Rob Manfred: Fours work better than Fives for scheduling

[DrungoHazewood]

Somehow I missed this thread yesterday...

I hate the idea of 4-team divisions. The more divisions the more likely you have unbalanced situations where one division has three very good teams and one has none. I also have no interest in playing the Nats and Miami 25 times a year.

If it were up to me I'd split into maybe four geographically aligned leagues with little or no interleague play and single 8- or 10-team divisions. While I dislike very small divisions I think very large leagues also get unwieldy. As far as I know North American leagues are the only major professional sports leagues as large as 30.

Interleague is already a mess trying to make a schedule. Has to be unbalanced with crazy travel. Scrap it and go regional, with no games more than one time zone away.

Expansion is good, but they need to start with some revenue sharing/dividing. Expansion into NYC, Boston, maybe Philly, Texas almost a necessity. Effects will be very long term.

Current teams will push back hard for fear of cutting into revenues. Assume most of this will never happen. MLB is mostly fine with Austin, Portland, Vegas, etc rooting for teams hundreds or thousands of miles away.

[ExileAngelos]

Somehow I missed this thread yesterday...

I hate the idea of 4-team divisions. The more divisions the more likely you have unbalanced situations where one division has three very good teams and one has none. I also have no interest in playing the Nats and Miami 25 times a year.

If it were up to me I'd split into maybe four geographically aligned leagues with little or no interleague play and single 8- or 10-team divisions. While I dislike very small divisions I think very large leagues also get unwieldy. As far as I know North American leagues are the only major professional sports leagues as large as 30.

Interleague is already a mess trying to make a schedule. Has to be unbalanced with crazy travel. Scrap it and go regional, with no games more than one time zone away.

Expansion is good, but they need to start with some revenue sharing/dividing. Expansion into NYC, Boston, maybe Philly, Texas almost a necessity. Effects will be very long term.

Current teams will push back hard for fear of cutting into revenues. Assume most of this will never happen. MLB is mostly fine with Austin, Portland, Vegas, etc rooting for teams hundreds or thousands of miles away.

I completely agree with you here. Like I said earlier, it's a 162 season not 16 like the NFL or even 82 like the NBA. Manfred is going to look pretty silly when a 95 win team is left out and a .500 team makes the playoffs, which WILL happen eventually.

[ExileAngelos]

18 actually since we're talking about 1961 here.

My original post wasn't really directed at you, more to the notion that expansion is something that's needed right now. Any scheme to do away with the two leagues and further fragment what has already evolved would be a huge mistake IMO. I would much prefer simplifying things to no more than two divisions in each league.

My apologies. I thought there were only 16 teams all the way up until division play! Thanks for the history lesson haha. I also agree with the rest of your post too.

[DrungoHazewood]

I am apparently in the minority here but I like baseball at 30 teams. I am truly taken aback at the comments in this discussion and the complete disregard for the history of this great game.

Do away with the American and National League? The Great Lakes Division? Scramble all would be 32 teams based on geography alone without regard for rivalries?

I think 4 team divisions work for the NFL but I don't think it will be good for baseball. Remember this is a 162 game schedule not 16. System now is good. Earn your division and beat out 4 other teams or have a shot at the Wild Card where you get a one game crack at it.

I think there is great value in the history of the two leagues and teams that have been around for many generations. But that needs to be balanced against the fact that many people cannot go to a MLB game (read: game that actually matters) without hopping into an airplane. And practical concerns like travel and schedules.

What would have been better in retrospect was the PCL becoming a major league in the 50s. Then you'd have three leagues established over 100 years ago with all that accumulated history and tradition. Far less travel. More manageable league sizes. Maybe some of the benefits of competition. But MLB always has to control everything, so we have to deal with our imperfect reality.

[Beef Supreme]

Makes sense. Expand to 32 teams. 8 four team divisions.

It works well in the NFL.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd prefer to see four divisions of eight teams. Four wildcards per league, balanced schedule intraleague.

Who cares about the NFL. it is a terrible idea for MLB to model themselves after that league. The schedule and way playoff team have been decided has sucked since they adopted the NFL's model of three teams with one, then two wildcard(s).

[OFFNY]

Somehow I missed this thread yesterday...

I hate the idea of 4-team divisions. The more divisions the more likely you have unbalanced situations where one division has three very good teams and one has none. I also have no interest in playing the Nats and Miami 25 times a year.

If it were up to me I'd split into maybe four geographically aligned leagues with little or no interleague play and single 8- or 10-team divisions. While I dislike very small divisions I think very large leagues also get unwieldy. As far as I know North American leagues are the only major professional sports leagues as large as 30.

Interleague is already a mess trying to make a schedule. Has to be unbalanced with crazy travel. Scrap it and go regional, with no games more than one time zone away.

Expansion is good, but they need to start with some revenue sharing/dividing. Expansion into NYC, Boston, maybe Philly, Texas almost a necessity. Effects will be very long term.

Current teams will push back hard for fear of cutting into revenues. Assume most of this will never happen. MLB is mostly fine with Austin, Portland, Vegas, etc rooting for teams hundreds or thousands of miles away.

I completely agree with you here. Like I said earlier, it's a 162 season not 16 like the NFL or even 82 like the NBA. Manfred is going to look pretty silly when a 95 win team is left out and a .500 team makes the playoffs, which WILL happen eventually.

In 1967, the Colts were unbeaten going into the final game of the season, and lost ....... and did not make the playoffs because Pete Rozelle had 4 divisions of 4 teams apiece, with only the division winners making the postseason.

Cowboys ...l 9-5 OOO..l (Capital Division Champions)

Browns )ol.. 9-5 OOO..l (Century Division Champions)

Packers ,)l.. 9-4-1 OO.. (Central Division Champions)

Rams .OO.. 11-1-2 OOll (Coastal Division Champions)

Colts .OO... 11-1-2 OOll (Out of the Playoffs)

[ExileAngelos]

I actually love the one game Wild Card system and hope it sticks around if and when 32 teams becomes a reality. Places a huge premium of winning your division and validates playing 162 games to reward the best teams. And spare me with the argument that "you play 162 games and you shouldn't have it come down to one game." Those one game Wild Card participants should be thrilled to even be there. There are plenty of 100 win teams in baseball history who never got that chance.

[ExileAngelos]

In 1967, the Colts were unbeaten going into the final game of the season, and lost ....... and did not make the playoffs because Pete Rozelle had 4 divisions of 4 teams apiece, with only the division winners making the postseason.

Cowboys ...l 9-5 OOO..l (Capital Division Champions)

Browns )ol.. 9-5 OOO..l (Century Division Champions)

Packers ,)l.. 9-4-1 OO.. (Central Division Champions)

Rams .OO.. 11-1-2 OOll (Coastal Division Champions)

Colts .OO... 11-1-2 OOll (Out of the Playoffs)

That is really interesting. Wasn't aware of that. It would arguably be an even bigger injustice in baseball with such a longer season.

[Stotle]

I'd prefer to see four divisions of eight teams. Four wildcards per league, balanced schedule intraleague.

Who cares about the NFL. it is a terrible idea for MLB to model themselves after that league. The schedule and way playoff team have been decided has sucked since they adopted the NFL's model of three teams with one, then two wildcard(s).

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East

NY

NY

Boston

Philly

Toronto

Montreal

Baltimore

Washington

South

Tampa

Miami

Atlanta

Texas

Houston

Austin

Kansas City

St Louis

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Midwest

Chicago

Chicago

Minnesota

Milwaukee

Detroit

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Pittsburgh

West

Seattle

San Fran

Oakland

Colorado

San Diego

Arizona

LA

LA

[Spy Fox]

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East

NY

NY

Boston

Philly

Toronto

Montreal

Baltimore

Washington

South

Tampa

Miami

Atlanta

Texas

Houston

Austin

Kansas City

St Louis

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Midwest

Chicago

Chicago

Minnesota

Milwaukee

Detroit

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Pittsburgh

West

Seattle

San Fran

Oakland

Colorado

San Diego

Arizona

LA

LA

I would want them to keep the leagues mostly intact and just make an East and West division in both leagues.

AL East: TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL, TAM, CLE, DET, CHW

AL West: SEA, OAK, LAA, HOU, TEX, KCR, MIN, AUS

NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, CIN, PIT, MON

NL West: SFG, LAD, SDP, ARI, COL, STL, MIL, CHC

The only awkwardness there is that you have one Chicago team in the East and one in the West, but that seems alright. And in something like this, you can put the two expansion teams almost anywhere and still not end up with something totally weird like when Atlanta used to be in the "West," since the Chicago teams could reasonably align in either East or West.

Like some have said, I wouldn't want to see a total restructuring where all the traditional AL and NL teams get jumbled. And I don't think you'd need one.

[Stotle]

I would want them to keep the leagues mostly intact and just make an East and West division in both leagues.

AL East: TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL, TAM, CLE, DET, CHW

AL West: SEA, OAK, LAA, HOU, TEX, KCR, MIN, AUS

NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, CIN, PIT, MON

NL West: SFG, LAD, SDP, ARI, COL, STL, MIL, CHC

The only awkwardness there is that you have one Chicago team in the East and one in the West, but that seems alright. And in something like this, you can put the two expansion teams almost anywhere and still not end up with something totally weird like when Atlanta used to be in the "West," since the Chicago teams could reasonably align in either East or West.

Like some have said, I wouldn't want to see a total restructuring where all the traditional AL and NL teams get jumbled. And I don't think you'd need one.

I don't have a huge issue either way. I can see an advantage to limiting the cross-country trips.

[Spy Fox]

I don't have a huge issue either way. I can see an advantage to limiting the cross-country trips.

Yeah, it's mainly sentimental value for wanting to keep the leagues mostly together. Which isn't a huge deal, and if a total restructuring happened everyone would probably get over it quickly. But it's also why it probably won't happen that way, since we know MLB loves tradition.

[DrungoHazewood]

I actually love the one game Wild Card system and hope it sticks around if and when 32 teams becomes a reality. Places a huge premium of winning your division and validates playing 162 games to reward the best teams. And spare me with the argument that "you play 162 games and you shouldn't have it come down to one game." Those one game Wild Card participants should be thrilled to even be there. There are plenty of 100 win teams in baseball history who never got that chance.

Completely agree. Also, the playoffs shouldn't be about rewarding the best team. The Yankees don't need anyone's help.

[24fps]

My apologies. I thought there were only 16 teams all the way up until division play! Thanks for the history lesson haha. I also agree with the rest of your post too.

16 in 1960, 18 in 1961 and 20 in 1962 including the Amazin' Mets. Only a couple of years after major league baseball was first regularly played west of Kansas City. Things have come a long way since then.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah, it's mainly sentimental value for wanting to keep the leagues mostly together. Which isn't a huge deal, and if a total restructuring happened everyone would probably get over it quickly. But it's also why it probably won't happen that way, since we know MLB loves tradition.

There is value in continuity. I think Maryland was obscenely short-sighted when they abandoned their long history and rivalries in the ACC.

But it can't be the only thing, which is what baseball was like in 1950. Eventually stuff breaks loose.