(09-21-2025 02:25 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  It does sound like playoff schedule is an important factor in the pending alignment. I like 36 to pause expansion for the next couple decades.

Teams: Carolina (Raleigh), Montreal, Nashville, Portland, San Antonio, Utah
Considered: Austin, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Louisville, New Orleans, Sacramento, San Jose, Vancouver

Standard 2 Conference Model

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Atlantic: Baltimore, Boston, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Washington
Midwest: Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Toronto
Southeast: Atlanta, Carolina, Cincinnati, Miami, Nashville, Tampa Bay

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Central: Chicago, Chicago, Houston, Kansas City, Minnesota, St. Louis
Pacific: Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle
Southwest: Arizona, Colorado, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Texas, Utah

New 4 Conference Model
* Playoffs would need to be reconfigured a bit.

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Baltimore, Boston, Montreal, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Washington

NORTHERN CONFERENCE
Chicago, Chicago, Cleveland, Colorado, Detroit, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, St. Louis

SOUTHERN CONFERENCE
Atlanta, Carolina, Cincinnati, Houston, Miami, Nashville, San Antonio, Tampa Bay, Texas

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Arizona, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Utah

If you’re going to do 36 with those additions, you need to preserve the NL & AL:

NL West: LAD, SD, SF, ARZ, COL, SLC*
NL Central: STL, MIL, CUBS, CIN, PIT, NAS*
NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA, MTL*


AL West: LAA, SEA, LV, PTLD*, HOU, TEX
AL Central: KC, MIN, CWS, CLE, DET, SA*
AL East: NYY, BOS, BAL, TOR, TB, CAR*

I wanted to put all 3 Texas teams together but it just doesn’t work out.

Why would San Antonio go to the Central when Houston the furthest east of the Texas teams?

(11-24-2025 10:49 PM)C2__ Wrote:  Why would San Antonio go to the Central when Houston the furthest east of the Texas teams?

It’s not a perfect system.

To be honest, I can’t imagine MLB going all the way to 36 for another 30 yrs or more so I don’t think we have to fret too much.

(11-24-2025 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-21-2025 07:28 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  When it comes to 32 teams, I seen a realignment proposal that made a lot of sense, and I think MLB should do.

AL West - Seattle, LA Angels, Athletics, (West Expansion Team - Portland/Vancouver/SLC?)
AL South - Houston*, Texas*, Kansas City*, Colorado^
AL North - Cleveland, Chicago W.S., Detroit, Minnesota
AL East - Toronto, NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore

NL West - LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco, Arizona
NL South - Miami*, Atlanta*, Tampa Bay^, (East Expansion Team - Charlotte/Nashville?)
NL North - Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis
NL East - NY Mets, Philly, Washington, Pittsburgh*

* = Change Divisions
^ = Change Leagues

If they opt to go to 8 divisions of 4, this would seem the most prudent route to go. Having 2 more divisions would mean 2 more division titles and potentially more teams in the playoff hunt, especially if you backload the schedule with divisional games. You could also award home field advantage to each league’s 4 divisional winners (and then keep 3 wildcards).

I just think 4 teams is awfully tiny for a division and if going that small, they’d need to find ways to balance out the schedule.

The giant question is would there be enough votes to pass this?—
I’m not sure some of the teams being asked to move would be thrilled. Pittsburgh probably likes the move. Rays, Rockies, Royals, and Braves might not be so keen to make the jump. Rangers and Astros could be a mixed bag—they might not like being shoehorned into baseball’s weirdo equivalent to the AFC South but a reduction in trips to the West Coast would be a huge plus for their fans who follow them on television (their players would benefit from reduced jet lag too).

My 6 division set up is a bit less extreme, but there would be a slight disadvantage to the Central Division teams.

For 156 game season (with each team playing 6 games a week outside all-star week and opening weekend), you play your division 4 times with 3 game series (48 games), the rest of your conference twice with 3 game series (72 games), and the other conference once in a 3 game series (48 games). If 162 games is required, you could play each division a 13th time and your cross-conference rival in a 2nd 3-game series. That schedule seems reasonably balanced for all teams, but as you said, would 3/4th of the 30 current teams agree to the move? I think it's possible.

(11-26-2025 11:06 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-21-2025 07:28 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  When it comes to 32 teams, I seen a realignment proposal that made a lot of sense, and I think MLB should do.

AL West - Seattle, LA Angels, Athletics, (West Expansion Team - Portland/Vancouver/SLC?)
AL South - Houston*, Texas*, Kansas City*, Colorado^
AL North - Cleveland, Chicago W.S., Detroit, Minnesota
AL East - Toronto, NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore

NL West - LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco, Arizona
NL South - Miami*, Atlanta*, Tampa Bay^, (East Expansion Team - Charlotte/Nashville?)
NL North - Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis
NL East - NY Mets, Philly, Washington, Pittsburgh*

* = Change Divisions
^ = Change Leagues

If they opt to go to 8 divisions of 4, this would seem the most prudent route to go. Having 2 more divisions would mean 2 more division titles and potentially more teams in the playoff hunt, especially if you backload the schedule with divisional games. You could also award home field advantage to each league’s 4 divisional winners (and then keep 3 wildcards).

I just think 4 teams is awfully tiny for a division and if going that small, they’d need to find ways to balance out the schedule.

The giant question is would there be enough votes to pass this?—
I’m not sure some of the teams being asked to move would be thrilled. Pittsburgh probably likes the move. Rays, Rockies, Royals, and Braves might not be so keen to make the jump. Rangers and Astros could be a mixed bag—they might not like being shoehorned into baseball’s weirdo equivalent to the AFC South but a reduction in trips to the West Coast would be a huge plus for their fans who follow them on television (their players would benefit from reduced jet lag too).

My 6 division set up is a bit less extreme, but there would be a slight disadvantage to the Central Division teams.

For 156 game season (with each team playing 6 games a week outside all-star week and opening weekend), you play your division 4 times with 3 game series (48 games), the rest of your conference twice with 3 game series (72 games), and the other conference once in a 3 game series (48 games). If 162 games is required, you could play each division a 13th time and your cross-conference rival in a 2nd 3-game series. That schedule seems reasonably balanced for all teams, but as you said, would 3/4th of the 30 current teams agree to the move? I think it's possible.

Sleeping on it, I think if 162 games required, it would be simpler for the extra 6 games could come from you division, 2 4-game series and 2 3-game series per. Division rival for 54 division games.

My current thoughts on the matter:

I'd rather see them drop a handful of teams and cut like 50 games from the regular season. A dying league with demographics not on their side isn't a good recipe for expansion.