How would you like to see MLB realign when they reach 32 teams?

[MMC]

The MLB has been vocal about wanting to expand, how would you like to see the divisions/league realign when they reach 32 teams?

Click to read more...

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Since I want the two new teams in Montreal and Nashville, it would be good to do 4 leagues of 8 teams each, with Washington moving to the AL and 16 of the teams in cities that didn't have MLB prior to 1958 or later (all except Miami) would form two new leagues:

Continental League: Atlanta, Houston, Minnesota, Montreal, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Texas, Toronto

Pacific Coast League: Arizona, Colorado, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle

At the same time, MLB should with the new alignment cease having every team play at least one series with all of the others in favor of limiting travel across the Central/Mountain Time Zone line.

PCL teams would play 144 intraleague games, 20 against 6 opponents each and 24 against the 7th, this rotates each year. PCL teams would play 18 interleague games, 6 against 1 team from each of the eastern leagues with no protected opponents in those leagues.

The eastern teams would play 126 intraleague games, 18 against each opponent, and 36 interleague games, 6 each against 6 opponents, 5 from other eastern leagues, some match-ups would be protected, others rotating.

All interleague series would now be 6-game home-and-homes.

 

[KevFu]

I think I've posted mine here a few times.

Back from 1903-1957, the AL and NL were eight teams each, they stretched from Boston to DC to St. Louis or Kansas City. Everyone was happy with it. So go back to that:

NL - PHI, PIT, CIN, CHC, STL, MIL (Brewers instead of Braves), NY (Mets instead of Giants/Dodgers)
AL - BOS, NY, BAL, CLE, DET, CWS, MIN (Senators moved there), and TOR (instead of Athletics)

Who's left?
Eight teams in the West: SEA, OAK, LAA, SF, LAD, SF, COL, ARZ (Western League)
Seven teams in the South: KC, HOU, TEX, ATL, WAS, TB, MIA (Southern Leage)

Add Montreal to the NL, and Nashville to the Southern. Done.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

I'd keep it simple with 2 leagues and 4 divisions in each league:

AL East
NYY BOS TOR DET
NL East
NYM MTL PIT PHI

AL Central
KCR CHW MIN CLE
NL Central
STL CHC MIL CIN

AL South
BAL TBY HOU TEX
NL South
WAS MIA ATL NAS/AUS*
*My preference is Austin as Nashville already has 3 teams to Austin's 1 but I know no one has come forward

AL West
SEA OAK/LVA** LAA ARZ
NL West
SFG LAD SDP COL
**I expect the A's will move to Vegas

 

[KevFu]

I'd keep it simple with 2 leagues and 4 divisions in each league:

AL East
NYY BOS TOR DET
NL East
NYM MTL PIT PHI

AL Central
KCR CHW MIN CLE
NL Central
STL CHC MIL CIN

AL South
BAL TBY HOU TEX
NL South
WAS MIA ATL NAS/AUS*
*My preference is Austin as Nashville already has 3 teams to Austin's 1 but I know no one has come forward

AL West
SEA OAK/LVA** LAA ARZ
NL West
SFG LAD SDP COL
**I expect the A's will move to Vegas

Very rational, but I think you'd make a few more teams happier with:

ALE: - NYY, BOS, BAL, TB
ALN - TOR, CLE, DET, NASH
ALC - MIN, CWS, KC, TEX
ALW - SEA, LAA, OAK/LV, COL

NLE - NYM, PHI, MON, PIT
NLS - WAS, ATL, MIA, CIN
NLC - MIL, CHC, STL, HOU
NLW - LAD, SF, SD, ARZ

This has only one division that has ETZ/CTZ mixed (instead of four), and the odd team is an expansion team (Nashville)

And Arizona has to stay NL (contractual agreement), so COL has to be the one to go AL.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

AL East: NYY, BOS, BAL, TOR
AL Central/North: SOX, MIN, CLE, DET
AL West: SEA, LAA, OAK, LV
AL South: TB, TEX, HOU, KC

NL East: NYM, PHI, PIT, WSH
NL Central/North: CHC, MIL, COL, STL
NL South: ATL, MIA, CIN, NSH
NL West: LAD, SF, SD, ARZ

Flexible on CIN & COL, think it makes sense to keep the Reds with 3 ET teams but can understand them prefering to keep their rivalries. Otherwise, keep it simple and maintain most of what you have.

 

[KevFu]

AL East: NYY, BOS, BAL, TOR
AL Central/North: SOX, MIN, CLE, DET
AL West: SEA, LAA, OAK, LV
AL South: TB, TEX, HOU, KC

NL East: NYM, PHI, PIT, WSH
NL Central/North: CHC, MIL, COL, STL
NL South: ATL, MIA, CIN, NSH
NL West: LAD, SF, SD, ARZ

Flexible on CIN & COL, think it makes sense to keep the Reds with 3 ET teams but can understand them prefering to keep their rivalries. Otherwise, keep it simple and maintain most of what you have.

I think there's zero chance Cincinnati prefers to keep CHC, STL, MIL as their rivalries over being in a division with 3 ETZ teams.

I'd say it's doubtful that Oakland and Las Vegas BOTH end up with teams. In both cities, the A's are negotiating with "who pays for how much" of the land/building expenses on a new stadium.

For Las Vegas expansion, there's a third expense: the $2.5 billion it's going to cost to get a team, and who's paying that?

Nashville, Portland and Montreal have potential ownership groups. I don't know of an interested party in Vegas.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

The question was "How would you like..."

I would like the A's to stay and Vegas to get their own team, doesn't mean that's feasible in all likelihood.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

Very rational, but I think you'd make a few more teams happier with:

ALE: - NYY, BOS, BAL, TB
ALN - TOR, CLE, DET, NASH
ALC - MIN, CWS, KC, TEX
ALW - SEA, LAA, OAK/LV, COL

NLE - NYM, PHI, MON, PIT
NLS - WAS, ATL, MIA, CIN
NLC - MIL, CHC, STL, HOU
NLW - LAD, SF, SD, ARZ

This has only one division that has ETZ/CTZ mixed (instead of four), and the odd team is an expansion team (Nashville)

And Arizona has to stay NL (contractual agreement), so COL has to be the one to go AL.

Never heard of an ARZ contractual agreement preventing them to move to the AL. Tried some google sleuthing and nothing came up but that's on me so will take your word for it.

Assming it IS possible for the Dbacks to switch leagues, I was thinking having 3 NL teams in California and one in Colorado would give less of a travel advantage compared to having the Rox go to the AL.

It would be interesting if the Padres were open to switching leagues to balance out California but doubt they want to lose games against the Dodgers and Giants. Probably the same is true to an extent with any NL West team but one has to move if Vegas gets the A's and Oakland doesn't get a "sympathy" expansion slot.

For the other divisons, yes it could be possible to have clubs "mostly" in a single time-zone but I felt the clubs matched better with their "natural rivals" in corresponding divisions. Besides 2TZ for 6 of the 8 divisions felt a little more fair.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Each of the three leagues in the Eastern part of North America would have their 8 teams at the start of the new alignment divided equally between the East Coast states (or in the case of Montreal and Toronto Eastern Canada) and the Central US, which would form the basis for East and West divisions in those leagues upon MLB expansion to 40 teams:

AL East: Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, NY Yankees, Washington
AL West: Chicago Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Kansas City
NL East; Hartford, Miami, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
NL West: Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Louisville, Milwaukee, St. Louis
CL East: Atlanta, Buffalo, Montreal, Tampa Bay, Toronto
CL West: Houston, Minnesota, Nashville, San Antonio, Texas

If Oakland manages to retain the Athletics, the PCL's first two expansion teams would be in Las Vegas and Portland, with the divisions divided along state lines as follows:

PCL Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, Las Vegas, Portland, Seattle
PCL Pacific: LA Angels, LA Dodgers, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco

The PCL division names are largely arbitrary as this setup puts all California teams in the same division while the Mountain has two teams that are not in the Mountain States but rather the Pacific Northwest.

Of the Eastern leagues, only the CL would have an even divide between the Eastern and Central Time Zones. To start the AL would have 6 in ET and 2 in CT, while the NL would have 5 in ET and 3 in CT. The CL would maintain its even time zone split in expansion to 40, but the AL would grow to 8 ET teams and the NL to 7.

 

[KevFu]

Never heard of an ARZ contractual agreement preventing them to move to the AL. Tried some google sleuthing and nothing came up but that's on me so will take your word for it.

It was all because Tampa tried 3x for an MLB team and the White Sox backed out last minute, (Tampa Built their stadium), MLB did not approve the sale of the Giants to Tampa ownership, and Tampa lost to Miami on an expansion bid.

Every single time MLB expanded, it was two teams being added to one of the leagues, until TB/ARZ. It never made any sense to expand with one team in each league. The NL West had 3 Pacific and a Mountain team; the AL West had 3 Pacific teams. Arizona would be a "bridge" between Texas and the rest of the AL West. The AL having 16 teams instead of the NL made FAR MORE SENSE. Arizona SHOULD have been an AL city.

But baseball didn't expanded because it wanted those teams. They expanded because after Tampa was 0-for-3, their angry Congressmen called MLB for anti-trust hearings.

MLB announced more expansion and loaded the committee with the White Sox owner (almost moved there) and a Tampa resident (Yankees owner) to show the politicians "you're getting a team.". But they needed a second team to join with Tampa.


The White Sox owner on the committee was ALSO an NBA owner, AND had a winter home in Scottsdale. He convinced his good friend and neighbor, Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo, to bid on an MLB team in Phoenix.

But Colangelo did his homework -- The Dodgers were the most popular team in Arizona, NL teams were cheaper to run with no DH -- and had leverage, so he said he'd do it IF he got a National League team in Phoenix. MLB had to accommodate that to add Tampa and solve their Congress problem.

Assming it IS possible for the Dbacks to switch leagues, I was thinking having 3 NL teams in California and one in Colorado would give less of a travel advantage compared to having the Rox go to the AL.

It would be interesting if the Padres were open to switching leagues to balance out California but doubt they want to lose games against the Dodgers and Giants. Probably the same is true to an extent with any NL West team but one has to move if Vegas gets the A's and Oakland doesn't get a "sympathy" expansion slot.

For the other divisons, yes it could be possible to have clubs "mostly" in a single time-zone but I felt the clubs matched better with their "natural rivals" in corresponding divisions. Besides 2TZ for 6 of the 8 divisions felt a little more fair.

The balance thing is a great point. BEFORE Arizona's leverage, the MLB model was to have teams in the same region in opposite leagues. (Those were also the interleague rivals in 1997 before ARZ/TB joined). Let's use that as our model for a 32-team MLB.

SF-OAK
LAD-LAA
ARZ-COL - (Colorado to AL)
SD-SEA - (if OAK moves to Vegas, you do SF-SEA, SD-Vegas)

MIL-MIN
CHC-CWS
STL-KC
HOU-TEX (Astros go back to NL)

NYM-NYY
CIN-CLE
MIA-TB
WAS-BAL
ATL-??? (Nashville or Charlotte expansion to AL)
MON-TOR (Montreal expansion to NL)
PHI-BOS - not great matchup by geography, but that's what it's been
PIT-DET - not great matchup by geography, but that's what it's been

Your West and Central divisions are obvious. You can divide the 8 eastern teams per league in whatever makes sense for them.

But with 4x4 in each league...
54 division (18 vs each team)
84 league (7 vs each team)

24 interleague games
- 3 vs rival team
- 12 vs rival division (3 vs each team)
- 9 vs rest. One 3-game series vs ONE team from EACH of the other divisions, rotating/picked to offset the strength of interleague schedule for everyone)

 

[PCSPounder]

IRRELEVANT!

First, baseball is told it either goes to promotion/relegation by the government OR are told it no longer has an anti-trust exemption, must pay back all tax dollars used for stadiums and contract depreciation in triplicate (in honor of the multiplier effect they use to brag about with stadium economics), and can no longer charge for media rights.

The new teams are told to enter the 4th Tier. They will obviously pay a far reduced rights fee, and there will be more than two teams.

The top 11 teams in each league over the next 4 years join the Premier League. Each team plays 3-game series home away with each other, home and away, 126 games, winner wins the Premiership.

All teams in all tiers compete in the FA Cup-style knockout tournament for the World Series. Best-of-3 series at the start, best-of-7 final.

Which means, yes, no more minor leagues. Every team has a reserve club (the reduced minor league footprint they’ve wanted for a little while now), and the lower league teams gain their independence.

Second tier, same number of teams. Four teams a year relegate from the Premier, four teams promote from the second tier. We’ll probably have to have a year or two of the independent AAA leagues and some crazy formula to decide which 10 teams end up in the second tier.

Third tier- 2 or 3 leagues regionally arranged. Smaller leagues (maybe 18 teams per league), same scheduling format (they’ll be playing more World Series qualifiers anyway). Each champion promotes, plus a qualifying tournament for the 4th promoted team, which does mean there will be shifts of teams between regional leagues based on who demotes.

Fourth tier will be two or three leagues for each third tier league, hopefully bus leagues, can be more creative with scheduling and number of teams.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

That's a really odd hill to fixate on. None of the big four leagues are ever going to remotely consider a promotion and relegation system.

As for how to realign, I guess I'd prefer four divisions of four teams per league, but it'd all depend on where gets teams as to how it's done.

 

[PCSPounder]

That's a really odd hill to fixate on. None of the big four leagues are ever going to remotely consider a promotion and relegation system.

As for how to realign, I guess I'd prefer four divisions of four teams per league, but it'd all depend on where gets teams as to how it's done.

If this leads to fan-owned teams, all the better.

The new trend is now even more expensive stadiums and a fervent hope that states come up with the money. At least for NFL, but you can see this oozing over, more rumors of teams moving (Arizona, etc). The real advocacy is for the people to take sports over.

I know it’s not the way to bet, but it’s time for a shakeup.

 

[oknazevad]

Ok, here's my idea for a 32-team MLB.

Expansion teams in brackets, *league switches, # team moved

NL East: (MON) NYM PHI WAS
NL North: CHC MIL PIT STL
NL South: ATL CIN HOU* MIA
NL West: ARZ LAD SD SF

AL East: BAL BOS NYY TOR
AL North: CWS CLE DET MIN
AL South: KC (NSH) TB TEX
AL West: COL* LAA SEA LV#

I assume Nashville will be one of the expansion teams over Charlotte because the group working on a team there is fairly well-organized, and the city has very rapidly proven itself a great sports town. It's also more in the center of the division rivals than Charlotte. Then again, there's also the factor that they seem to be ponying up for a new stadium for the Titans that may hinder the possibility. Everything else about the alignment still works with Charlotte, though travel is not as good.

Montreal is the other expansion team because that city got screwed over and everybody in the league office knows it. The fact that game broadcasters have been talking about the history of the Expos much more lately (including national broadcasts) makes me think that everyone knows the 'Spos are likely to return. They go in the NL East because that's their traditional home, having them in the same division as their prior incarnation is poetic, and they should play their first game back in exactly the same place where they played very first game back in 1969 and their last game in 2004: on the road against the Mets. (I was there for the latter.)

At this point, the A's are Vegas bound. Oakland is apathetic, both politically and that fact that hardly anyone in the Bay Area really cares about the team that much. Even the East Bay is Giants territory. (Heck, it's the long-standing opinion of some baseball historians that they shouldn't have moved to Oakland in the first place.) Betting against the house in Vegas is a fool's errand. That is the case here.

Houston and Colorado switch leagues because it works better for the divisional footprints (and because Houston should never have been moved to the AL in the first place). I was originally going to swap Houston with Arizona, but that would leave Seattle still far away from any other team in its division, so to reduce travel Colorado goes to the AL West and Arizona stays in the NL.

Cincinnati winds up in the NL South instead of the NL North mostly by default. St. Louis is the furthest south city in the current NL Central, but Cubs/Cardinals is an inviolable rivalry, and cannot be split any more that Giants/Dodgers or Yankees/Red Sox. Cincinnati also does have a certain southern character, mostly because a large chunk of its metro area (and its main airport) are across the Ohio River in Kentucky. That said, if someone does decide to do something stupid like split the Cards and Cubs, swap Cincinnati and St Louis, and it still works. Except there would be only half as many Cubs/Cards games, which would not make either fanbase happy.

Which brings us to scheduling formula.

Essentially, the season schedule consists of:
*Four series against division opponents, two each home and road
*Two series against intraleague opponents, one each home and one road
*One series against interleague opponents, half home, half road, alternating years

If all those are three-game series, that's 12 games against 3 division rivals for 36 games, 6 games against 12 intraleague teams for 72 games, and 3 against interleague teams for 48 games. But that's only 156 games, and we want to keep the 162 game schedule, since it's well established for season records purposes (and no owner is going to willingly give up even three home dates where they can sell tickets/TV ads/etc). So we need to add six more games, which could easily be done by the following.

First, there needs to be an odd number of games against division opponents since the season series is the first tie breaker for division races and Game 163 tie-breakers are no longer a thing, so one of the series against each division opponent is a four-game set, with the teams alternating the extra game yearly, making for 13 divisional games (same as the new schedule formula for 2023).

That leaves 3 unaccounted for games. Two of those would simply be extra intraleague games, making a one home and one road series 4 games instead. With a dozen intraleague opponents, there's plenty of places to squeeze those in, and a very long rotation for that extra game that doesn't bias the schedule.

The last extra game would be the part where the designated interleague rivalries come in. Instead of a single three-game series alternating years like other interleague games, those rivals would always play against each other in both ballparks every year in two two-game series (which is actually what they do now). The designated interleague rivals of each team, NL team first:

NYM NYY
PHI BOS
WAS BAL
MON TOR

CHC CWS
MIL MIN
PIT DET
STL KC

ATL NSH
CIN CLE
MIA TB
HOU TEX

ARZ COL
LAD LAA
SD LV
SF SEA

Note that each designated interleague rival is in the corresponding division, except for the STL/KC and CIN/CLE pairings.

Postseason would be the four division winners and two wild cards per league. Rest is the same as now, with the top two division winners getting byes, best-of-3 Wild Card Series, best-of-5 Division Series, best-of-7 League Championship Series, and best-of-7 World Series. The loss of a wild card is balanced by there being an extra division winner.

As you can see, I've given this some thought.

 

[KevFu]

That's a really odd hill to fixate on. None of the big four leagues are ever going to remotely consider a promotion and relegation system.

As for how to realign, I guess I'd prefer four divisions of four teams per league, but it'd all depend on where gets teams as to how it's done.

To be fair, the thread title is "How would you LIKE to see..." (emphasis mine).

Didn't say a single thing about being REALISTIC. Props to @PCSPounder for going big with it.

Ok, here's my idea for a 32-team MLB.

Expansion teams in brackets, *league switches, # team moved

NL East: (MON) NYM PHI WAS
NL North: CHC MIL PIT STL
NL South: ATL CIN HOU* MIA
NL West: ARZ LAD SD SF

AL East: BAL BOS NYY TOR
AL North: CWS CLE DET MIN
AL South: KC (NSH) TB TEX
AL West: COL* LAA SEA LV#

Houston and Colorado switch leagues because it works better for the divisional footprints

Which brings us to scheduling formula.

Essentially, the season schedule consists of:
*Four series against division opponents, two each home and road
*Two series against intraleague opponents, one each home and one road
*One series against interleague opponents, half home, half road, alternating years

Postseason would be the four division winners and two wild cards per league. Rest is the same as now, with the top two division winners getting byes, best-of-3 Wild Card Series, best-of-5 Division Series, best-of-7 League Championship Series, and best-of-7 World Series. The loss of a wild card is balanced by there being an extra division winner.

As you can see, I've given this some thought.

This is very well thought out, as we can see. I would say your schedule is too much interleague, not enough division. If post-season spots are determined by division, you need to play division A LOT. Which is why I think having eight divisions of four isn't a good idea anymore.

 

[KevFu]

First, baseball is told it either goes to promotion/relegation by the government OR are told it no longer has an anti-trust exemption, must pay back all tax dollars used for stadiums and contract depreciation in triplicate (in honor of the multiplier effect they use to brag about with stadium economics), and can no longer charge for media rights.

The new teams are told to enter the 4th Tier.

See, this is why I'm really mad at MLS for expanding so rapidly from 18 to 30 teams. They HAD the chance to get "PRO/REL in a major American/Canadian league" going with all the benefits of the usual North American "Closed" League system, but they biffed it.

Instead of 11 teams to MLS for $131.8 million average price each (over 8 years), they should have announced the start of MLS-2 for the purpose of PRO/REL.

Sell the first 12 teams to MLS-2 for $75 million each (The 11 teams they added, plus Sacramento). Get them up and running and announce the further expansion of MLS-2 to like 24 teams.

Announce you got so many applications, you want to start MLS-3! As you build MLS-3, start promotion from MLS-2 to MLS (with NO relegation!)

Basically, you expand MLS by promoting from MLS-2 without relegating anyone, and keep expanding MLS-3 at the bottom until the interest in buying MLS-3 teams dries up.

When people stop wanting to buy MLS-3 teams, THAT'S when you start relegating teams with promotions in a three-tier closed system.

You could end up with a 32-32-32 system, where the original 18 owners have very little chance of going down.

You get the massive publicity for YEARS of "the winner of this MLS-2 championship goes up to MLS!" and the surge of people wanting to buy into the pyramid every time they see that.

 

[oknazevad]

This is very well thought out, as we can see. I would say your schedule is too much interleague, not enough division. If post-season spots are determined by division, you need to play division A LOT. Which is why I think having eight divisions of four isn't a good idea anymore.

But that's just it, it's not solely divisional, but league, what with the wildcards. And those aren't going away as owners aren't giving up the money from the Wild Card Series round that ESPN is paying pretty big money for. And the interleague play isn't going away. Every team playing each other every year is needed to get the stars exposure, and to use that stardom as gate attraction in road cities. Getting someone like Judge or Ohtani or Alonso in every town every two years is a desirable outcome.

Its kinda similar to the NHL. Remember, when the NHL went back to four divisions from six, the owners had wanted to go to a wholly divisional playoff qualification (top four in each division, full stop) largely to get rid of first-round Central vs Pacific matchups, but the players were against that because of concerns that a fifth-place team in a stronger division would have a better record than the fourth place team in a weaker one, resulting in the wildcards, making the qualification partly conference based. Heck, there are those that say they should go straight 1-8 in conference, though that's not going to happen because of the aforementioned multiplicity of Central/Pacific first-round matchups.

 

[ponder719]

I voted for NHL style, but I'm relatively apathetic when it comes to 8 groups of 4 or 4 groups of 8. What I'm really hung up on is avoiding radical geographic realignment (I'd relent if it meant bringing the As home to Philly, which is my #1 want in all of this, but that's never happening, so screw it, I'm gonna put my foot down here.) I'm OK with some small measure of league crossing, but I do want to maintain the historical tendency to keep teams in the same metropolitan area apart, and things like that.

Welp, this is "what do you want," so I'm taking the As back and giving expansion teams to Montreal and Nashville. I've set this up as four pods in each league, though I'd be fine doing this as 2 leagues with 2 divisions of 8, or four leagues of 8. Don't really care on that front. Just take the divisions 2 at a time if you're combining them, that's the best geographic alignment of the pods. I am going to be eschewing geographic names for the divisions, in favor of naming them for great players of the past. Those are up for negotiation, just picking some random greats who played on at least one of the teams in their division here.

AL:
Ruth: PHA, BOS, NYY, TOR
Carew: CLE, DET, MIN, MIL
Brett: CHW, KC, NSH, TB
Mays: SEA, COL, SF, LAA

NL:
Clemente: NYM, PHI, PIT, MTL
Aaron: BAL, WAS, ATL, MIA
Gibson: CHI, STL, CIN, HOU
Robinson: LAD, SD, ARZ, TEX

I'm not going game by game to break this down, but teams will have the most games within their pod/division, and interleague play to ensure every team plays every other, every year. The Ruth/Clemente, Carew/Aaron, Gibson/Brett, and Robinson/Mays pods would play each other a bit more frequently than the other interleague matchups, to develop some interleague rivalries.

 

[KevFu]

But that's just it, it's not solely divisional, but league, what with the wildcards. And those aren't going away as owners aren't giving up the money from the Wild Card Series round that ESPN is paying pretty big money for.

I won't go hard-core argument style, because this is the "How would YOU LIKE" instead of "What's the best," so "I don't care about that, it's what I want" is a perfectly valid opinion.

But if you're going to have four division champions and then wild cards for non-champions, then the best you can do without winning the division is the 5 seed. So the division race matters so much more than the wild card. The Wild Card is a safety net. You don't build the competition around the safety net.

This is why I think four team divisions don't work, and I favor four leagues of eight.

And the interleague play isn't going away. Every team playing each other every year is needed to get the stars exposure, and to use that stardom as gate attraction in road cities. Getting someone like Judge or Ohtani or Alonso in every town every two years is a desirable outcome.

I know, but strongly disagree with "play everyone once." The NBA/NHL struggle with fitting in enough rivalry games AND playing everyone in 30-32 team league because leagues are too big. Baseball has had an excuse to to play everyone every year, and very few fans are clamoring for it. Once you make fans used to seeing everyone on the schedule once, you can't go back without ruffling feathers.

 

[KevFu]

Its kinda similar to the NHL. Remember, when the NHL went back to four divisions from six, the owners had wanted to go to a wholly divisional playoff qualification (top four in each division, full stop) largely to get rid of first-round Central vs Pacific matchups, but the players were against that because of concerns that a fifth-place team in a stronger division would have a better record than the fourth place team in a weaker one, resulting in the wildcards, making the qualification partly conference based. Heck, there are those that say they should go straight 1-8 in conference, though that's not going to happen because of the aforementioned multiplicity of Central/Pacific first-round matchups.

Right, the problem is how to make a fair competition while optimizing business. The wild card exists to account for divisions not being of equal strength. I think MLB putting the focus on winning the division by adding a 5th and now 6th playoff spot was bad and dumb, because it's been EXTREMELY RARE that the division winners have the 1-2-3 best record in each league anyway.

But the "out" on the wild card race has always been "Boo hoo your division was tougher... with all the division games, you had every opportunity to win division games and finish higher in the standings."

When you reduce division games so you can play everyone in MLB; each team controls less of their destiny.

You're building a schedule around "division doesn't matter" but the playoff format is all about winning your division.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I voted for NHL style, but I'm relatively apathetic when it comes to 8 groups of 4 or 4 groups of 8. What I'm really hung up on is avoiding radical geographic realignment (I'd relent if it meant bringing the As home to Philly, which is my #1 want in all of this, but that's never happening, so screw it, I'm gonna put my foot down here.) I'm OK with some small measure of league crossing, but I do want to maintain the historical tendency to keep teams in the same metropolitan area apart, and things like that.

Welp, this is "what do you want," so I'm taking the As back and giving expansion teams to Montreal and Nashville. I've set this up as four pods in each league, though I'd be fine doing this as 2 leagues with 2 divisions of 8, or four leagues of 8. Don't really care on that front. Just take the divisions 2 at a time if you're combining them, that's the best geographic alignment of the pods. I am going to be eschewing geographic names for the divisions, in favor of naming them for great players of the past. Those are up for negotiation, just picking some random greats who played on at least one of the teams in their division here.

AL:
Ruth: PHA, BOS, NYY, TOR
Carew: CLE, DET, MIN, MIL
Brett: CHW, KC, NSH, TB
Mays: SEA, COL, SF, LAA

NL:
Clemente: NYM, PHI, PIT, MTL
Aaron: BAL, WAS, ATL, MIA
Gibson: CHI, STL, CIN, HOU
Robinson: LAD, SD, ARZ, TEX

I'm not going game by game to break this down, but teams will have the most games within their pod/division, and interleague play to ensure every team plays every other, every year. The Ruth/Clemente, Carew/Aaron, Gibson/Brett, and Robinson/Mays pods would play each other a bit more frequently than the other interleague matchups, to develop some interleague rivalries.

What a hodge podge of a division the Brett is.

If you're forcing Tampa into a midwestern division and breaking up the AL Central, at the very least try to keep mostly Eastern/Central.

 

[KevFu]

AL:
Mays: SEA, COL, SF, LAA

THIS is extremely interesting to me. Never crossed my mind that if Oakland left, make the Giants could shift to an AL team.

I mean, the Dodgers/Giants have been rivals since before their teams even HAD nicknames, back in 1884.

But the Giants in the AL as some kind of competitive balance/smart business approach could be worth exploring, should the A's relocate.

 

[KevFu]

I voted for NHL style, but I'm relatively apathetic when it comes to 8 groups of 4 or 4 groups of 8. What I'm really hung up on is avoiding radical geographic realignment

One thing that I'm really curious about, is that I know a lot of baseball fans who say that MLB should stay how it is, with AL/NL separate and not do radical geographic realignment into East/West conferences.

But then about hockey or basketball, they don't want a new alignment that's like baseball is, they like hockey and basketball Eastern and Western Conference.

And I don't understand why.
NBA/NHL is scheduling 82 games, MLB is scheduling 54 series, and all allegedly doing "the best they can for a fair competition and making the most money."

The only real difference is the distribution of where teams are in each league, and "How we've always done it" (which is a stupid reason to do anything).

So why do you like AL/NL for baseball, but Eastern/Western conference for hockey?

 

[ponder719]

What a hodge podge of a division the Brett is.

If you're forcing Tampa into a midwestern division and breaking up the AL Central, at the very least try to keep mostly Eastern/Central.

It may not surprise you to know that the Brett is the division I was least happy with, when I got to the end of the exercise. It was very much a "pair the spares" situation, after doing what I could to balance the westernmost teams and the overpopulated east. My original thought revolved around using the southern half of the NL East, and relying on the natural Baltimore/Washington rivalry to make that all work, but I suppose that geographically,
ATL/MIA/TB/NSH would be a relatively compact division, and CHW/KC/BAL/WAS as the "pair the spares" has the advantage of keeping two pairs of rivals (I presume the White Sox and Royals are rivals, though I don't know which teams hate each other the most in that division quite the way I do with my NL East) with relative ease of travel.

One thing that I'm really curious about, is that I know a lot of baseball fans who say that MLB should stay how it is, with AL/NL separate and not do radical geographic realignment into East/West conferences.

But then about hockey or basketball, they don't want a new alignment that's like baseball is, they like hockey and basketball Eastern and Western Conference.

And I don't understand why.
NBA/NHL is scheduling 82 games, MLB is scheduling 54 series, and all allegedly doing "the best they can for a fair competition and making the most money."

The only real difference is the distribution of where teams are in each league, and "How we've always done it" (which is a stupid reason to do anything).

So why do you like AL/NL for baseball, but Eastern/Western conference for hockey?

If the NHL had developed as two separate but equal leagues, I would prefer an AL/NL style alignment there as well. I do broadly prefer the idea of separating out the metro areas, allowing for more space to find other teams nearby to support as a second team, and giving you a reason to care about teams further away. It's just that the rivalries are so entrenched at this point that it would be hard to lose those teams I've come to relish kicking the crap out of.

Spinning off into some existential alignment horror, "what if the NHL was the Campbell League and Wales League":

Campbell East: PHI, PIT, BUF, BOS, NYR, TB, DET, CLB
Campbell West: SEA, EDM, WPG, MIN, ARZ, LA, SJ, STL
Wales East: MTL, TOR, OTT, NYI, NJ, FLA, WAS, CAR
Wales West: ANA, LV, VAN, CGY, DAL, NSH, COL, CHI