MLB Expansion: Sensible Realignment

[RubeBaker]

I am in favor of MLB expanding to 32 teams. I would like to see Montreal and Las Vegas/Portland get franchises. If this happened, here's what I think sensible realignment could look like:

AL East: Orioles, Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays
AL North: White Sox, Guardians, Tigers, Twins
AL South: Rockies, Astros, Royals, Rangers
AL West: Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Las Vegas/Portland

NL East: Expos, Mets, Phillies, Pirates
NL North: Cubs, Reds, Brewers, Cardinals
NL South: Braves, Marlins, Rays, Nationals
NL West: Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Padres, Giants

I think this would be sensible, not radical realignment. The NL East gets an old school look. Both Florida and Texas franchises wind up in the same divisions and leagues. The Rockies and Rays switch leagues, but otherwise most divisions and both leagues are pretty similar to now.

I would also cut the schedule from 162 to 156 games. Here's the format I would use:

20 games vs intra-division opponents (60)
6 games vs inter-division opponents in your league (72)
3 games vs two division in other league (24)

That comes out to 156 games. I'd also expand the Division Series from five games to seven. Thoughts?

[mytreds]

League is already too big. If it wants to get better, it needs to contract.

[Cobra Mgr]

Expansion makes no sense for any major league except for the chance to charge absurd expansion entry fees. Which probably means someone is going to announce 2 new teams in a couple of hours.

[Westheim]

Another MLB fantasy expansion thread - is it that time of year again?

[GeoWar]

Originally Posted by RubeBaker

I am in favor of MLB expanding to 32 teams.

Two new locations = New Orleans (NL ) and Salt Lake City ( AL)

AL East = Yankees - Red Sox - Baltimore - Blue Jays
AL Central = Detroit , Cleve, Chicago , Minnesota
AL West = Angels , Salt Lake City, Seattle , Oakland ( Las Vegas )
AL South = Tampa Bay , Houston , Texas , Kansas City

NL East = Mets , Phillies, Pirates , Reds
NL Central = Cubs , Cards , Brewers, Rockies
NL West = SF , Dodgers , San Diego, Arizona
Nl South = New Orleans , Miami , Atlanta , Washington **** no need to separate cubs and Cards

Interleague ----- one 3 game series with each team in other league ( alternating home and away every other season ) === 48 games
League InterDivision ---- Home and Away 3 game series (6 games each year ) == 72 games
Your Division --- 14 games against each team == 42 games

48 + 72 + 42 = 162 ............. Teams must win their Division to qualify for Playoffs --- No Wild Card

[David Watts]

AL East Orioles, Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, Tigers, Guardians, White Sox, Rays

AL West Brewers, Rangers, Royals, Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Portland, Twins

NL East Expos, Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Braves, Reds, Nationals, Marlins

NL West Cubs, Astros, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks

14 intra division games=98
8 inter division games=64

[zappa1]

From what I have read the leading cities are Portland and Nashville. But it's different with whatever you read. LV is mentioned along with Montreal. I don't care who gets what. I'm really not that interested in it.

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

If MLB ever expanded to 32 teams, I'd then perhaps go with the American League or Division as follows:

Orioles
Red Sox
White Sox
Cleveland
Tigers
Yankees
Blue Jays
Washington

Then I'd perhaps go with the National League or Division as follows:

Braves
Cubs
Reds
Expos
Mets
Phillies
Pirates
Cardinals

Then I'd perhaps go with the Federal League or Division as follows:

Astros
Royals
Marlins
Brewers
Twins
Rays
Rangers
Expansion Team TBD

And then I'd finally perhaps go with the Continental League or Division as follows:

Diamondbacks
Angels
Dodgers
Rockies
Athletics
Padres
Giants
Mariners

That's if several current teams didn't actually return to their classic locations, of course, folks. That sort of thing, unfortunately, won't actually happen here now, it seems to me, but as things stand now, this might be one way that a 32-team MLB setup then could be configured here somehow. That's whether or not future seasons would actually have 154 games per team scheduled in them or 162, in truth.

Ideally, the 32 teams could be divided into four eight-team leagues or divisions, and then there could be a much simpler postseason configuration, in the long run. Perhaps instead of just one All-Star Game, there could be a round-robin midseason tournament of sorts between the four divisions and/or leagues, similar to how the WBC operates, before the two best divisions or leagues then met in a final game for the All-Star Tournament Championship, and bragging rights over the other divisions and/or leagues for MLB.

It would certainly make the All-Star Game proceedings much more interesting to follow, I think, if MLB consisted of four leagues and not just two, after all. And I'm reasonably certain that there may be others here who'd be excited to follow such proceedings closer, as well. CD out.

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

IF each division wasn't an actual league of their own, I'd then perhaps pair the AL (AD) with the FL (FD), and the NL (ND) with the CL (CD), in terms of postseason-related starting arrangements. That's supposing that each division's winners weren't actually seeded from 1 to 4 in a potential postseason setup of any kind, for sure. I'd definitely seed them by overall record, of course, with seeds 1 and 2 getting the home-field advantage in any series, but not giving the higher seed a one-game advantage in a series before it starts, I think. Just so you know. CD out.

[Syd Thrift]

I’m not really huge on either 4 team divisions (as the AL West had for years) or 8 team ones TBH. With the wild card, I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t have a 5-6-5 setup. But my experience with rooting for a team in the 4-team division setup was that divisions are too small, and my experience with playing OOTP with 8 team divisions is that teams tend to get eaten up in them (I also kind of have this issue with the current NBA - there’s this whole swamp of mediocrity between around 6th in a conference to being so bad you can’t compete for the last play-in, at like 13 th or so - and the NBA even allows a lot of those teams to make the playoffs). Better than those 10 team snoozefests from the 60s I guess, but still.

I mean, even though I spent my formative years watching a 7 team division, that’s probably too many teams aesthetically speaking too. I like 5 or 6.

[GeoWar]

teams competeing for a title must play the same teams an equal number of times and can not miss a division,,,,,
why not just have 16 team leagues ---- top 4 teams qualify for playoff

15 teams play each 11 times

165 games

No Interleague games

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Expansion makes no sense for any major league except for the chance to charge absurd expansion entry fees. Which probably means someone is going to announce 2 new teams in a couple of hours.

Not to turn this into a basketball thread, but the NBA should expand by 2 teams and will do so by the end of the 2020s.
I feel like they would have already done by if not for the pandemic.

There is more than enough talent to sustain two more 15 man rosters.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by GeoWar

teams competeing for a title must play the same teams an equal number of times and can not miss a division,,,,,
why not just have 16 team leagues ---- top 4 teams qualify for playoff

15 teams play each 11 times

165 games

This is the realistic option I favor nowadays. But let's congratulate the cartel for expanding to 30 teams in the first place and staying there for 30 years, one of the most perfect demonstrations of their ignorance of the sport ever displayed.

I think the main opposition there is the PA and western teams that would have to travel more. But with a real round robin they could probably reduce some of that, like the Pac-10* does with road trips where the northern CA schools go to the Oregon schools at the same time, etc.

[nutt]

I never thought of doing an AL Midwest. This is what I usually have done for games:

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Blue Jay's
AL North: White Sox, Guardians, Royals, Twins
AL South: Rays, Orioles, Astros, Rangers
AL West: Rockies, A's, Angel's, Mariners

NL East: Expos, Pirates, Phillies, Mets
NL North: Cubs, Reds, Brewers, Cardinals
NL South: Braves, Marlins, Nationals, Nashville/New Orleans/Charlotte
NL West: Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Padres, Giants

[Amazin69]

My choices:

NL East: Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Montreal
NL South: DC, Atlanta, Miami, south-based expansion (Charlotte/New Orleans/somewhere in TN)
NL Central: Cubs, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee
NL West: SF, LA, SD, Arizona

AL East: Yankees, Sawx, Baltimore, Toronto
AL Central: Detroit, Cleveland, ChiSox, Minnesota
AL South: Texas, Houston, Tampa Bay, Kansas City
AL West: Angels, Oakland, Seattle, Colorado

I have no problem with 8x4 divisions…in my game this would be a wonderful time to eliminate the Losers' Trophy ("wild cards") but it will never happen IRL, I'm aware.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

Not to turn this into a basketball thread, but the NBA should expand by 2 teams and will do so by the end of the 2020s.
I feel like they would have already done by if not for the pandemic.

There is more than enough talent to sustain two more 15 man rosters.

IMO there’s a huuuuge amount of American basketball talent, enough to support a 60 team league or some kind of promotion/relegation system that spans 80 teams or more. That will never happen, and there are other factors - like there just aren’t enough markets - keeping the NBA from getting to 60 teams, but there have to be at least markets that could support a team. Off the top of my head…

Seattle
Vancouver
Montreal
St. Louis
Pittsburgh
Kansas (you could base them out of KC but the whole state is hugely into basketball)
San Diego
San Francisco (Golden State is kind of an Oakland team)
Austin
San Jose (if SF is too close)
Upstate NY (Buffalo is the obvious choice but something hitting Syracuse and Rochester would also work, and both teams have some early pro basketball history)
Orange County
I’m not sure the fans would ever be into it but Chicago is big enough to support a 2nd team… I think the biggest issue here is that there’s not a borough with its own big identity per se. There’s the North Side vs the South Side I guess; the Bulls play on the… West Side but you could put a team near the University of Chicago I guess

And that’s really before taking the game to, say, Mexico or Puerto Rico or South America.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

IMO there’s a huuuuge amount of American basketball talent, enough to support a 60 team league or some kind of promotion/relegation system that spans 80 teams or more. That will never happen, and there are other factors - like there just aren’t enough markets - keeping the NBA from getting to 60 teams, but there have to be at least markets that could support a team. Off the top of my head…

When it does expand, it will expand to Seattle and Las Vegas.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

When it does expand, it will expand to Seattle and Las Vegas.

Yep, that’s what I’ve seen too. I’m just saying if people dislike uneven conference and division sizes, it would be super easy IMO for the league to expand to, say, 36 teams in the next 25 years. There’s no real reason why the NBA can’t be larger than other American pro sports leagues. Roster sizes are smaller and the way attendance and TV/online revenue work, a midsized or smaller city that an fill a smallish stadium 40 times a year can survive well in the league ( witness San Antonio… I guess Memphis has been complaining about not having the money to compete but carpetbaggers get no sympathy from me). If anything what we have right now in the league are a number of larger cities - Seattle but also KC, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Vancouver, Montreal, Columbus, and Pittsburgh - who don’t have teams.

[GeoWar]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

IMO thereÂ’s a huuuuge amount of American basketball talent, enough to support a 60 team league or some kind of promotion/relegation system that spans 80 teams or more. That will never happen, and there are other factors - like there just arenÂ’t enough markets - keeping the NBA from getting to 60 teams, but there have to be at least markets that could support a team. Off the top of my headÂ…

Seattle ----- failed with Super Sonics
Vancouver - not US
Montreal - not US
St. Louis - failed before (Hawks )
Pittsburgh - ?????
Kansas City - failed before ( Kings ) even shared games with Omaha)
San Diego - failed before ( Clippers )
San Francisco - failed before had Warriors who were Phil 76ers but moved west
Austin - Dallas and Houston too close -- maybe San Antonio or El Paso
San Jose (if SF is too close)
Upstate NY (Buffalo is the obvious choice but something hitting Syracuse and Rochester would also work, and both teams have some early pro basketball history) ** worry about Toronto moving --- the international Covid stuff caused problems for player use in Baseball.
Orange County -- that has worked great with baseball (HAHA) and 2 LA teams
IÂ’m not sure the fans would ever be into it but Chicago is big enough to support a 2nd teamÂ… I think the biggest issue here is that thereÂ’s not a borough with its own big identity per se. ThereÂ’s the North Side vs the South Side I guess; the Bulls play on theÂ… West Side but you could put a team near the University of Chicago I guess
***** I think Chicago could support 2 teams ( maybe locate them by the NEW Bears stadium )
And thatÂ’s really before taking the game to, say, Mexico or Puerto Rico or South America.

My Top NBA sites ---
* Mobile , Alabama area
* Pittsburgh
* **** Kansas and Missouri ( Kansas locate in triangle between Wichita, Topeka, Kansas City ) Missouri ( locate west of St. Louis and North away from Memphis


But I do not watch NBA much since everyone seems to get into the playoffs --- and the major topic this year is if the Lakers can get in ------ we need a new NBA team so James can own it and get out of LA.