MLB Considering Expanding Playoff Teams to 14 With Top Seeds Having Option To Pick Oppenents

[DaBadGuy7]

This would happen in 2022. Already very controversial based on reaction on Twitter.

Click to read more...

 

[KevFu]

It's very dumb, but looks like the NFL model, which is interesting because the NFL has 4 divisions of 4 in each league and Manfred can't stop talking about expansion.

He's essentially saying, four division winners and three wild cards will go to the playoffs when we have 32 teams. Division alignment and playoff format are directly related. The slots on the bracket are filled by division winners.

There’s 5 ways of doing things when MLB has 32 teams:
1 - AL 6-5-5 NL 6-5-5
2 - AL 4-4-4-4, NL 4-4-4-4
3 - AL 8-8 NL 8-8
4 - WEST 8-8 EAST 8-8
5 - MLB 8-8-8-8

MLB teams have veto rights for switching divisions, which is the only reason the first option is on the list. If they can’t decide on an alignment, that’s what we get. 2 - Requires 8 votes minimum, more like 9 to 12 because they don’t have easily recognizable groups of four.

3 - Three is problematic because, much like the NHL, the “Eastern teams of the West” have no interest in playing more games vs the West. Six Central Time zone teams would be very strongly against 3 and 4 (Houston and Texas would be okay with it because they’re currently in the West)

4 - Is also “Radical Realignment” which would mean like, you need unanimous approval, or if there ARE hold outs, they have to remain in the same League name as before. What I mean by this is if the Cubs, Cardinals and Brewers say “No, we don’t want this, we will veto” then the “Midwest Division” of 8 will be called the NL Central, and you’ll get CIN, PIT to agree to leave, and HOU, TEX, CWS, MIN, KC to agree to move in; and then you don’t need CHC, STL, MIL to agree to pull it off. (But CWS, MIN, KC will probably be against it anyway).

Which brings me to 5. Four LEAGUES of 8 is the smartest way to go. Because it gives you tons of options, creates a schedule and playoff system that’s shocking fair, and true to baseball history; and gives you the ability to retain the AL/NL separation of centuries, just adding two new leagues to the mix in a non-blasphemous way.

Your 4 leagues of 8 will be: American, National, Western and “other.”
You play your league 16 to 18 times (112 to 126 games). This leaves a max of 50 non-league games, which is 24 road games against other teams.

The three PTZ AL West teams are playing 54 road games in the CTZ/ETZ now. A Pacific League would give them 30 more local start times. They’d be on board in a heartbeat. The NL West has only 34 games vs NL Central/NL East (because of Colorado/Arizona), so they’d get a little bit better as well. It’s an easy vote. HOU/TEX are homeless, so you ask them to join the new league which will feature only Central or Eastern teams. They’re instantly excited to leave the West.

Now you have:
PCL: SEA, OAK, SFG, LAD, LAA, SD, ARZ, COL
NEW: HOU, TEX
AL: NYY, BAL, BOS, TOR, TB, CLE, DET, CWS, MIN, KC
NL: NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, CIN, PIT, CHC, MIL, STL
Two expansion teams.

You can ask STL, CHC, MIL, MIN, CWS, KC if they want to join HOU/TEX and call it the Central League. If they all agree, you can TRY for “Radical Realignment” by re-arranging the remaining 14 teams by geography… BUT IF the Eastern teams can’t agree on the Geographic leagues, you simply keep them AL and NL and you’re done.

If the Central says “No, we want to stay AL/NL” then you ask KC, TB, MIA, ATL, CIN, PIT, WAS, etc if they want to join HOU/TEX in a new SOUTHERN League. If you get five teams, you are good to go. And then repeat the attempt to realign the others into two leagues out east, and if you can’t come to an agreement, you keep AL/NL.

And if the Central says no, and you have no geography way of setting your new league, you simply go for volunteers and call it the Continental League. Any team you can strong-arm, like teams being sold? Make moving a requirement like they did the Astros moving to the AL West. (Looking at you, Mets). Or teams in financial situations like MIA, TB. Maybe TOR wants to get away from the NYY/BOS financial powerhouses.

You’d only need FOUR because you can put both expansion teams in the new league if you need to. If you can't pull off geographic realignment, you can end up with:

OPTION 1 - SOUTH (New league is southern)
PL: SEA, OAK, SF, LAD, LAA, SD, ARZ, COL
AL: CWS, CLE, DET, NYY, BAL, BOS, MIN, TOR
NL: CHC, STL, CIN, PIT, PHI, NYM, MON, MIL
SL: HOU, TEX, KC, Nashville, MIA, TB, ATL, WAS (or maybe NYM instead of WAS)

OPTION 2 - CENTRAL LEAGUE
PL: SEA, OAK, SF, LAD, LAA, SD, ARZ, COL
AL: CLE, DET, NYY, BAL, BOS, TB, TOR, Expansion (NASH/CHAR/MON)
NL: PIT, CIN, NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, Expansion (NASH/CHAR/MON)
CL: HOU, TEX, STL, CHC, MIL, CWS, MIN, KCR (maybe NASH/CHAR)

OPTION 3 - EASIEST VOTES
PL: SEA, OAK, SF, LAD, LAA, SD, ARZ, COL
AL: CWS, CLE, DET, NYY, BAL, BOS, MIN, KC
NL: CHC, STL, CIN, PIT, PHI, MIL, ATL, WAS
CBL: HOU, TEX, TOR, MON, MIA, TB, NYM, Expansion 2

 

[oknazevad]

The whole reason that won't fly is the Mets exist specifically to have an NL team in New York. That's the entire reason they came into existence. League swapping in any realignment would be two teams at most.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

The whole reason that won't fly is the Mets exist specifically to have an NL team in New York. That's the entire reason they came into existence. League swapping in any realignment would be two teams at most.

That was in the 60s when the two leagues where separate entity's the Yankees and Mets play every year now. If MLB really cared about NL AL Balance Pittsburgh would have gone to the AL instead of Houston just to have the two teams in PA in separate leagues.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

That was in the 60s when the two leagues where separate entity's the Yankees and Mets play every year now. If MLB really cared about NL AL Balance Pittsburgh would have gone to the AL instead of Houston just to have the two teams in PA in separate leagues.

explain Milwaukee, then, Centrum....... before the Brewer fans do..... Houston only was flipped to balance the 5-5-4 ALIGNMENT of the reconstituted West...... how is Milwaukee an Eastern city, when there's no Central

Detroit is an Eastern zone team, but played until recently in the Western Conference, but they play in a Central Division under the MLB Alignment

 

[tony d]

It's all interesting. I actually like the idea of more playoff teams in baseball. It's the choose your opponent proposal that I disagree with.

 

[KevFu]

The whole reason that won't fly is the Mets exist specifically to have an NL team in New York. That's the entire reason they came into existence. League swapping in any realignment would be two teams at most.

Ah, yes. (I'm a Mets fan, BTW), but see that CBL label on one of those options? When the Dodgers/Giants left, the Pacific Coast League was lobbying for Major League status. And the AL-NL had a fragile peace because they were completely two separate leagues with one 40-year old piece of paper the only thing binding them together. They didn't want to go to war with each other. So the NL said no to expansion when New York asked.

So a New York lawyer said "Ok, well, I'm starting a new league: The Continental League. We'll have teams in New York, Houston, Dallas, Toronto, Minnesota, Denver, Atlanta and Buffalo." He found owners and everything. That got the AL-NL talking and they agreed to add LA Angels, NY Mets, Houston and a new team in Washington DC to replace the Senators who just moved to Minneapolis.

That four-league plan of AL, NL, PCL and CBL is "revisionist history." If the Dodgers/Giants and later Denver joined the PCL; if the CBL formed with NY Mets, Houston, Texas, Toronto, replacement DC team; Montreal instead of Buffalo, and the Florida teams instead of Atlanta after the Braves left Milwaukee.

So it is weird to have the Mets outside of the NL, but it really looks like a plan from the late 50s. And of course, the pragmatic approach: GETTING THE VOTES.

Unlike most sports, MLB teams have veto rights on switching divisions. Every plan put forth is probably going to get voted down unless you get creative to make everyone happy. Because every team has a vested financial interest in the alignment, the only thing that’s going to work is WHAT TAKES THE FEWEST VOTES.

The two paths to “Fewest Votes” are (Required yes)
ALW: LAA, OAK, SEA, COL (COL)
ALC: MIN, CWS, KC, TEX (TEX)
ALN: CLE, DET, TOR, MON (CLE, DET, TOR)
ALE: NYY, BOS, BAL, TB
NLW: SF, LAD, SD, ARZ
NLC: MIL, CHC, STL, CIN
NLE: NYM, PHI, WAS, PIT (PIT)
NLS: ATL, MIA, HOU, NASH (ATL, MIA, HOU)

TEX, HOU, PIT would be yes votes. So you need six more votes. I think TOR, CLE, DET, MIA would be yes votes, but I don’t know about ATL and I think COL wouldn’t want this.


My CBL plan requires 16 votes, all the PCL/CBL teams, but they are the easiest to get. The 10 teams in the NL/AL West divisions have millions of TV dollars to bring them on board; two expansion teams will vote for what gets them into the league. So you’re down to four votes needed: TOR, TB, MIA; and NYM or WAS.

TB and MIA are geographically isolated, and at least one has to move in ANY realignment plan.
TOR or TB has to move in any plan as well.

And NYM are for sale, and you can force that Yes vote.

 

[oknazevad]

I'm well aware of the origins of the Mets. I'm a fan with a ticket package after all. One I share with my dad whose been a fan since day one (he was a Giants fan before they moved).

But here's the thing. Firstly, I don't think there are the votes at all. Selig pushed for radical geographic alignment on multiple occasions, and the idea was shot down each time, largely because the long-standing teams have zero interest in giving up their identities as an NL or AL team. The Dodgers will never agree to leave the NL. They've said as much plainly. So the "revisionist history" idea is unrealistic and a total non starter. It's not the late 1950s. Sixty years is a very long time to try to wind the clock back. It's just a terrible justification.

Secondly, four leagues also doesn't make any sense because the idea of the postseason semifinals being league championship series allows for a somewhat logical split between clubs. In other words, as long as the World Series has two teams, having to win one of two leagues to gain those spots makes sense. Nothing else does. So there will be two leagues. I do expect them to go with a 4-divisions-of-4-teams-each setup when the inevitable expansion to 32 teams occurs, and that may necessitate a team or two switching leagues to allow for more logical and compact divisions. Most scenarios I can come up with see Houston return to its rightful place in the NL, while Arizona goes to the AL, but that depends greatly on which cities get expansion teams and if Tampa Bay or Oakland (the two teams with big stadium question marks) relocate, so exact alignments are impossible to determine at this time.

 

[PCSPounder]

explain Milwaukee, then, Centrum....... before the Brewer fans do..... Houston only was flipped to balance the 5-5-4 ALIGNMENT of the reconstituted West...... how is Milwaukee an Eastern city, when there's no Central

Detroit is an Eastern zone team, but played until recently in the Western Conference, but they play in a Central Division under the MLB Alignment

I can explain Milwaukee. White Sox fans don't travel. Cubs fans do.

We can talk about the history of the NL and AL as to why Mets and Yankees are in separate leagues, as are Dodgers and Angels. Do NL and AL matter as much anymore? Are you sure everyone in the West wouldn't rather be in the same division as the Dodgers and everyone in the East same with the Yankees?

(I'm not terribly sure I can tie everyone in the Midwest to the Cubs)

MLB is so much richer in history than any other league that the inference I made would be subject to a LOT of internal debate. Betting on it would be iffy. But the attendance "road draws" tend to speak for themselves.