Re: MLB considering radical floating realignment

[Shilzzz]

6 teams from each league make the playoffs, 3 division winners, 3 wild cards. top 2 teams in each league get a first round bye. purists would complain about ruining the divisional races, but you'd still have good races to win bad divisions, races for the final wild card spot(s), and races to get the byes. it would add an extra week or so to the season, but either shorten the regular season to 154 games (unlikely, since this would decrease revenues for at least 60% of the teams) or shorten spring training a little bit.

 

Really, Truffle, if the other teams get mad at decreased revenue, tell them tough [expletive], make a better team and you'll get more money.

[Shilzzz]

If a team doesn't plan to compete in a given year, demote them to AAA. :)

 

This isn't a bad idea, either. Like how soccer works in Europe. Really, something has to be done for some of these clubs to have enough incentive for them to win. That teams rich in history like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati can meander around lost for what seems like decades is fairly telling.

 

Also, really, something has to be done about the DH. That it's in one league and not the other is really stupid. That people still wonder why the AL is so dominant amazes me.

[SouthSideRyan]

If a team doesn't plan to compete in a given year, demote them to AAA. :)

 

This isn't a bad idea, either. Like how soccer works in Europe. Really, something has to be done for some of these clubs to have enough incentive for them to win. That teams rich in history like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati can meander around lost for what seems like decades is fairly telling.

 

It's a terrible idea. The Pirates and Royals would be out of business in 5 years.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If a team doesn't plan to compete in a given year, demote them to AAA. :)

 

This isn't a bad idea, either. Like how soccer works in Europe. Really, something has to be done for some of these clubs to have enough incentive for them to win. That teams rich in history like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati can meander around lost for what seems like decades is fairly telling.

 

Also, really, something has to be done about the DH. That it's in one league and not the other is really stupid. That people still wonder why the AL is so dominant amazes me.

 

1) It's a horrible idea that makes absolutely no sense for an American pro league, where franchise value is a large part of the economy.

 

2) The AL is dominant for reasons that have nothing to do with the DH.

[Sammys Boombox]

I assume you like 8 teams because it keeps it an accomplishment to make the playoffs. I think adding 2 more, for 10 total, maintains that allure. 37.5% of NFL teams make the playoffs, while 53.3% make the NBA and NHL. MLB's 26.7% is still the most exclusive, but 33.3% would still be the most exclusive if they added 2 more wild cards. It also makes winning your division so much more important, since the 2 WC in each league would play each other for the right to face the #1 seed. This also keeps the playoff season at the same amount of time, so it's not it's own beast.

 

That is the reason. Another major reason is where they find the time to play an extra round while still keeping the TV people happy. The fact is that the extra round will take some time, at least 4 days or so added onto the postseason.

 

Although, I would argue that just because it's better than the other leagues (as in a lower percentage makes the playoffs) means that it's the best for MLB to increase it's number of playoff teams. The NBA and NHL is way too much. The NFL is perfect for the NFL (imo), but that doesn't mean that MLB should increase their number of playoff teams.

[Guest]

I think they should consider a BCS-style system.

 

At least under this the Cubs would have been in the World Series two years ago.

[17 Seconds]

every team makes the playoffs, single elimination tournament

[Schwarber Fan]

every team makes the playoffs, single elimination tournament

 

How about every team makes the playoffs and we have November madness?

 

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/images/bracket30thumb%20copy.jpg

 

???????

[Old Style]

How about every team makes the playoffs and we have November madness?

 

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/images/bracket30thumb%20copy.jpg

:rotfl:

 

 

But why do the two worst teams get a first round bye in your bracket?

[jersey cubs fan]

That is the reason. Another major reason is where they find the time to play an extra round while still keeping the TV people happy. The fact is that the extra round will take some time, at least 4 days or so added onto the postseason.

 

Although, I would argue that just because it's better than the other leagues (as in a lower percentage makes the playoffs) means that it's the best for MLB to increase it's number of playoff teams. The NBA and NHL is way too much. The NFL is perfect for the NFL (imo), but that doesn't mean that MLB should increase their number of playoff teams.

 

My plan would not add an extra round, it would add an extra game, well 2, 1 in each league. 3 division winners, 2 WC teams play each other the Tuesday after the season ends, winner goes on to face the #1 seed. The punishes WC teams for not winning their division, and greatly benefits the #1 seed by getting to a player a team that had to probably throw their best pitching in that 1 game playoff the day before. 1 game play-ins are great TV. But we only get them in the event of a tie. This opens up the chance at the playoffs to more teams, including those forced to face economically superior teams in their division. It actually makes it more "prestigious" to win your division, as only 20% of the teams earn the right to a playoff series, while the other 4 playoff teams have to play a 1game play-in to get there.

 

I think this serves several purposes, it adds emphasis on winning your division, it makes being the #1 seed meaningful, it opens up the playoffs to more teams, but also makes it tougher on you if you get in via WC. MLB has to maintain interest in as many markets as possible. As it stands, you typically only have the interest in 8 playoffs markets, and then maybe 2-3 cities that came up just short. You add two WC and suddenly maybe 14-15 cities maintain their hopes into September.

[NCCubFan]

That is the reason. Another major reason is where they find the time to play an extra round while still keeping the TV people happy. The fact is that the extra round will take some time, at least 4 days or so added onto the postseason.

 

Although, I would argue that just because it's better than the other leagues (as in a lower percentage makes the playoffs) means that it's the best for MLB to increase it's number of playoff teams. The NBA and NHL is way too much. The NFL is perfect for the NFL (imo), but that doesn't mean that MLB should increase their number of playoff teams.

 

My plan would not add an extra round, it would add an extra game, well 2, 1 in each league. 3 division winners, 2 WC teams play each other the Tuesday after the season ends, winner goes on to face the #1 seed. The punishes WC teams for not winning their division, and greatly benefits the #1 seed by getting to a player a team that had to probably throw their best pitching in that 1 game playoff the day before. 1 game play-ins are great TV. But we only get them in the event of a tie. This opens up the chance at the playoffs to more teams, including those forced to face economically superior teams in their division. It actually makes it more "prestigious" to win your division, as only 20% of the teams earn the right to a playoff series, while the other 4 playoff teams have to play a 1game play-in to get there.

 

I think this serves several purposes, it adds emphasis on winning your division, it makes being the #1 seed meaningful, it opens up the playoffs to more teams, but also makes it tougher on you if you get in via WC. MLB has to maintain interest in as many markets as possible. As it stands, you typically only have the interest in 8 playoffs markets, and then maybe 2-3 cities that came up just short. You add two WC and suddenly maybe 14-15 cities maintain their hopes into September.

In effect it would be like having 1998 (Cubs vs. Giants) every year. I like it. I'd also like to see consideration given to giving the #1 seed a super home field advantage (4 of 5 games at home), because that also distinguishes the best team in the league from the others. It would mean matching up the #1 seed against the wild card in the first round even if they're from the same division (not currently done), but I'm in favor of that anyway. Under my plan the top division winner would host games 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the wild card would host game 3.

[USSoccer]

Promotion/Relegation for American sports is a terrible idea. European soccer clubs are just that-clubs. They have long traditions and only recently have people been buying them out of prestige or investment or whatever.

 

No group of owners are ever going to approve something that would guarantee that two or three of them would see their gigantic investment completely dynamited every season.

 

And as SSR pointed out, the presence of minor league systems make pro/rel impossible.

[jersey cubs fan]

In effect it would be like having 1998 (Cubs vs. Giants) every year. I like it. I'd also like to see consideration given to giving the #1 seed a super home field advantage (4 of 5 games at home), because that also distinguishes the best team in the league from the others. It would mean matching up the #1 seed against the wild card in the first round even if they're from the same division (not currently done), but I'm in favor of that anyway. Under my plan the top division winner would host games 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the wild card would host game 3.

 

I've thought about that HF advantage, and like the idea, but the reasons I'm not pushing for it are that a big part of making the playoffs is extra playoff revenue for the home team, and fans getting to see a playoff game in their ballpark. Under that plan, if you are the 2nd WC, you will play a road game in the 1 game playoff, then two more road games before your first and only home date in the first round. It would be tough, and involve a ton of travel. Plus, forcing the WC teams to play 1 game before starting against the big boys is a pretty huge advantage for the #1 seed, who should get favorable pitching matchups and a more rested bullpen because of it. I think the WC teams have enough of an added challenge under the system without going all the way to the HFA thing. But I wouldn't necessarily object.

[NCCubFan]

In effect it would be like having 1998 (Cubs vs. Giants) every year. I like it. I'd also like to see consideration given to giving the #1 seed a super home field advantage (4 of 5 games at home), because that also distinguishes the best team in the league from the others. It would mean matching up the #1 seed against the wild card in the first round even if they're from the same division (not currently done), but I'm in favor of that anyway. Under my plan the top division winner would host games 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the wild card would host game 3.

 

I've thought about that HF advantage, and like the idea, but the reasons I'm not pushing for it are that a big part of making the playoffs is extra playoff revenue for the home team, and fans getting to see a playoff game in their ballpark. Under that plan, if you are the 2nd WC, you will play a road game in the 1 game playoff, then two more road games before your first and only home date in the first round. It would be tough, and involve a ton of travel. Plus, forcing the WC teams to play 1 game before starting against the big boys is a pretty huge advantage for the #1 seed, who should get favorable pitching matchups and a more rested bullpen because of it. I think the WC teams have enough of an added challenge under the system without going all the way to the HFA thing. But I wouldn't necessarily object.

I was thinking about it more from the perspective of giving an added incentive for having the best record, but then again they'd already have that under your plan since they'd be playing a tired team (that's assuming the division winner with the best record plays the wild card winner even if they're both from the same division). Perhaps a variation of my idea that would address the issues you raised (which are legitimate) would be for the wild card team to host game 1 and the division champion the remaining games.

[treebird]

That is the reason. Another major reason is where they find the time to play an extra round while still keeping the TV people happy. The fact is that the extra round will take some time, at least 4 days or so added onto the postseason.

 

Although, I would argue that just because it's better than the other leagues (as in a lower percentage makes the playoffs) means that it's the best for MLB to increase it's number of playoff teams. The NBA and NHL is way too much. The NFL is perfect for the NFL (imo), but that doesn't mean that MLB should increase their number of playoff teams.

 

My plan would not add an extra round, it would add an extra game, well 2, 1 in each league. 3 division winners, 2 WC teams play each other the Tuesday after the season ends, winner goes on to face the #1 seed. The punishes WC teams for not winning their division, and greatly benefits the #1 seed by getting to a player a team that had to probably throw their best pitching in that 1 game playoff the day before. 1 game play-ins are great TV. But we only get them in the event of a tie. This opens up the chance at the playoffs to more teams, including those forced to face economically superior teams in their division. It actually makes it more "prestigious" to win your division, as only 20% of the teams earn the right to a playoff series, while the other 4 playoff teams have to play a 1game play-in to get there.

 

I think this serves several purposes, it adds emphasis on winning your division, it makes being the #1 seed meaningful, it opens up the playoffs to more teams, but also makes it tougher on you if you get in via WC. MLB has to maintain interest in as many markets as possible. As it stands, you typically only have the interest in 8 playoffs markets, and then maybe 2-3 cities that came up just short. You add two WC and suddenly maybe 14-15 cities maintain their hopes into September.

 

i actually really like this a lot. we'd actually have pennant races again, and the wildcard teams that did well and advanced would be actual cinderellas or whatever. right now, so many wild cards win in the first round that it doesn't seem special at all. if you make it through this and go to the world series, you've really done something.

[shnsajax]

MLB Network just made some really good points about realignment. The floating from year to year is stupid, but getting rid of the unbalanced schedule would be great.

 

They mentioned going back to two leagues in each division and also adding two more wild card teams.

[Sammys Boombox]

Does anybody else think that this could all be a ploy of some sort? The idea is obviously not going to be implemented, so why would it ever get released, unless there was some ulterior motive? The discussion definitely points out the need of some sort of fix to the problem that is the AL East. Maybe MLB is building some sort of argument along the lines of, "We don't want to do this crazy idea, but we don't see any other way to fix the problem without the players giving in on other issues." From a selfish perspective I hope this isn't the case. I don't want a strike to occur any time in the near future (When does the current labor agreement end?), and I don't particularly care enough about what happens in the AL East to miss some or all of a MLB season.

[jersey cubs fan]

MLB Network just made some really good points about realignment. The floating from year to year is stupid, but getting rid of the unbalanced schedule would be great.

 

They mentioned going back to two leagues in each division and also adding two more wild card teams.

 

The problem with this is they went to an unbalanced schedule for a reason, to profit from rivalries that people care about. As soon as they go away from it, people are going to bitch and moan about the Cubs only playing STL 6 times a year, or whatever it would be.

 

I don't remember if this worked or not in the plan I came up with a few years ago, but if you go 3 divisions of 5 teams you can play:

 

15 games against your 4 division rivals - 60

9 games against the 10 other league teams

4 interleague series

 

Now that I think about it, that must be tweaked a bit to account for enough interleague matchups, so it would be more like 15 games against them, and then take away 3 games elsewhere.

 

Anyway, a balanced schedule will not work. A slightly less unbalanced schedule might, but east coast teams don't want to go to the west coast as often as they go to the next state. Travel times and cost are real. There hasn't been any upgrades in modern travel since they went unbalanced, and there's no reason to think they can do that now.

[jersey cubs fan]

Does anybody else think that this could all be a ploy of some sort?

 

It's being floated for a reason. I'm not sure it has anything to do with getting the players to cave on salary caps, but it's for a reason. Probably more like testing the waters to see what people think of the idea, and spur conversation about other options.

 

Also, it gets the national attention leaning more toward MLB as a whole, which is a good thing when you are preparing for Opening Day.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/09/07/playoff.format/index.html?eref=sihp

 

I think this is the first time I've seen a major national writer promote the idea I've been talking about for a while about having 1 extra WC in each league and making it a 1 game play-in game to face the #1 seed. I've stated the benefits before and Verducci essentially says the same thing. I really don't see a downside unless you are just allergic to any change at all.

 

He quotes Joe Maddon talking about it being unfair for a 162 game series coming down to 1 game, but that's a really silly stand to make when a season can already come down to one game, and going to a 5 game series isn't all that much more fair.

[ConstableRabbit]

Love the idea. It'd be a lot of fun to watch.

[SouthSideRyan]

That plan opens the playoffs to even worse teams, and continues to benefit teams in bad divisions thanks to the unbalanced schedule.

[jersey cubs fan]

That plan opens the playoffs to even worse teams, and continues to benefit teams in bad divisions thanks to the unbalanced schedule.

Wc teams are often better than third division winner and the teams on the outside are right there. Plus, teams with best record are usually really good. They benefit

[SouthSideRyan]

That plan opens the playoffs to even worse teams, and continues to benefit teams in bad divisions thanks to the unbalanced schedule.

Wc teams are often better than third division winner and the teams on the outside are right there. Plus, teams with best record are usually really good. They benefit

 

I think you misunderstood. It's easier for a team from a crappy division to win the wild card than a team from a good division because they get to beat the Pirates and Cubs all year.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why should the Rays, the team with the 2nd best record in the majors, have to play a 1 game playoff against a team 7 games worse than them just because they have the misfortune of being in the same division as the Yankees?

 

ETA: Identical story with the Red Sox in '09