Exactly. There's been an uneven amount of teams between the AL and NL for the majority of the last 40 years. They moved the Brewers 13 years ago to avoid 15-15 leagues because there was no interleague. Now they want interleague to be a permanent fixture for every series for the season? That's a huge can of worms, both rules and scheduling wise.
that's the most ridiculous part. they intentionally moved the brewers to the NL to AVOID exactly what they're talking about potentially asking the Astros to move to the AL to create.
Yep... and actually, I made a mistake in my previous post. Interleague WAS around in 1998 (started in 1997), so theoretically, they may have already considered this plan back then (15-15) and decided that it was too much of a risk on a gimmick. I still see it as a gimmick, so I don't know what difference it would make now. Also, the Brewers (Selig) may have though that remaining in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox may not be the best thing for his team long-term... ironic how he picked the WORST division in baseball at the time (the 1997 comedy central) to move his team into, capitilizing on the always popular Cubs/Cardinals. But this point needs top be brought up every single time a sportswriter or union official claims that "we HAVE to have balance.... its just not fair..." Where was that outcry 13 years ago, or every year since? Why now? Nobody gives a rats ass about the NL central or AL west anyways, now they risk changing the game forever (along with potentially ailienating a long-time NL city) to try and bring an illusion of "balance"?
If they're so big into "balance", can we finally see the Braves and Dodgers more than 6 times a year and the freaking Brewers and Pirates less than 18? *hate* the "unbalanced" schedule.
Hmm... that would also fix the argument that the Rangers neeed more central time zone games, thus the Astros should move. Also, fixes the argument of why not to move the Astros to the NL West (too many night games). Balanced schedules actually provide more balance than realignment does... hmm. (of course, it then makes divisions meaningless).
It doesn't make divisions meaningless. The way the NBA does it--*that* makes divisions nearly meaningless. Besides that, you don't have to completely balance the schedule, just something less wack. Do you realize that 56% of our games are played against only 5 teams? That's just wack.
If everybody plays the same schedule per league, divisions ARE meaningless. I guess you just want it less unbalanced... which is fine. However, they would likely have a hard time figuring out a more balanced schedule if they have an interleague matchup every week. Who plays who? Do they rotate divisions every year? Does every team in each division play every other team? Do they still do the regional rivalries separately every year?
do they sacrifice the Mets/Yanks annual matchup so the Rangers and 'stros can share a division? methinks not.
Well, since they have to have a single interleague matchup every series, it gives them room to add on MORE of those regional games. Do the teams with regional rivalries end up playing 3 or 4 series against their respective team instead of just 2? We all know that the only way interleague survives is because of the big crowds those series brings in. Now that they can have it year-round, it gives them more possibility for abuse/overscheduling of those games.
Nick, I disagree completely. Divisions would NOT be meaningless. For just one example, if the top two teams in a division finish at 93-69 and 6-6 head-to-head, the next tiebreaker is division record. You're right that just less imbalance would be fine by me, but I don't agree with your assessment that balanced schedule=meaningless divisions. Again, for truly meaningless divisions see the NBA. And even there, the division still has at least a little meaning.
If every team in the league (national or american) plays the exact same schedule, why would divisions matter? That's the issue the NBA has... where "division rivals" are merely that in name only. They don't play each other more times than not. The Rockets are "rivals" with the Lakers just as much as they are with the Spurs or Mavs. And if they're going to use "division record" as a tiebreaking rule, I would presume they better have more games within the division than out of the division... otherwise they can simply use league/conference record.
but that's just an arbitrary requirement you're putting in place. whoever gets to advance out of the division needs to have won the most within the division--even if you play your division rivals fewer times than the rest of the league! (of course I'm not suggesting that would be a good idea) The division games mean more, regardless of the quantity of them.
And the issue the NBA has is more that an entire freaking division can make the playoffs. Their divisions are small, and 8 teams per conference get into the postseason. As a result, only the conference really matters. In an MLB with a balanced schedule and only four playoff teams per league, your division is still pretty important, because you generally have to win it to advance.
The Brewers were in the AL Central, which was won in '97 by a team with two more wins than the Astros, FYI.
yeah, but in the 90s the AL Central generally had a very strong Indians team, iirc. And the White Sox were decent (iirc).
To say the least... they were beasts for many years... with no WS win to show for it. Painfully close but close don't count.
That having been posted, the Brewers still didn't share a division with the Yankees or Red Sox at the time. A move from one Central to the other was, all things being relative, a natural move, not a "We fear the Yankees/Red Sox" decision.
