Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
No interdivisional games is a very interesting concept. Would save money and help the environment by cutting down on oil consumption at a time when everybody is talking a good game about it, but how are we really doing? That's a whole other topic though. No more crazy Northeast to Southwest flights and vice versa and the jet lag that comes with them. However as a Jays fan I would probably be apoplectic: Yankees, Rays and Red Sox for three quarters of the schedule. Yay! 4th place or worse every year. Woo-hoo! The fans would hate seeing the same 3 to 5 teams over and over again and I think interest in baseball would plummet.
|
Well, if you're looking for a discussion of how to realign the current major leagues, that's a whole other matter.
Personally, I'd probably go with three 5-team divisions in each league, even though that means interleague play all season long. But it would at least mean a symmetric schedule and a nearly identical set of matchups for each team within a division (or, as the NFL terms it, the 'common opponents' format).
If you want more radical suggestions, you could opt for three 10-team divisions, with or without interdivisional play. Or five 6-team divisions, again with or without interdivisional play. If you added to clubs to get to 32 in total, then you could have four 8-team divisions. Or eight 4-team divisions.
In any event, I will add this little historical postscript: originally, when it was decided both leagues would expand in 1969, the AL had already elected to split into two 6-team divisions, playing a 156-game schedule. The NL, however, was intending to operate as a single 12-team division playing either a 165- or 162-game schedule. The prospect of such a structural difference between the two major leagues didn't please anyone, and after much debate and arguing the NL reluctantly agreed to also split into two 6-team divisions provided a 162-game schedule was retained, which was agreed to by the AL.