Bud Selig pushed the 4 division geographical concept. It almost cost him his job. Fay Vincent lost his over trying to swap Cards & Cubs with Reds and Braves back in the 70's.

The NFL has been trying to force out Mark Davis for awhile now. The NFL never cared for Al but could never force him out. They think they might be able to do that with his son. Once Mark is dealt with, you will probably see the Raiders in Los Angeles again.

Or they just send mark davis to st louis with the raiders. I'm not sure the NFL wants to deal with the raiders in LA.

(02-23-2015 05:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 05:08 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Exactly, it should have been the Brewers going back. People think of Houston as western but it's only a hundred miles (or perhaps less than a degree of longitude) west of Kansas City.

The Astros were switched to balance the number of teams in each league and to help the Rangers, who had the worst situation in MLB. Dallas is in the central time zone and their entire division (Angels, A's, & Mariners) was in the Pacific time zone, two hours different. Every away game in the division started after 9:00 pm in Dallas. The Astros improved that situation a little.

But I know Astros fans preferred playing the Cubs, Cardinals, etc. rather than the Rangers, Angels, etc. the Astros had 50 years of tradition in the National League.

A switch in the NFL between conferences won't be as traumatic as what Houston went through.

As a Rangers fan, it has never bothered me that we are in the AL West with a bunch of Pacific Time teams. I'm used to late night games. We see the same thing with the The Stars and the Mavs/Spurs. Adding the Astros to the division really doesn't do much for me but I guess it puts butts in the seats for both clubs and drives up ticket prices by creating another "Dallas vs Houston" rivalry.

As a Texan, I liked having Houston in the NL. There were NL clubs (like the Cubs) that didn't come to Arlington and if I really wanted to see them, I could drive to Houston without much issue. Now I have to hope that interleague is going to get me that game or I have to travel considerably farther.

Would UCLA ever consider moving their home games to a new stadium in Inglewood or Carson? Inglewood, especially, would be far more convenient to Brentwood than the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

(02-24-2015 11:46 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Bud Selig pushed the 4 division geographical concept. It almost cost him his job. Fay Vincent lost his over trying to swap Cards & Cubs with Reds and Braves back in the 70's.

I always felt that's Vincent's no confidence vote was more about the league profits not raising significantly with the new TV deal. And Cubs compliant about the times zones was no different than what the Braves were enduring.

(02-24-2015 01:42 PM)prp Wrote:  Would UCLA ever consider moving their home games to a new stadium in Inglewood or Carson? Inglewood, especially, would be far more convenient to Brentwood than the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

They might, except that UCLA is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl, through the 2042 season.

[quo, te='bluesox' pid='11802272' dateline='1424796189']
I like baseball going to divisions based on geography with a few exceptions…split up the NY and Chicago teams.


NL
W: LA dodgers, LA angles, SF, Oak, SD
C: Chi Cubs, Mil, Min, St Louis, KC
E: NY Mets, Wash, Balt, philly, pitt

AL
E: NY Yank, Bos, Atlanta, TB, Miami
C: Chi White Sox, Det, Tor, Clev, Cincy
W: Tex, Hou, Col, Ariz, Sea
[/quote]

Thats not a bad idea except i would go with 6-team divisions

Pacific
SD, LA, LA, SF, Oak, Sea

Mtn
Ariz, Col, Hou, Dal, STL, CHC

Central
KC, Minn, Mil, CHW, Det, Cincy

American east
NYY, Bos, Tor, Balt, Tampa, Cle

Nat east
NYM, Philly, Wash, Atl, Miami, Pitt

(02-24-2015 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:42 PM)prp Wrote:  Would UCLA ever consider moving their home games to a new stadium in Inglewood or Carson? Inglewood, especially, would be far more convenient to Brentwood than the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

They might, except that UCLA is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl, through the 2042 season.

I guess Pasadena doesn't expect the UCLA campus to slide into the Pacific when the Big One finally hits.

As an AL fan, I wish the Rockies were the team that got moved to the AL instead of the Astros. A Royals/Rockies rivalry could easily develop and you would have had two natural interleague crossover rivals this way - Rockies/Diamondbacks, Rangers/Astros. I know why they did the Astros because it was easy with the new ownership group, but giving up the entire state of Texas to the American League was a dumb thing IMO.

(02-24-2015 03:17 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:42 PM)prp Wrote:  Would UCLA ever consider moving their home games to a new stadium in Inglewood or Carson? Inglewood, especially, would be far more convenient to Brentwood than the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

They might, except that UCLA is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl, through the 2042 season.

I guess Pasadena doesn't expect the UCLA campus to slide into the Pacific when the Big One finally hits.

When the rest of the U.S. sinks into the Atlantic after the Big One, UCLA will have beachfront proximity on both sides of campus.

Meanwhile in Iglewood they have fast tracked the Stadium for the Rams:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story...fl-stadium

(02-24-2015 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:42 PM)prp Wrote:  Would UCLA ever consider moving their home games to a new stadium in Inglewood or Carson? Inglewood, especially, would be far more convenient to Brentwood than the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

They might, except that UCLA is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl, through the 2042 season.

At this point, they'll play in the next NFL stadium for Los Angeles after the one in Inglewood closes.

Hopefully they put it in my old home town, Carson.

(02-24-2015 11:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I like baseball going to divisions based on geography with a few exceptions…split up the NY and Chicago teams.


NL
W: LA dodgers, LA angles, SF, Oak, SD
C: Chi Cubs, Mil, Min, St Louis, KC
E: NY Mets, Wash, Balt, philly, pitt

AL
E: NY Yank, Bos, Atlanta, TB, Miami
C: Chi White Sox, Det, Tor, Clev, Cincy
W: Tex, Hou, Col, Ariz, Sea

In that scenario, splitting up the NY and Chicago teams pretty much defeats the entire purpose of having geographic divisions. Those are BY FAR the teams that MLB *wants* to have playing as much as possible in a purely geographic setup. The NY and Chicago series are the biggest annual interleague series year-in and year-out (much more so than the LA, Bay Area and the DC/Baltimore series) and MLB marketing people will tell you that those two particular series are what interleague play revolves around. There's no reason at all to have geographic divisions unless the NY and Chicago teams are in the same divisions to play each other as much as possible. Those two specific markets are where the financial upside lies for MLB in a geographic setup (as opposed to the much more fairweather West Coast markets).

EDIT: Here would be my divisions:

East: NY Yankees, NY Mets, Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto
Interior East: Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati
Central: Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis
Interior West: Minnesota, Kansas City, Colorado, Arizona, Seattle
West: LA Dodgers, LA Angels, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego
South: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, Houston, Texas

Non-negotiable protected rivalries are all of the inter-city matchups (*especially* NY and Chicago), Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-Cardinals and the California teams. All others are secondary considerations.

In that case, i will change my proposed MLB 6-team divisions to have Chicago teams in same division and NY teams in same division

West
LA Angels, LA Dodgers, SD, SF, Oak, Sea

Mountain plains
Ariz, Col, Dal, Hou, KC, Minn

Central
Chi Cubs, Chi WS, Mil, STL, Det, Cle

South
Miami, Tampa, Atl, Cincy, Pitt, Tor

North
Philly, Bos, NYY, NYM, Balt, Wash

(02-24-2015 01:44 AM)goofus Wrote:  I saw a proposal a few years ago to re-align MLB into divisions by time zone. I think they should have done it. I thought It was something like this

Western division
SD Padres, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, SF Giants, Oak A's, Sea Mariners, Ariz Diamondbacks, Col Rockies

Central Division
Tex Rangers, Hou Astros, KC Royals, STL Cardinals, Minn Twins, Mil Brewers, Chi White Sox, Chi Cubs

National East
Cincy Reds, Pitt Pirates, Philly Phillies, NY Mets, Wash Nationals, Atl Braves, Mia Marlins

American East
Det Tigers, Cle Indians, Tor Blue Jays, NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Balt Orioles, Tampa Rays

Selig or someone in his office came up with the time zone alignment. It didn't have enough support among the clubs, though the western teams were in favor because it would have reduced their travel from excessive to manageable.

The biggest sticking point for any MLB moves is that they have a rule that any team can veto being moved from one league to the other, so you'd have to have almost unanimous support for any radical realignment.

Selig was able to move the Astros to the AL because the Astros' former owner was very eager to sell, and the new owner was eager to buy, and MLB made them consent to switching leagues as a condition of approving the sale.

I would agree the NY and Chicago inter league series are the best in baseball. Yet, i think if you put them in the same divisions the match ups lose the appeal of being a inter league series. Also, i think each franchise, cubs, white sox, yankees and mets are better off as a stand alone in their own divisions, i.e. the would lose a unique aspect if you just bunched them together.

(02-26-2015 06:26 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I would agree the NY and Chicago inter league series are the best in baseball. Yet, i think if you put them in the same divisions the match ups lose the appeal of being a inter league series. Also, i think each franchise, cubs, white sox, yankees and mets are better off as a stand alone in their own divisions, i.e. the would lose a unique aspect if you just bunched them together.

You could put the Chi teams in the same division as long as there still plenty of outside division games and diversity of teams visiting. For example if you went with the 8-west 8-central 14-east setup

12 games against every team in same division
8-team divisions = 7 x12 = 84 games or
7-team divisions = 6 x12 = 72 games

7-team divisions plays teams from 8-team divisions 3 games
8-team division = 7 X 3 + 7 X 3 = 42 games
7-team divisions = 8 X 3 + 8 X 3 = 48 games

8-team divisions play other 8-team divisions 4.5 times (half 4 games, half 5 games)
8 × 4.5 = 36 games
7-team division plays other 7-team division play other 6 times
7 x 6 = 42 games

Total games
8-team divisions = 84 + 42 + 36 = 162
7-team divisions = 72 + 48 + 42 = 162

So in the end you only play each other 12 times a year if you are in the same division and get a diversity of teams visiting.

Baseball is getting close to where expansion would make sense again. My proposal would be to go back to 4 divisions. Playoffs would be for each league two division champions plus 4 wild cards. Wildcard winners would play division champions. Expansion with Montreal and either Charlotte or Tennessee. Also switch Colorado and Houston leagues.

Schedule
42 Division Games Home/ 42 Division Games Away
24 League Games (Other division)/24 League Games Away
12 Interleague Games Home/12 Interleague Games Away (Split the division 4 teams away/4 teams home)
3 Interleague Rivalry Games Home/3 Interleague Rivalry Games Away

Divisions with Rivalry Game Opponent
AL West/NL West
Chicago/Chicago
Colorado/Arizona
Kansas City/St. Louis
Los Angeles/Los Angeles
Minnesota/Milwaukee
Oakland/San Francisco
Seattle/San Diego
Texas/Houston

AL East/NL East
Baltimore/Washington
Boston/Philadelphia
Cleveland/Cincinnati
Detroit/Pittsburgh
New York/New York
Tampa Bay/Miami
Toronto/Montreal
Charlotte or Tennessee/Atlanta

Of course every other year you would have 9 rivalry games instead of 6. But that's not a bad thing IMO. In my proposal only about 3 of them are manufactured rivalries.