Floating Realignment?
Some crazy stuff here.
almost 2 years ago
WTM
52 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I noticed that
in the promising young group near the bottom he forgot about Cutch.
But Weiters is in there.
No
Alvarez either.
I guess he’s unable “to represent the game well.”
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Mar 10, 2010 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
That is a dumb plan
why not just add two team to the AL and have 32 teams with 16 in each league and have four division and get rid of the wild card
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Its a Great Day to be a Mountaineer where ever you may be" Tony Caridi
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
well pitching depth could be a little short for a few years
but after a while it whould it whould even out like it has now
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Its a Great Day to be a Mountaineer where ever you may be" Tony Caridi
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
Pitching depth and hitting depth are approximately equal.
If there’s anything causing a shortage of pitchers, it’s teams’ tendency to carry twelve or thirteen on the roster at any given time.
I love the
“their plans to contend or not” line. Yikes, a professional league where it is legitimate to openly admit that you have no plans to compete.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Doesn't English soccer
do something like that? Where basically teams move from the majors down to AAA and teams in AAA move up the majors, depending how well they do (i.e., level of commitment)? That seems really weird to us, but it must work for English soccer.
I think any and all plans are worth considering. If baseball had just been invented yesterday, none of these ideas would seem weird. They’re only strange because we’re used to the way things were set up starting 140 years ago. Three divisions and wild cards and interleague play probably would have horrified the blogosphere of 1932. Hell, moving the Dodgers and the Giants out of New York all the way to California was unthinkable 60 years ago. Somehow, baseball survived.
Mark Madden has been floating that idea for baseball for years. Probably never too seriously, but it honestly wouldn’t be the worst idea.
The worst idea would be doing this actually using the current AAA teams. You know, the ones who would still be affiliated with teams they would now be playing against. And have parks that couldn’t possibly support this idea. And so on and so on with every reason why that’s a terrible.
Of course I only bring that up because someone was actually proposing it last year on a message board I go to. I could just not get over how stupid of an idea it was.
I think they should play naked, with uniforms tattooed onto their bodies.
What? It’s a plan, and all plans are worth considering.
Now Vlad ...
I loves me some sarcasm, especially your sarcasm, except when it’s directed at me ;-)
Promotion/relegation works great for soccer over in Europe, it’s really a good way to maintain interest in the sport for fans of less advantaged teams, but obviously it’s too late to implement something like that over here. Major league owners didn’t pay all that money for their teams in order to be demoted to the International League.
I guess… but then you’re just conceding that it’s always going to be a haves and have nots, with the same few teams ending up on top every year. For example, in the Spanish La Liga the top two teams are almost invariably Barcelona and Real Madrid. I think Valencia is the only other team to have won a league in the past who knows how many years, and that was just once. Every year it’s the same, from beginning to end: who’s going to win? Barça or Madrid?
Sure, there’s some degree of excitement for the lower rung teams in the sense that they run the risk of being demoted to the second tier or have the chance of being promoted if they finish on top of the scrap heap, but it’s totally removed from the actual excitement of winning the league.
Just imagine in this league of guaranteed contracts, the willingness of a bottom rung team to risk a large contract for more than one year if there exists the possibility of being demoted to the lower league and the corresponding huge loss of revenue.
Well, yeah, promotion/relegation wouldn’t work in baseball here for any number of reasons. I totally acknowledge that.
But I remember living near Cambridge when Cambridge United won the English Third Division title and moved up to the Second Division (I think) and it was kind of a big deal in the community. It’s like being a Robert Morris fan and winning the Patriot League title or whatever. We all know Bobby Mo isn’t going to win the NCAA Tournament, but it’s exciting for them to compete and win their own lesser title anyway.
Whereas in baseball, fans in smaller communities have teams that aren’t really trying to win championships at all, they just exist in order to develop players for MLB.
Again, I’m not saying it’s feasible in baseball, just that there are some definite advantages to the promotion/relegation system.
More importantly than the promotion/relegation system, I love how soccer leagues overseas crown a champion.
It is a system that is significantly better than the system used by every sport here in the United States, both professional and in college (Regular Season/Playoffs).
College football, because of its two team “tournament” makes the “regular season” very important. Sports like baseball, college basketball, and the NFL still have very competitive regular seasons, but if you like at say, the NBA, you see the obvious flaw in the regular season/playoff system. The level of play is significantly less in the regular season compared to the playoffs, when players and teams step up the intensity. Now obviously, their should be, to some degree, a difference, but let’s be honest, the NBA regular season is a joke.
How much better would the NBA be if say, every team was told they would get a home and away with every other team, and play a total of 62 games, and whoever has the best record at the end, wins. It’s that simple. People who disagree with me will say that the season could be “over” with five games left or that you lose the “event” that is the playoffs and then the superbowl/championship game, fill in the blank. Obviously the plan wouldn’t work for college sports (due to the amount of teams).
But man, and I’m just gonna rant (and note: I HATE the Patriots, absolutely hate them) it pissed me (well the objective side of me) off that the Giants “won” the Superbowl in the 2007-2008 season. The Patriots went freakin 18-1. The Giants went 14-6, and yet they “won”. The Patriots were the superior team. They were, day in and day out over the course of a year, better than the Giants, but because the Giants were three points better on one day, they came out the winner. Basically, the Patriots were told the sixteen games (versus the Giants ten) they won (regular season) were less important than the four the Giants won (compared to the Patriots two, because they got a bye), and the justification is because they were told by the NFL that last four games are more important (i.e. the regular season/playoff system).
It’s just dumb. I want the team that is the best over the course of an entire season to earn the highest honors, not the team that gets “hot” at the end.
For baseball, either extend the season to 175 games and have 3 home and 3 away with every team, or 145 games and have 3 home, 2 away and 2 home, 3 away accordingly. Whoever finishes with the best record, wins, period. Would that make it really hard for teams like the Pirates because they can’t be a top eight team anymore, but must be the best team for it to mean something? Yes, it would, and my Pirates fan wouldn’t like it, but my objective fan would sure as hell love it.
There, I said it. Tear me apart.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Mar 10, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
If it is any consolation:
The team that is best over the regular season has the inside track in the playoffs (home ground adv).
And the whole point of having multiple games in the WS is so that a team can’t just outperform for one day, they have to do it 4 times. (The point that isn’t linked to $$$ anyway)
by BlindSquirrel on Mar 10, 2010 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
I hate it
It’s so anticlimactic. The end of the season very rarely has any suspense to it, and even when it goes down to the last week or two, the championship is more often decided by separate games between something like Barcelona vs Osasuna and Real Madrid vs Mallorca instead of a head to head match up.
More often than not you end up with the last 2 to 3 weeks being completely pointless games in which the only things at stake are the last spots for the Champions or UEFA leagues and promotion or relegation for the lesser teams.
Heh
In my state (West Virginia), every high school basketball team makes the state playoffs. Oh, they CALL the early rounds “sectionals” and “regionals,” so more than one team can claim it won something, but really, all sectionals are is the first round of the state tournament.
So the point of the regular-season games is …? To make money to sustain the programs, I guess, because those games don’t count for much of anything, except seeding in the first couple rounds. I call them “scrimmages.” But scrimmages that people have to pay actual money to see, which seems wrong to me …
Here I sit, watching the Big East tournament. Each team played 18 games and Syracuse came out at the top of the heap in a very difficult league. And today in its first tournament game, Syracuse lost. So Syracuse isn’t the best team? Oh wait, it has the “regular season” championship, but it won’t have the “tournament” championship (and the league lets all 16 teams in the tournament).
The NBA AND the NHL AND the MLB regular seasons are a little better, but still kind of pointless. I’d like to propose that all three leagues eliminate the regular season, expand to 32 teams and just hold five rounds of best-of-seven playoffs. So your season could be as long as 35 games or as short as four.
And the players get paid accordingly. Every player starts with the same minimum guaranteed contract for, say, $50,000. After that, there’s a pot of money for each round, split seven ways. For each game, the winning team gets 60 percent, the losing team 40. There’s a bonus for winning the series, and it gets bigger the fewer games you need to win. In other words, a sweep pays big; seven games, not so much. This should help discourage any game-rigging among the players to keep a series going.
Pay-as-you-play ought to produce some REAL intense games.
We already compete
for lesser titles. I’ve seen it put as “winning” the wild card. They have three divisions so four teams in each league can say they “won” something.
Teams still accept invitations to the NIT, and there’s a third tournament that even lets in teams with losing records, and you don’t hear many colleges saying, “No thanks, really, our players should be studying more.”
That's not even the biggest problem.
You’d potentially end up with “MLB” teams in tiny-ass media markets (like the Round Rock Express of Round Rock, Texas, population 79,136). Or “MLB” teams suddenly appearing right in the middle of the territory of existing MLB teams (like the Columbus Clippers, who’d put a hurt on both the Indians and Reds). Or “MLB” teams playing in totally unsuitable stadia (like the Colorado Springs Sky Sox, whose home stadium, Security Service Field, seats a cool 9,000 fans, and is located at 6,531 feet above sea level, even higher than Coors Field). Or “MLB” teams out in the middle of nowhere (like the Guerreros de Oaxaca – since Liga Mexicana de Béisbol IS technically classified as AAA for the purposes of MLB, after all). It would also invalidate every existing TV contract, and probably also the Basic Agreement with the MLBPA. And that’s just getting started…
The Round Rock market is not as small as you think it is...
Round Rock is about 20-30 min north of Austin. And they also draw pretty well for a AAA team…
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/08/31/daily28.html
They’d probably draw even better if they weren’t affiliated with the Astros. They’d get at least one more fan more regularly if they were in the International League instead of the PCL .
Yes, they're close to Austin.
But how many people would be willing to drive a half-hour to go see the worst “MLB” team in the league?
And even if you gave them all of Austin (about 750k), they’re still only about a third as large as the greater Pittsburgh metro area, which hasn’t exactly been setting attendance records lately.
I don't really disagree with the general thought
Relegation in MLB really wouldn’t work for most of the reasons mentioned above. You really do need a top 50 market for any pro sports team to thrive, probably more for the corporate sponsors than the fan base. Contractual issues would get in the way too…
Specifically regarding Austin, I’d bet they could draw at least 10K a night with a pro team. A pro baseball team 30 min SOUTH of Austin might even have a fighting chance of legitimately succeeding, since you could pull in San Antonio, too. A lot of people drive pretty far to see Pirate games (it used to take me about 45 min to get to Pittsburgh, assuming no traffic). There’d also be no market dilution with other pro sports, other than UT.
As an aside, nothing makes you appreciate MLB baseball more than Astros affiliate AAA baseball. If San Antonio got a MLB team, I’d probably pick up a ~20 game ticket package to go. Arlington and Houston ARE too far to drive.
I feel comfortable in saying...
…that if it were over 10K per, it wouldn’t be by much. Of course, that has a lot to do with the park only holding 11.7.
That said, you have to be careful about extrapolating ML attendance from minor league attendance, unless you’re planning on sticking with minor league ticket prices.
I hope . . .
that doesn’t come to fruition. Too gimicky. You need some constants.
What's in the pipe, Selig?
But all easy potshots (and terrible unintentional puns) aside, It might be worth trying for a season or two. It certainly isn’t a plan on the same level as a salary cap and floor, but it should at least be considered.
If it increases parity, then keep it. If it makes the Hindenburg look tame in comparison, then there will be one less option in the way of a salary cap. I think it could be a long-term win either way.
by Kidspud on Mar 9, 2010 8:15 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I can see something similar to the NFL where the top team from the division the year before plays games against the top teams from other divisions to create some parity (makes a lot of sense for interleague play to see potential world series match-ups and rematches in the regular season) but switching teams between divisions on a yearly basis is ludicrous.
so
the centrally located teams get an advantage because they can move to the divisions on either side of them, while the teams located on the coasts only get to move in one direction? I guess many of the poorer teams are in the center, so maybe they should have an advantage. What happens if everyone wants to leave one division? Or if there are only two teams in one division? Do they play 57 games against eachother? If you enforce how many teams are in a division, how do you decide who gets to move and who doesn’t?
How is this in any way logistically feasible?
Jason
The Hanging Curve
If Bud
is truly worried about lack of parity or Yankee-Red Sox domination, he should do something meaningful about a salary or spending cap. As long as teams like the Pirates, Indians, Royals or whoever have no chance of keeping young stars longer than 5-6 years, those teams are just plain screwed. They’ll be in constant rebuilding mode, just as they are now.
Juggling teams from division to division is a phony, stop-gap solution. With such a system, I could see fans rooting for their team to tank so it can move to another division—sort of the way NBA fans (Nets, for instance) applaud losing so their team gets in line for a high draft pick.
Baseball must find a way for the richer teams to use some of their money (but not as much) and for poorer teams to be able to afford to compete. That will be difficult to do, probably far more difficult than some dorky floating-relalignment plan.
Bud is trying to attack the problem but is going about it entirely the wrong way. Being both a Yankee and Pirate fan, I’m astonished at the disparity of resources available to the two teams. There’s no way on God’s green earth the two teams can compete evenly in the player market. Or think about it in the AL East: Before the season even starts, the Orioles and Blue Jays are out of the race and the Rays are a longshot. What a drag it is for those fans.
Bud’s gotta tackle the money angle. That’s the only way to do it.
both ends. . .
Agreed. And rooting for both generates wild mood swings.
Could be worse...
I adopted the Indians as my second team while I was in college a few years ago (decent team + cheap seats is a pretty good draw).
Now it’s just constant depression…
Pirates to NL East?
Besides the floating realignment, an idea I heard kicked around this morning on the radio was the Pirates moving back to the NL East. Basically, the NL East would be like the NL Central is now and have six teams. The NL Central – minus the Pirates – would have five teams.
I have to say I’m intrigued. More games against the Phillies are a plus and would push attendance. Plus, more games against the Nats could mean a bit better record…
by LaValliereForever on Mar 10, 2010 11:37 AM EST reply actions
I'd go for that
I’m tired of Milwaukee and Cincinnati. This opens the door for more intese rivalries.
To respond to the European Futbol-type relegation/promotion system
There’s no reason that the minors would have to be involved with this. Create 3 ten team divisions in MLB. They still play each other. Could play something like 1 series against 20 teams in other divisions, and 100 games vs your division.
Have divisions A, B, C, A being the top division – the top teams in this division contest the world series.
The bottom three teams from division A drop to Division B while the top 3 teams from B move to A. Same with B and C. The worst teams in C would have no repercussions other than the shame.
This way, divisions are always changing, teams have a chance to make a run at championships when they want, teams need to be competitive all year. It would be a major competitive point to have teams competing to move up to division B at the end of the year. It could be real exciting. There’s no need to involve the minor leagues in this.
Lower Division Playoffs
Not sure exactly how you’d configure it, but it seems like there’s a hell of a lot of excitement if you make moving up part of the playoffs for the B & C divisions. You’d want to ensure that the #6 team couldn’t leap-frog #s 1 & 2, but how exciting is the series between #s 3 & 4 to get moved up?
Actually, that reinvigorates the pennant races nicely. How about:
Each Division divided (East and West, presumably). Winner of each subdivision gets to move up next year, no playoffs needed (maybe they still play for the championship, although I’m not sure anyone cares too much about being C Champion*). The two second places then play for the final move-up spot. So there’s big value in moving from 2 to 1, plus there’s big value in getting from 3 to 2. Then, in B at least, the bottom teams are fighting not to get moved down (do you have a reverse playoff between the two fourth place teams?). IOW, every team in Division B is in a fight in one direction or the other until the last few weeks or later.
Looking across seasons, one nice feature is that, because the bulk of your opponents are in-division, the cream of each division would be able to rise up (and out) relatively easily, while, in A, good-but-not-great teams would do poorly against top notch competition and drop back down – no more getting fat on 60 games/year against TB and Baltimore. Since your opponents shift a lot from year to year, fan interest stays high (even a perennial C Division team sees multiple series against 3 new teams every year).
Ultimately, it’s too disruptive to tradition to do anything like this, but it’s interesting to think about, and arguably would work better (imagine the satisfaction, ca. 1991, of seeing the Yankees in Division C while the Pirates are winning Division A).
- Ooh, better idea: the subdivision winners from the lower divisions act as wild card teams in the upper. What’s nice about this is that it rewards an instant-turnaround team (like ’08 TB) by allowing them to jump up during the playoffs – a C team could run all the way to the WS. Maybe the Wild Card Round is AE1 vs CE1, AW1 vs. CW1, AE2 vs. BE1, AW2 vs. BW2. Most years, the A division teams win out, but it adds a lot of excitement (and immediate financial benefit) for the subdivision winners in A & B. Alternately, the first place teams in Division A get to rest while B & C winners play to reach the 2nd round (and the B2 and C2 teams play to get moved up next year).
Floating Divisions??? Dude is that your best idea?
What’s next? Ditch the draft and go to recruiting? Then maybe the Yankess can set up otheir own schedule too, you know, load up the first part of the year with all the weak teams to get their record to look nice? OOH OOH, lets develop the Baseball BCS…
I propose the creation of The Washington Baseball Generals.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
- Ask Alex: Will Alex Avila be an All-Star again?
- Create-a-Caption: Matt Cain’s great pair of golf pants
- Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries autographed ball being auctioned by Twins
- George Brett lawsuit claims his company falsely advertises ion necklaces’ health benefits
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
