View Full Version : My Realignment Idea
04-19-00, 09:10 PM
I'm sure you've all heard the theories concerning the impending realignment. Some of the ideas are ludicrous. I've heard everything from dumping the Twins and Marlins to realigning the NL to have 4 divisions with only 3 in the AL. That's even more screwed up logic than we have now.
(See Jim's post in this forum for the details.)
Here's MY idea:
Step 1: Disband the Florida Marlins.
Step 2: Move an NL West team say, Arizona, to the AL West.
Step 3: Move the Texas Rangers to the AL Central.
That'll even out the leagues. Plus, if you're like me and can't STAND the assymetrical setup...
Step 4: Move the Tigers back to the AL East and one NL Central team to the NL East say, the Pirates.
That leaves you with 3 divisions in each league 5, 5, & 4:
I think it would work. Call Bud and I'll draw up the plans.
04-20-00, 07:48 AM
It looks to me like you've disbanded the Devil Rays as well as the Marlins.
I'm not sold on the contraction idea (although I do think it bears discussion).
Here's my plan (I've presented this before, so those of you who've already seen my plan can skip the rest):
This set up assumes the continuation of interleague play (which I don't like, but most fans do), and requires that there is at least one (and sometimes more) interleague series going on at a time. That means somebody's oppening series in April will be an interleague series, and somebody's closing series in September will be an interleague series. I'm not sure I love that, but I think it might be an improvement over the clustering of interleague series into two set periods in the middle of the season.
Note that each AL team is assigned a "natural rival" in the NL (I've presented them in an order that shows who the rivals are). I would propose playing 6 games against that rival, and rotating about 6 other IL games against other teams (there are lots of ways to decide that detail).
The only "unnatural" set rivalries would be Boston-Atlanta, Detroit-Pittsburgh, and Seattle-Colorado.
Each team would play 15 games against division foes (60);
9 games against non-divison foes (90); and
12 interleague games (6 against their natural rival, 6 against two other teams - maybe one in the opposite division, one in another division).
The scheduling for this is extremely easy. I'd actually prefer they play 13 division games instead of 15, reducing the season back to 154 games (like it was from 1904-1960). I realize, however, that this is unlikely to be accepted by most of the owners.
The Rangers and Astros might howl that their division opponents are in the Pacific Time Zone, but the reality is that even with an unbalanced schedule, they'll end up playing only 30 games in the Mountain/Pacific time zones while eastern teams would play 18. That's really not a big difference. Maybe the western teams could offer a concession of additional day games when playing the Rangers/Astros to neutralize this complaint.
I don't like the wild card or interleague play, but they're here to stay. As long as we're keeping it, I think we should fix it to keep the "big" games (the natural rivalries) while reducing the endless Minnesota-Pittsburgh series, that interest no one.
04-20-00, 08:28 AM
Damn. In my defense, I composed this message and hit 'POST' just as Jim was switching over the forums yesterday afternoon...so, when I re-typed it, I rushed it in there last nite. I had a feeling I was going to miss something.
Actually, I was simply discussing it with my boss as we drove home from work yesterday, and at the time, I may have considered dropping the Twins as well. In that case, the AL Central would keep Detroit, and the AL East would have 5 teams including Tampa Bay.
Regardless, your plan looks good Clip. Unfortunately, I think contraction is the most intriguing option I've heard to date. It would alleviate some problems with both the talent pool and the scheduling/alignment. I know it's the worst option for the fans, but MLB giveth, MLB can taketh away. Ofcourse, being a Yankee fan, it's easy to say that since we'll never lose our team.
04-20-00, 10:38 AM
I like the 15 and 15 plan, too, and it can be acheived VERY simply. More balanced, more aesthetically pleasing. And it's not absolutely necessary that there's an interleague game going on, because of travel/off days, right?
(YF "balanced is good" 36)
04-20-00, 11:52 AM
On an individual Monday or Thursday, there might not be any IL games, but if you look at the ganes in series (usually 3 game sets) one IL series would be needed at all times, unless you wanted to give each team a weekend (or a midweek) off a couple of times per year. I don't think that's a great solution.
I submit that having one IL series going at all times (maybe making sure that one "high profile" matchup happens during the opening week, and on all of the early weekends), the benefits of the plan might outweigh the drawbacks.
From my perspective, there really aren't any big drawbacks to this schedule. I actually like it much better than the big blocks in early June and early July. To the degree that the fans like the IL games (as attendance figures strongly indicate), sprinkling them throughout the season, and focusing on natural rivalries should be a good thing.
In fact, my favorite scheduling model for these games is to have 6 games against the "natural rival", 3 (rotating H/A by year) against a "secondary rival" (Yanks vs. Phillies, Red Sox vs. Mets, Indians vs. Pirates, White Sox vs. Cubs, etc.), and the final 3 against a team determined either at random, by pure rotation, or by some formula based on prior years standings.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.