Expansion Could Trigger Realignment, Longer Postseason

I'd rather see 8 four-team divisions as opposed to 4 eight-team divisions with each division winner advancing to the playoffs. Best-of-sevens in all playoff series.
 
50PoundHead said:
I'd rather see 8 four-team divisions as opposed to 4 eight-team divisions with each division winner advancing to the playoffs. Best-of-sevens in all playoff series.
Click to expand...

East: Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Washington.

North: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, both New York franchises 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.

Instead of that, you could have:

East: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Pittsburgh

South: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Miami, Tampa Bay

North: New York Mets, New York Yankees, Boston, Cleveland (as to not split up the Canadian Franchises)

Central: Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, Toronto

Midwest: Chicago White Sox, Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, St. Louis

Southwest?: Texas, Houston, Colorado, Kansas City

West: Anaheim, Los Angeles, Arizona, San Diego

Pacific: San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Oakland

Keep the 156 game schedule: Play your 3 division rivals 24 games each for 72 games. You can then play each of the 28 other teams 3 games each to get the other 84 games -- just rotate home and away each year (make sure you play one series in NY, Chicago, and LA each year).

I would keep it as 8 playoff teams with 8 division winners and just seed them 1-8 based on record. This will never happen due to all the money the Wild Card Game makes.
 
I would put the expansion teams in Portland and Montreal, which seems to jive with the popular opinion. Montreal goes to the NL, Portland to the AL. Tampa Bay and Arizona switch leagues.

NL East: Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Montreal
NL South: Braves, Nationals, Rays, Marlins
NL North: Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers, Reds
NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Rockies

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles
AL North: Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Twins
AL South: Astros, Rangers, Royals, Diamondbacks
AL West: Angels, A’s, Mariners, Portland

Keeping a 162 Games schedule:
24 Games with your three division rivals (total of 72 Games)
Six games each against the other teams in your league (72 Games)
Inter league play: Rotate division vs division, meaning NL South plays AL South one year, AL North, the next, etc. Three games against the four inter league teams plus a home and home three game series each year against a natural rival ( total 18 Games)

Wild Card is abandoned and division series goes to a best of seven.
 
WaitingFor2017 said:
East: Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Washington.

North: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, both New York franchises 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.

Instead of that, you could have:

East: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Pittsburgh
South: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Miami, Tampa Bay
North: New York Mets, New York Yankees, Boston, Cleveland (as to not split up the Canadian Franchises)
Central: Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, Toronto
Midwest: Chicago White Sox, Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, St. Louis
Southwest?: Texas, Houston, Colorado, Kansas City
West: Anaheim, Los Angeles, Arizona, San Diego
Pacific: San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Oakland

Keep the 156 game schedule: Play your 3 division rivals 24 games each for 72 games. You can then play each of the 28 other teams 3 games each to get the other 84 games -- just rotate home and away each year (make sure you play one series in NY, Chicago, and LA each year).

I would keep it as 8 playoff teams with 8 division winners and just seed them 1-8 based on record. This will never happen due to all the money the Wild Card Game makes.
Click to expand...

I think there needs to be at least 1 WC team to avoid scenarios where 2 amazing teams happen to be in the same division. The Giants losing the NL West to the Braves despite winning 100+ games and being left out of the playoffs was the main driving force behind adding the WC, and I completely agree with it.

I don't care about divisions or schedules. All I care about is that the postseason remains exclusive (around 1/3 of the league), and there is at least 1 WC team (to ensure the best 2 teams reach the playoffs). Whatever good ideas folks come up with is cool with me as long as those 2 concerns are addressed.
 
Enscheff said:
I think there needs to be at least 1 WC team to avoid scenarios where 2 amazing teams happen to be in the same division. The Giants losing the NL West to the Braves despite winning 100+ games and being left out of the playoffs was the main driving force behind adding the WC, and I completely agree with it.

I don't care about divisions or schedules. All I care about is that the postseason remains exclusive (around 1/3 of the league), and there is at least 1 WC team (to ensure the best 2 teams reach the playoffs). Whatever good ideas folks come up with is cool with me as long as those 2 concerns are addressed.
Click to expand...

If the league did expand, I wouldn't hate a 12 team playoff. Maybe something along the lines of the NFL's bracket model except the two best teams in each league get BYEs in the first round regardless of division. Then 3-6 seeds play in a 3 or 5 game series for the first round, a 5 or 7 game in the DS, 7 game in the CS, and 7 game WS. It would make the playoffs longer and be a little less exclusive, but if it came because of expansion it would be on par with the NFL and way more exclusive than the NBA.
 
Will be pretty interesting to see whether Portland might actually wind up with a team if there is expansion. IIRC, the next "hot button" cities talked about most recently were actually Montreal, Charlotte, Vegas, then maybe Portland.

Vegas will always provide the "Vegas problem", but there's eventually going to be less resistance now that the NFL's taking that leap. Charlotte gives you a Southeast Division just as much as Portland helps balance things out west since you could easily group more predictable weather cities together with Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, and Tampa - conceivably offering less need to reschedule or have doubleheaders by sending cold/bad weather climate teams into those parks early and late in the season..
 
Seems like an ill advised cash grab that baseball probably would end up regretting.

The reorganization seems far fetched unless they make the DH universal.
 
Southcack77 said:
Seems like an ill advised cash grab that baseball probably would end up regretting.

The reorganization seems far fetched unless they make the DH universal.
Click to expand...

DH needs to be made universal yesterday.

The dinosaurs like to tout tradition and the brain wracking strategy using a PHer 1-2 times per game entails, but watching pitchers hit is astoundingly poor entertainment.
 
No to DH being made universal.

12 PO teams??? 10 now is an over kill. Owners want more $$$$. A longer season doesn't make sense. The early start makes games in Colo playing in possible freezing temps, same for other northern cities.

IMO, fans loose interest at about the 145 game point except for those that are in PO hunts. The owners already make far to much money regardless of their fuzzy math saying they don't make money.
 
I still like the idea of leagues. I don't support putting the Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles teams in the same division. If you went with 4 8-team divisions with the four division winners and the two remaining best records in each league, that might work better than my original suggestion.
 
Enscheff said:
DH needs to be made universal yesterday.

The dinosaurs like to tout tradition and the brain wracking strategy using a PHer 1-2 times per game entails, but watching pitchers hit is astoundingly poor entertainment.
Click to expand...

Either that or home team decision in both leagues where the home team would decide whether or not the DH would be used in a particular game. I also think they need to go to a 26-man roster with a cap on the number of pitchers a team can carry at 12.
 
Enscheff said:
DH needs to be made universal yesterday.

The dinosaurs like to tout tradition and the brain wracking strategy using a PHer 1-2 times per game entails, but watching pitchers hit is astoundingly poor entertainment.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't cry if the DH went away. It's a slightly different game, but I'm not sure its a better one without the DH.
 
Southcack77 said:
I wouldn't cry if the DH went away. It's a slightly different game, but I'm not sure its a better one without the DH.
Click to expand...

I suppose if folks are so limited mentally they think PHing for the pitcher 1-2 times per game qualifies as "strategy" then yes, I can understand the appeal to those people.

For those who understand how simple PH decisions are, having a pitcher hit is beyond pointless.
 
Enscheff said:
I suppose if folks are so limited mentally they think PHing for the pitcher 1-2 times per game qualifies as "strategy" then yes, I can understand the appeal to those people.

For those who understand how simple PH decisions are, having a pitcher hit is beyond pointless.
Click to expand...

Most of the decisions are really just irritating and pointless. It can force a team to go deeper into the bullpen then they need to go. I don't think it is rocket science, but there is some tactics to it. But nothing that professional organizations should completely have a handle on and have a pretty easy book. I must admit when I was seven I was really impressed when they talked about the heavy strategy of the double switch. It has faded from there, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top