Expansion/Realignment

[DrungoHazewood]

52 minutes ago, UpstateNYfan said:

A regional alignment with NYY, RS, BJ's and "Montreal" would have less than a zero % chance of ever happening. It would almost guarantee the failure of Montreal and the eventual demise of the Jays. Put the Jays and Montreal in a Great Lakes Division Cleveland and Detroit. I think the Sox, Yanks, Mets and Phillies could go together.

I don't know why four-team divisions would be a good idea.  I get tired of the endless Yanks/Sox/Rays/Jays games in five-team divisions.  I'd be good with two sixteen-team leagues, each with two eight-team divisions.  Or, if you're not using the divisions for anything meaningful (promotion/relegation, geographic alignment, etc) then just have two sixteen-team leagues.  The top X teams make the playoffs with a balanced schedule.

Divisions just open up the possibility of a '73 Mets or '87 Twins situation, where the best teams are all in the other division but you have to let the .500-ish team in anyway. Four-team divisions would almost guarantee an eventual sub-.500 playoff team.

 

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know why four-team divisions would be a good idea.  I get tired of the endless Yanks/Sox/Rays/Jays games in five-team divisions.  I'd be good with two sixteen-team leagues, each with two eight-team divisions.  Or, if you're not using the divisions for anything meaningful (promotion/relegation, geographic alignment, etc) then just have two sixteen-team leagues.  The top X teams make the playoffs with a balanced schedule.

Divisions just open up the possibility of a '73 Mets or '87 Twins situation, where the best teams are all in the other division but you have to let the .500-ish team in anyway. Four-team divisions would almost guarantee an eventual sub-.500 playoff team.

 

I'd actually enjoy see the  Yanks/Sox/Rays/Jays  if the O's were beaten them.

[VaBird1]

24 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I'd actually enjoy see the  Yanks/Sox/Rays/Jays  if the O's were beaten them.

I hate that we only see four teams all year.  I don’t think it’s good for baseball that my son has only seen Mike Trout play a couple of times in person.

[UpstateNYfan]

30 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know why four-team divisions would be a good idea.  I get tired of the endless Yanks/Sox/Rays/Jays games in five-team divisions.  I'd be good with two sixteen-team leagues, each with two eight-team divisions.  Or, if you're not using the divisions for anything meaningful (promotion/relegation, geographic alignment, etc) then just have two sixteen-team leagues.  The top X teams make the playoffs with a balanced schedule.

Divisions just open up the possibility of a '73 Mets or '87 Twins situation, where the best teams are all in the other division but you have to let the .500-ish team in anyway. Four-team divisions would almost guarantee an eventual sub-.500 playoff team.

 

I mostly agree. Four team "divisions" are burdensome IMO. I was mainly arguing against the alignment of NYY, RS, Jays and Montreal.

[Greg Pappas]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know why four-team divisions would be a good idea.  I get tired of the endless Yanks/Sox/Rays/Jays games in five-team divisions.  I'd be good with two sixteen-team leagues, each with two eight-team divisions.  Or, if you're not using the divisions for anything meaningful (promotion/relegation, geographic alignment, etc) then just have two sixteen-team leagues.  The top X teams make the playoffs with a balanced schedule.

Divisions just open up the possibility of a '73 Mets or '87 Twins situation, where the best teams are all in the other division but you have to let the .500-ish team in anyway. Four-team divisions would almost guarantee an eventual sub-.500 playoff team.

 

I agree with you. My format is based on my expectation that MLB would keep the current 4-team divisional format.  I would actually prefer four 8-team divisions, with no leagues... just one overall MLB, similar to Tracy Ringolsby's ($) following idea:

Quote

East: Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Washington.
North: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, NY Mets, NY Yankees and Toronto.
Midwest: Both Chicago franchises, Colorado, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, St. Louis and Texas.
West: Anaheim, Arizona, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

24 minutes ago, Greg Pappas said:

I agree with you. My format is based on my expectation that MLB would keep the current 4-team divisional format.  I would actually prefer four 8-team divisions, with no leagues... just one overall MLB, similar to Tracy Ringolsby's ($) following idea:

 

I'm good with most of that, but I still like the regional league concept.  I think it's pretty important to limit travel and games at odd times for a sport that plays almost every day.

[eddie83]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know why four-team divisions would be a good idea.  I get tired of the endless Yanks/Sox/Rays/Jays games in five-team divisions.  I'd be good with two sixteen-team leagues, each with two eight-team divisions.  Or, if you're not using the divisions for anything meaningful (promotion/relegation, geographic alignment, etc) then just have two sixteen-team leagues.  The top X teams make the playoffs with a balanced schedule.

Divisions just open up the possibility of a '73 Mets or '87 Twins situation, where the best teams are all in the other division but you have to let the .500-ish team in anyway. Four-team divisions would almost guarantee an eventual sub-.500 playoff team.

 

I don’t disagree but pro sports want more division champs and less 7th and 8th place teams.  

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know why four-team divisions would be a good idea.  I get tired of the endless Yanks/Sox/Rays/Jays games in five-team divisions.  I'd be good with two sixteen-team leagues, each with two eight-team divisions.  Or, if you're not using the divisions for anything meaningful (promotion/relegation, geographic alignment, etc) then just have two sixteen-team leagues.  The top X teams make the playoffs with a balanced schedule.

Divisions just open up the possibility of a '73 Mets or '87 Twins situation, where the best teams are all in the other division but you have to let the .500-ish team in anyway. Four-team divisions would almost guarantee an eventual sub-.500 playoff team.

 

When it expands to 32 teams, MLB can create divisions of 4 or 8 teams. Those seem to me the only viable possibilities, and I think the prospect of restoring an even number of divisions of equal size is a large part of the Commissioner's desire to expand. 

As long as the competitive structure survives the next CBA -- that is, if teams can compete for a significant portion of the available talent -- and as long as each team plays more games against its division rivals than it plays against other teams, I believe MLB will face a difficult and divisive problem with using a change in division size to realign: the NYYs and RS will insist that they remain in the same division, and no other team in its right mind will want to be locked long-term into that division. (The possible exceptions I can see are the Mets, and think that's unlikely, and the Rays if they can exchange agreeing to be placed in that division for help from the other owners/MLB in relocating that otherwise wouldn't be available to them.)

The only way around that problem I can see would be to rotate the division alignment every year or every few years. I think both the concept of shifting divisions and the details of how that would be implemented would be tough to sell. 

I am guessing that the result will be to maintain the Eastern and Western Divisions in each league, and to assign each Central Division and expansion team to one of them, by geography or lots or something, creating four eight team divisions, NL East and West and AL East and West.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

6 hours ago, eddie83 said:

I don’t disagree but pro sports want more division champs and less 7th and 8th place teams.  

They say that sometimes, but there are certainly many, many very popular pro sports leagues around the world that have single 18- or 20-team divisions.  People will catch on pretty quickly that finishing in 28 games out in 14th is the same thing as finishing 28 games out of first but in 5th place in your division.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

The only way around that problem I can see would be to rotate the division alignment every year or every few years. I think both the concept of shifting divisions and the details of how that would be implemented would be tough to sell. 

If they're not open to geographic realignment like I've proposed ealier, I'd be in favor of changing division makeups regularly.  Maybe a promotion/relegation lite, where you intentionally have different strengths of schedule based on available resources.  Yanks and Sox would always be together because of their revenues.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

7 hours ago, VaBird1 said:

I hate that we only see four teams all year.  I don’t think it’s good for baseball that my son has only seen Mike Trout play a couple of times in person.

Baseball was better when it had a balanced schedule. 

[Camden_yardbird]

Some sort of realignment needs to happen, expansions or not.

[LookinUp]

18 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

They say that sometimes, but there are certainly many, many very popular pro sports leagues around the world that have single 18- or 20-team divisions.  People will catch on pretty quickly that finishing in 28 games out in 14th is the same thing as finishing 28 games out of first but in 5th place in your division.

Your ideas are always logical, but never put yourself in the owner's position. More teams in contention means much more money, so more divisions are necessary.

I think they should go to 32 teams with 8 divisions. 12 team playoffs. Just like football. All division champs make the playoffs. If we're worried about terrible teams making the playoffs, put in a rule that they have to win at least 82-85 games to be eligible. 

That drives fan interest, which makes everyone money. I agree they should structure all of this as fairly as possible to moderate travel.

[JR Oriole]

18 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Baseball was better when it had a balanced schedule. 

I totally agree with this.  I am not interested in seeing AL East teams 76 times a year (or 47% of our games).  Even in the NFL, you only get your division opponents 6 our of 16 games (38% - rounded).  If I didn't know any better, I would swear this move from 12-13 games a year up to the current model was solely to ensure the Yankees and Red Sox could play 19 times and be on national television 19 times.  You shouldn't need almost half of your games to prove that you are the best team in your division. 

[DrungoHazewood]

41 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Your ideas are always logical, but never put yourself in the owner's position. More teams in contention means much more money, so more divisions are necessary.

I think they should go to 32 teams with 8 divisions. 12 team playoffs. Just like football. All division champs make the playoffs. If we're worried about terrible teams making the playoffs, put in a rule that they have to win at least 82-85 games to be eligible. 

That drives fan interest, which makes everyone money. I agree they should structure all of this as fairly as possible to moderate travel.

I just don't see the difference in having the top 12 teams make the playoffs in a 8-division world, a 2-division world, or no divisions.  Are fans going to be more or less interested in their .525 team if they're 4 games out of 3rd in their small division, or 4 games out of 12th in the big league?  In a no-division league you don't have to worry about rules to keep a sub-.500 team from making the playoffs because it's mathematically very unlikely.