Getting rid of divisions is wrong.

Move the Rockies to the A.L. West and Houston to the N.L. West.

Done.

Plus cut back on interleague play by at least 1 series per year. Mets at Yanks in 2011 then Yanks at Mets in 2012. Repeat.

And allowing 2 more teams into the playoffs is wrong unless it’s a 1-game play-in. Seriously, do we want 10 out of 30 teams making the cut? The playoffs shouldn’t be for such putrid mediocrity.

I like the fact that I see my team playing its division rivals more often than other teams. I’m not convinced it should be quite as many games as a lot of teams play right now, but I think 14 or 15 makes sense. Rivalries are important, and I don’t think they’d be as good with a “balanced schedule.”

Yes, baseball used to get by without divisions … BUT … back then they were still playing every team in their league 18-22 games per year! The rivalries exist because of repeated competition … just playing 10 or 11 games per year against a team doesn’t do a lot to sustain a rivalry.

While I’m not a big fan of interleague play, I think it should continue only for the sake of balancing the leagues – getting 15 teams in each league, 5 teams per division. Having one division with 4 teams and another with 6 makes no sense at all.

I appreciate the effort that Ron put into is plan, but I don’t think it’s the right plan. I think having divisions make sense.

Alternate title:

“Another Good Scheme To Make Sure 3 AL East Teams Reach The Playoffs Each Year”

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2008/04/real_fans_love.php

I have no argument with those who simply prefer the game without it. That is simply a matter of taste. But when they try to argue that it is bad to have the DH, as if there is a rational argument against it, they are dead wrong.

The first and third points can also be solved, I think. Although, I think the first point is overstated, especially for teams not on the East Coast.

Or not. Because this is a meaningless term.

Currrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I have no idea where the MLB would expand, but using two of the more common possibilities, Portland and Charlotte, I came up with the following divisions:

NL East – Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Nationals
NL North – Cubs, Brewers, Reds, Cardinals
NL South – Marlins, Braves, Astros, Rockies
NL West – Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Diamondbacks

AL East – Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Blue Jays
AL North – Indians, White Sox, Twins, Tigers
AL South – Royals, Rangers, Rays, Charlotte
AL West – Mariners, Angels, A’s, Portland

The concepts of North, South, and East are a bit muddled, but you get the idea. And I haven’t broken up any major rivalries.

I think this is more realistic than anything else, if only because expansion brings in a ton of money to MLB and I think interleague play every day would be a non-starter, seems like it would have been done already.

As Loren pointed out teams may fall out of contention sooner, which might effect attendance, but if you look where things stand currently, only the Twins and Astros would be sellers. Trading might get a little more interesting, no fear of trading within your division. I see no DH problem, just leave it as it is. If there is one area I would like to see tweeked, is the multiple even series match-ups. Three game series certainly are preferable, even at the expense of playing one less rivalry game.

There will be financial concerns, but expanded play-offs, more games against top teams could balance out the loss due to the double-headers. Great fodder for thought.

Move Colorado to AL West and Houston back to NL West to create 3 5-team divisions in each league

Schedule as follows:

18 game (9H/9A) vs teams in your division – 72 games
6 games (3 H, 3 A) vs other 10 teams in your league – 60 games
6 interleague games (3H/3A) vs teams in one division in other league (play each division every three years) – 30 games

Keep 162 game schedule and keep the playoffs the way they are.

Each team within its division plays the exact schedule.

Every team gets a home series with every interleague team in their park at least every three years.

Interleague play would have to happen throughout the year – some might find that a negative (I would not)

I can’t imagine scheduling a season under this format would be any worse than what we have now.

1. One of Selig’s biggest accomplishments has been a schedule and divisional alignment that has almost all teams (sorry, Rangers) playing the bulk of their road games in their home time zones. That means teams can charge more for their local broadcast rights. All forms of “balanced” schedules mess this up and are therefore nonstarters.

2. Fans and owners have tremendous loyalties to the “American” and “National” League brands, even though the two leagues haven’t actually existed as separate organizations for the past 15 years. You’re not going to tell the Reds or Giants or Mets that they are leaving the NL, just as the Royals, Tigers and Yankees are never going to leave the AL. It’s a huge branding issue. Therefore, NBA style realignment is a nonstarter.

3. The schedule can’t work easily unless the number of games that teams play against each opponent is divisible by 6, allowing for home and road series of 3 games each. MLB squeezes in 2 game and 4 game series throughout the year, but for all sorts of reasons those need to be the exception, not the rule. Formats that require 9 or 10 or 11 games against each opponent on a regular basis are therefore also nonstarters.

At worst one or both of the wild card teams may have a better record than one or two of the division leaders, but that could be solved with playoff seeding. And maybe a team gets shafted out of the playoffs because a team takes its division with a really mediocre record, but that’s unlikely. (I don’t have the time to run the numbers. It would be easy enough to see how this would have played out over the last 20 years though.)

that right now…… I’ll have to read it a couple more times I guess.

In 2001, the Mariners won 116 games and the Rangers finished dead last in the division. 2010 saw the exact opposite.