League realignment

[Hitman23]

Looks like we have at least enough support to start the discussion about league realignment.

So far we're looking at 5 divisions with 4 teams, and a WC spot decided by most points as the leading candidate for realignment.

The purpose is to get a 2 week Championship round and keeping a schedule which has every team playing the team within their division twice and each team outside their division once.

Nominees for the division name so far: [updated]
Jeter
Munson
Berra
Steinbrenner
Mattingly
Ford
Guidry

Let's get this discussion going seriously now. Not sure how much work it will be to decide everything and then get a proper schedule so the sooner the better.

Looks like the possible polls put up for voting on realignment, so far, should be:
-Are you in favor of realignment to 5 divisions in place of 4
-new division name
-6 or 7 playoff teams (meaning 5 division winners and 1 or 2 wild cards)

[ruthianblast]

Looks like we have at least enough support to start the discussion about league realignment.

So far we're looking at 5 divisions with 4 teams, and a WC spot decided by most points as the leading candidate for realignment.

The purpose is to get a 2 week Championship round and keeping a schedule which has every team playing the team within their division twice and each team outside their division once.

Nominees for the division name so far:
Jeter
Munson
Berra
Steinbrenner

Let's get this discussion going seriously now. Not sure how much work it will be to decide everything and then get a proper schedule so the sooner the better.

I'm definitely for re-alignment into 5 divisions; playing the other three teams in the division twice. 2 WC with division winner with most points getting a bye.

[Hitman23]

It would only be 1 wild card team. The other 5 playoff teams would be division winners.

[Hitman23]

So in this format, the two best division winners get the bye week - but how is this decided? By record or points? I say record first then points as a tie breaker. If record wins a division, then the best division winners should follow the same.

[ruthianblast]

So in this format, the two best division winners get the bye week - but how is this decided? By record or points? I say record first then points as a tie breaker. If record wins a division, then the best division winners should follow the same.

As much as possible should be points based
5 teams + 1 WC
1st & 2nd Bye
3rd v. Most Pts WC
4th v. 5th

1st plays lowest ranked of the winners
2nd plays other

Championship = 2weeks.

[Hitman23]

Here is another suggestion that Eric came up with to keep 2 WC teams.

ONE other possibility....


20 teams, 5 divisions, 4 teams per division

Play each team in your division twice (6 games) and each team in other divisions once (16 games). Total 22 regular season games, including All Star week. Best team (points) not to win the division gets Wild Card, AND best record (W/L) to not win their division get Wild Card resulting in 7 playoff teams. Then 1 week for rounds 1 and 2, and 2 weeks for round 3, with the best division winner getting a bye in round 1.

Round one: Team 2 vs Team 7 (GAME ONE); Team 3 vs Team 6 (GAME TWO); Team 4 vs Team 5 (GAME THREE).

Round two: Team 1 vs GAME ONE winner; GAME TWO winner vs GAME THREE winner

Round three: CHAMPJONSHIP (Two Weeks)

this keeps the TWO WC slots in tact.

[Hitman23]

Also, regarding the division names... I'd like to toss out there that we already have 4 retro names for the divisions. Jeter deserves to be named with those guys and not everything needs to be about what happened a hundred years ago.

If that didn't work, I will attempt to use the Jedi mind trick on you all.

[Stupid Flanders]

As much as possible should be points based
5 teams + 1 WC
1st & 2nd Bye
3rd v. Most Pts WC
4th v. 5th

1st plays lowest ranked of the winners
2nd plays other

Championship = 2weeks.

We have always gone with record and points as the tie breaker. I see no reason why we should change that now. MLB does it by record, not by points differentials.

[Stupid Flanders]

I think Jeter is the worst of the choices. I'd even rather Mattingly. You shouldn't name a division for a current player. That's like retiring a number.

Even Rivera would be better for current players but I think Munson is the best choice of those given.

I'd prefer to vote from:
Munson
Mattingly
Ford
Guidry
Berra

[Hitman23]

Well with the way we have it now, just having someone alive will be a treat.

[miko]

Do you guys mean the Munson from Kingpin?

[BrianNYYanks]

I'll vote for a 5 division realignment.

How would we decide who moves where? Random number assignment?

I would vote for

Berra

[miko]

I propose me and E stay in the same division - arch rivals and all....

[JDPNYY]

I'll vote for a 5 division realignment.



I would vote for

Berra

[Big_E]

I propose me and E stay in the same division - arch rivals and all....

Works for me.

Besides, the LOU'S have to be in the GEHRIG division...

[JDPNYY]

Works for me.

Besides, the LOU'S have to be in the GEHRIG division...

...unless we have a tifoso Division.

[Hitman23]

For everyone's convenience and for the commissioner that will be handling this issue, I've been updating the first post with info like division name nominations and how many playoff seeds there should be. Should anything else come up I will continue to update. If I've missed anything let me know.

[Hitman23]

Sax offered this option which I also like:

20 teams, 2 leagues, 2 divisions per league

Play each team in your league twice (18 games) and three or four teams in the other league once (3/4 games), rotating each year. 21 or 22 games per year, with or without the Wild Card week, depending on the interleague games. Wild Card and playoffs work as per 2010, except that extra week is available for Chamjonship round.

[Big_E]

Sax offered this option which I also like:

20 teams, 2 leagues, 2 divisions per league

Play each team in your league twice (18 games) and three or four teams in the other league once (3/4 games), rotating each year. 21 or 22 games per year, with or without the Wild Card week, depending on the interleague games. Wild Card and playoffs work as per 2010, except that extra week is available for Chamjonship round.

Except when a full moon falls on a Tuesday during the month of August and it rains in Poughkeepsie while a baby cries in the Bronx...

[ChrisRo]

Looks like the possible polls put up for voting on realignment, so far, should be:
-Are you in favor of realignment to 5 divisions in place of 4
-new division name
-6 or 7 playoff teams (meaning 5 division winners and 1 or 2 wild cards)

The third question should only matter if the first question is voted "yes". If we stick to 4 divisions, 6 playoff teams are enough.
However, I would vote "yes" on 5 divisions only if it implies 7 playoff teams - so we don't lose the "best record" WC spot.
The poll should contain a combination of these options.

[Hitman23]

Well we would just need to run a poll about the change first. Once we decide if a change will be made, then we can do the different options. Like how many wild cards, how many divisions, if we make two leagues like Sax suggested, ect. I think the first poll should just be "do you want a change or not

[ChrisRo]

Well we would just need to run a poll about the change first. Once we decide if a change will be made, then we can do the different options. Like how many wild cards, how many divisions, if we make two leagues like Sax suggested, ect. I think the first poll should just be "do you want a change or not

I still think the two should be somehow related. To me at least, going with 4 or 5 divisions depends whether or not we will have 6 or 7 playoff teams.

[Hitman23]

Well I don't want the votes to go wasted. Here's the possible problem:

Poll:
Do you want division expansion?
- No, leave as is with 4 divisions/5 teams
- Yes, expand to 5 divisions/4 teams in each/2 wild cards
- Yes, expand to 5 divisions/4 teams in each/1 wild card

Now if you lose votes to "NO, leave as is...." you don't get a true vote on which option to change it to if changing wins. If people who vote "No" lose and are forced to vote for a change, we get a truer indication of how the league wants the change because there is no "no" option to vote for once a change is decided.

SO I say we should decide if the majority of the league wants a change or not, then go with a secondary poll to decide which change is more popular if it's decided.

make sense? It does in my head.

[Hitman23]

People know what the possible options are by now, at least those who are paying attention. So no need to bring up what they are just yet.

I dunno, this is what I'd do just to make sure. You don't want someone who voted no change but since they are forced to deal with a change saying "well if I had to I'd vote for the other one"

[ruthianblast]

People know what the possible options are by now, at least those who are paying attention. So no need to bring up what they are just yet.

I dunno, this is what I'd do just to make sure. You don't want someone who voted no change but since they are forced to deal with a change saying "well if I had to I'd vote for the other one"

I think the best way is as stated previously; vote for a change to occur. Then vote on the name of change and the type of change that will be made separately.