MLB Re-Align

[The_Admiral]

The thing with having 4 divisions is that it gets rid of the Wild Card. Is that something that MLB is willing to depart with?

In no way whatsoever, but don't let that stop you.

[PeytonManningRocks]

The thing with having 4 divisions is that it gets rid of the Wild Card. Is that something that MLB is willing to depart with?

Well, you don't have to get rid of the Wild Card....what I would do is pit the Wild Card against the worst division winner in a one-game playoff to get to the LDS.

[The_Admiral]

A best-of-five series for a 162-game season is enough of a crapshoot as it is, to say nothing of one-game playoffs every year. Teams like the Twins and A's can attest to what a raw deal it can be to win the marathon and lose the sprint.

[BaltimoreFan]

The point is, every single day (in which a series is being played, obviously not off-days), there would be a National League team and an American League team playing each other, due to odd numbered leagues. No matter what, an NL team is playing an AL team... every series... all season long.

That's what we're saying should not happen. They've always kept the leagues seperate (except for the Interleague periods). That's how it's always been and that's how it always should be. I don't care if you think it's the 21st century so it's okay to do that now because other sports do it. That's what seperates baseball from the other sports. It's the tradition. I don't think you could ever make a strong enough point to justify this happening. That's not against you, it's just the nature of the situation. Most baseball fans want it to stay the way it is with the seperate leagues. Interleague is alright during that periods they play it and then are done. We don't want to see it being played from Opening Day until the final game of the year. It's just not baseball.

I understand that the AL and NL are seperate leagues, but I don't really think an inter-league matchup all season long really changes that. The biggest difference is that the NL focuses on pitching and small ball and the AL focuses on offense and homeruns. That would still be the case. I understand the idea of inter league play all season may be too much for some people to take, but I think it makes alot more sense then your proposed alignment. In it the leagues are too seperate, one would have a wild card the other would, each has a different number of divisions. I think the whole thing would be crazy. Each team would have a different season. The biggest thing I like about 5 team divisions is that each team would have very similar schedules (they would still focus on divisions and leagues, it would be completley even amoung all teams). I know the whole tradition and modernization thing is hard, but I also don't think uneven play is a tradition worth keeping.

BTW when I said its the 21st century, I meant that we should have the technology to create a schedule that could work. I wasn't suggesting to follow other pro leagues as a model. I would hate to see a 32 team league similar to the NFL (I like it for football not baseball). I mean the only other idea I like is just making two divisions in each league like the old times, but I don't know if it could still work.

[hrivnak]

Question: Explain why one league would have 4 divisions and the other have 3??? Doesn't make sense.

Why do 8 divisions have 5 teams, while 1 has 4 teams and 1 has 6 teams? That doesn't make sense, and it's been that way since 1998.

[Epiphanic]

Personally, I would get rid of interleague play. When it first came about in 1997, I thought it was really cool. It was something new and exciting. The novelty has worn off for me and now they're just another game. If you're going to mix the leagues, why not play everyone? You can still have a "league-centric" schedule, but with 162 games, there's no reason why you can't do more.

If that's a little too extreme, I don't see any reason why interleague matchups have to be all together. You're gonna play them anyway, spreading them out over the course of the season makes just as much sense as clustering them in a couple of weeks in the middle. Even under the current format, 2 NL teams play each other during the interleague weeks. There seems to be no hubub about that issue.

If you eliminate interleague play then you maintain the "integrity" of the leagues. I think one reason why interleague play is so limited is that baseball in general wants to maintain that integrity of the of separation to a degree. If you're gonna do it, do it. Personally, I don't think it adds anything to the game and it detracts from the "mystique" of the World Series.

I realize that interleague matchups are typically the biggest draw, so eliminating them is probably not going to happen.

[McCall]

The thing with having 4 divisions is that it gets rid of the Wild Card. Is that something that MLB is willing to depart with?

In no way whatsoever, but don't let that stop you.

Yes they would. 4 divisions still means 4 teams in each league in the playoffs. They're not so die-hard Wild Card that they wouldn't allow another division winner over the second place team of another division.

I hate to hijack the thread in any way, but the only reasonable way you're going toi fix this is by adding two more teams to MLB and go with 4 divisions of 4 in each league. Then you could have even leagues and keep everybody happy. I have done a bunch of mock realignments like this one:

AMERICAN LEAGUE

West: LAA, OAK, SEA, POR (expansion)

Central: KC, CHW, MIN, CLE

East: DET, TOR, BOS, NYY

South: BAL, TB, TEX, NSH (expansion)

NATIONAL LEAGUE:

West: LAD, SF, ARI, SD

Central: CHC, CIN, STL, MIL

East: PHI, PIT, NYM, WAS

South: ATL, FLA, HOU, COL

Obviously, the South divisions in this alignment don't quite work so well, but this is about the closest there is to a good alignment that fits MLB scheduling requirements and keeps the leagues even.

As I said in my realignment proposal, it was without expansion. Here's one if they were to expand. And Nashville would not be it. In recent months, they squashed any plans that could have led to a stadium being built for hopes of landing the Marlins in relocation. The top two choices, I believe, are Portland and San Antonio. Here's my plan:

National League

WEST: LA Dodgers - Portland - San Diego - San Francisco

SOUTH: Atlanta - Florida - Houston - Tampa Bay

CENTRAL: St. Louis - Chi Cubs - Cincinnati - Milwaukee

EAST: NY Mets - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Washington

American League

WEST: Arizona - LA Angels - Oakland - Seattle

SOUTH(?): Colorado - Kansas City - San Antonio - Texas

CENTRAL: Chi Sox - Cleveland - Detroit - Minnesota

EAST: Baltimore - Boston - NY Yankees - Toronto

Okay, I'm obsessed with realigning leagues. All sports. Something's wrong with me, I know. But I've been working on figuring this one out for a long time. I then found an article on realignment that had some guy's idea, through Google, on about.com, I believe. It was very similar to this one, though he had teams in Nashville, Monterrey, Mx, and Florida relocated to Las Vegas. It was similar to mine, but after looking at it, I was able to finish up mine. So some of these suggestions are based off of his, some mine, and a lot that happened to be similar between the two. If I can find the page again, I'll post it.

[goforbroke]

I think it's funny when people say things like - "traditionally interleague play is only in June" ComeOn Fellas! Interleague play isn't traditional at all. neither is the DH rule. changes are happening it's time to get out of the past.

My proposal is one league. ONE!. Not interleague play all year long. Not east vs. west. Throw everything you know out the window.

One league. 6 divisions. 2 wildcards. You play your own division a lot. every other division a little. A very balanced and simple schedule. In the playoffs you rank everyone 1-8 and play it out. I Don't know about you, but I would love to see Yankees-Red Sox World Series.

[The_Admiral]

I Don't know about you, but I would love to see Yankees-Red Sox World Series.

No, I wouldn't like to see that. I loved the 2004 ALCS, though.

They're not so die-hard Wild Card that they wouldn't allow another division winner over the second place team of another division.

How can you be so sure? I've always been under the impression that the wild card race was considered a resounding success, as it added more importance to previously unimportant September games. I'd rather see a race for the wild card than another divisional race, bearing in mind the recent 82-win Padres and 83-win Cardinals, and I'd like to think that baseball would too.

[McCall]

They're not so die-hard Wild Card that they wouldn't allow another division winner over the second place team of another division.

How can you be so sure? I've always been under the impression that the wild card race was considered a resounding success, as it added more importance to previously unimportant September games. I'd rather see a race for the wild card than another divisional race, bearing in mind the recent 82-win Padres and 83-win Cardinals, and I'd like to think that baseball would too.

Yeah, the Wild Card has been exciting, but with smaller divisions, teams would be able to better compete for their division title later into the season.

Oh, and absolutely NEVER would I wanna see the Yankees and Red Sox play each other in the World Series. You see them enough everyday on ESPN that it wouldn't be much different. Besides, they play up each series between the two like it IS the World Series.

[The_Admiral]

But smaller divisions wouldn't make sense, because teams traditionally have about three good rivals, and you'd lose a lot of rivalries by establishing a fourth division out of thin air. Let's say you go to

Dodgers-Padres-D'Bags-Giants

Rockies-Astros-ProllyNotTheMarlins-Braves

Cubs-Cardinals-Brewers-Reds

Mets-Phillies-Pirates-Nationals

You're losing Cubs-Astros, Cardinals-Astros, Braves-Mets, Braves-Nationals, Rockies-Giants, and not really gaining anything. Look. The NL is just fine the way it is. Nothing is gained in this scenario, only lost.

[McCall]

But smaller divisions wouldn't make sense, because teams traditionally have about three good rivals, and you'd lose a lot of rivalries by establishing a fourth division out of thin air. Let's say you go to

Dodgers-Padres-D'Bags-Giants

Rockies-Astros-ProllyNotTheMarlins-Braves

Cubs-Cardinals-Brewers-Reds

Mets-Phillies-Pirates-Nationals

You're losing Cubs-Astros, Cardinals-Astros, Braves-Mets, Braves-Nationals, Rockies-Giants, and not really gaining anything. Look. The NL is just fine the way it is. Nothing is gained in this scenario, only lost.

Cardinals/Cubs-Astros have only been in the same division since 1994 and the rivalries have only been there since about 2001. Same with Braves-Mets, only in same division since '94. Braves-Nats... that's not even close to a baseball game, much less a rivalry. Not very long. Besides, all these teams are still in the same league and would still play each other. Braves and Astros were in the NL West together up until 1994, so them being together in an NL South would actually renew their rivalry, as well as the ones they've kind of started in the playoffs.

[Bronxmet]

But smaller divisions wouldn't make sense, because teams traditionally have about three good rivals, and you'd lose a lot of rivalries by establishing a fourth division out of thin air. Let's say you go to

Dodgers-Padres-D'Bags-Giants

Rockies-Astros-ProllyNotTheMarlins-Braves

Cubs-Cardinals-Brewers-Reds

Mets-Phillies-Pirates-Nationals

You're losing Cubs-Astros, Cardinals-Astros, Braves-Mets, Braves-Nationals, Rockies-Giants, and not really gaining anything. Look. The NL is just fine the way it is. Nothing is gained in this scenario, only lost.

Cardinals/Cubs-Astros have only been in the same division since 1994 and the rivalries have only been there since about 2001. Same with Braves-Mets, only in same division since '94. Braves-Nats... that's not even close to a baseball game, much less a rivalry. Not very long. Besides, all these teams are still in the same league and would still play each other. Braves and Astros were in the NL West together up until 1994, so them being together in an NL South would actually renew their rivalry, as well as the ones they've kind of started in the playoffs.

You also lose Reds-Astros. Although a quiet rivalry, they have been in the same division since 1969. Cincy and Houston had great pennant races in 1979 and 1980 (along with LA).

Plus, if there are any future realignments, keep Pittsburgh in the NL Central and make them face Cleveland as their interleague rival (to intensify the football rivalry).

Here's my realignment

AL

EAST: Baltimore, Boston, New York, Tampa Bay

CENTRAL: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Texas, Toronto (b/c of their rivalry with Detroit)

WEST: Anaheim, Kansas City, Minnesota, Oakland, Seattle (MIN and KC are in the West b/c of their rivalries with Oakland)

NL Stays the same

[McCall]

But smaller divisions wouldn't make sense, because teams traditionally have about three good rivals, and you'd lose a lot of rivalries by establishing a fourth division out of thin air. Let's say you go to

Dodgers-Padres-D'Bags-Giants

Rockies-Astros-ProllyNotTheMarlins-Braves

Cubs-Cardinals-Brewers-Reds

Mets-Phillies-Pirates-Nationals

You're losing Cubs-Astros, Cardinals-Astros, Braves-Mets, Braves-Nationals, Rockies-Giants, and not really gaining anything. Look. The NL is just fine the way it is. Nothing is gained in this scenario, only lost.

Cardinals/Cubs-Astros have only been in the same division since 1994 and the rivalries have only been there since about 2001. Same with Braves-Mets, only in same division since '94. Braves-Nats... that's not even close to a baseball game, much less a rivalry. Not very long. Besides, all these teams are still in the same league and would still play each other. Braves and Astros were in the NL West together up until 1994, so them being together in an NL South would actually renew their rivalry, as well as the ones they've kind of started in the playoffs.

You also lose Reds-Astros. Although a quiet rivalry, they have been in the same division since 1969. Cincy and Houston had great pennant races in 1979 and 1980 (along with LA).

Plus, if there are any future realignments, keep Pittsburgh in the NL Central and make them face Cleveland as their interleague rival (to intensify the football rivalry).

Here's my realignment

AL

EAST: Baltimore, Boston, New York, Tampa Bay

CENTRAL: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Texas, Toronto (b/c of their rivalry with Detroit)

WEST: Anaheim, Kansas City, Minnesota, Oakland, Seattle (MIN and KC are in the West b/c of their rivalries with Oakland)

NL Stays the same

This doesn't really make any geographical sense. You now have Minnesota, and Kansas City (instead of just Texas) in a division with teams on the West coast. So that means they'll be playing most of their games against these teams, which are 2 time zones away. More, and longer, traveling. Plus, Twins and Royals fans aren't gonna wanna wait until late at night to watch their team play on the road, which, with this alignment, they'd be on the west coast more than anywhere else for away games.

[HedleyLamarr]

Plus, if there are any future realignments, keep Pittsburgh in the NL Central and make them face Cleveland as their interleague rival (to intensify the football rivalry).

"To intensify the football rivalry"? That's a stupid thought.

As a Braves fan, I've never thought "I want to go to the Braves-Phillies game because I hate the Eagles!".

[Patrick L. Kennedy]

Re-alignment is a touchy subject, and in the middle of boring school lectures I have frequently thought out what I would like to do on a piece of paper. It generally involves the four division alignment espoused above, and recently I have come to the conclusion that Portland and San Antonio are indeed the best places to expand to. With that in mind, here is a little division format I have come up with:

NL East

Philadelphia

New York

Pittsburgh

Cincinnati

-Relative proximity as far as geographics go, and it keeps Philadelphia and New York together.

NL South

Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Florida

Houston

-Unless you expand into the South, a locale in which there is really no attractive, obvious spot to go to, there is no real fourth team for this division. So I just stuck Houston in here, as it is about as close as any other team you could try to squeeze in here, and the Astros are in geographical limbo anyways with their NL Central domain shifting northward.

NL Central

Chicago

St. Louis

Milwaukee

Colorado

Keeps the Chicago-St. Louis element in, and keeps Milwaukee in relatively close proximity to most of their rivals. The Rockies are in geographic no man's land with regards to division placement, and with the West division needing to shed one team, they were the obvious choice to round out this division.

NL West

Arizona

Los Angeles

San Francisco

San Diego

-Same teams, but contracted to four with Coloado going to the Central.

AL East

New York

Boston

Baltimore

Washington

-Have to keep New York and Boston in the same division, so they stay here. Baltimore is also sort of rivals with those teams, and they have been together, but they need a companion and so I elected to shift Washington to the AL. I don't think that is a radical move, considering the Senators were a charter AL franchise and the Capital City was an American League domain for over 70 years. The relatively new "Nationals" lose nothing by relocated at a still-early stage in their franchise development.

AL Great Lakes

Cleveland

Toronto

Detroit

Chicago

-Keeps the Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland triangle intact of old AL cities and throws in Toronto for geographic proximity.

AL Central

Minnesota

Kansas City

Texas

San Antonio

-Pretty much just plains teams through the center of the country here ranging from north to south. You've got the two Texas teams and the two other teams a little bit to the north, I think it works well.

AL West

Seattle

Portland

Oakland

Anaheim

Entirely Pacific coast division, you've got the Seattle-Oakland matchup that has developed in recent years kept, while Oregon and Seattle should be geographic rivals. Throw in Anaheim for geography and familiarity and you've got a division.

Now the technical aspects of this plan I'm pretty open on. The DH is irrelevant to this overall plan, so I didn't touch that, but I'm apt to keep things as is. As far as the Wild Card goes, I have an open mind. On the one hand, I don't want to be a complete copycat of the NFL and create two wild card teams, but on the other hand, New York and Boston in the playoffs at the same time generates $$$, so I don't see any way around it.

As far as scheduling goes, each team plays:

60 games vs. Division

20 vs. each team

10 home

10 road

84 vs. League

6 vs. each team

3 home

3 road

Extra three games against each of a certain division's teams, determined on a rotating basis, and alternating home and away each time the division's rotation turn comes up

18 Interleague games

For the most part, the "rivals" concept is scrapped, as the re-alignment I proposed tried to take care of that. With that said, a few true money-making rivalries exist. The Subway series, Chicago series, Freeway series, and Bay Area series would all be grandfathered in as legitimate rivalries for interleague play. The rest of these forced "rivalries" would go the way of the tripleheader. Each participant in these rivalry games would play six games against their "rival", three home and three on the road.

For all teams, regardless of rivalry status, a division in the opposite league would be designated as the set of teams that all members of that division are to play. Each team will play three games against that other division's individual teams, with home/road sites rotating for each different visit. Six other games would take place, for rivalry teams their rival would occupy their opponent's position in these games. For all teams without a rival, the six extra games, three home and three road, would be played against two respective teams in one of the other league's divisions. What teams those games would be played against is determined by your place in the standings the year before. The 3rd place teams would play each other, the 2nd place teams, etc. While this would mean that one division is left out for play in a given year, over a three year period this would even out.

What does everyone think of my proposal? I hope that I explained it well enough, I tried to word it as thoroughly as possible, but I'm not sure if the specifics were conveyed well enough.

[McCall]

Re-alignment is a touchy subject, and in the middle of boring school lectures I have frequently thought out what I would like to do on a piece of paper. It generally involves the four division alignment espoused above, and recently I have come to the conclusion that Portland and San Antonio are indeed the best places to expand to. With that in mind, here is a little division format I have come up with:

NL East

Philadelphia

New York

Pittsburgh

Cincinnati

-Relative proximity as far as geographics go, and it keeps Philadelphia and New York together.

NL South

Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Florida

Houston

-Unless you expand into the South, a locale in which there is really no attractive, obvious spot to go to, there is no real fourth team for this division. So I just stuck Houston in here, as it is about as close as any other team you could try to squeeze in here, and the Astros are in geographical limbo anyways with their NL Central domain shifting northward.

NL Central

Chicago

St. Louis

Milwaukee

Colorado

Keeps the Chicago-St. Louis element in, and keeps Milwaukee in relatively close proximity to most of their rivals. The Rockies are in geographic no man's land with regards to division placement, and with the West division needing to shed one team, they were the obvious choice to round out this division.

NL West

Arizona

Los Angeles

San Francisco

San Diego

-Same teams, but contracted to four with Coloado going to the Central.

AL East

New York

Boston

Baltimore

Washington

-Have to keep New York and Boston in the same division, so they stay here. Baltimore is also sort of rivals with those teams, and they have been together, but they need a companion and so I elected to shift Washington to the AL. I don't think that is a radical move, considering the Senators were a charter AL franchise and the Capital City was an American League domain for over 70 years. The relatively new "Nationals" lose nothing by relocated at a still-early stage in their franchise development.

AL Great Lakes

Cleveland

Toronto

Detroit

Chicago

-Keeps the Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland triangle intact of old AL cities and throws in Toronto for geographic proximity.

AL Central

Minnesota

Kansas City

Texas

San Antonio

-Pretty much just plains teams through the center of the country here ranging from north to south. You've got the two Texas teams and the two other teams a little bit to the north, I think it works well.

AL West

Seattle

Portland

Oakland

Anaheim

Entirely Pacific coast division, you've got the Seattle-Oakland matchup that has developed in recent years kept, while Oregon and Seattle should be geographic rivals. Throw in Anaheim for geography and familiarity and you've got a division.

Now the technical aspects of this plan I'm pretty open on. The DH is irrelevant to this overall plan, so I didn't touch that, but I'm apt to keep things as is. As far as the Wild Card goes, I have an open mind. On the one hand, I don't want to be a complete copycat of the NFL and create two wild card teams, but on the other hand, New York and Boston in the playoffs at the same time generates $$$, so I don't see any way around it.

As far as scheduling goes, each team plays:

60 games vs. Division

20 vs. each team

10 home

10 road

84 vs. League

6 vs. each team

3 home

3 road

Extra three games against each of a certain division's teams, determined on a rotating basis, and alternating home and away each time the division's rotation turn comes up

18 Interleague games

For the most part, the "rivals" concept is scrapped, as the re-alignment I proposed tried to take care of that. With that said, a few true money-making rivalries exist. The Subway series, Chicago series, Freeway series, and Bay Area series would all be grandfathered in as legitimate rivalries for interleague play. The rest of these forced "rivalries" would go the way of the tripleheader. Each participant in these rivalry games would play six games against their "rival", three home and three on the road.

For all teams, regardless of rivalry status, a division in the opposite league would be designated as the set of teams that all members of that division are to play. Each team will play three games against that other division's individual teams, with home/road sites rotating for each different visit. Six other games would take place, for rivalry teams their rival would occupy their opponent's position in these games. For all teams without a rival, the six extra games, three home and three road, would be played against two respective teams in one of the other league's divisions. What teams those games would be played against is determined by your place in the standings the year before. The 3rd place teams would play each other, the 2nd place teams, etc. While this would mean that one division is left out for play in a given year, over a three year period this would even out.

What does everyone think of my proposal? I hope that I explained it well enough, I tried to word it as thoroughly as possible, but I'm not sure if the specifics were conveyed well enough.

Washington will never ever be in the AL. You know how much Peter Angelos was against Washington getting a team at all because it means he has to share the market, imagine how bad it would be if he had to share not only that market, but the AL market of the area as well. Washington and Baltimore are basically considered like the 2 Chicago, New York, and L.A. teams. One in the NL and one in the AL (you can also throw the Giants and A's into that).

And again, it has been said before, and not only on here, but just out there, that Seattle really doesn't want Portland to get a team because, right now, they hold the only rights to the entire Northwest U.S. (and southwest Canada) market, which is a hugely populated area. Although Portland has been mentioned in the past, and I truly feel they will eventually get a team, it's been said that they would go into the NL, so as to allow the Mariners to hold the territorial rights for the area alone in the AL. This is much like the Giants/A's situation. Giants have claim to the bay area in the NL, which is why they've thrown a hissy fit anytime they've mentioned a realignment that shifts the A's into the NL. And, to be honest, it's about the only thing I've ever agreed on about/with the Giants.

Just for the record, too, the whole "put to teams together because they're Football rivals" has no place in MLB realignment. They are not the NFL. They don't care about the NFL rivalries. They're about Major League Baseball and keeping tradition and traditional rivalries entact (or at least some are. With Bud's radical realignment plan, I don't know about him).

And on Interleague Play, if it is to remain, I really don't care who they play each year. They already play 2 series against their "designated rivals" from the opposite league. I really don't mind if the other games are against random teams, and not necessarily against a certain division. But, really, either way is fine to me.

As for scheduling with a 4x4 format (as I refer to it as):

- 54 Division games (18 against each team [3]. 6 series of 3 spread out- home/home beginning of season, middle and end)

- 96 League games (8 against each team. I know this makes them all 4 game series, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Extra day between traveling.)

- 12 Interleague games (4 series [against whoever] of 3 games. That could be against one division each year, rotating from year to year. So they play the same division every 4 years. Less repetition from season to season.)

______________

= 162 games.

[Patrick L. Kennedy]

Washington will never ever be in the AL. You know how much Peter Angelos was against Washington getting a team at all because it means he has to share the market, imagine how bad it would be if he had to share not only that market, but the AL market of the area as well. Washington and Baltimore are basically considered like the 2 Chicago, New York, and L.A. teams. One in the NL and one in the AL (you can also throw the Giants and A's into that).

Very good point. I hadn't considered Angelos at all, really, but you are right. He would probably reject any such move.

And again, it has been said before, and not only on here, but just out there, that Seattle really doesn't want Portland to get a team because, right now, they hold the only rights to the entire Northwest U.S. (and southwest Canada) market, which is a hugely populated area. Although Portland has been mentioned in the past, and I truly feel they will eventually get a team, it's been said that they would go into the NL, so as to allow the Mariners to hold the territorial rights for the area alone in the AL. This is much like the Giants/A's situation. Giants have claim to the bay area in the NL, which is why they've thrown a hissy fit anytime they've mentioned a realignment that shifts the A's into the NL. And, to be honest, it's about the only thing I've ever agreed on about/with the Giants.

You see, I really don't think that the league position makes too much of a difference at all. Ultimately television rights are distributed to teams regardless of the league they are in, so whether Portland were to enter the AL or NL is irrelevant, the M's territory would be cut anyways. The difference with Giants/A's is, first of all proxmity, but secondly the A's are an original American League team. Regardless of their moves over the years, the name "Athletics" has been in the AL from the beginning, so I don't think their being moved is feasable.

Just for the record, too, the whole "put to teams together because they're Football rivals" has no place in MLB realignment. They are not the NFL. They don't care about the NFL rivalries. They're about Major League Baseball and keeping tradition and traditional rivalries entact (or at least some are. With Bud's radical realignment plan, I don't know about him).

I agree with you completely. I don't think that football rivalries should work as an excuse to keep interleague rivalries of the same format. And I tried to avoid that in my plan, keeping only "real" rivalries in place.

And on Interleague Play, if it is to remain, I really don't care who they play each year. They already play 2 series against their "designated rivals" from the opposite league. I really don't mind if the other games are against random teams, and not necessarily against a certain division. But, really, either way is fine to me.

Well my plan was going to do away with the "designated rivals" concept. I only kept the set divisional games in place for two reasons:

1) Maintaining the consistency of each team's schedule to keep the integrity of each team's games for a playoff run. This eliminates, for the most part, whining about how unfair different schedules are. This of course isn't completely true, with the "real rivalries" I mentioned having taken up part of the schedule, but for the most part I tried to even things out.

2) Simplicity, really. You COULD do random scheduling, but I didn't so as to more easily explain my plan.

Another thing you could do, and become more similar to the NFL, is also schedule matchups based on standings finish in the previous year. You could have the 3rd place team in the division play all the other 3rd place teams from the opposite league, and so on. Food for thought.

As for scheduling with a 4x4 format (as I refer to it as):

- 54 Division games (18 against each team [3]. 6 series of 3 spread out- home/home beginning of season, middle and end)

- 96 League games (8 against each team. I know this makes them all 4 game series, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Extra day between traveling.)

- 12 Interleague games (4 series [against whoever] of 3 games. That could be against one division each year, rotating from year to year. So they play the same division every 4 years. Less repetition from season to season.)

______________

= 162 games.

With the number of variables as far as schedules go, it is rare that you would get complete agreement. I like my schedule the way it is set up, but I can easily see your plan.

Thank you very much for discussing the issue with me, I appreciate your criticisms.

[AceHawk447]

If we were to go to 32, I'd prefer to see Montreal get a new Expos team; imagine the instant divisional rivalry with the Nationals...but overall, MTL's for a whole other thread.

As for the main, when this expand/realign thing was brought up earlier, I had the Reds in the NL South such that the Cubs/Cards rivalry would remain intact (Pittsburgh and Milwaukee would complete the NL North). This would also bring together the eastern half of the original NL West (ATL, CIN, HOU), with the Florida (soon Miami) Marlins rounding the foursome out. Also, the Rockies would switch leagues.

BTW, I like the idea of the same-finishers-in-opposite-league I/L setup.

[447]

[The_Admiral]

The Wild Card is never ever going anywhere, so think in terms of three divisions, guys. Please. Cubs-Cardinals-Brewers-ROCKIES? Stop.