Major League Baseball considering expansion, radical realignment

[Melrose Munch]

Montréal will end up Pittsburgh Cincinnati Toronto Cleveland and Detroit in a east west alignment. Also don't know why people are so down on Vancouver. Maybe be better then Portland.

 

[Neutrinos]

I think it's in everyone's best interest to realign the teams geographically so that all teams on the west coast play in the same division/league

The hours saved on travel alone makes it worthwhile, but I think it obviously helps bolster regional rivalries

 

[KevFu]

Montréal will end up Pittsburgh Cincinnati Toronto Cleveland and Detroit in a east west alignment. Also don't know why people are so down on Vancouver. Maybe be better then Portland.

I've been thinking about baseball expansion and realignment for a long time. I'm a traditionalist when it comes to baseball and I like your ideas but I'd take them even a step further. I hate interleague play. I also don't think I'll ever get used to the Astros as an AL team (hell, I still have a hard time thinking of the Brewers as an NL team). So here is my alignment and schedule idea for regular season and playoffs.

I prefer 4 divisions of 8 teams so I'd do this:

AL East - BAL, BOS, CLE, DET, NYY, TB, TOR, WAS
AL West - CWS, KC, LAA, MIL, MIN, OAK, SEA, TEX

NL East - ATL, Carolina (or Indy, Louisville, Columbus, or some other eastern city), CIN, MIA, Montreal, NYM, PHI, PIT
NL West - ARI, CHC, COL, HOU, LAD, SD, SF, STL

In my setup, not only is interleague play gone, interdivisional play is gone.
Every team plays the other 7 teams in their own division 22 times, 11 home and 11 away for a 154 game schedule. That's it. Exactly the way baseball was when it was 2 leagues of 8 teams.

Now to the part of my setup that may be somewhat realistic. The playoff format (and the main reason I went with 4 divisions of 8). I realize you're never going back to the division winners being the only playoff teams and I wouldn't want that anyway, so I'd do this:

Division winners make the playoffs (quite obviously). The next 4 teams in the division qualify for the playoffs. Those 4 teams play a one game playoff (2 vs. 5 and 3 vs. 4)

I'd be totally 100% in favor of that regular season format. As a fellow traditionalist, but mainly as a Mets fan.

I never really considered Washington to the AL, mostly for the financial balance. Big money powerhouses Yankees/Sox/Nats? Have fun AL East! That helps the Mets A LOT.

But let me ask you this... If "Washington is an AL City because of years of the Senators in DC" applies, wouldn't the same thing apply to Milwaukee? Milwaukee has had NL baseball for 34 seasons (14 Braves, 20 Brewers), and 28 AL seasons (Brewers 1970-1997)

For the sake of geographic balance between the AL/NL West, I'd swap MIL and COL, so you've got 4 PTZ/MTZ and 4 CTZ in both west divisions.

Also, my preference would be a 2 vs 3 in each division, 12 playoff teams instead of 16. And we ditch four almost immediately.

[/Pipedream]

But there's simply NO WAY that the owners of those eight Central franchises would accept 44 road games in the Pacific/Mountain Time Zones with ZERO East Coast games. If I asked myself who'd be okay with your regular season plan, I'd guess the 6 teams in your new NL East teams would love it; the current NL West would like it (from 24-ish to 44 road games in their time zone!) and it would get vetoed with a vote somewhere between 22-8 and 16-14. No way it has a 3/4 majority.

I really (totally and honestly) NEVER expected my deranged "NL-AL-PCL-CBL" concept to a serious option. But the more we are talking about "How baseball SHOULD BE" with respect to it's long history, versus the compromise/sacrifice of modern TV considerations and financial decisions; the more and more I think it SHOULD be a serious consideration.

If we adopted your regular season schedule to my NL-AL-PCL-CBL plan, what are the votes? I'd guess between 28-2 and 24-6.

PCL gets 154 games in their time zones. Massive windfall. (8-0 YES)
AL gets zero trips west of KC/MIN so no late starts. No passing customs into Canada. No astroturf in their league. (8-0 YES).
NL goes from 18 games vs NL West to 11 games at Colorado. PIT, CIN, CHC, STL "rejoin the East." Three financial powers (LAD, SFG, NYM) are gone. No passing customs into Canada. No astroturf in their league. (7-0 YES).
CBL: No trips west of HOU/TEX is a positive. Adding TB-MIA and MON-TOR rivalries a positive. HOU/TEX would join six eastern teams and have zero trips west. TOR would trade the financial powerhouses of NYY/BOS for NYM/WAS. (3-2-2)

 

[Machinehead]

I can't believe people want to eliminate the DH as opposed to adding it.

"I need to watch pitchers bat .128! It's tradishun!!

 

[patnyrnyg]

I wouldn't be surprised if this idea was tossed around amongst the powers that be and they are honestly unsure what to do. They may love the idea, but are unsure how it would be taken by the public. But, I will post my idea for the 4 8-team divisions assuming Montreal and Portland, OR were the teams. Did enjoy the NHL realignment threads from a few years ago.

North-Mets, Yanks, Redsox, Phillies, Blue Jays, Nationals, Orioles, Expos*
East-Marlins, Rays, Braves, Pirates, Tigers, Indians, Reds, Brewers
Midwest-Twins, Royals, Cardinals, Rangers, Astros, Cubs, Whitesox, Rockies
West- Dodgers, Angels, Giants, A's, Padres, DBacks, Mariners, Portland*

I do like the schedule format outlined in the original article. Although, the old 12-team National League was perfect. 18 games against your division teams and 12 games against each team in the other division, but I know that is long gone.

 

[patnyrnyg]

The thing they got completely wrong with interleague play is using the home team rules. It should have been the visiting team rules from the start. Give the fans at the stadium something they're not used to experiencing--DH or pitchers batting.

I never thought about that, and I agree and like it.

 

[Melrose Munch]

I think it's in everyone's best interest to realign the teams geographically so that all teams on the west coast play in the same division/league

The hours saved on travel alone makes it worthwhile, but I think it obviously helps bolster regional rivalries

I'd be totally 100% in favor of that regular season format. As a fellow traditionalist, but mainly as a Mets fan.

I never really considered Washington to the AL, mostly for the financial balance. Big money powerhouses Yankees/Sox/Nats? Have fun AL East! That helps the Mets A LOT.

But let me ask you this... If "Washington is an AL City because of years of the Senators in DC" applies, wouldn't the same thing apply to Milwaukee? Milwaukee has had NL baseball for 34 seasons (14 Braves, 20 Brewers), and 28 AL seasons (Brewers 1970-1997)

For the sake of geographic balance between the AL/NL West, I'd swap MIL and COL, so you've got 4 PTZ/MTZ and 4 CTZ in both west divisions.

Also, my preference would be a 2 vs 3 in each division, 12 playoff teams instead of 16. And we ditch four almost immediately.

[/Pipedream]

But there's simply NO WAY that the owners of those eight Central franchises would accept 44 road games in the Pacific/Mountain Time Zones with ZERO East Coast games. If I asked myself who'd be okay with your regular season plan, I'd guess the 6 teams in your new NL East teams would love it; the current NL West would like it (from 24-ish to 44 road games in their time zone!) and it would get vetoed with a vote somewhere between 22-8 and 16-14. No way it has a 3/4 majority.

I really (totally and honestly) NEVER expected my deranged "NL-AL-PCL-CBL" concept to a serious option. But the more we are talking about "How baseball SHOULD BE" with respect to it's long history, versus the compromise/sacrifice of modern TV considerations and financial decisions; the more and more I think it SHOULD be a serious consideration.

If we adopted your regular season schedule to my NL-AL-PCL-CBL plan, what are the votes? I'd guess between 28-2 and 24-6.

PCL gets 154 games in their time zones. Massive windfall. (8-0 YES)
AL gets zero trips west of KC/MIN so no late starts. No passing customs into Canada. No astroturf in their league. (8-0 YES).
NL goes from 18 games vs NL West to 11 games at Colorado. PIT, CIN, CHC, STL "rejoin the East." Three financial powers (LAD, SFG, NYM) are gone. No passing customs into Canada. No astroturf in their league. (7-0 YES).
CBL: No trips west of HOU/TEX is a positive. Adding TB-MIA and MON-TOR rivalries a positive. HOU/TEX would join six eastern teams and have zero trips west. TOR would trade the financial powerhouses of NYY/BOS for NYM/WAS. (3-2-2)

I think it is time for the geographical divisions if only to limit travel. Limiting West coast travel would give them a chance to rest up. I think the playoffs should be 16 teams, 8 per league conference. That way there can be no excuses for some of the big market teams outside of NYC, Boston and

 

[Melrose Munch]

I think it's in everyone's best interest to realign the teams geographically so that all teams on the west coast play in the same division/league

The hours saved on travel alone makes it worthwhile, but I think it obviously helps bolster regional rivalries

I'd be totally 100% in favor of that regular season format. As a fellow traditionalist, but mainly as a Mets fan.

I never really considered Washington to the AL, mostly for the financial balance. Big money powerhouses Yankees/Sox/Nats? Have fun AL East! That helps the Mets A LOT.

But let me ask you this... If "Washington is an AL City because of years of the Senators in DC" applies, wouldn't the same thing apply to Milwaukee? Milwaukee has had NL baseball for 34 seasons (14 Braves, 20 Brewers), and 28 AL seasons (Brewers 1970-1997)

For the sake of geographic balance between the AL/NL West, I'd swap MIL and COL, so you've got 4 PTZ/MTZ and 4 CTZ in both west divisions.

Also, my preference would be a 2 vs 3 in each division, 12 playoff teams instead of 16. And we ditch four almost immediately.

[/Pipedream]
I support the geographical conferences if only to limit travel. And 16 teams in the playoffs 8 per league or Conference. No more excuses for some of these teams.
But there's simply NO WAY that the owners of those eight Central franchises would accept 44 road games in the Pacific/Mountain Time Zones with ZERO East Coast games. If I asked myself who'd be okay with your regular season plan, I'd guess the 6 teams in your new NL East teams would love it; the current NL West would like it (from 24-ish to 44 road games in their time zone!) and it would get vetoed with a vote somewhere between 22-8 and 16-14. No way it has a 3/4 majority.

I really (totally and honestly) NEVER expected my deranged "NL-AL-PCL-CBL" concept to a serious option. But the more we are talking about "How baseball SHOULD BE" with respect to it's long history, versus the compromise/sacrifice of modern TV considerations and financial decisions; the more and more I think it SHOULD be a serious consideration.

If we adopted your regular season schedule to my NL-AL-PCL-CBL plan, what are the votes? I'd guess between 28-2 and 24-6.

PCL gets 154 games in their time zones. Massive windfall. (8-0 YES)
AL gets zero trips west of KC/MIN so no late starts. No passing customs into Canada. No astroturf in their league. (8-0 YES).
NL goes from 18 games vs NL West to 11 games at Colorado. PIT, CIN, CHC, STL "rejoin the East." Three financial powers (LAD, SFG, NYM) are gone. No passing customs into Canada. No astroturf in their league. (7-0 YES).
CBL: No trips west of HOU/TEX is a positive. Adding TB-MIA and MON-TOR rivalries a positive. HOU/TEX would join six eastern teams and have zero trips west. TOR would trade the financial powerhouses of NYY/BOS for NYM/WAS. (3-2-2)

I support geographical divisions if only to limit travel. I think Toronto needs to be with the great lakes teams. And the playoffs should be 16 teams.

 

[Machinehead]

I support geographical divisions if only to limit travel. I think Toronto needs to be with the great lakes teams. And the playoffs should be 16 teams.

There's not 16 decent teams in MLB.

The Twins were a 5 seed and simply weren't competitive with the other 4 AL playoff teams.

Now you're adding 3 more teams that aren't going to be competitive. Not to mention all 3 of them were sub-.500.

 

[Melrose Munch]

There's not 16 decent teams in MLB.

The Twins were a 5 seed and simply weren't competitive with the other 4 AL playoff teams.

Now you're adding 3 more teams that aren't going to be competitive. Not to mention all 3 of them were sub-.500.

Playoff revenue =$$$. They have to come up with something if they lop 5 games of the regular season schedule.

 

[John Price]

Fine as is

I mean where would you place new franchises?

 

[IU Hawks fan]

There's not 16 decent teams in MLB.

The Twins were a 5 seed and simply weren't competitive with the other 4 AL playoff teams.

Yeah, the Twins only made the playoffs because they got to play KC and my White Sox. Think they were 5 under against the rest of the AL.

 

[KevFu]

If/When Montreal gets an expansion team it should be in the same division as Toronto, Boston and New York. The close proximity to all of these teams will create built in rivalries and travelling fans.

I disagree. MLB seems to be building towards that with HOU/TEX and looks like if Portland joined, they'd go AL (which I disagree with).

While there's plenty of examples of geographic rivals, there's zero evidence of causation. Geography alone doesn't make rivals. For every geographic rivalry that's ever existed, there's an example of a non-geographic rivalry based solely on "We're both good, only one of us can win."

Rivalries require hatred. Hatred comes from a variety of places. Living with/near opposing fans. Mets/Yankees and Islanders/Rangers/Devils will always hate each other because we live in the same market with fans that drive us crazy.

But rivalries are almost always dictated more by winning, the jealousy that comes from them winning and you not being able to beat them, and bad blood that ensues from actions taken trying to clinch that victory. Let's just call that "Playoff Intensity Bad Blood."


We were talking earlier in this thread about Phillies/Mets and their rivalry. Philly may hate New York on principle, but the rivalry wasn't really there until we were both good from 2005-2010 and things got PERSONAL. Jimmy Rollins was talking trash, we were drilling Pat Burrell and another guy constantly.

The Mets and Braves aren't close geographically and our rivalry was longer and more intense from 1996-2006. We couldn't beat them in Atlanta, they crushed our playoff hopes multiple times including the 1999 NLCS. We chanted Larry, Larry named his kid Shea. John Rocker gave the SI interview slamming New York. One year, we were a game out of the wild card with a week to go, and Bobby Cox threw three starting pitchers with a combined 55 wins against us in ONE GAME. He managed like it was Game Seven of the World Series. They had already clinched and the game was MEANINGLESS to them.

Mets-Cardinals (1984-1991). They won the division in 85 and 87. We got it in 86 and 88. Their former MVP Keith Hernandez started using cocaine, so they dumped him for scrubs in 1983. He got clean with us before 1985 and turned back into an MVP. He was our captain. He held a grudge.

If you playing with something big on the line, the jealousy and behavior you dislike boils over into bad blood/hatred.

There's absolutely no doubt that Blue Jays vs Expos could become a bitter division rivals. You have that hatred for Montreal already because of Leafs-Canadiens.

But you know I'm right about "Playoff Intensity Bad Blood" because we all saw Roughned Odor punch Jose Bautista in the face.

 

[Machinehead]

Fine as is

I mean where would you place new franchises?

Maybe Carolina and Nashville but you could easily move failing franchises there instead of expanding.

 

[Neutrinos]

I wouldn't be surprised if this idea was tossed around amongst the powers that be and they are honestly unsure what to do. They may love the idea, but are unsure how it would be taken by the public. But, I will post my idea for the 4 8-team divisions assuming Montreal and Portland, OR were the teams. Did enjoy the NHL realignment threads from a few years ago.

North-Mets, Yanks, Redsox, Phillies, Blue Jays, Nationals, Orioles, Expos*
East-Marlins, Rays, Braves, Pirates, Tigers, Indians, Reds, Brewers
Midwest-Twins, Royals, Cardinals, Rangers, Astros, Cubs, Whitesox, Rockies
West- Dodgers, Angels, Giants, A's, Padres, DBacks, Mariners, Portland*

I do like the schedule format outlined in the original article. Although, the old 12-team National League was perfect. 18 games against your division teams and 12 games against each team in the other division, but I know that is long gone.

Milwaukee would almost certainly play in the same division as Chicago and Minnesota

And it seems odd to have the Pirates and Phillies in separate divisions since they're from the same state

 

[Melrose Munch]

Milwaukee would almost certainly play in the same division as Chicago and Minnesota

And it seems odd to have the Pirates and Phillies in separate divisions since they're from the same state

The pirates and Phillies are in separate divisions now.

 

[Neutrinos]

The pirates and Phillies are in separate divisions now.

The point of change is to improve upon what already is

 

[KevFu]

I think it is time for the geographical divisions if only to limit travel. Limiting West coast travel would give them a chance to rest up. I think the playoffs should be 16 teams, 8 per league conference. That way there can be no excuses for some of the big market teams outside of NYC, Boston and

Here's my problem with the "need radical realignment to reduce travel" argument:

#1 - yes, tighter divisions and schedule adjustments can reduce flight times. But the ORDER of the games on your schedule dictates the miles you travel more than the alignment.

New York at PHI, WAS, MIA is shorter mileage than New York at WAS, PHI, MIA.

#2 - Logistics are more than map points. I get that "Less is always better" on athletes, but MLB is working on reducing travel because their season is 162 games season, double NHL/NBA seasons. They travel more than anyone else, right?

NHL had 1230 games last season for 30 teams. They flew 1,195,680 total miles.
MLB had 2430 games last season for 30 teams. What's your guess? 2 million miles?

Nope. 976,305 total miles! Everything is a multi-game series!

The Vancouver Canucks will make 48 flights this season to their 41 road games.
The Seattle Mariners did their 81 road games in 37 flights (although they did fly 844 more miles while being 121 miles closer than VAN).


My point is: This is NOT about TRAVEL. It is 100% about TV contracts. Revenue generated from more local start times. You know this for three reasons:

#1 - MLB has 8 PTZ/MTZ teams, 8 CTZ teams, 14 ETZ teams.
If it's about travel, why is Portland the top choice behind Montreal?
- Portland is further away from SD, LAA, LAD and ARZ than the Colorado Rockies.
- Colorado is further away from KC, CWS, CHC, MIL, STL than the Minnesota Twins.

The "plan" Baseball America posted has COL in the "Midwest" and Minnesota in the "North." If you REALLY wanted travel to be better? Add Charlotte instead of Portland, the 8 PTZ/MTZ teams are in the West and its:

Midwest: MIN-CWS-KC-MIL-STL-DET-CIN
North: CLE-PIT-TOR-Montreal-BOS-NYM-NYY-PHI
South: HOU-TEX-TB-MIA-Charlotte-ATL-WAS-BAL

#2 - The schedule BA posted has everyone playing one series against EVERY MLB TEAM. 12 at home, 12 away.
Let's talk "Series per year of CTZ/ETZ teams AT PTZ/MTZ teams." This was specifically mentioned by the report.

Not counting interleave play, the NL has to make 5 of those trips per year to the West (50). The AL has to make 3 per year (30) Texas and Houston have to make 9 (18). Before interleague.

In the new system, everyone is going to have 4 road series at the New West: That's 96.

Except Colorado is going to be in the Midwest. They're going to host 7 division teams twice (14) and half the other 16 teams (8) for a grand total of 110 every year.

Nine teams see a decrease in their average. 13 teams see increase in their average; not counting Montreal.

#3 - There's a FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more easy fix that's going to blow your freaking minds: Play FOUR GAME series

Go to 4-4-4-4 in each league, West-Central-East-North/South
Play 16 vs your division, 8 vs other divisions; 4 vs interleague rival division.

4 AL West teams host: 12 AL teams once each (48 series)
4 NL West teams host 11 NL teams once each (44 series)
COL in NL Central hosts: 3 NL Central teams 2 times (6) and 8 teams once (8)

That's 106 instead of 110.

 

[Mike Louis]

When MLB does expend to 32 teams, the schedule needs to be changed so that non divisional games are home and home series. Also the interleague schedule needs to be changed to a home and home series format so that everybody can get to see all the stars at their stadium. It would also make the wildcard races more fair.

 

[kingsholygrail]

If they expand the playoffs, they have to shorten the season. It's already 30 games too long.

 

[Vamos Rafa]

Cutting the interleague geographic series to a 4-game set (two home games each in 4 consecutive days) was one of the best changes MLB has done since Manfred took over. So much better than forcing teams that have nothing to do with each other in the standings play 6 times.

I like the idea of four division each a la NFL. But keep the wild card so that division rivals can still face each other in the playoffs.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Here's my problem with the "need radical realignment to reduce travel" argument:

#1 - yes, tighter divisions and schedule adjustments can reduce flight times. But the ORDER of the games on your schedule dictates the miles you travel more than the alignment.

New York at PHI, WAS, MIA is shorter mileage than New York at WAS, PHI, MIA.

#2 - Logistics are more than map points. I get that "Less is always better" on athletes, but MLB is working on reducing travel because their season is 162 games season, double NHL/NBA seasons. They travel more than anyone else, right?

NHL had 1230 games last season for 30 teams. They flew 1,195,680 total miles.
MLB had 2430 games last season for 30 teams. What's your guess? 2 million miles?

Nope. 976,305 total miles! Everything is a multi-game series!

The Vancouver Canucks will make 48 flights this season to their 41 road games.
The Seattle Mariners did their 81 road games in 37 flights (although they did fly 844 more miles while being 121 miles closer than VAN).


My point is: This is NOT about TRAVEL. It is 100% about TV contracts. Revenue generated from more local start times. You know this for three reasons:

#1 - MLB has 8 PTZ/MTZ teams, 8 CTZ teams, 14 ETZ teams.
If it's about travel, why is Portland the top choice behind Montreal?
- Portland is further away from SD, LAA, LAD and ARZ than the Colorado Rockies.
- Colorado is further away from KC, CWS, CHC, MIL, STL than the Minnesota Twins.

The "plan" Baseball America posted has COL in the "Midwest" and Minnesota in the "North." If you REALLY wanted travel to be better? Add Charlotte instead of Portland, the 8 PTZ/MTZ teams are in the West and its:

Midwest: MIN-CWS-KC-MIL-STL-DET-CIN
North: CLE-PIT-TOR-Montreal-BOS-NYM-NYY-PHI
South: HOU-TEX-TB-MIA-Charlotte-ATL-WAS-BAL

#2 - The schedule BA posted has everyone playing one series against EVERY MLB TEAM. 12 at home, 12 away.
Let's talk "Series per year of CTZ/ETZ teams AT PTZ/MTZ teams." This was specifically mentioned by the report.

Not counting interleave play, the NL has to make 5 of those trips per year to the West (50). The AL has to make 3 per year (30) Texas and Houston have to make 9 (18). Before interleague.

In the new system, everyone is going to have 4 road series at the New West: That's 96.

Except Colorado is going to be in the Midwest. They're going to host 7 division teams twice (14) and half the other 16 teams (8) for a grand total of 110 every year.

Nine teams see a decrease in their average. 13 teams see increase in their average; not counting Montreal.

#3 - There's a FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more easy fix that's going to blow your freaking minds: Play FOUR GAME series

Go to 4-4-4-4 in each league, West-Central-East-North/South
Play 16 vs your division, 8 vs other divisions; 4 vs interleague rival division.

4 AL West teams host: 12 AL teams once each (48 series)
4 NL West teams host 11 NL teams once each (44 series)
COL in NL Central hosts: 3 NL Central teams 2 times (6) and 8 teams once (8)

That's 106 instead of 110.

This makes sense 100%, But I think the league was probably trying to spread big market teams around for attendance reasons.

Here's what I posted on the last page
East: Boston, Baltimore, both New York franchises, Miami, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay and Washington.
Central: Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Toronto.
Midwest: Both Chicago franchises, Colorado, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, St. Louis and Texas.
West: Anaheim, Arizona, Los Angeles, Oakland, Vancouver, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

Slight tweak of the original proposal. Like you said, the Midwest division gets hit the most, but I did add Vancouver. I think if you add Charlotte you could bounce Tampa Bay to the central division.

 

[EventHorizon]

I'd be totally 100% in favor of that regular season format. As a fellow traditionalist, but mainly as a Mets fan.

I never really considered Washington to the AL, mostly for the financial balance. Big money powerhouses Yankees/Sox/Nats? Have fun AL East! That helps the Mets A LOT.

But let me ask you this... If "Washington is an AL City because of years of the Senators in DC" applies, wouldn't the same thing apply to Milwaukee? Milwaukee has had NL baseball for 34 seasons (14 Braves, 20 Brewers), and 28 AL seasons (Brewers 1970-1997)

For the sake of geographic balance between the AL/NL West, I'd swap MIL and COL, so you've got 4 PTZ/MTZ and 4 CTZ in both west divisions.

Also, my preference would be a 2 vs 3 in each division, 12 playoff teams instead of 16. And we ditch four almost immediately.

[/Pipedream]

But there's simply NO WAY that the owners of those eight Central franchises would accept 44 road games in the Pacific/Mountain Time Zones with ZERO East Coast games. If I asked myself who'd be okay with your regular season plan, I'd guess the 6 teams in your new NL East teams would love it; the current NL West would like it (from 24-ish to 44 road games in their time zone!) and it would get vetoed with a vote somewhere between 22-8 and 16-14. No way it has a 3/4 majority.

I really (totally and honestly) NEVER expected my deranged "NL-AL-PCL-CBL" concept to a serious option. But the more we are talking about "How baseball SHOULD BE" with respect to it's long history, versus the compromise/sacrifice of modern TV considerations and financial decisions; the more and more I think it SHOULD be a serious consideration.

If we adopted your regular season schedule to my NL-AL-PCL-CBL plan, what are the votes? I'd guess between 28-2 and 24-6.

PCL gets 154 games in their time zones. Massive windfall. (8-0 YES)
AL gets zero trips west of KC/MIN so no late starts. No passing customs into Canada. No astroturf in their league. (8-0 YES).
NL goes from 18 games vs NL West to 11 games at Colorado. PIT, CIN, CHC, STL "rejoin the East." Three financial powers (LAD, SFG, NYM) are gone. No passing customs into Canada. No astroturf in their league. (7-0 YES).
CBL: No trips west of HOU/TEX is a positive. Adding TB-MIA and MON-TOR rivalries a positive. HOU/TEX would join six eastern teams and have zero trips west. TOR would trade the financial powerhouses of NYY/BOS for NYM/WAS. (3-2-2)

Yeah, I'd be perfectly OK with Milwaukee staying in the NL as I'm pretty much used to that by now and I even started to type that in my original post but erased it for some reason. And I think you're right, my schedule with your alignment would probably go over great with the franchises themselves. I really do like your alignment a lot, in fact the only reason I even posted mine as an alternative is because I've had a file with that alignment on my PC for years and never really had any reason to share it. The reason I like yours so much is that the AL and NL are very close to their original 8 franchises which I love and the other leagues make good sense geographically while keeping a number of rivalries intact also. However I think the main drawback would be that most fans would probably dislike it. If you only watch your teams' games it means you'll only ever see 8 teams play and though I'd love that, I imagine a lot of fans would have a problem with it. But if the teams were on board....who can we talk to about this? I want this to happen!

One question with your alignment: when you've crowned League Champions in the playoffs, what happens next? Do you go 1 v 4, 2 v 3 based on regular season record (which was allegedly the original idea the NHL had with their proposed alignment a few years ago which I also loved) or do you have 2 of the leagues together in their own Conference?

 

[patnyrnyg]

When MLB does expend to 32 teams, the schedule needs to be changed so that non divisional games are home and home series. Also the interleague schedule needs to be changed to a home and home series format so that everybody can get to see all the stars at their stadium. It would also make the wildcard races more fair.

While do they need to see all the stars in their stadium? Angels played 3 games at Citi Field, had no desire to go to any of those games just to see Trout.

Non-division games are home and home series. For example, Cincinnati comes to Citi to play the mets once and the Mets go to cincy once a year. How are they going to play 6 games against every team from the AL (or NL). If they just played 6 games against every team in the league, that would be 186 games. Secondly, if they are not going to play more against their own division, then might as well not have divisions. Just one 32-team league.

 

[patnyrnyg]

The point of change is to improve upon what already is

Being in the same state doesn't mean they need to be in the same division. Pittsburgh is actually closer to Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Detroit than in it is to Philadelphia.