisions with seven teams each. This means that the Divisional Series is eliminated along with the Wildcard spot. The two division winners would face off in the seven game Championship series and then move on to the World Series.

My new division alignment would look like this:

AL EAST:

Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Milwaukee Brewers
New York Yankees
Toronto Blue Jays

This is an easy division to set up. I moved the Brewers to the AL as they are a true AL team. They are only in the NL as Bud Selig wanted his team to be in a league with less competition. This is the same set-up that existed prior to the 1994 realignment.

AL WEST:

Chicago White Sox
Kansas City Royals
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Minnesota Twins
Oakland Athletics
Seattle Mariners
Texas Rangers

Once again I have reverted the AL West to its pre-1994 alignment. The Sox-Twins rivalry has been preserved here.

NL EAST:

Atlanta Braves
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburg Pirates
Washington Nationals

I know the Braves were in the West under the pre-94 alignment, but it just makes sense for them to be an east team. I moved the Cards to the West. The only people who would complain about that one are Flub fans.

NL WEST:

Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
Houston Astros
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants
St. Louis Cardinals

My version of the NL West just makes sense. Each of these teams is west of the Mississippi. You could make a case that the Cardinals will be doing a lot of flying, but the seventh team in this division would be dealing with that problem no matter who it was and the Cards are still the closest to California. Besides, the Braves did it for almost 25 years and they were further than St. Louis.


As for the regular season, the 162 games would go like this:

Each team would play its division rivals 20 times each. (120 total division games)

Then each team would play 6 games against each of the 7 teams from the other division in their league. These would make up the other 42 games.

Inter-league would be done away with under my proposed set-up. Inter-league is just garbage in its current form. It creates unbalanced schedules for teams. My system provides the most balanced schedule possible.

Daver
03-03-2008, 08:54 PM
Do away with the divisions entirely, the best team in the AL plays the best team in the NL in October.

spiffie
03-03-2008, 08:56 PM
If I really had my way I eliminate all leagues and divisions.

In lieu of that though I reset everything. I go to 4 geographic divisions. Add two teams to make it 32 total. 4 division winners make the playoffs.

East:
Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Mets
Orioles
Phillies
Nationals
Pirates

South
Braves
Rangers
North Carolina franchise
Marlins
Devil Rays
Astros
Royals
Reds

Midwest
White Sox
Cubs
Twins
Indians
Cardinals
Tigers
Brewers
Rockies

West
Dodgers
Angels
Mariners
D-backs
Las Vegas/Portland franchise
Giants
Padres
A's

Fenway
03-03-2008, 08:57 PM
Do away with the divisions entirely, the best team in the AL plays the best team in the NL in October.

Daver it isn't 1968 anymore :whiner:

gobears1987
03-03-2008, 09:11 PM
If I really had my way I eliminate all leagues and divisions.

In lieu of that though I reset everything. I go to 4 geographic divisions. Add two teams to make it 32 total. 4 division winners make the playoffs.


Would you keep the DH? Plus I don't want to be in the same division as the Flubs. Their fans are annoying enough.

doublem23
03-03-2008, 09:15 PM
I know we love to rip on the Cubs, but the Cub-Cards rivalry is a big deal. Splitting them up (and thinking your plan is do-able) is simply being biased and ignorant.

Plus, the Marlins have an approved stadium in the works and the Rays are working on one. No doubt MLB lets those projects go through before contracting the teams.

spiffie
03-03-2008, 09:19 PM
Would you keep the DH? Plus I don't want to be in the same division as the Flubs. Their fans are annoying enough.
I would make the DH mandatory, but then I've always been an AL fan so I guess I would be biased on that front :smile:

What better way to shut their fans up than to beat them in direct competition?

FarWestChicago
03-03-2008, 09:22 PM
Inter-league would be done away with under my proposed set-up. Inter-league is just garbage in its current form. It creates unbalanced schedules for teams. My system provides the most balanced schedule possible.

I know we love to rip on the Cubs, but the Cub-Cards rivalry is a big deal. Splitting them up (and thinking your plan is do-able) is simply being biased and ignorant.Now hold on a minute, doub. You can call him biased if you want. But, no plan that does away with the abortion known as inter-league can be classified as "ignorant". :cool:

sox1970
03-03-2008, 09:44 PM
No divisions, balanced schedule, top four teams make the playoffs. Best of 7 in each round.

gobears1987
03-03-2008, 09:49 PM
I know we love to rip on the Cubs, but the Cub-Cards rivalry is a big deal. Splitting them up (and thinking your plan is do-able) is simply being biased and ignorant.
How big is the Cubs-Cards rivalry really? The rivalry is not like the Sox-Twins or Sox-Toons rivalry. The Cubs-Cards rivalry almost never decides who goes to the postseason. Each season one team is at or near the top of their division while the other is in the bottom of it. The rivalry is just a creation of the media.

The Sox-Twins and Sox-Toons rivalries decide the division almost every year. They are real rivalries with each team presenting good talent. I think splitting the Sox and Indians up would create a much larger outroar as it has always been a good rivarly. During the 50s the two teams had a huge rivarly. It died when divisions were created in 1969, but was renewed when the teams were reunited in the AL Central in 1994. The rivalry heated up again and remained strong throughout the 90s and until today. Just remember how much each of us used to hate Jim Thome when he came up to bat. Listen to the Indian fans as they boo him during each game at the Jake. That is a rivalry.

Daver
03-03-2008, 09:53 PM
How big is the Cubs-Cards rivalry really? The rivalry is not like the Sox-Twins or Sox-Toons rivalry. The Cubs-Cards rivalry almost never decides who goes to the postseason. Each season one team is at or near the top of their division while the other is in the bottom of it. The rivalry is just a creation of the media.

The Sox-Twins and Sox-Toons rivalries decide the division almost every year. They are real rivalries with each team presenting good talent. I think splitting the Sox and Indians up would create a much larger outroar as it has always been a good rivarly. During the 50s the two teams had a huge rivarly. When they were reunited in the AL Central in 1994, the rivalry heated up again and remained strong throughout the 90s and until today.

You are an absolute fool if you really believe this. The Cubs Cards rivalry is right there with the Bears and Packers. Spend any amount of time in St. Louis, they want to beat the Cubs first and foremost.

gobears1987
03-03-2008, 09:53 PM
I would make the DH mandatory, but then I've always been an AL fan so I guess I would be biased on that front :smile:

What better way to shut their fans up than to beat them in direct competition?
I wish you were right, but if losing in direct competition to every team for 99 years has not shut them up, then I fear nothing will.

I also like the idea of making a DH mandatory. I see no reason why the pitcher needs to go up and strike out or ground out 3 or 4 times a game.

gobears1987
03-03-2008, 09:56 PM
You are an absolute fool if you really believe this. The Cubs Cards rivalry is right there with the Bears and Packers. Spend any amount of time in St. Louis, they want to beat the Cubs first and foremost.
For a rivalry to be worth anything, both teams have to be good and there has to be some post-season or championship implications.

The Packers-Bears rivalry has often occurred between great teams. George Halas vs Curly Lambeau and later Halas vs. Lombardi are legendary match-ups. With the Lions and Vikings sucking most years, the Bears-Packers rivalry often decides the playoff situation.

The OSU-Michigan football rivalry decides the Big Ten Championship more often than not.

The White Sox-Twins/Indians rivalries decide our division almost every year. We are the three teams that have dominated the Central since its inception. The only year another team won it was in 2006 when Detroit had their Division Championship.

The Cubs-Cards rivalry never decides anything.

voodoochile
03-03-2008, 10:00 PM
For a rivalry to be worth anything, both teams have to be good and there has to be some post-season or championship implications.

The Packers-Bears rivalry has often occurred between great teams. George Halas vs Curly Lambeau and later Halas vs. Lombardi are legendary match-ups. With the Lions and Vikings sucking most years, the Bears-Packers rivalry often decides the playoff situation.

The OSU-Michigan football rivalry decides the Big Ten Championship more often than not.

The White Sox-Twins/Indians rivalries decide our division almost every year. We are the three teams that have dominated the Central since its inception. The only year another team won it was in 2006 when Detroit had their Division Championship.

The Cubs-Cards rivalry never decides anything.

No, rivalries transcend simplistic concepts like who goes to the playoffs. Great ones often do, but it is not a requirement. Those two teams have been getting after each other for well over 100 years. Compared to that the Sox/Twins "rivalry" is a joke...

mrfourni
03-03-2008, 10:21 PM
I would keep it simple. Either move milwaukee back into the American League and move the royals to the al west, or move houston to the american league west to appease the Rangers.

That way the divisions are alligned equally.

voodoochile
03-03-2008, 10:25 PM
I would keep it simple. Either move milwaukee back into the American League and move the royals to the al west, or move houston to the american league west to appease the Rangers.

That way the divisions are alligned equally.

Problem is then you have 15 in each league. That means interleague play every day all year long.

moochpuppy
03-03-2008, 10:54 PM
This means that the Divisional Series is eliminated along with the Wildcard spot. The two division winners would face off in the seven game Championship series and then move on to the World Series.



Would never happen. Baseball would lose too much money giving up a playoff series.

moochpuppy
03-03-2008, 10:57 PM
If I really had my way I eliminate all leagues and divisions.

In lieu of that though I reset everything. I go to 4 geographic divisions. Add two teams to make it 32 total. 4 division winners make the playoffs.

East:
Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Mets
Orioles
Phillies
Nationals
Pirates

South
Braves
Rangers
North Carolina franchise
Marlins
Devil Rays
Astros
Royals
Reds

Midwest
White Sox
Cubs
Twins
Indians
Cardinals
Tigers
Brewers
Rockies

West
Dodgers
Angels
Mariners
D-backs
Las Vegas/Portland franchise
Giants
Padres
A's


:upsidehead:

doublem23
03-03-2008, 11:01 PM
Now hold on a minute, doub. You can call him biased if you want. But, no plan that does away with the abortion known as inter-league can be classified as "ignorant". :cool:

I'm all for getting rid of interleague play, but you can't break up the Cubs and Cardinals. It's the National League's premier rivalry and probably the 2nd most intense intraleague rivalry in baseball, after Yankees-Sawx.

gobears1987
03-03-2008, 11:01 PM
Would never happen. Baseball would lose too much money giving up a playoff series.Of course you are correct in that statement. I can dream though.

I want Mags back
03-03-2008, 11:16 PM
:threadsucks

going back to having just 2 teams per league make the playoffs is pretty much ridiculous. If anything, I'm for adding teams to the postseason (which im sure Ill get laughed at here for)

moochpuppy
03-03-2008, 11:21 PM
If anything, I'm for adding teams to the postseason (which im sure Ill get laughed at here for)

Only if they would shorten the season by about 20 games.

Nellie_Fox
03-03-2008, 11:41 PM
No, rivalries transcend simplistic concepts like who goes to the playoffs. Great ones often do, but it is not a requirement. Those two teams have been getting after each other for well over 100 years. Compared to that the Sox/Twins "rivalry" is a joke...One would have to have a short frame of reference to consider the Sox/Twins rivalry to be anything more than a temporary divisional rivalry, one that will become meaningless as soon as one team is out of contention for any extended period of time.

santo=dorf
03-03-2008, 11:56 PM
:threadsucks

going back to having just 2 teams per league make the playoffs is pretty much ridiculous. If anything, I'm for adding teams to the postseason (which im sure Ill get laughed at here for)
We don't need the MLB playoffs to be like the NBA or NHL where crap teams like the Bulls and Blackhawks are still considered to be in "it."

The two division format sucks. The Sox were screwed in 1990 posting a better record than the Red Sox, and in 1993 the SF Giants sat at home despite winning 103 games. :o:

South Side Irish
03-03-2008, 11:58 PM
One would have to have a short frame of reference to consider the Sox/Twins rivalry to be anything more than a temporary divisional rivalry, one that will become meaningless as soon as one team is out of contention for any extended period of time.

Right. Especially as the Sox/Twins rivalry is only 40 years old, max. And '87 is wrong - the Cubs and Cards HAVE decided division and pennant winners the last 110 years of their rivalry, as recently as 2007 and 2002, too. And as a Cards fan, it's real hard to consider the Cubs a rival seeing that they're never contenders. :redneck

And this rivalry is huge between the cities. Cubs-Cards divides families, schools, and friendships. It's absolutely the Bears-Packers of baseball. Almost the exact same thing. Both early, if not charter members of their leagues. Both separated by just a couple hundred miles. Big town vs. small town mentality. Players and managers who have had a real hate for one another.

Cubs-Cards defines rivalry. Saying otherwise is either ignorant or foolish.

South Side Irish
03-04-2008, 12:01 AM
We don't need the MLB playoffs to be like the NBA or NHL where crap teams like the Bulls and Blackhawks are still considered to be in "it."

The two division format sucks. The Sox were screwed in 1990 posting a better record than the Red Sox, and in 1993 the SF Giants sat at home despite winning 103 games. :o:

I agree - they've got a happy medium like this. I HATE HATE HATE how the NBA allows such **** teams into the playoffs as have been in. Remembers those Nets and Heat teams the Bulls used to play in the first round? Sheesh... I'd hate to see that. You might get a surprise story with a big upset - occasionally - but doubling the playoff schedule to get there wouldn't be worth it. Then... you'd have to consider shortening the regular season to get in those games. Otherwise, imagine St. Louis-Detroit in mid-November!:o: That Detroit defense would still be trying to field the ferocious Cardinals and their infield dribblers. :cool:

I want Mags back
03-04-2008, 12:08 AM
Only if they would shorten the season by about 20 games.

You'd only need about 8, an extra series would only take a week

StillMissOzzie
03-04-2008, 01:45 AM
For a rivalry to be worth anything, both teams have to be good and there has to be some post-season or championship implications.

The Cubs-Cards rivalry never decides anything.
Nope. They just gotta not like each other.

No, rivalries transcend simplistic concepts like who goes to the playoffs. Great ones often do, but it is not a requirement. Those two teams have been getting after each other for well over 100 years. Compared to that the Sox/Twins "rivalry" is a joke...

I'm all for getting rid of interleague play, but you can't break up the Cubs and Cardinals. It's the National League's premier rivalry and probably the 2nd most intense intraleague rivalry in baseball, after Yankees-Sawx.
Let's not forget the Dodgers/Giants rivalry either. That one has spanned generations and the width of our country. Rarely does it determine a championship either.


And meanwhile, back at the ranch...I enjoy these hypoithetical discussions regarding division realignment and/or scrapping the AL/NL and recasting everyone. However, as someone else has already said, there's too much cabbage on the line to scrap the current playoff system unless you come up with something new that guarantees the potential for the same number of post-season games.
And regarding the possibility of 15 teams in each league, why would that REQUIRE interleague play every day? Yes, I see that it's an odd number, but what's wrong with a different team having a day off every two weeks?
It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to draw up a schedule that did that, and got rid of interleague entirely at the same time.

SMO
:gulp:

russ99
03-04-2008, 08:43 AM
or move houston to the american league west to appease the Rangers.

The Astros want no part of that, due to the massive amount of extra travel and losing their rivalries with the Cardinals, Cubs and Reds. They don't want to shift to the NL West either unless one or more of the above comes with them.

I'd be more for shifting Milwaukee to the AL as they were happy with before, or that South Division plan where the Tigers move back into the AL East.

oeo
03-04-2008, 08:49 AM
You are an absolute fool if you really believe this. The Cubs Cards rivalry is right there with the Bears and Packers. Spend any amount of time in St. Louis, they want to beat the Cubs first and foremost.

Yes, but St. Louis fans have to be the most boring ones around, so you can't even tell.

I swear, even in the World Series last year, I didn't hear the same excitement in the crowd that you hear everywhere else.

Iwritecode
03-04-2008, 08:59 AM
And regarding the possibility of 15 teams in each league, why would that REQUIRE interleague play every day? Yes, I see that it's an odd number, but what's wrong with a different team having a day off every two weeks?
It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to draw up a schedule that did that, and got rid of interleague entirely at the same time.

SMO
:gulp:

There would be two teams with nobody to play against EVERYDAY. They'd have to sit around and do nothing for 3-5 days while every other team was playing a 2-4 game series. It wouldn't work.

palehozenychicty
03-04-2008, 09:04 AM
For a rivalry to be worth anything, both teams have to be good and there has to be some post-season or championship implications.

The Packers-Bears rivalry has often occurred between great teams. George Halas vs Curly Lambeau and later Halas vs. Lombardi are legendary match-ups. With the Lions and Vikings sucking most years, the Bears-Packers rivalry often decides the playoff situation.

The OSU-Michigan football rivalry decides the Big Ten Championship more often than not.

The White Sox-Twins/Indians rivalries decide our division almost every year. We are the three teams that have dominated the Central since its inception. The only year another team won it was in 2006 when Detroit had their Division Championship.

The Cubs-Cards rivalry never decides anything.


Uh...The Twinkies won it on the last day. :scratch:

hi im skot
03-04-2008, 09:17 AM
How big is the Cubs-Cards rivalry really? The rivalry is not like the Sox-Twins or Sox-Toons rivalry. The Cubs-Cards rivalry almost never decides who goes to the postseason. Each season one team is at or near the top of their division while the other is in the bottom of it. The rivalry is just a creation of the media.

The Sox-Twins and Sox-Toons rivalries decide the division almost every year. They are real rivalries with each team presenting good talent. I think splitting the Sox and Indians up would create a much larger outroar as it has always been a good rivarly. During the 50s the two teams had a huge rivarly. It died when divisions were created in 1969, but was renewed when the teams were reunited in the AL Central in 1994. The rivalry heated up again and remained strong throughout the 90s and until today. Just remember how much each of us used to hate Jim Thome when he came up to bat. Listen to the Indian fans as they boo him during each game at the Jake. That is a rivalry.

You are an absolute fool if you really believe this. The Cubs Cards rivalry is right there with the Bears and Packers. Spend any amount of time in St. Louis, they want to beat the Cubs first and foremost.

Daver's right. And any real Cubs fan is far more concerned about beating the Cardinals than the Sox.

The Sox/Twins "rivalry" has nothing on Cubs/Cards.

areilly
03-04-2008, 10:46 AM
For a rivalry to be worth anything, both teams have to be good and there has to be some post-season or championship implications.

Bears-Packers hasn't decided much of anything for a long time. Same for Browns-Steelers, Giants-Dodgers, Sonics-Blazers, and for a pretty good stretch Yankees-Red Sox didn't have much in the way of playoff implications, either. Doesn't mean their fans don't hate each other any less. And for that matter, how many times has Cubs-Sox really affected the postseason?

getonbckthr
03-04-2008, 11:32 AM
Add teams in Birmingham and Nashville. Have 8 divisions 4 teams per. American and National leagues with East, West, North and South divisions. Split as follows:
AL East: NYY, Bos, NYM, PHI
AL West: SF, Oak, Col, Sea
AL North: CWS, Min, Mil, Det
AL South: Tex, Hou, TB, KC
NL East: Tor, Bal, WAS, Pit
NL West: LAD, LAA, SD, ARI
NL North: CHC, STL, Cin, Cle
NL South (SEC): Atlanta (UGA), FLA (Gators), Nash (Vols), Birmingham (Roll Tide). Use the SEC college rivalries to help the rough Marlin market and the 2 expansion markets.
Schedule wise 30 games against each division rival (15 home 15 away) and 6 games against the other teams in your league (3/3). No interleague.

doublem23
03-04-2008, 11:45 AM
Why did the Phillies, Blue Jays, Mets, and Orioles switch leagues for no particular reason?

Birmingham, AL? I hope that was a joke.

Luke
03-04-2008, 12:00 PM
Add teams in Birmingham and Nashville. Have 8 divisions 4 teams per. American and National leagues with East, West, North and South divisions. Split as follows:
AL East: NYY, Bos, NYM, PHI
AL West: SF, Oak, Col, Sea
AL North: CWS, Min, Mil, Det
AL South: Tex, Hou, TB, KC
NL East: Tor, Bal, WAS, Pit
NL West: LAD, LAA, SD, ARI
NL North: CHC, STL, Cin, Cle
NL South (SEC): Atlanta (UGA), FLA (Gators), Nash (Vols), Birmingham (Roll Tide). Use the SEC college rivalries to help the rough Marlin market and the 2 expansion markets.
Schedule wise 30 games against each division rival (15 home 15 away) and 6 games against the other teams in your league (3/3). No interleague.

I think adding two expansion teams and having two 16 team leagues, with 4 divisions is the most likely scenario.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance of Birmingham ever getting a team. They're a AA city, the 47th largest market, and Nashville is the 39th...just not enough people.

Charlotte and Portland would seem like the best expansion candidates.

I want Mags back
03-04-2008, 12:05 PM
I like the idea of 32 teams. It works great with the current NFL set up. I wouldnt have 30 games against each division team, that is for sure. It would get old quick

kraut83
03-04-2008, 12:21 PM
Add teams in Birmingham and Nashville. Have 8 divisions 4 teams per. American and National leagues with East, West, North and South divisions. Split as follows:
AL East: NYY, Bos, NYM, PHI
AL West: SF, Oak, Col, Sea
AL North: CWS, Min, Mil, Det
AL South: Tex, Hou, TB, KC
NL East: Tor, Bal, WAS, Pit
NL West: LAD, LAA, SD, ARI
NL North: CHC, STL, Cin, Cle
NL South (SEC): Atlanta (UGA), FLA (Gators), Nash (Vols), Birmingham (Roll Tide). Use the SEC college rivalries to help the rough Marlin market and the 2 expansion markets.
Schedule wise 30 games against each division rival (15 home 15 away) and 6 games against the other teams in your league (3/3). No interleague.

The AL South has the potential to be the most depressing division in professional sports!

I don't think expansion is viable for any US City at this point.

getonbckthr
03-04-2008, 12:25 PM
Why did the Phillies, Blue Jays, Mets, and Orioles switch leagues for no particular reason?

Birmingham, AL? I hope that was a joke.
I guess I would be hoping that the Crimson Tide fans would take to a ball club. As far as the teams switching I was just trying to take the rivalries to new levels and try to make one with Philly to go with NYY and BOS.
I think adding two expansion teams and having two 16 team leagues, with 4 divisions is the most likely scenario.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance of Birmingham ever getting a team. They're a AA city, the 47th largest market, and Nashville is the 39th...just not enough people.

Charlotte and Portland would seem like the best expansion candidates.
Nashville may be the 39th largest market but the people in Tennessee, if you deliver a supportable product, will back you til death.
I like the idea of 32 teams. It works great with the current NFL set up. I wouldnt have 30 games against each division team, that is for sure. It would get old quick
Maybe its much but I would definately want a stress on divisional games.

doublem23
03-04-2008, 12:30 PM
Charlotte and Portland would seem like the best expansion candidates.

I think you'd be better off putting a third team in New York, honestly.

Frater Perdurabo
03-04-2008, 12:38 PM
I think you'd be better off putting a third team in New York, honestly.

Agreed. Probably across the river in New Jersey, though, perhaps with a stadium that has an outfield view of the Manhattan skyline.

BRDSR
03-04-2008, 01:04 PM
And regarding the possibility of 15 teams in each league, why would that REQUIRE interleague play every day? Yes, I see that it's an odd number, but what's wrong with a different team having a day off every two weeks?
It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to draw up a schedule that did that, and got rid of interleague entirely at the same time.

SMO
:gulp:

It wouldn't be hard to draw up a schedule like that, but it would mean that two teams are not playing Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Look at this from a team like the Sox perspective. Instead of a Monday off day, we lost a Saturday off day. This type of scenario probably happens...8-10 times per season. Instead of drawing 35,000, we draw 20,000. Attendance drops 150,000 during a season where we aren't about to win the world series or just won it last year.

It's not going to happen. Every time has to play Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Luke
03-04-2008, 01:13 PM
Nashville may be the 39th largest market but the people in Tennessee, if you deliver a supportable product, will back you til death.


Maybe for football. Look at the Preds; Their season ticket base is half what the NHL mandates, they have the fourth lowest attendance and are 8 games over .500 challenging for a playoff spot. They were right near the top of the league last year and only got 600 season ticket holders. Not trying to nitpick, I just don't see Nashville as a MLB city at this point.

I think you'd be better off putting a third team in New York, honestly.

Absolutely. I meant with regard to avoiding territory disputes.

JohnTucker0814
03-04-2008, 01:43 PM
Here is what I'd do:

Milwauke to Al Central
Kansas City to Al West

Al East - Nyy, Bos, Tor, Bal, Tb
Al Central - Chw, Min, Det, Mil, Cle
Al West - Ana, Oak, Tex, KC, Sea

Nl East - Nym, Phi, Fla, Atl, Was
Nl Central - Chc, Stl, Pit, Cin, Hou
Nl West - Sf, La, Col, Ari, Sd

This means interleague plays all year... the benefit being that each series is featured. Currently playing all the games during a 2 week period some of the match ups get overlooked because of the Nyy vs Nym and Chc vs Chw series out there. This also evens the divisions so Al Central plays Nl West yr 1, Nl Central yr 2, Nl East yr 3 and then the following 3 years you play the same rotation and alternate who was home. This means every 6 years you will play in each stadium! You still play the rivalry games, however it is a 2 games series alternating home/away each year. Doing a 2 game series means it's played during the week when attendance is usually down, and those teams can get a peek game for the weekday! Now you play your other division in your league a total of 8 games each. Within your division you play each team 17 times. Here is the game breakdown:

vs Division Rivals 17 games x 4 = 68 games
vs League Rivals 8 games x 10 = 80 games
vs Opposite League Division 3 games x 4 = 12 games
vs Rivalry 2 games x 1 = 2 games

Total is 162 games.

This will make the schedule for everyone in your division IDENTICAL with the exception of the Rivalry Game, which is only 2 games.

Who wouldn't love to see the AL Central with Det, Cle, Min & Mil???? How fun would that be!

hdog1017
03-04-2008, 02:38 PM
Any realignment that would get rid of a round of playoffs wouldn't fly per MLB. That's alot of $$$ lost.

However, I would love to just have the NLCS, ALCS, and the World Series. The playoffs seem to last forever now, but that was ok in 2005.

sox1970
03-04-2008, 02:43 PM
Any realignment that would get rid of a round of playoffs wouldn't fly per MLB. That's alot of $$$ lost.

However, I would love to just have the NLCS, ALCS, and the World Series. The playoffs seem to last forever now, but that was ok in 2005.

The problem isn't three rounds of postseason. It's when the World Series ends. Seriously, they need to shorten the season to 156, and finish a week early. Then go to best of 7 for all rounds.

santo=dorf
03-04-2008, 02:54 PM
For balanced schedules I'd make it a rule that a starter can only make 29 starts a year, once against each team. WE NEED BALANCE!!!

Luke
03-04-2008, 03:17 PM
I've been very, very hard at work today, and I came up with this:

*= proposed expansion team

AL
West: Oak, LAA, Sea, *Portland
Central: Sox, Tex, Min, KC
North: Cle, Det, Tor, Mil
East; NY, Bos, Balt, TB

NL
West: LA, SD, SF, Az
Central: Chi, Hous, Col, Stl
South: Atl, Fla, Cin, Charlotte*
East: NY, Phi, Pit, DC

Play 18 games against each team in your division. 10 against others. Eliminate inter league play.

Playoffs keep the same number of rounds, but eliminate wild card in favor of four divisions champs.

In this case, the unbalanced schedule does a couple things; It determines a true division champ, and it maximizes prime time games which, MLB loves.

If you're not a fan of unbalanced schedules, I don't begrudge you. It's easy to see the fault, but if you want a balanced schedule, you might as well eliminate divisions, and take the top four teams in the league, because the divisions just make an arbitrary champ.

Lastly, I'm not sure if either Portland or Charlotte could support MLB. They've both been in the hunt occasionally, and just happen to make the divisions work out nicely, while having two of the largest metro areas not represented.

Dan Mega
03-04-2008, 03:47 PM
The rivalry is just a creation of the media.


Hangar? Zat you?

jabrch
03-04-2008, 04:16 PM
Do away with the divisions entirely, the best team in the AL plays the best team in the NL in October.


There are millions and millions of reasons why this won't ever happen...

doublem23
03-04-2008, 04:19 PM
There are millions and millions of reasons why this won't ever happen...

Considering some of the other nonsensical ideas being tossed around this thread, at least Daver's is the best one. :cool:

captainclutch24
03-04-2008, 05:57 PM
I would add teams in Portland and Las Vegas

I would then turn the divisions into the same style as football 4 teams per division, and 4 divisions per league

AL East- New York, Boston, Toronto, Detroit
AL Central- Chicago, Minnesota, Cleveland, Milwaulkee
AL West-Portland, Seattle, Anaheim, Oakland
AL South- Tampa Bay, Texas, Baltimore, Florida

NL East- New York, Philidelphia, Cinncinatti, Pittsburgh
NL Central- St. Louis, Chicago, Colorado, Arizona
NL West- San Diego, Los Angeles, San Fransico, Las Vegas
NL South- Houston, Atlanta, Kansas City, Washington

Each team plays their divison rivals a total of 22 games.(66 games total)
Each team then plays the remaining teams in their league a total of 6 games each so one home and one away series for a total of 72 games. (138 games to this point)
Finally there are a total of 24 interleague games(162 games total) in which the teams play each other 6 games a piece 3 at home 3 away. The divisions rotate so for example in 2010 NL West plays AL west and then the following year the NL west plays the AL Central, just like footballs format. This garuntees each team will play a series at home and away against an opposing leagues team once every 4 years.

The playoff format stays the same except the division winners make the playoffs. There is no wild card. Seed one plays 4, seed two plays three.

TheVulture
03-04-2008, 06:03 PM
For a rivalry to be worth anything, both teams have to be good and there has to be some post-season or championship implications.


There are often playoff implications - if the Cubs beat them too much, the Cards might not make the playoffs!:redneck

Madscout
03-04-2008, 06:19 PM
I was talking to my barber, and he was telling me how the club soccer teams in Europe are run. In Italy (he's italian), they have clubs move up and down in thier four tear leagues. The top three go up and the lowest three go down. I thought it might be cool for an american sport, just for a little extra competition and incentive for compitition. And yes, I realize it wouldn't realistically happen because of how the MLB and minor league teams are affilitated and that the owners would never go for it, but it is a cool idea.

munchman33
03-04-2008, 06:21 PM
Keep the same divisions, but put 5 teams in each. Shorten the season to 161 games.

Each team plays its four division rivals 14 times apiece (56 games).
Each team plays the other 10 teams in it's league 6 times (60 games).
Each team play the other leagues teams 3 times (45 games).

Schedule is closer to "fair" and we keep interleague play.

voodoochile
03-04-2008, 07:25 PM
Keep the same divisions, but put 5 teams in each. Shorten the season to 161 games.

Each team plays its four division rivals 14 times apiece (56 games).
Each team plays the other 10 teams in it's league 6 times (60 games).
Each team play the other leagues teams 3 times (45 games).

Schedule is closer to "fair" and we keep interleague play.

Am I the only one who likes the unbalanced schedule? If I am going to win my division, it should primarily be because I won more than I lost against teams I played the most from that division, IMO.

WSox597
03-04-2008, 08:39 PM
You are an absolute fool if you really believe this. The Cubs Cards rivalry is right there with the Bears and Packers. Spend any amount of time in St. Louis, they want to beat the Cubs first and foremost.

This is true. I was on a job outside St. Louis several years ago. When the locals found out I was from Chicago they asked me if I was a Cubs fan.

I told them I'd root for the Cardinals first. We got along just fine after that. :D:

FarWestChicago
03-04-2008, 08:51 PM
...we keep interleague play.Damn, Munch. Are you so pissed off about DLS you want to punish all of us? What a horrible idea.

oeo
03-04-2008, 09:10 PM
Would never happen. Baseball would lose too much money giving up a playoff series.

And a lot of exciting baseball. If anything, knock the division series up to 7 games.

For those that say we need to eliminate the playoffs in order to get the best teams in the World Series...if you don't get to the World Series, you're not one of the best teams. You should beat teams that are inferior to you; and if you don't, tough luck.

munchman33
03-04-2008, 09:27 PM
Damn, Munch. Are you so pissed off about DLS you want to punish all of us? What a horrible idea.

Strike that. ONLY interleague play!!!!

munchman33
03-04-2008, 09:29 PM
Am I the only one who likes the unbalanced schedule? If I am going to win my division, it should primarily be because I won more than I lost against teams I played the most from that division, IMO.

Well, do two game interleague series then. Add the other 15 games in division. Not sure if that'd be enough interleague to always have a series going though.

My schedule still gives plenty more games in division as it stands.

Daver
03-04-2008, 09:32 PM
And a lot of exciting baseball. If anything, knock the division series up to 7 games.

For those that say we need to eliminate the playoffs in order to get the best teams in the World Series...if you don't get to the World Series, you're not one of the best teams. You should beat teams that are inferior to you; and if you don't, tough luck.

I still see no reason to award also rans with a chance to get lucky in the post season by having a wildcard, you should have to actually win something to play in October.

But I would vastly prefer to get rid of the entire division mess as well as the so-called playoffs.

spiffie
03-04-2008, 09:42 PM
I still see no reason to award also rans with a chance to get lucky in the post season by having a wildcard, you should have to actually win something to play in October.

But I would vastly prefer to get rid of the entire division mess as well as the so-called playoffs.
Once again then I say go to Premier League style. Why let some mediocre NL team get into the World Series over a more deserving AL team? One giant League, top two teams play a best of 7 series for the title.

santo=dorf
03-04-2008, 10:47 PM
I still see no reason to award also rans with a chance to get lucky in the post season by having a wildcard, you should have to actually win something to play in October.

But I would vastly prefer to get rid of the entire division mess as well as the so-called playoffs.
So then the Championship match up would be setup about two weeks before the end of the season and there would be at least 20 teams playing meaningless games from July-on.

gobears1987
03-05-2008, 01:11 AM
If you want to do an expansion, then I think the next team should be placed in London. We will call them the London Kings and in 2026 Buck Bokai will break DiMaggio's hit streak record.:redneck

(lets see how many catch the reference)

guillen4life13
03-05-2008, 03:36 AM
I don't think it would go over well if original AL or NL teams get switched, like CLE moving to the NL. I'd be pretty miffed if that happened. Likewise, from a revenue standpoint, you can't decrease the number of playoff games.

My idea is to add two teams, coming from Austin, Charlotte or Portland, which are in bold.

AL East
Red Sox
Yankees
Orioles
Tigers

AL North
White Sox
Brewers
Twins
Indians

AL South
Royals
Rangers
Rays
Austin, TX or Charlotte, NC


AL West
Athletics
Mariners
Angels
Diamondbacks


NL East
Phillies
Nats
Braves
Mets

NL North
Cubs
Cards
Reds
Blue Jays

NL South
Astros
Marlins
Pirates
Rockies/Austin, TX

NL West
Giants
Dodgers
Padres
Portland, OR/Rockies

Each division winner goes to the playoffs with the same playoff format as exists today.

Bucky F. Dent
03-05-2008, 07:06 AM
If you were the Commissioner of baseball and could realign the divisions, how would you do it?

I would contract the Marlins and D-Rays (excuse me it's rays now:rolleyes:). Neither team is doing well with fan bases, and neither team has a new stadium. You obviously cannot contract a team like the Nationals when a brand new stadium was just built for them.

I eliminated the AL Central and NL Central. To get each league to 14 teams, the Brewers were moved to the AL to replace the D-Rays. The NL of course gets to 14 by contracting the Marlins and moving the Brewers back to their proper league.

With my new alignment, each league has two divisions with seven teams each. This means that the Divisional Series is eliminated along with the Wildcard spot. The two division winners would face off in the seven game Championship series and then move on to the World Series.

My new division alignment would look like this:

AL EAST:

Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Milwaukee Brewers
New York Yankees
Toronto Blue Jays

This is an easy division to set up. I moved the Brewers to the AL as they are a true AL team. They are only in the NL as Bud Selig wanted his team to be in a league with less competition. This is the same set-up that existed prior to the 1994 realignment.

AL WEST:

Chicago White Sox
Kansas City Royals
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Minnesota Twins
Oakland Athletics
Seattle Mariners
Texas Rangers

Once again I have reverted the AL West to its pre-1994 alignment. The Sox-Twins rivalry has been preserved here.

NL EAST:

Atlanta Braves
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburg Pirates
Washington Nationals

I know the Braves were in the West under the pre-94 alignment, but it just makes sense for them to be an east team. I moved the Cards to the West. The only people who would complain about that one are Flub fans.

NL WEST:

Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
Houston Astros
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants
St. Louis Cardinals

My version of the NL West just makes sense. Each of these teams is west of the Mississippi. You could make a case that the Cardinals will be doing a lot of flying, but the seventh team in this division would be dealing with that problem no matter who it was and the Cards are still the closest to California. Besides, the Braves did it for almost 25 years and they were further than St. Louis.


As for the regular season, the 162 games would go like this:

Each team would play its division rivals 20 times each. (120 total division games)

Then each team would play 6 games against each of the 7 teams from the other division in their league. These would make up the other 42 games.

Inter-league would be done away with under my proposed set-up. Inter-league is just garbage in its current form. It creates unbalanced schedules for teams. My system provides the most balanced schedule possible.


I like the whole package from the contraction, to the realignment, to the scrapping of interleague play. You're hired!

Daver
03-05-2008, 04:25 PM
So then the Championship match up would be setup about two weeks before the end of the season and there would be at least 20 teams playing meaningless games from July-on.

Then you have 20 teams that know they need a better team.

santo=dorf
03-05-2008, 05:05 PM
Then you have 20 teams that know they need a better team.
I'm surprised you didn't suggest contracting them. How exactly will teams improve themselves if they are only drawing <10,000 for a third of the season. Why would any Devil Rays, Royals, Pirates, National, or Rangers fan committ to buying any package of season tickets if they knew the only way to see any post season action would be to have the best record in the league.

Your proposal would destroy the MLB as the union would refuse to allow contractions and owners wouldn't be able to afford to pay for teams because of ****ty attendance numbers. The players would have to take a pay cut. That's not happening either.

munchman33
03-05-2008, 05:19 PM
I still see no reason to award also rans with a chance to get lucky in the post season by having a wildcard, you should have to actually win something to play in October.

But I would vastly prefer to get rid of the entire division mess as well as the so-called playoffs.


I know! Skip the regular season entirely. Just start the playoffs from day one. Pick matchups out of a hat. Last team standing is crowned.

Daver
03-05-2008, 05:33 PM
I'm surprised you didn't suggest contracting them. How exactly will teams improve themselves if they are only drawing <10,000 for a third of the season. Why would any Devil Rays, Royals, Pirates, National, or Rangers fan committ to buying any package of season tickets if they knew the only way to see any post season action would be to have the best record in the league.

Your proposal would destroy the MLB as the union would refuse to allow contractions and owners wouldn't be able to afford to pay for teams because of ****ty attendance numbers. The players would have to take a pay cut. That's not happening either.

Contract?

Why?

Let MLB figure it out, they are the ones that chose to pay their debt to the MLBPA by using the cash raised from franchise fees to expand, they made this mess, let them clean it up.

captainclutch24
03-05-2008, 06:01 PM
I'm surprised you didn't suggest contracting them. How exactly will teams improve themselves if they are only drawing <10,000 for a third of the season. Why would any Devil Rays, Royals, Pirates, National, or Rangers fan committ to buying any package of season tickets if they knew the only way to see any post season action would be to have the best record in the league.

Your proposal would destroy the MLB as the union would refuse to allow contractions and owners wouldn't be able to afford to pay for teams because of ****ty attendance numbers. The players would have to take a pay cut. That's not happening either.

You are correct. Davers idea would destroy baseball. Having the top two teams play each other is just plain old dumb. Small market teams would be forced to contract, as they would be unable to compete with the big spending teams who would pay insane contracts to get the top talent in the league so they would have a shot at a world series title. It would be Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Braves, Dodgers, and Angels competiting year after year for the World Championships because those teams have the fan bases and owners that can deliver those kind of payrolls.

Daver
03-05-2008, 06:16 PM
You are correct. Davers idea would destroy baseball. Having the top two teams play each other is just plain old dumb. Small market teams would be forced to contract, as they would be unable to compete with the big spending teams who would pay insane contracts to get the top talent in the league so they would have a shot at a world series title. It would be Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Braves, Dodgers, and Angels competiting year after year for the World Championships because those teams have the fan bases and owners that can deliver those kind of payrolls.

What idea?

Proposing that MLB go back to the system that worked just fine for 70 or so years?

sox1970
03-05-2008, 06:23 PM
156 Game Schedule.
Shorten the season by a week.
Best of 7 in the first round.

No divisions.
No interleague.

AL: 12 games against each team.
NL: 11 games vs. 6 teams; 10 games vs. 9 teams

Top 4 in each league make the playoffs.

santo=dorf
03-05-2008, 06:52 PM
What idea?

Proposing that MLB go back to the system that worked just fine for 70 or so years?
I didn't realize the MLB had 30 teams, a payroll difference between the biggest spender and the cheapest of more than $200 million, the same ratings, the same television contracts, the same CBA contract, same attendance figures, and same overall revenue from 70 years ago.

Let's raise the mounds, get rid of helmets and push the fences back another 100 feet because apparently that "worked" too 70 years ago.

People complain about how the Marlins operate their organization by trading expensive players to bigger market and playing in front of crowds in the hundreds (remember that game against the Nats?) Just imagine if 2/3's of the league operator like the Marlins. How boring would that be? Only 1 of the top 5 big spenders would play any meaningful baseball as well.

Having the best regular season record in baseball doesn't necessarily mean you were clear-cut the best in the league either.

Frater Perdurabo
03-05-2008, 06:54 PM
I didn't realize the MLB had 30 teams, a payroll difference between the biggest spender and the cheapest of more than $200 million, the same ratings, the same television contracts, the same CBA contract, same attendance figures, and same overall revenue of the MLB haven't changed from the MLB 70 years ago.

Let's raise the mounds, get rid of helmets and push the fences back another 100 feet because apparently that "worked" too 70 years ago.

Raising the mound would help offset the dilution of pitching due to expansion.

doublem23
03-05-2008, 07:05 PM
Having the best regular season record in baseball doesn't necessarily mean you were clear-cut the best in the league either.

That's thanks to our friend, the unbalanced schedule. If you can't determine the 2 best teams in the league after 162 games, how will more play-off games help?

P.S., I am in favor of returning to 2 leagues and having just the ALCS, NLCS, and World Series.

Daver
03-05-2008, 07:10 PM
Having the best regular season record in baseball doesn't necessarily mean you were clear-cut the best in the league either.

Yes, actually it does.

santo=dorf
03-05-2008, 07:26 PM
Yes, actually it does.
Right now and/or back then?

Let's go back to 154 game schedule. 14 teams in the AL. That's 11 games with each opponent. I'm guessing we don't want to make this like the NHL or NBA and keep the series so it would be two 4 game series and 1 three game series.

A baseball team can be completely different before and after the trade deadline with the sucky teams trading away their stars for future promises and the contending teams adding more firepower to their rotation and/or lineups.

So a team that has to play more games against fire sale teams after the tade deadline is at a huge advantage and the same thing applies with teams that have a September scheduled filled with teams playing guys on the 40 man.

There is just no possible way to have a perfectly "balanced" schedules.

Why not just have a roto league and rank the teams based on the total number of runs they score and allow? That'd be just as entertaining. :rolleyes:

Daver
03-05-2008, 07:41 PM
Right now and/or back then?

Let's go back to 154 game schedule. 14 teams in the AL. That's 11 games with each opponent. I'm guessing we don't want to make this like the NHL or NBA and keep the series so it would be two 4 game series and 1 three game series.

A baseball team can be completely different before and after the trade deadline with the sucky teams trading away their stars for future promises and the contending teams adding more firepower to their rotation and/or lineups.

So a team that has to play more games against fire sale teams after the tade deadline is at a huge advantage and the same thing applies with teams that have a September scheduled filled with teams playing guys on the 40 man.

There is just no possible way to have a perfectly "balanced" schedules.

Why not just have a roto league and rank the teams based on the total number of runs they score and allow? That'd be just as entertaining. :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter, every team is playing under the same conditions.

Creating playoff spots for teams that didn't win a damn thing in the regular season is nothing more than rewarding incompetence.

Brian26
03-05-2008, 08:08 PM
Creating playoff spots for teams that didn't win a damn thing in the regular season is nothing more than rewarding incompetence.

It is also about selling tickets, creating revenue and generating excitment by adding importance to September games that would otherwise be meaningless.

getonbckthr
03-05-2008, 08:18 PM
It's harder to win the Wild Card than it is to win the division.

Daver
03-05-2008, 08:45 PM
It is also about selling tickets, creating revenue and generating excitment by adding importance to September games that would otherwise be meaningless.

I already addressed this, MLB has to sell this watered down product that they are guilty of creating, whether it is good or bad for the game.

ComiskeyBrewer
03-05-2008, 10:37 PM
If you want to do an expansion, then I think the next team should be placed in London. We will call them the London Kings and in 2026 Buck Bokai will break DiMaggio's hit streak record.:redneck

(lets see how many catch the reference)

DS9, FTW

Nellie_Fox
03-05-2008, 11:22 PM
Let's raise the mounds and push the fences back another 100 feet because apparently that "worked" too 70 years ago.Sounds good to me.

The mounds were lowered because pitching was dominating. That is no longer the case, and hasn't been for a long time. Raise 'em back up.

I'd love to see a huge park again. 365 down the lines, 440 or more to straight-away center. Think you'd be able to interest some free-agent pitchers?

FedEx227
03-05-2008, 11:54 PM
I already addressed this, MLB has to sell this watered down product that they are guilty of creating, whether it is good or bad for the game.

Please do explain how creating 4-5 new markets for September baseball that otherwise would be completely worthless is bad for baseball?

It's a business people. It's really not that hard to understand. It worked 70 years ago, it won't today.

Successful baseball business is creating as many markets for September as possible. The Rockies were going through a terrible string of attendance before this past year. Ditto for the Marlins of 2003. Having many teams in it at the end is great for baseball business. While it may not be exactly what baseball purists want, too bad... it's a business.

I'm certainly not going to stop watching baseball because they have a Wild-Card, that's just stupid.

Nellie_Fox
03-06-2008, 12:21 AM
Successful baseball business is creating as many markets for September as possible. The Rockies were going through a terrible string of attendance before this past year. Ditto for the Marlins of 2003. Having many teams in it at the end is great for baseball business. While it may not be exactly what baseball purists want, too bad... it's a business. Then let everybody in. Just seed all the teams into a playoff, and all the cities can have great attendance.

I'm certainly not going to stop watching baseball because they have a Wild-Card, that's just stupid.I hate the wild card, but I haven't stopped watching. That doesn't mean someone can't express a preference for eliminating it.

FedEx227
03-06-2008, 12:50 AM
Then let everybody in. Just seed all the teams into a playoff, and all the cities can have great attendance.

Yup, because that's exactly what I meant.

3-4 teams in Wild Card and divisional races turned into 25 other teams... funny how that happened.

doublem23
03-06-2008, 01:05 AM
Yup, because that's exactly what I meant.

3-4 teams in Wild Card and divisional races turned into 25 other teams... funny how that happened.

You're missing the point... If you're going to water the sport down for "business" were do you stop? If an 8-team play-off is good for business, then surely a 32-team tournament would even be better, right?

You can make the argument until your blue in the face, but there comes a time when you have to choose between purity of the game and the bottom line. I don't think any of us are suggesting that scaling back the post-season would be good for business, nor are we suggesting the owners would ever willingly give up that revenue. You just have to decide were you stand. What the hell is the point of playing a grueling 162-game marathon of a season, if you're just going to reward prizes to a team that's pretty much mediocre the whole season then catches fire (*cough*2007 Colorado Rockies)? Or one that barely won more games than they lost ('06 Cardinals)? Where do you stand?

:tool
I know what I'd pick!

You really want to be on the same side of the fence as him?

santo=dorf
03-06-2008, 02:15 AM
You're missing the point... If you're going to water the sport down for "business" were do you stop? If an 8-team play-off is good for business, then surely a 32-team tournament would even be better, right?
Who is using that logic? There's just a right amount to the # of playoff teams. Too few and there's a ton of meaningless games. Too many and there's a ton of meaningless games. MLB should do their best to find an equilbrium point. I like the 4 team structure. Much better than the NBA and NHL, and a little better than the NFL although their game schedule is completely different so it's hard to make a comparison.

What the hell is the point of playing a grueling 162-game marathon of a season, if you're just going to reward prizes to a team that's pretty much mediocre the whole season then catches fire (*cough*2007 Colorado Rockies)? Or one that barely won more games than they lost ('06 Cardinals)?

I am willing to accept a crap team making the playoffs and winning over 96+ win teams sitting at home. If they really were such a bad team, how could they possible get hot against all the top teams in October? Great teams not making the playoffs occurred much more frequently than "lucky" teams playing in October.

Another event I thought about in between posts as well. According to Daver, Wild Card teams are undeserving compared to the division winners. How was the more deserving WS winner? The 2006 Cards (83-79,) or the 2002 Angels (99-63, same record as our 2005 Sox?)

People including Daver laugh at Oakland and Beane asking "what have they ever won?" Yet using his logic Oakland was probably the most deserving team in 2002 considering their division's second place team had 99 wins and their division's third place team had 93! They finished 1/2 game behind the Yankees, who had a game rained out. So how would that have been settled under the old rules? I imagine the Yankees would be forced to play a final game against the D-Rays with a loss equaling a 1 game playoff and a win equaling a world series berth. So one game against a scrub team could determine a pennant for one team and an early tee time for a 103 game winner. Wow, that sure is pure. It'd be the only way the D-Rays would play a meaningful game that late in the season.

If teams got off to a bad start there would be zero incentive for them to try and continue to compete which would lead to dipping attendance figures to the point where teams would lose money. Tell me, why would any team 10 games under .500 after April bother to try and jump 13 teams when they could get the top pick in the draft?

Should we bring back the negro leagues to increase the level of purity of the game as well? :rolleyes:

The MLB already has one problem with the Florida Marlins. They're trying to help them get a new stadium and give them money from big spending teams, but they just pocket it. Just imagine if we had 15-20 franchises acting like Loria. There would be about 4 contenders in each league before the start of the season, and the other owners would just look forward to receiving their cap exceeding money and making a short profit. Eventually the crowds will catch on and stop going to the games losing a ton of revenue. Why would any network sign a deal for hundreds of millions of dollars to broadcast games if they knew there was an 85% chance the game would mean absolutely nothing? FOX and TBS would only care for the April games. Look at how ESPN/ABC and before that, FOX dumped the NHL. Do you think they really want to shed out hundreds of millions of dollars to show an 8th place team versus a 6th place team in the middle of August?

Beautox
03-06-2008, 05:58 AM
I'm all for getting rid of interleague play, but you can't break up the Cubs and Cardinals. It's the National League's premier rivalry and probably the 2nd most intense intraleague rivalry in baseball, after Yankees-Sawx.

Are you Serious?

What about LA and San Fran? thats a heated rivalry with passion and angst going all the way back to NY.

doublem23
03-06-2008, 07:21 AM
Are you Serious?

What about LA and San Fran? thats a heated rivalry with passion and angst going all the way back to NY.

:rolleyes:

OK, so the Cubs-Cardinals is only the 3rd most heated rivalry in baseball.

kraut83
03-06-2008, 08:15 AM
156 Game Schedule.
Shorten the season by a week.
Best of 7 in the first round.

No divisions.
No interleague.

AL: 12 games against each team.
NL: 11 games vs. 6 teams; 10 games vs. 9 teams

Top 4 in each league make the playoffs.

I like this. Maybe even reduce the playoff teams to 3 in each league, and give the league champion a first round bye.

SoxWillWin
03-06-2008, 08:42 AM
no matter what sport it is... the team that is playing well at the right time IS the better team. From things I've seen in this thread you'd think the NY Giants aren't really the Super Bowl Champs because they we're "mediocre" all season.

If getting hot in the playoffs is somehow a fluke..then eliminate the playoffs, divisions, leagues...162 games..best record take all....I personally think this format would be completely boring, but then people couldn't complain about a dang Wild Card.

Also as a personal opinion, I hear reporters, analysts etc etc complaining about the best of 5 first round....ya know what I like it. If the "Mighty" Yankees can't win 3 out of 5 too bad, no matter if they were the favorite or not.

That's the best part of the playoffs, Crunch Time, if the 100 win team can't come together to roll the wild card team....too bad for them.

doublem23
03-06-2008, 09:55 AM
no matter what sport it is... the team that is playing well at the right time IS the better team. From things I've seen in this thread you'd think the NY Giants aren't really the Super Bowl Champs because they we're "mediocre" all season.

Comparing baseball to football is like comparing apples to oranges. Each NFL plays 13 of the 32 other teams in the league, so at the end of the year, it's quite possible a team that's 13-3 isn't as good as team that went 9-7. This year's Super Bowl is a prime example; the Giants played in a division that featured 3 play-off teams and the #1 seed in the conference. The Patriots bullied up 1 team that almost went 0-16, another pathetic loser, and 1 semi-decent team in the Bills.

Baseball has a 162-game season, in a perfect world, everyone would play everyone in their league an equal number of times. There, a 100-win team is better than a 90-win team; they proved it on the field. There's no need to give the 90-win team that had 9 months to prove their inferiority another chance in a total tournament of luck to add "artificial drama."

If getting hot in the playoffs is somehow a fluke..then eliminate the playoffs, divisions, leagues...162 games..best record take all....I personally think this format would be completely boring, but then people couldn't complain about a dang Wild Card.

Well, that's fine and your opinion. Our opinion is *shocking* different.

Also as a personal opinion, I hear reporters, analysts etc etc complaining about the best of 5 first round....ya know what I like it. If the "Mighty" Yankees can't win 3 out of 5 too bad, no matter if they were the favorite or not.

That's the best part of the playoffs, Crunch Time, if the 100 win team can't come together to roll the wild card team....too bad for them.

You really don't believe that an inferior team can get hot at the right time and beat a better team? :?: It's baseball! Anybody can beat anybody on any given day of the year. Even the very best teams lose 50-60 games every season. If you want to be all-inclusuve, cut the season in half and have a huge play-off. The best team would rarely win the championship, but you'd get plenty of "drama" and "clutch-time" which apparently you guys need to find the sport interesting.

doublem23
03-06-2008, 10:01 AM
The MLB already has one problem with the Florida Marlins. They're trying to help them get a new stadium and give them money from big spending teams, but they just pocket it. Just imagine if we had 15-20 franchises acting like Loria. There would be about 4 contenders in each league before the start of the season, and the other owners would just look forward to receiving their cap exceeding money and making a short profit. Eventually the crowds will catch on and stop going to the games losing a ton of revenue. Why would any network sign a deal for hundreds of millions of dollars to broadcast games if they knew there was an 85% chance the game would mean absolutely nothing? FOX and TBS would only care for the April games. Look at how ESPN/ABC and before that, FOX dumped the NHL. Do you think they really want to shed out hundreds of millions of dollars to show an 8th place team versus a 6th place team in the middle of August?

Perhaps instead of pandering to guys like Loria, maybe you should try and find some owners interested in winning? Weren't the Tigers cast off a few years ago as a team that would be perpetually stuck in rebuilding mode? Look at what happens when their management invests in talent in the front office and field. The magically get good!

I'll agree that the finances of the game need some tweaking, but don't give me this "victim" crap over Loria. Owners like him are the problem with the game.

SoxWillWin
03-06-2008, 10:10 AM
Oh I in no way think what has been posted here is "SHOCKING". I find it quite typical which is why I made a point not to single any one post out in a "my thoughts are better than yours" flame war.

My opinion just happens to be I like it the way it is. And I think you may have misread the last part of my post that you quoted. I don't recall saying a team with a worse record COULDN'T beat a team with a better one. Opposite in fact.

santo=dorf
03-06-2008, 02:32 PM
Perhaps instead of pandering to guys like Loria, maybe you should try and find some owners interested in winning? Weren't the Tigers cast off a few years ago as a team that would be perpetually stuck in rebuilding mode? Look at what happens when their management invests in talent in the front office and field. The magically get good!

I'll agree that the finances of the game need some tweaking, but don't give me this "victim" crap over Loria. Owners like him are the problem with the game.
Nice comprehension.

I'm bashing Loria and saying the 1 division in two different leagues would create 15-20 owners like him which would destroy baseball.

The 2006 Tigers didn't win their division. They were "also-rans," remember??

Daver
03-06-2008, 09:10 PM
Nice comprehension.

I'm bashing Loria and saying the 1 division in two different leagues would create 15-20 owners like him which would destroy baseball.

The 2006 Tigers didn't win their division. They were "also-rans," remember??

Who's responsible for the state the game is in now, and for what reason?

Do you even know?

MiamiSpartan
03-07-2008, 07:53 AM
I would have 12 divisions in each league.....
:redneck

spiffie
03-07-2008, 09:55 AM
The solution is relegation. You want less playoff teams? Fine. You want to make September mean something for more teams? Then make them earn their way into MLB the next year. Bottom 4 teams get sent down to AAA, top 4 AAA teams get to play in the majors next year. It works for the most watched sports league in the world after all.

doublem23
03-07-2008, 10:53 AM
The solution is relegation. You want less playoff teams? Fine. You want to make September mean something for more teams? Then make them earn their way into MLB the next year. Bottom 4 teams get sent down to AAA, top 4 AAA teams get to play in the majors next year. It works for the most watched sports league in the world after all.

Not that a system of promotion or relegation would ever be accepted here in the states, but you'd have to create a seperate, independent feeder league since that would obviously throw off teams' affiliations. Not to mention, you'd be punishing teams for having a strong farm system.

Once again, all these ideas really do is try and add an element of fake drama to cover the league's persistent problem of vast financial inequality. Find a way to fix that and you'd fix everything.

Luke
03-07-2008, 11:09 AM
Who's responsible for the state the game is in now, and for what reason?


I don't think anyone is completely blameless. Owners, players, networks, fans, the commish.

The situation would be helped tremendously though if the Commissioner was a neutral arbiter, and not essentially an owners rep.

Nellie_Fox
03-07-2008, 11:24 AM
The solution is relegation. You want less playoff teams? Fine. You want to make September mean something for more teams? Then make them earn their way into MLB the next year. Bottom 4 teams get sent down to AAA, top 4 AAA teams get to play in the majors next year. It works for the most watched sports league in the world after all.There's a little problem with ballparks. AAA teams don't have ballparks of sufficient size to support a major league franchise, and I don't see anyone expanding them to seat 35-40K just in case they become a major league city.