It's time to expand

[Derwood]

so he's anti-wild card, but also doesn't want a scenario in which the Yankees and Red Sox can't both make the playoffs?

 

I'm pro-wild card and, I guess, anti-4 divisions per league.

 

And I don't know why you're hung up on the Yankees and Red Sox.

 

i'm not. I don't care if one of them is left out every year. Look at the year when the Braves and Giants each won over 100 games and one didn't make it to the playoffs.

 

And those are the specific instances I'm talking about.

 

You're making it seem like I specifically want the Yankees and Red Sox to make the playoffs every year which isn't the case. If those two teams are two of the best four teams in the AL, then yes they both should make the playoffs. And that goes for any two teams in the same division, not just the Yankees and the Red Sox.

 

Take this year, for example. The Brewers and Cubs seem to be two of the best four teams in the NL. If there was a 4 division format with four teams per division, one of the two would miss the playoffs. And that's not right.

 

No sport ever has the teams with the best records make the playoffs. The only way to do that is to eliminate all league/conference/division set ups and just take the top 8 records to the playoffs. It doesnt' happen, and I think it's part of the charm of pro sports. Your ability to make the playoffs is never entirely in your own hands

[moochpuppy]

The easier thing to do would be to move Milwaukee to the AL Central and Kansas City to the AL West.

[Derwood]

The easier thing to do would be to move Milwaukee to the AL Central and Kansas City to the AL West.

 

again, you can't have odd numbered teams in each league without an interleague series being played all the time

[jersey cubs fan]

The easier thing to do would be to move Milwaukee to the AL Central and Kansas City to the AL West.

 

again, you can't have odd numbered teams in each league without an interleague series being played all the time

 

And there's no good reason why you couldn't do that.

[Derwood]

The easier thing to do would be to move Milwaukee to the AL Central and Kansas City to the AL West.

 

again, you can't have odd numbered teams in each league without an interleague series being played all the time

 

And there's no good reason why you couldn't do that.

 

i haven't done the math, so I don't know if that would mean more interleague series or not. I certainly have no problem spreading it out rather than having this weird chunk of the schedule that's suddenly all interleague (minus the one NL series).

[jersey cubs fan]

The easier thing to do would be to move Milwaukee to the AL Central and Kansas City to the AL West.

 

again, you can't have odd numbered teams in each league without an interleague series being played all the time

 

And there's no good reason why you couldn't do that.

 

i haven't done the math, so I don't know if that would mean more interleague series or not. I certainly have no problem spreading it out rather than having this weird chunk of the schedule that's suddenly all interleague (minus the one NL series).

 

If each team played 4 interleague series per year, you could.

[Derwood]

The easier thing to do would be to move Milwaukee to the AL Central and Kansas City to the AL West.

 

again, you can't have odd numbered teams in each league without an interleague series being played all the time

 

And there's no good reason why you couldn't do that.

 

i haven't done the math, so I don't know if that would mean more interleague series or not. I certainly have no problem spreading it out rather than having this weird chunk of the schedule that's suddenly all interleague (minus the one NL series).

 

If each team played 4 interleague series per year, you could.

 

that sounds about right. That's 30 weeks worth of interleague series. The season is only 24 or 25 weeks, right?

[MasterBlaster]

Spreading interleague games throughout the year like that would make it seem like it wasn't even there, which would be great.

[erik316wttn]

Spreading interleague games throughout the year like that would make it seem like it wasn't even there, which would be great.

 

I, for one, love interleague play, and I'm torn on if I'd keep the current format, or if I'd spread it throughout the year.

 

If you have it all year, it really ceases to be special and those games become just like the others. I for one love seeing teams and players that I wouldn't usually see playing the Cubs.

[fromthestretch]

My apologies if someone has already posted this, but how many interleague games would teams be forced to play if there were 15 teams per league? If it's a decent amount, then this raises the question of what to do with the DH.

[jersey cubs fan]

My apologies if someone has already posted this, but how many interleague games would teams be forced to play if there were 15 teams per league? If it's a decent amount, then this raises the question of what to do with the DH.

 

Basically 4 series each, or 12 games, not that big of a deal.

[NCCubFan]

My apologies if someone has already posted this, but how many interleague games would teams be forced to play if there were 15 teams per league? If it's a decent amount, then this raises the question of what to do with the DH.

 

Basically 4 series each, or 12 games, not that big of a deal.

In other words, no more than at present, just spread out more.

 

The DH wouldn't really be an issue; it would just continue as present (DH in AL parks, pitchers bat in NL).

[bukie]

How do to scheduling with 15 teams in each league (3 5-team divisions):

 

16 games against each divisional foe (16x4 = 64)

8 games against each intradivisional foe (8*10 = 80)

3 games each against six interleague foes, one entire division + an extra series against a rival (so every 3 years, you play the rival two series) (3*6 = 18)

 

Then, instead of playing interleague games all at the same time, they simply get spread out through the year. You can even hold the "rivalry" series all at the same time if you like, and still have enough interleague series left over to cover the rest of the year.

[jersey cubs fan]

How do to scheduling with 15 teams in each league (3 5-team divisions):

 

16 games against each divisional foe (16x4 = 64)

8 games against each intradivisional foe (8*10 = 80)

3 games each against six interleague foes, one entire division + an extra series against a rival (so every 3 years, you play the rival two series) (3*6 = 18)

 

Then, instead of playing interleague games all at the same time, they simply get spread out through the year. You can even hold the "rivalry" series all at the same time if you like, and still have enough interleague series left over to cover the rest of the year.

 

No need to play 18 interleague, and I really think they should limit the "rival" series to one each year, switching parks every season.

[bukie]

How do to scheduling with 15 teams in each league (3 5-team divisions):

 

16 games against each divisional foe (16x4 = 64)

8 games against each intradivisional foe (8*10 = 80)

3 games each against six interleague foes, one entire division + an extra series against a rival (so every 3 years, you play the rival two series) (3*6 = 18)

 

Then, instead of playing interleague games all at the same time, they simply get spread out through the year. You can even hold the "rivalry" series all at the same time if you like, and still have enough interleague series left over to cover the rest of the year.

 

No need to play 18 interleague, and I really think they should limit the "rival" series to one each year, switching parks every season.

 

18 is no more than anyone played this year, and allows each team to play each other team once every 3 years, while still allowing for a "rivalry" series each year. It would be 4 series every 3 years with the rival, which is less than it has been (which really has been excessive), allowing each team two home series with the rival every 3 years.

 

This would also completely balance out the schedule per division aside from 3 games. Which, out of 162, is pretty good.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think they should get rid of divisions. 4 best teams make the playoffs, period.

 

I agree. 16 teams in the NL and 16 teams and play everyone the same amount of times and the best 4 go, and they've earned the right to be one of the best 4 because they all played the same schedule.

 

I don't like the 4 team division because many times you either have no race or some crappy under 500 team is going to the playoffs.

 

Plus, expansion gives more Americans jobs!

[fromthestretch]

My apologies if someone has already posted this, but how many interleague games would teams be forced to play if there were 15 teams per league? If it's a decent amount, then this raises the question of what to do with the DH.

 

Basically 4 series each, or 12 games, not that big of a deal.

In other words, no more than at present, just spread out more.

 

The DH wouldn't really be an issue; it would just continue as present (DH in AL parks, pitchers bat in NL).

 

Yeah, that's not bad. If it's only 12 games, there's no real issue. I'd be more concerned if it was something like 30-40 games, but 12-15 wouldn't be an issue.

[Garage Party]

Abolishing divisions is an interesting proposition. I think we should just go back to NL West and NL East, eight and eight in this case, and the top two teams from each division play in the NLDSs, which I suppose could be extended to 7 so that Cardinals-Cubs has the appropriate gravity, even if it's round 1. Also, check this out. You can align the NL East to basically be the pre-1958 National League:

Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, New York, Cincinnati, Brooklyn

Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, New York, Cincinnati, Atlanta

 

The Brewers take the place of the Dodgers, the Mets take the place of the Giants, and the Braves change towns. Of course, the problem is that the Marlins and Nationals get stuck in the NL West, but the Reds and Braves were able to survive, and those teams actually have more than 500 fans! Population distribution makes it so that you'll never get it perfect, but I like my idea.

[Derwood]

I vote no to any "balanced" schedule idea. I think you should heavily play your own division

[jersey cubs fan]

Abolishing divisions is an interesting proposition. I think we should just go back to NL West and NL East, eight and eight in this case, and the top two teams from each division play in the NLDSs, which I suppose could be extended to 7 so that Cardinals-Cubs has the appropriate gravity, even if it's round 1. Also, check this out. You can align the NL East to basically be the pre-1958 National League:

Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, New York, Cincinnati, Brooklyn

Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, New York, Cincinnati, Atlanta

 

The Brewers take the place of the Dodgers, the Mets take the place of the Giants, and the Braves change towns. Of course, the problem is that the Marlins and Nationals get stuck in the NL West, but the Reds and Braves were able to survive, and those teams actually have more than 500 fans! Population distribution makes it so that you'll never get it perfect, but I like my idea.

 

If/when they ever go to 32 teams, they should do this:

 

Two 8 team divisions in each league. The winners of each division go on to the playoffs, and the 4 teams with the next best records go as well. These WC teams play a 1 game playoff to move onto the NLDS. The 2 teams with the best records host the 2 teams with the worst records 2 days after the season ends (leaving the day after season for tiebreaker scenarios). Following those two one and done games (actually, 4 across MLB - and imagine the ratings...) the winners move on to face the division winners in the NLDS in a best of 5, and the rest stays the same.

 

What this does is significantly increase the value of winning your division, because nobody wants to play a 1 and done and because the division winners actually get to align their rotation as needed, while the wild card teams are forced to go balls out with all hands on deck just to get the chance to face those winners.

 

This further increases the number of teams (and therefore fans) still in the hunt late in the season, increases the value of having the best record, increases interest early in the playoffs, and makes it a much greater challenge, and thus far greater accomplishment, to actually be the WC team that moves onto the World Series.

[Garage Party]

I don't like a 162-game season coming down to a 1-game playoff unless it absolutely has to.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't like a 162-game season coming down to a 1-game playoff unless it absolutely has to.

 

It doesn't come down to a 1-game playoff. It only does if you fail to win your division.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't like the possibility of the 6th best team in a league winning the world series.

[apete6]

I vote no to any "balanced" schedule idea. I think you should heavily play your own division

 

I would agree if there was no wild card. The Rangers get to play the putrid A's and Mariners while the Red Sox have to play the Yankees and the not so putrid Blue Jays and Orioles more. If the Rangers somehow luck into the wild card, you can bet the Yank-mes and Red Sox will complain to high heaven about this.

[Garage Party]

Okay, how about this:

NL West: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Colorado, Miami, Washington, Houston, Arizona

NL East: New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Milwaukee

AL West: Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Kansas City, Texas, Minnesota, Chicago, expansion

AL East: New York, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Detroit, Cleveland, expansion

Cleveland or Chicago can flip to the other division depending on where the expansions go.

84 divisional games (12 x 7)

64 opposite division games (8 x 8)

14 interleague games (6 with rival, 4 at home, 4 away against two other teams)