Originally Posted by chisoxfanatic
I see no logic in this. It's not like it would add any travel. There would be exactly as many road games as there are now. It would just increase the variety in the schedule. I'm not sure how they do things in the NBA. But, in the NHL, they schedule road trips where they are playing teams all basically in the same region. For example, the Hawks would play all 3 Western Canadian teams, plus the California teams and Phoenix on the same road trip.
The same thing can apply to MLB. When the Sox are playing teams like the Angels and A's, they can have a 2-game series in SF, SD, and/or Chavez Ravine included in there. When they play the Yankees and O's, throw in a series with the Nats and Phillies in that road trip. It's not like teams are any more spread out in MLB than they are in any other league (NHL actually has the most spread out map of the 4 leagues), plus there are multiple games played in a city for each stop. It really can be done, and I'd fully support it. It DOES get super boring seeing little variety.
More two game series means more travel, even if the number of road games is the same. Think of it this way: If you have a road trip that's two 3-game series, you're traveling three times - once from home to the first city, once from the first city to the second city, and once back home. If you have three 2-game series, it's the same number of games, but it's four times traveling. That would add up over the course of the season. As much as it might make sense to fans, I really can't see the players going for it, and I can't see MLB caring enough to fight the players to make it happen.
Some really interesting reading is the current CBA: http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf
. You'll see that there are very specific rules about all sorts of things. Right off the bat, both sides have agreed to no more than 20 interleague games, so that would have to be changed.