Jump to content

Perhaps a stupid question but...


Baltoravensrule

Recommended Posts

Why does the AL have 14 teams while the NL has 16? I know the Brewers switched leagues but why would they? I read a wikipedia explanation that just said its for interleague purposes... but couldnt you have all 15 in each league play interleague games at the same time. Anyways, I just don't understand why they would have that and as a result have the AL west with 4 teams and the NL central with 6. Something I never really think about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the AL have 14 teams while the NL has 16? I know the Brewers switched leagues but why would they? I read a wikipedia explanation that just said its for interleague purposes... but couldnt you have all 15 in each league play interleague games at the same time. Anyways, I just don't understand why they would have that and as a result have the AL west with 4 teams and the NL central with 6. Something I never really think about

Teams have to play somebody. Having an odd number of teams means somebody's sitting around with nobody to play. Unless you have an interleague game 6 nights per week. They didn't want an interleague game every night. They wanted interleague games to be a special deal, so they could hype it and focus on geographical rivalries and such. 'Not saying that's a good reason, it's just the actual reason. Bud pulled strings to get his Brewers moved, scheming creep that he is, because he wanted them playing the Cubbies and the Cards a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the AL have 14 teams while the NL has 16? I know the Brewers switched leagues but why would they? I read a wikipedia explanation that just said its for interleague purposes... but couldnt you have all 15 in each league play interleague games at the same time. Anyways, I just don't understand why they would have that and as a result have the AL west with 4 teams and the NL central with 6. Something I never really think about

As Shack said, an odd number of teams in a league or division means you have to play games out of league or division every day. They didn't want that.

The simple solution would be to expand to 32 teams. Solves a lot of problems when you go to four eight-team divisions, or eight four-team divisions. Eliminates the wildcard, everyone can be playing in their league or in their division at once, and with the eight division setup MLB doesn't have to lose any precious revenue because they can keep the current playoff length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple solution would be to expand to 32 teams. Solves a lot of problems when you go to four eight-team divisions, or eight four-team divisions. Eliminates the wildcard, everyone can be playing in their league or in their division at once, and with the eight division setup MLB doesn't have to lose any precious revenue because they can keep the current playoff length.

The problem with eliminating the wild card is that occasionally the second best team in the league (or even the second best team in baseball) is going to be excluded from the playoffs because they're in the same division as the best team, while several obviously inferior teams (e.g., 2006 Cards) get a shot at the post season craps shoot.

However, baseball has managed to get by with odd numbers of teams in 4 of the 6 divisions, and having at least 2 teams playing inter league games every day isn't really that much less fair than having teams play outside their division during the last month of the season instead of playing head-to-head games with the teams that they're competing against. You could set up the schedule so that no team ended up playing more than one interleague series during September.

Lots of luck, however, in convincing an NL team to switch over to the AL. Selig volunteered his own Brewers because he preferred the NL and thought there were natural rivals in the NL Central better than those in the AL Central. I'm doubting that any other team owners will want to abandon their current rivalries, but it could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with eliminating the wild card is that occasionally the second best team in the league (or even the second best team in baseball) is going to be excluded from the playoffs because they're in the same division as the best team, while several obviously inferior teams (e.g., 2006 Cards) get a shot at the post season craps shoot.

My preferred solution is to have a 32 team league with a balanced schedule. Best record is champion. My backup plan would be two 16-team leagues, balanced schedules, World Series between two teams with the best records.

Obviously with the TV and other media money flowing into the game in no small part because of playoffs that'll never, ever, ever happen. So my unpalatable-but-possibly-realistic plan is equal sized, even number of divisions. At least you have to finish first to make the playoffs, and divisional pennant races have some meaning. Obviously it's not a perfect solution, but it could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My preferred solution is to have a 32 team league with a balanced schedule. Best record is champion. My backup plan would be two 16-team leagues, balanced schedules, World Series between two teams with the best records.

Obviously with the TV and other media money flowing into the game in no small part because of playoffs that'll never, ever, ever happen. So my unpalatable-but-possibly-realistic plan is equal sized, even number of divisions. At least you have to finish first to make the playoffs, and divisional pennant races have some meaning. Obviously it's not a perfect solution, but it could happen.

You should watch the EPL. I don't think any sport but the MLS in America will ever stop a playoff system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If MLB were to expand, I'd like to put 1 team in Canada (proved that they would support a team with the Expos) and the other in Vegas.

Then put together 4 divisions in each league:

AL:

AL EAST:

Yankees

Red Sox

Blue Jays

Montreal

AL SOUTH:

Orioles

Rays

Rangers

Royals

AL Central:

White Sox

Indians

Tigers

Twins

AL West:

Mariners

Athletics

Angels

Vegas

NL:

NL East:

Mets

Phillies

Nats

Pirates

NL: South

Marlins

Braves

Astros

Reds

NL Central:

Cubs

Cards

Brewers

Rockies

NL WEST:

Padres

Giants

Dodgers

Arizona

Add (two wild card spots, top 2 in each league get byes)

Playoffs:

1st round is best of 3

2nd Round is best of 5

3rd Round is best of 7

WS is best of 7

Reduce the Schedule back to 154.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If MLB were to expand, I'd like to put 1 team in Canada (proved that they would support a team with the Expos) and the other in Vegas.

MLB didn't just burn their bridges with respect to Montreal, they bombed them back to the stone age. They ain't going back for a loooooooong time. And Vegas is a baseball market like Louisville is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB didn't just burn their bridges with respect to Montreal, they bombed them back to the stone age. They ain't going back for a loooooooong time. And Vegas is a baseball market like Louisville is.

IMO New Jersey should have a team as well as Nebraska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If MLB were to expand, I'd like to put 1 team in Canada (proved that they would support a team with the Expos) and the other in Vegas.

Then put together 4 divisions in each league:

AL:

AL EAST:

Yankees

Red Sox

Blue Jays

Montreal

AL SOUTH:

Orioles

Rays

Rangers

Royals

AL Central:

White Sox

Indians

Tigers

Twins

AL West:

Mariners

Athletics

Angels

Vegas

NL:

NL East:

Mets

Phillies

Nats

Pirates

NL: South

Marlins

Braves

Astros

Reds

NL Central:

Cubs

Cards

Brewers

Rockies

NL WEST:

Padres

Giants

Dodgers

Arizona

Add (two wild card spots, top 2 in each league get byes)

Playoffs:

1st round is best of 3

2nd Round is best of 5

3rd Round is best of 7

WS is best of 7

Reduce the Schedule back to 154.

I like how you have us in a division with the Rays, Rangers, and Royals. Strategic planning on your part? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nebraska? You do realize that Omaha is a media market significantly smaller than Scranton Wilkes-Barre, or Wichita or Roanoke-Lynchburg? It would easily be the smallest city in MLB, about half as large as Cincinnati or Milwaukee.

According to wikipedia, Omaha has 400,000 people. The Metro Area has a total of 822,549. Now that is extremely small, but I think the quality of the fans could help out. I mean the Marlins metro is the same size as the Boston Metro, but Marlins continue to have the worst attendence.

I also feel that technologies such as MLB.TV and MLB Package allow for people to watch any games they want, not just in their area. This will become a standard and more people will watch games they want to watch, not what they are forced to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nebraska? You do realize that Omaha is a media market significantly smaller than Scranton Wilkes-Barre, or Wichita or Roanoke-Lynchburg? It would easily be the smallest city in MLB, about half as large as Cincinnati or Milwaukee.

The people who get screwed by the concern for media-market-size are the good people of Buffalo. They drew over a million supporting their MiL team for cryin' out loud. Back when the O's were good all the time, they were lucky to draw much over a million, yet Buffalo did it for a bus-league team. But because of media-market-size, those folks don't have a prayer of getting a big league team...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...