MLB Expansion Plan

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

I certainly expect if they expand, they'll go to 4 divisions of 8 teams. Then I expect they do top-3 in each division make the playoffs - 2 vs 3 in a wildcard game to play the division winners..

They might do the latter and that'd be great for divisional rivalries, but I think it's about equally as likely that they'll just have the next top 4 teams in each league be WCs. I can see some people pushing rivalries and others pushing let's just have the best of the rest. The validity of the best of the rest argument really depends on how unbalanced or not the new schedule is though. I'd be fine with either, but I think I'd rather see your better for rivalries method.

[Padreman]

having more divisions means more teams on the playoff hunt means more viewers means more money

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Padreman

having more divisions means more teams on the playoff hunt means more viewers means more money

As long as you have the same number of teams make the playoffs, I don't think you can definitively say that. Here, let's do a test. Let's take 2 standard OOTP worlds, add 2 teams each, and separate one into 4 team divisions and one into 8 team divisions then let's run say 30 seasons for each. The only 3 things we need to agree on are: 1) what defines whether a team is still in the playoff hunt, 2) how many WCs will there be, and 3) how are they determined? Should we say it's x games back of the division leader by a certain date? Most teams probably make up their mind shortly before the trade deadline whether they're buyers or sellers so maybe we could just go with that, but there's also the expression "meaningful games in September". How many games back should we agree on? It's hard for me to say because there have been so many great comebacks that it's hard for me to completely give up on a team unless they haven't made the playoffs in several years. I suppose it really depends on how optimistic or pessimistic one is. How the wild cards are decided matters too because if they come from the same division then when you have a weak division you'll probably have more teams in contention late.

Or let's try it an easier way. To make it easy, let's say 12 teams make the playoffs, 6 per league, 2 more than now. With 4 team divisions you'll probably have anywhere from 1-3 teams in contention late (there are only 2 WCs for 4 divisions!), let's say 2 on average. 2*8 divisions = 16 teams in contention. Now let's do 8 team divisions, first 3 make the playoffs. My guess is the top 5 on average are probably in contention (3 or 7 are unlikely, but 4, 5, and 6 are all likely). 5*4 divisions = 20 teams in contention! The 4 team divisions' spreading of the WCs between the divisions hurts more teams' chances as it's then a matter of best win %, not weak divisions. Don't agree with the probabilities? Okay, what's yours?

Are you getting the point? It's probably impossible to agree on the criteria and it really depends on the individual so you while you can say that, you probably can't convince anyone of it who's on the fence about it.

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by Hammercraft

I am aware of what I did, I made a distinct choice. Cities have identities, outlet malls and urban sprawl does not.

So it's not because that if you had done metro areas, Milwaukee would have just missed the cut?

[Coltrane]

All I know is that they better fix what they have now. The Cubs and Pirates having to participate in that "play-in" game last year was a total crime.

[Klew1986]

So I have decided to scrap this idea. I like the current set up of 3 divisions per league. I will go with Colorado likely.

[Hammercraft]

Originally Posted by Padreman

nah i doubt they will ever do 2 divisions per league anymore

Thinking about this more, I'm not sure. It makes perfect sense to me to have 8 divisions of 4 teams each, using only division winners in your playoffs with teams seeded by record. The reason for me is that if you eliminate the wild card then a team that wants to make the postseason has to field a team that can win the most games in their division. If you add in wild cards then you can field an imbalanced but above average team that won't necessarily win their division, but if they make the playoffs is primed to win a short series with dominant pitching.

And when I consider what MLB would do in choosing between a quality distribution vs. a system that keeps fans 'interested' in their team's prospects longer in the season, I think they would choose a crappy 8-team division with extra wild cards. It feels horrible to me, but I could see it happening.

If they were to pose the question today for example, I'm sure the St. Louis Cardinals would love to have an 8-team division with wild cards because it doesn't look likely that they're going to be able to compete with the Cubs for a couple of years. As dominant as some clubs get from time to time it feels like the season ends in April if there's no alternative to winning the division.

But I still don't like it because I think wild cards make baseball worse.

[Hammercraft]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

So it's not because that if you had done metro areas, Milwaukee would have just missed the cut?

I'm ok with that. The Brewers are my RL team, but I can live without them. I didn't think Milwaukee was that large TBH, when it came up at the end of the list I said "bonus!"

[Assos]

I prefer a simple 8 and 8. If you are dying for my playoff teams, have the top two make the playoffs. Look how wonderful the NHL has made it, good watching playoff races and seatings and now a good playoff Cup run. 4 for 4 divisions barely works in the NFL with sub .500 having a chance to make it. This is pro ball, not the NCAA Tournament!

[Coltrane]

But I still don't like it because I think wild cards make baseball worse.

Without wc's many great teams would be (and have been) screwed. As long as there are divisions, there MUST be wc's. It bothers me to no end seeing a team win over 90 games and not make the playoffs because their division leader won 100 yet the top teams in other divisions are playing .500 ball.

[dmacgreg37]

Originally Posted by Assos

I prefer a simple 8 and 8. If you are dying for my playoff teams, have the top two make the playoffs. Look how wonderful the NHL has made it, good watching playoff races and seatings and now a good playoff Cup run. 4 for 4 divisions barely works in the NFL with sub .500 having a chance to make it. This is pro ball, not the NCAA Tournament!

There's a lot of NHL people who would strongly disagree.

Having the 6th and 7th ranked teams play each other in the east while top teams like stl and Chicago are playing in round 1 is hardly ideal.

[Assos]

Originally Posted by dmacgreg37

There's a lot of NHL people who would strongly disagree.

Having the 6th and 7th ranked teams play each other in the east while top teams like stl and Chicago are playing in round 1 is hardly ideal.

While not perfect, I do think it is better then having two 90 win teams slug it out to play a team with a lesser total.

[dmacgreg37]

Originally Posted by Assos

While not perfect, I do think it is better then having two 90 win teams slug it out to play a team with a lesser total.

Sure. There's possibly a better middle ground somewhere. Just saying that imo, the NHL system is far from "wonderful".

[Orioles1966]

I have two ideas for a MLB 64 team league.

One would be I keep the leagues intact and just add expansion teams. Plus full minors with expansion teams having fewer Class A teams.

Another idea would be too have just have the 1986 American League and have the 12 NL teams from that year turn into 6 merged teams with the rest being expansion teams and have no minor leagues.

[Hammercraft]

Originally Posted by Coltrane

Without wc's many great teams would be (and have been) screwed. As long as there are divisions, there MUST be wc's. It bothers me to no end seeing a team win over 90 games and not make the playoffs because their division leader won 100 yet the top teams in other divisions are playing .500 ball.

As long as there's three divisions, yes. If there's four divisions then there's no need. And winning 90 games doesn't mean anything if you can't beat the team above you with lots of chances head-to-head.

But yeah, there's a valid argument for either side of that

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by dmacgreg37

There's a lot of NHL people who would strongly disagree.

Having the 6th and 7th ranked teams play each other in the east while top teams like stl and Chicago are playing in round 1 is hardly ideal.

Where do you get the 6th and 7th teams in the East playing each other? Tampa and Philly never met in the play-offs. 6 & 7 in the West are meeting right now in rnd 2 (SJ/Nas).

I never understood the whole "it sucks to see #6 playing #7 while #2 & #3 play each other with one being gone in the first round.

So what? It's the play-offs, every team steps up - whether they finished 1st or 7th. The vast majority of games have been competitive and close.

That's what I like seeing the playoffs, 2 teams going at it hard with the outcome not decided until late in the game or OT. I could care less if it's 1 vs 2 or 1 vs 8 - as long as it's good hockey.

I mean really, teams don't care about finishing 1st, 2nd, 3rd - they care about making the play-offs, they care making it to the show. Rarely a year goes by where there isn't at least one upset. We often see an 8 seed knock off a 1 or a 7 knock off a 2. Should we say "Oh, that's not right, it needs to be seeded better so 1 & 2 are still in the play-offs 3 rounds from now?"

No matter how you set it up, there will be odd match-ups at some point.

[dmacgreg37]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Where do you get the 6th and 7th teams in the East playing each other? Tampa and Philly never met in the play-offs. 6 & 7 in the West are meeting right now in rnd 2 (SJ/Nas).

I never understood the whole "it sucks to see #6 playing #7 while #2 & #3 play each other with one being gone in the first round.

So what? It's the play-offs, every team steps up - whether they finished 1st or 7th. The vast majority of games have been competitive and close.

That's what I like seeing the playoffs, 2 teams going at it hard with the outcome not decided until late in the game or OT. I could care less if it's 1 vs 2 or 1 vs 8 - as long as it's good hockey.

I mean really, teams don't care about finishing 1st, 2nd, 3rd - they care about making the play-offs, they care making it to the show. Rarely a year goes by where there isn't at least one upset. We often see an 8 seed knock off a 1 or a 7 knock off a 2. Should we say "Oh, that's not right, it needs to be seeded better so 1 & 2 are still in the play-offs 3 rounds from now?"

No matter how you set it up, there will be odd match-ups at some point.

Sorry, I was wrong. It was actually worse. 6 (TB) played 8 (Det) in round one. You don't have to care, but I don't think that system is better.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by dmacgreg37

Sorry, I was wrong. It was actually worse. 6 (TB) played 8 (Det) in round one. You don't have to care, but I don't think that system is better.

I never said it was better. I said

No matter how you set it up, there will be odd match-ups at some point.

If 6 is playing 8, then I'd say you're in for an entertaining matchup since they're likely on a fairly equal competitive level. What's wrong with that?

[Assos]

Yet the Lightning are in the Conference finals......

Lightning fan just saying....

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by dmacgreg37

Having the 6th and 7th ranked teams play each other in the east while top teams like stl and Chicago are playing in round 1 is hardly ideal.

Since there isn't a balanced schedule in the NHL, you can't necessarily make a direct comparison of club records across divisions.

The current NHL playoff system isn't conference-based anyway, it's mostly division-based (with the exception of the so-called 'wild card' qualifiers—but these are really 'crossover' qualifiers in a purely division-finish based system).