Any interest in talking about that here?

With COVID costing them revenues, seems like everyone is talking expansion, and with that, I think there's a better way to configure.

Specifically baseball. Where going to 32 presents an opportunity, but it looks like MLB wants to ruin AL/NL (which is so much smarter than East/West like the NHL/NBA have).

When baseball adds two teams, they should go back to how baseball looked before the Dodgers/Giants moved to California (two 8-team leagues), and basically DOUBLE that with the modern twist of limited interleague.

Western League: SEA, SF, LAD, LAA, SD, COL, ARZ, and OAK/LV
Southern League: HOU, TEX, KC, TB, MIA, ATL, WAS and Nashville/Charlotte

American League: the remaining AL teams of BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR, CLE, DET, CWS, MIN
National League: the remaining NL teams of NYM, PHI, PIT, CIN, CHC, MIL, STL and Montreal (or COL/WAS depending on who gets expansion).

Play 16 vs League, 48 interleague games (one four-game series vs half the teams, alternate years, 4 years to play everyone at home).

All four-game series is 160 games, 40 series (huge reduction in travel from 52/54 series).


There's also this new NBA in-season tourney, which is weird and would work better AFTER they expand to 32.

In all the scenarios that I have been able to come up with, the best MLB options for 32 are:
1) Add a team in the Southeast and in the West (Nashville/Portland or Charlotte/Vegas, with my preference being Nashville/Portland).
2) Nashville to the National League, Portland to the AL.
3) Colorado and Tampa swap leagues.

This creates an AL of:
East: NYY, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore
North: Detroit, Cleveland, Minnesota, Chicago
Central: KC, Colorado, Texas, Houston
West: LAA, LV, Seattle, Portland

And an NL of:
East: NYM, Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh
South: Nashville, Atlanta, Miami, Tampa
Central: St Louis, Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, Cincinnati
West: San Diego, LAD, SF, Arizona

This keeps the most "rivalries" intact, keeps most of the AL/NL, and though it does have one swap, it creates some natural rivalries in ATL-Tampa (at least right now that is a really fun one though without much history) and Tampa-Miami and ATL-Nashville. [I admit my bias as a Braves fan.] Colorado is the "loser" but at least in the NFL there is already a KC-Denver rivalry, so it does make some sense.

156 games
36 division games (2x H and A 3-game series against each division rival)
72 other league games (H and A against each other team in your league)
48 (H OR A against each team in the other league, rotating every other year)

4 division winners + 2 wild cards, top 2 division winners get byes, other two get 3 game home playoff series - Wild Card Round
7 game division series
7 game championship series
7 game World Series

Highest possible number of games is 180 (all playoff series go full). [Current is 184]

That sounds logical. I think that if you're gonna keep AL and NL at 16 teams, then abide by the principles of what the AL/NL originally was...

You'd want Portland opposite Seattle, Nashville opposite Atlanta, Houston opposite Texas. Each league getting a team in the region.

East: NYY, BOS, TOR, BAL
North: CLE, DET, MIN, CWS
South: TEX, KC, NASH, TB
West: LAA, LV, SEA, ARZ

And an NL of:
East: NYM, PHI, PIT, (WAS or CIN)
North: STL, CHC, MIL, COL
South: ATL, WAS, MIA, (CIN or WAS)
West: SD, LAD, SF, PORT

The idea of re-alignment into time zones seems pretty popular now a days and I like it too but I prefer splitting into a West, Central and 2 eastern divisions

West
SD, LAD, LAA, SF,
Sea, Ariz, Col, Oak/LV

Central
Hou, Tex, KC, STL,
Minn, Mil, CHC, CHW

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

National
NYM, Philly, Pitt, Wash,
Cincy, Atl, Miami

Now for potential expansion
Carolina/Nashville - American
Montreal - National
SLC/Portland - West (move Col to Central, move CHW to American)

Play everybody in your division 12 times. Play 22 teams outside your division 3 times, and 2 teams outside your division they play 6 times.

With the elimination of the DH and the inevitable expansion of at least two franchises, the uniqueness of the AL/NL has been eliminated. While I think a geographic model makes the most sense, much will be driven by not only which markets get expansion franchises, but what becomes of the Tampa Bay Rays. One problem has been solved by moving the A's to Vegas. It is an absolute certainty that the Rays cannot continue to play at the Trop. Whether a new park is field there or in another area is still being discussed. I would hope that the Rays figure out a way to say in Tampa (or at least Florida), but they need a park ASAP.

If the Rays move, I'd personally rank Nashville as #1. It is a booming sports market (not unlike Vegas) and the area will only continue to grow in the coming years ahead. While I think Charlotte would also be a fantastic new market, I believe Atlanta would object to possibly losing one of its markets (not unlike Baltimore's resistance to the Expos moving to DC). While I'm not opposed to Montreal getting the Expos franchise back, they have a lot of work to convince the MLB powers that they can sustain a franchise in today's MLB market (and what billionaire is going to fund baseball returning to Montreal?). Portland is a wild card. I can see them securing a franchise.

As a Cub fan, just give me a group with Milwaukee, the Sox and the Cardinals and I'd be happy.

I assume this thread is going to be moved to the Pro Sports forum, but here's my "ideal" expansion and realignment of MLB:

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East Division
Boston Red Sox
Miami Marlins
Montreal Expos
New York Mets
New York Yankees
Philadelphia Phillies
Tampa Bay Rays
Toronto Blue Jays

West Division
Atlanta Braves
Baltimore Orioles
Carolina/Nashville
Cincinnati Reds
Cleveland Guardians
Detroit Tigers
Pittsburgh Pirates
Washington Nationals

NATIONAL LEAGUE

East Division
Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox
Houston Astros
Kansas City Royals
Milwaukee Brewers
Minnesota Twins
St. Louis Cardinals
Texas Rangers

West Division
Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
Los Angeles Angels
Los Angeles Dodgers
Oakland/Las Vegas Athletics (I'd prefer they move somewhere like Portland, TBH)
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants
Seattle Mariners

In a season, a team plays 12 games vs. each division opponent (12 x 7 = 84), 6 games vs. each of the other league opponents (6 x 8 = 48), and 3 games vs. alternating halves of the other league (3 x 8 = 24), for 156 games total (84 + 48 + 24).

Playoffs are structured as now, except the top 2 in each of the 4 divisions qualify, plus the 2 other teams in each league with the best records. The 4 division winners get the first-round bye.

(07-06-2023 03:08 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I assume this thread is going to be moved to the Pro Sports forum

I did not know there WAS one. But getting the "Realignment Heads" into the thread by starting it here is great.

The problem I think MLB is going to face in a radical geographic realignment is going to be "The Central Problem"

the whole reason we have SIX divisions is because in the 19699-1993 format, you had CWS, KC, MIN, TEX, HOU, ATL, CIN in the AL and NL West. Playing games at 9 pm or 10 pm on local TV, which was bad for TV dollars.

(Fun fact: CIN/ATL were in the NL West because Wrigley Field didn't have lights and you needed an off-day before the start of the series if any team flew from SF, LAD, SD to CHC. In the same division playing 18 games, that was too many "off days" necessary to have CHC in the West. MLB signed a deal with Delta to charter flights, Delta hubs are... ATL and CIN!)


The Central teams are going to revolt if you make a Western Conference that ties them to the West. TEX/HOU hate it, and now six more teams are going to be against it. This is what DOOMED radical realignment in the 1990s.

So going ( W | C ) + ( E | E ) with two 16-team leagues in 8-team divisions is DOA as an alignment proposal.

The West greatly benefits from all eight together, but the Central teams want to be tied to the East. Doing four LEAGUES of W/C/E/E makes some sense. But I think the fundamental flaw in radical realignment is that "no one cares about the MAP" they care about rivalries.

And the fact that the AL/NL model -- even if it was a happy accident -- is just better than how hockey does it. From an "Inventory" standpoint...

- Division games are worth double in the standings because one team wins, one team loses. 1st place vs 2nd place is one game back, you play each other, you're either tied or 1st is up 2 games.
- League/Conference games are worth half that. 1st and 2nd separated by a game, both play non-division league games.. could be tied, could be 1 game back. In the WILD CARD standings, it's worth a full game.
- Non-League/Non Conference games are half a game in the division and league standing.

What baseball did from 1997-2012 was the BEST use of inventory:
- Games that mattered MOST in the standings (DIV) included some FAR AWAY teams: ATL vs NYM, BOS vs TB, SEA vs LAA, MIL vs HOU
- Games that mattered MOST in the standings (IL) include LOCAL RIVALS of huge interest: NYM vs NYY, STL vs KC, LAA vs LAD, SF vs OAK, etc, etc.

Doing West, South, AL and NL is the best of all worlds, because the West gets the radical alignment they want; the central remain tied to the Eastern teams instead; the South gets away from the Northeast financial powerhouses (NYY, NYM, TOR, BOS, PHI) AND better travel. The AL/NL history is preserved. And playing 16 vs league would give you 48 to 50 games to play interleague opponents.

16 x 7 = 112. 12 teams (half remaining teams), one four-game series each = 48 games. That's 160 games, TWO series out the West per year for 24 teams instead of 6 or 7 (like the NL has now).

(07-06-2023 02:20 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  That sounds logical. I think that if you're gonna keep AL and NL at 16 teams, then abide by the principles of what the AL/NL originally was...

You'd want Portland opposite Seattle, Nashville opposite Atlanta, Houston opposite Texas. Each league getting a team in the region.

East: NYY, BOS, TOR, BAL
North: CLE, DET, MIN, CWS
South: TEX, KC, NASH, TB
West: LAA, LV, SEA, ARZ

And an NL of:
East: NYM, PHI, PIT, (WAS or CIN)
North: STL, CHC, MIL, COL
South: ATL, WAS, MIA, (CIN or WAS)
West: SD, LAD, SF, PORT

With those goals in mind I like that set up especially in the AL. In the NL, I might go with:
East: NYM, Philly, Washington, Cincy
North: StL, Chicago, Milwaukee, Colorado
South: Atlanta, Pitt, Miami ...

You moved Arizona to the AL, and I don't see Houston. Houston could work well on the NL South, but if we are flopping leagues I'm sticking with my Tampa/Colorado switch. In your set up Colorado would go from the NL North to the AL South and TB could fit in with NL South too.

West: SD, LAD, SF, Portland

Really, really hate idea of more moving between American and National.

(07-06-2023 03:31 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-06-2023 02:20 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  That sounds logical. I think that if you're gonna keep AL and NL at 16 teams, then abide by the principles of what the AL/NL originally was...

You'd want Portland opposite Seattle, Nashville opposite Atlanta, Houston opposite Texas. Each league getting a team in the region.

East: NYY, BOS, TOR, BAL
North: CLE, DET, MIN, CWS
South: TEX, KC, NASH, TB
West: LAA, LV, SEA, ARZ

And an NL of:
East: NYM, PHI, PIT, (WAS or CIN)
North: STL, CHC, MIL, COL
South: ATL, WAS, MIA, (CIN or WAS)
West: SD, LAD, SF, PORT

With those goals in mind I like that set up especially in the AL. In the NL, I might go with:
East: NYM, Philly, Washington, Cincy
North: StL, Chicago, Milwaukee, Colorado
South: Atlanta, Pitt, Miami ...

You moved Arizona to the AL, and I don't see Houston. Houston could work well on the NL South, but if we are flopping leagues I'm sticking with my Tampa/Colorado switch. In your set up Colorado would go from the NL North to the AL South and TB could fit in with NL South too.

West: SD, LAD, SF, Portland

Yeah, I see my typo. I listed "CIN or WAS" for two divisions, and then had WAS instead of HOU in the NL South.

I think it's going to be REALLY HARD for any alignment to pass in groups of four simply because of teams saying "Wait, that good/strong/rich team is joining us? HARD NO."

Which is why I think my Crazy Looking but really logically sound plan can work.

(07-06-2023 03:33 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Really, really hate idea of more moving between American and National.

Agreed.

Frankly, I’m against MLB expansion overall (although I know if the expansion fees are high enough, those will win out). The challenge of creating alignments that doesn’t entail a lot of league swapping or worse divisional lineups than today is a major problem.

NBA expansion to Seattle and Las Vegas, on the other hand, should have happened yesterday. Slot them in the Western Conference and move Minnesota (or New Orleans or Memphis depending on the priority) to the Eastern Conference.

(07-06-2023 03:33 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Really, really hate idea of more moving between American and National.

Same. While the DH and interleague have homogenized the leagues somewhat, there's still the aspect of "The Reds have been an NL team since 1890!:


Same city, same franchise, playing each other for a league pennant every single season:

AL since 1903: NYY, BOS, CLE, DET, CWS
NL since 1892: PHI, PIT, CIN, CHC, STL

Shouldn't division groups start from there?


That's why I like my Four League plan so much.

If you take the point of view of someone looking at baseball in the 1957-1960 range wondering what baseball MIGHT look like in 75 years... this modern plan totally fits.

It's a "Revisionist History" approach from when the Dodgers/Giants were TALKING about moving to California; The PCL was pushing to become a 'third major league' and when New York was rejected for an NL expansion team they tried to start the Continental League.

It SEEMS radical, but my AL and NL have 13 of the 16 CITIES and 12 of the 16 FRANCHISES that the 1957 AL and NL had.

THANKS MOD!

Sorry for the inconvenience!

AL
West: Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, LA Angels
East: NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Tampa Bay
North: Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago White Sox
Central: Texas, Houston, Kansas City, Minnesota

NL
West: San Francisco, LA Dodgers, San Diego, Arizona
East: NY Mets, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami
Central: Atlanta, Nashville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh
North: Colorado, Chicago Cubs, Saint Louis, Milwaukee

To address concerns the Central TZ teams may have with being grouped with the Mountain and Pacific TZ teams in a geographic realignment, here's an alignment of 4 separate units of 8 teams each, with no overarching dual league structure. I'm calling the 4 units divisions, but they could just as easily be called conferences or leagues.



Schedule structures:

Atlantic and Central
18G x 1 protected division opponent
alternating 18G and 12G x 6 unprotected division opponents
6G x 4 Eastern opponents
3G x alternating halves of the other 4 Eastern opponents and the other 2 divisions (10 opponents)
18+(72+36)+24+30 = 162G

Eastern
18G x 1 protected division opponent
12G x 6 unprotected division opponents
6G x 8 Atlantic (for ATL, BAL, PIT, and WSN) or Central (for C/N, CIN, CLE, and DET) opponents
3G x alternating halves of the other 2 divisions (8 opponents)
18+72+48+24 = 162G

Pacific
18G x 7 division opponents
3G x alternating halves of the other 3 divisions (12 opponents)
126+36 = 162G

The schedule is skewed mainly so that the more Midwestern teams in the Eastern Division can play more Central Division teams, so that the more coastal teams in the Eastern Division can play more Atlantic Division teams, and so that the Central Division is not required to play extra games against the Pacific Division.

As for a postseason, I'd still stick with the current MLB structure, with 12 teams total and the same bracket and series lengths. Seeding would be across all 4 divisions, with the division champs receiving the top 4 seeds and a first-round bye. The 4 teams finishing 2nd in their division would face off against the best other 4 teams regardless of division.

(07-07-2023 11:40 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  To address concerns the Central TZ teams may have with being grouped with the Mountain and Pacific TZ teams in a geographic realignment, here's an alignment of 4 separate units of 8 teams each, with no overarching dual league structure. I'm calling the 4 units divisions, but they could just as easily be called conferences or leagues.

MLB may want to add one team in the west and one team in the east, but it's possible geographic concerns may make adding two teams in the east easier to swallow. The only real issue then is which team becomes the fourth in AL West (likely Arizona or Colorado) and which team moves to the NL (probably Houston).

AL West - Seattle, LA Angels, Las Vegas, Colorado
AL South - Texas, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Kansas City
AL North - Minnesota, Chicago White Sox, Detroit, Cleveland
AL East - Toronto, NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore

NL West - San Francisco, LA Dodgers, San Diego, Arizona
NL South - Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Saint Louis
NL North - Milwaukee, Chicago Cubs, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati
NL East - Montreal, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Washington

Everyone could still play each other annually:

42 games in your division (14 per opponent)
72 games in your league outside the division (6 per opponent)
48 games against the opposite league (3 per opponent)

If MLB wants to keep Florida baseball alive, I think they would need to continue grouping any Florida teams with the northeastern ones to take advantage of snowbird interest. So, chargeradio's alignment in post 15 above would be better from that perspective than the one in post 17.

(07-06-2023 03:33 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Really, really hate idea of more moving between American and National.

Despite how successful we've been since moving, we want to go back to the NL, we have the most history there.

(07-09-2023 09:32 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(07-07-2023 11:40 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  To address concerns the Central TZ teams may have with being grouped with the Mountain and Pacific TZ teams in a geographic realignment, here's an alignment of 4 separate units of 8 teams each, with no overarching dual league structure. I'm calling the 4 units divisions, but they could just as easily be called conferences or leagues.

MLB may want to add one team in the west and one team in the east, but it's possible geographic concerns may make adding two teams in the east easier to swallow. The only real issue then is which team becomes the fourth in AL West (likely Arizona or Colorado) and which team moves to the NL (probably Houston).

AL West - Seattle, LA Angels, Las Vegas, Colorado
AL South - Texas, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Kansas City
AL North - Minnesota, Chicago White Sox, Detroit, Cleveland
AL East - Toronto, NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore

NL West - San Francisco, LA Dodgers, San Diego, Arizona
NL South - Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Saint Louis
NL North - Milwaukee, Chicago Cubs, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati
NL East - Montreal, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Washington

Everyone could still play each other annually:

42 games in your division (14 per opponent)
72 games in your league outside the division (6 per opponent)
48 games against the opposite league (3 per opponent)

No way would they split the Cubs and the Cardinals.