Houston Astros to American League West

[TBGKon]

For 18 interleague games:

- 64 Division games (16 against each of the 4 other teams)

- 80 League games (8 against each of the 10 other teams)

- 18 Interleague games (3 against each team in one rotating division, plus 3 against interleague rival. On seasons rival's division is played, a home and away is played. Other two years, one series is home, the other year is away)

This is the ideal situation.

[Epiphanic]

I don't get why people think that 30 interleague games is too much. If you're gonna do it, just do it.

As far as the 1-game wild card playoff, I'm okay with it, but a 3-game series could be done in 3 days (with travel). I wish I could take credit for it, but I read it on one of the many SportsNation blogs. Game 1 would be played at the second-wild card home. Day of travel. Game 2 would be an afternoon at the first-wild card home. Game 3 (if necessary) would be played that night. Playoff doubleheaders, baby! Let's play two!

[McCall]

I don't get why people think that 30 interleague games is too much. If you're gonna do it, just do it.

As far as the 1-game wild card playoff, I'm okay with it, but a 3-game series could be done in 3 days (with travel). I wish I could take credit for it, but I read it on one of the many SportsNation blogs. Game 1 would be played at the second-wild card home. Day of travel. Game 2 would be an afternoon at the first-wild card home. Game 3 (if necessary) would be played that night. Playoff doubleheaders, baby! Let's play two!

The thing is, most don't want them to do it. I'd rather not see interleague play, but it's not going anywhere, so I want as less of an impact as possible. They already play 15-18 games year and it probably would't decrease, so at least maintain that total, especially since it'll be played all year.

And the playoffs do NOT need anymore games added to it. Baseball is synonymous with October and does not need to go into November. The one-game wild card is unnecessary, so expanding it is even worse. Leave it at one game if it's gonna be used.

[Fox]

I don't get why people think that 30 interleague games is too much. If you're gonna do it, just do it.

As far as the 1-game wild card playoff, I'm okay with it, but a 3-game series could be done in 3 days (with travel). I wish I could take credit for it, but I read it on one of the many SportsNation blogs. Game 1 would be played at the second-wild card home. Day of travel. Game 2 would be an afternoon at the first-wild card home. Game 3 (if necessary) would be played that night. Playoff doubleheaders, baby! Let's play two!

I personally think that a 3-game series would be more fair than a 1-game playoff, but- I see two major problems with this.

1. You can't have the lower-seeded team host game 1. The best part of having a higher seed is getting to open a series at home. This could create a scenario where a team could be facing elimination before they play their first home game of the series.

2. A playoff double-header? Really?

[cheo25]

The whole idea of an Astros-Rangers "rivalry" is a joke. If one or both teams suck in September (a highly likely scenario given that one or both teams have sucked come more Septembers than not), the state will quit pretending it likes baseball and will immediately turn its attention to football. High school football is huge in Texas and it goes without saying about college football given all of the FBS schools in the state.

Rivalries in pro sports aren't determined solely by geography -- how many times do we talk about that scintillating Giants-Padres rivalry? Phillies-Pirates was huge in the 1970s and early '80s, but it hasn't meant squat since about the mid-80s when the Pirates and Phils took turns at the bottom of the standings. And that's even before the teams were put in different divisions (another genius move by the brain surgeons who run MLB).

The best team rivalries in sports in the 1970s were the Reds-Dodgers and the Steelers-Raiders. Both were determined by what was at stake on the field, and those were two heated rivalries despite the fact that in each case the teams involved were separated by three time zones. The Colts-Patriots rivalry was the best in the NFL for a period of about eight years until this year. Two teams in different divisions, a time zone apart and almost 1,000 miles apart. In fact the Colts-Pats rivalry got bigger AFTER they were separated in the 2002 NFL realignment. Even Yankees-Red Sox probably wouldn't be that big of a deal if not for the saga of Babe Ruth and years later that they were the two best teams in their division, the league, and in some years recently, all of baseball.

So spare me the Astros-Rangers "rivalry" crap, another marketing lie along the lines of the success of interleague play. Wonder how successful interleague play would be if those games were scheduled in April and September in the middle of the week when schools are in session? In 2013, we'll start finding out how many people like series like Twins-Reds when it's a series that ends the season and neither team is in contention. This whole Astros move to the AL is about adding another playoff team and more postseason money for the owners. And that's why it shouldn't matter to move the Brewers or the Rockies or the D'backs instead of a team and a city that has 50 seasons (and eight postseason berths) in the NL, plus another near 40 years as a Cardinals minor-league team before the Colt .45s came along. But to claim the Astros and Rangers will have a rivalry just because they're in the same division is a flat-out lie.

[crashcarson15]

I don't get why people think that 30 interleague games is too much. If you're gonna do it, just do it.

As far as the 1-game wild card playoff, I'm okay with it, but a 3-game series could be done in 3 days (with travel). I wish I could take credit for it, but I read it on one of the many SportsNation blogs. Game 1 would be played at the second-wild card home. Day of travel. Game 2 would be an afternoon at the first-wild card home. Game 3 (if necessary) would be played that night. Playoff doubleheaders, baby! Let's play two!

I personally think that a 3-game series would be more fair than a 1-game playoff, but- I see two major problems with this.

1. You can't have the lower-seeded team host game 1. The best part of having a higher seed is getting to open a series at home. This could create a scenario where a team could be facing elimination before they play their first home game of the series.

2. A playoff double-header? Really?

It makes the regular season, and winning your division, that much more important.

[Fox]

I don't get why people think that 30 interleague games is too much. If you're gonna do it, just do it.

As far as the 1-game wild card playoff, I'm okay with it, but a 3-game series could be done in 3 days (with travel). I wish I could take credit for it, but I read it on one of the many SportsNation blogs. Game 1 would be played at the second-wild card home. Day of travel. Game 2 would be an afternoon at the first-wild card home. Game 3 (if necessary) would be played that night. Playoff doubleheaders, baby! Let's play two!

I personally think that a 3-game series would be more fair than a 1-game playoff, but- I see two major problems with this.

1. You can't have the lower-seeded team host game 1. The best part of having a higher seed is getting to open a series at home. This could create a scenario where a team could be facing elimination before they play their first home game of the series.

2. A playoff double-header? Really?

It makes the regular season, and winning your division, that much more important.

^? Re-read what I said. What I was saying was the problem with doing a 3-game series with the lower seed hosting game one, and games two and three potentially being a double-header.

[Epiphanic]

I don't get why people think that 30 interleague games is too much. If you're gonna do it, just do it.

As far as the 1-game wild card playoff, I'm okay with it, but a 3-game series could be done in 3 days (with travel). I wish I could take credit for it, but I read it on one of the many SportsNation blogs. Game 1 would be played at the second-wild card home. Day of travel. Game 2 would be an afternoon at the first-wild card home. Game 3 (if necessary) would be played that night. Playoff doubleheaders, baby! Let's play two!

I personally think that a 3-game series would be more fair than a 1-game playoff, but- I see two major problems with this.

1. You can't have the lower-seeded team host game 1. The best part of having a higher seed is getting to open a series at home. This could create a scenario where a team could be facing elimination before they play their first home game of the series.

2. A playoff double-header? Really?

1. In a "regular" 3-game playoff series (i.e. 1-1-1), It's possible that a team could face elimination before they get a home game. Heck, it's possible to have that in the 5-game series now. But I suppose lower seeds be damned right?

2. Yes really. Doubleheaders are awesome. Playoff doubleheaders would be super awesome.

For what it's worth, I think I will be okay with a 1-game playoff for the wild cards. The inherent randomness of a 1-game playoff is the essence of "wild card."

[loogodude90]

2. Yes really. Doubleheaders are awesome. Playoff doubleheaders would be super awesome.

As a fan, maybe. I don't think the players would be so supportive of that. In the playoffs, where every play is super important, most players will want full mental and physical strength going into every game. Double headers will make it harder for them to do that. And there's a greater chance a backup will see action in the second half of the DH if one of the starting players needs rest. That's not what playoff baseball is supposed to be about. Oh and then there's the whole TV ratings thing.

There's a reason why playoff doubleheaders have practically never existed in any professional league, ever.

[Mac the Knife]

For what it's worth, I think I will be okay with a 1-game playoff for the wild cards. The inherent randomness of a 1-game playoff is the essence of "wild card."

Absolutely. And as cringe-worthy as it might seem to others, I actually wouldn't have too stringent an objection to adding up to 4 wild cards in each league under those conditions - a 4-team, single-elimination bracket among the wild cards to determine who advanced to the ALDS. Not that I advocate the idea of 7 teams from each league making the playoffs each year, but I wouldn't piss all over the idea either.

Revenue dictates otherwise, but I'd really like to see the LDS and LCS each limited to a maximum of 5 games, and the LDS reduced to a best-of-three. Fewer games in the playoffs puts more weight on each individual one, I think.

[DaytonBlue]

A 3 game series would be unfair to the division winners waiting around to start the LDS.

I look forward to hearing how they will handle breaking ties.

[njmeadowlanders]

If the 4-5-6 seeds are all, lets say 87-75, do they then need a round robin to determine who gets to play in the 1 game playoff? Will they just go to a head-to-head tiebreak instead since it could get ridiculous with the amount of one-game playoffs to get to a one-game playoff?

[Magnus]

If 3 teams are tied at the end of the season for 2 wildcard spots, I say rank them according to record vs. all common opponents, and pick the top 2. No need for more than one wildcard-determining game.

[FiddySicks]

I think they should just eliminate the leagues and playoffs and just use the BCS.

[pmoehrin]

I think they should just eliminate the leagues and playoffs and just use the BCS.

I fail to see why not. System's perfect as far as I'm concerned.

[Quillz]

For what it's worth, I think I will be okay with a 1-game playoff for the wild cards. The inherent randomness of a 1-game playoff is the essence of "wild card."

Absolutely. And as cringe-worthy as it might seem to others, I actually wouldn't have too stringent an objection to adding up to 4 wild cards in each league under those conditions - a 4-team, single-elimination bracket among the wild cards to determine who advanced to the ALDS. Not that I advocate the idea of 7 teams from each league making the playoffs each year, but I wouldn't piss all over the idea either.

Revenue dictates otherwise, but I'd really like to see the LDS and LCS each limited to a maximum of 5 games, and the LDS reduced to a best-of-three. Fewer games in the playoffs puts more weight on each individual one, I think.

I agree with you there. A one-game Wild Card Series, a best-of-three Division Series, a best-of-five League Series, capped off with a best-of-seven World Series would be fun to watch. The shorter series in particular could actually work against the favored team in each round, since there is a greater possibility of an upset. The longer the series, generally the better it works out for the favorite.

[Magnus]

I think they should just eliminate the leagues and playoffs and just use the BCS.

Post of the Day, folks?

[Shizznick]

The train has more to do with the location of the ballpark (Old Union Station) than it does the team. The proposed move to the AL has already PO'd a majority of the fan base, jacking with their identity would be another nail in the coffin for this franchise.

[The_Admiral]

Didn't know they were pissed. Figured they would be, but now here you say it. Any chance they can weasel out if there's this much fan backlash? I'm pretty sure the Brewers moving to the National League was very well-received.

[bosrs1]

I think they should just eliminate the leagues and playoffs and just use the BCS.

Nah, I'd support internet polling instead. Must more accurate.