I dont know if this has been discussed at lenght on this forum, but i wanted to get everyones opinion on expansion. I remember back in the day, I believe the Twins were talking about possibly relocating to North Carolina. Thats been around 15 years ago if i recall. As everyone knows, we got two leagues with uneven amount of teams. Alot of people like the idea of adding two teams and switching up the divisions.

 

Personally, considering the MLB has seen record amount of attendance and profits in the recent years, i would love to see two teams added. I know Charlotte NC has been thrown around as possible location of a team. I would love to have a team in NC, but i dont think I could pull my alliegance away from the Marlins.

 

What do you guys think about Expansion.

I'm against it, no need to dilute the talent pool. Eventually you'll reach an NHL-style impasse where the game gets worse for it. I'm not sure if 34 teams would be the magic number for that but no need rolling the dice.

I'm against it, no need to dilute the talent pool. Eventually you'll reach an NHL-style impasse where the game gets worse for it. I'm not sure if 34 teams would be the magic number for that but no need rolling the dice.

 

 

Guys like Hayden Penn are on Major League rosters. Further dilution would be bad.

 

By the way, Rab, I

I'm against it, no need to dilute the talent pool. Eventually you'll reach an NHL-style impasse where the game gets worse for it. I'm not sure if 34 teams would be the magic number for that but no need rolling the dice.

 

Guys like Hayden Penn are on Major League rosters. Further dilution would be bad.

 

By the way, Rab, I

How about evenly balancing the divisions first?

How about evenly balancing the divisions first?

 

In order to do that, they would have to expand to 2 more teams for the AL and then have 4 divisions in each league, all comprised of 4 teams.

 

I don't think it would work the way people here would like.

I don't think you can write off the D.C. move until the Nationals actually have a team capable of even sniffing the playoffs first. They had a good season there in 2005, but at that time they were still in old RFK stadium.

 

The Pirates are in the same boat, where they have one of the best stadiums in baseball, but no one to really watch in it.

 

I think baseball has expanded about as far as it should have. It's not like in the NFL how L.A. still doesn't have a team, and it's the second or third biggest media market in the country. Baseball has every area pretty covered, except certain parts of the south. But I don't see a need for a team in San Antonio, Las Vegas, Portland, or Charlotte. Those cities all have MiLB teams anyway.

 

There might need to be some re-alignment in the future due to the weaknesses of some divisions over others (looking at you, NL Central).

I think they could add 2 but no more, and it would have to be the right place. North Carolina and a place like Oklahoma City(who has a ballpark that would easily be expandable to MLB caliber) or the like. But even then I think you have to be very cautious about it.

There aren't two leagues with an uneven amount of teams. There are two leagues with different numbers of teams (16 NL and 14 AL). This might have been what you meant, but your wording is confusing.

 

Each league must have an even number of teams or else there would be a scheduling nightmare. This is why the Brewers moved to the NL in 1998 after the Diamondbacks decided they didn't want to be in the AL. If the leagues each had 15 teams, there would always be one unmatched team during non-interleague play, or the bulk of the season.

 

So what is most feasible? Keeping things as they are, adding two teams, or contracting two teams?

 

I'm strongly opposed to adding more teams because I am skeptical that there are markets that will support them. MLB might have record attendance, but half of MLB is still averaging less than 30,000 a game. Frankly, I don't think MLB should have relocated the Expos to DC. The region has given the Nationals a rather lukewarm reception. Sure, they were the worst team in baseball last season but they still have the beautiful new ballpark and averaged only 22,000 fans. I'm not even sure if there was a better market out there. I would have rather seen MLB contract the Expos and one other team.

 

Contraction down to 28 teams would be an interesting option. Oakland seems to be in limbo and had the worst attendance in MLB last season, so they should be axed immediately. The second team to be contracted is not quite as obvious; the only real candidates would be Toronto and Kansas City. This would enable both leagues to have an even number of teams (two NL teams would need to move to the AL). Divisions could be made even again by reverting back to the 1993 alignment where there was no wild card.

 

Since MLB seems to want more playoff teams (not less), this isn't feasible. However, I don't think that even divisions are that mandatory since they are so difficult to attain.

 

 

Excuse me, yes.

 

I dont like how they are called leagues instead of conferences in MLB and NFL because to me a league is MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, you get the point. So no, not divisions, leagues.

 

When it comes to contraction I'm against it completely. Unless the team is an economic blackhole where money is being swallowed up... it shouldnt be considered. If it's a real big deal then yeah, maybe it should. But you've gotta remember for any of these teams already established there are fans. It boils down to the point... how would you like it if they shut down your team? So again, unless it's an absolute utter failure of a franchise I'd say that expansion is the only option between the two. And I disagree, there are markets out there who could support expansion.

 

None the less I dont see how 15-15 per league doesnt work. With 15-15 you would simply need to restructure MLB scheduling. Perhaps a change in game count. Perhaps the odd team out gets 3 games off. Perhaps there could always be 1 team playing inter-league per series. There are tons of suggestions that are available to consider.

I think you are mistaken. I was referring to the OP's reference of an "uneven amount of teams." The divisions are uneven, which is a flaw with the current alignment.

 

However, each league must have an even number of teams unless you want to eliminate interleague play in scheduled blocks. Changing this would be a bad move, because it would defeat the purpose of league play. It would essentially create a single, 30-team league with scheduling biases among 15 teams. It could lead to AL-NL match-ups at off times, such as in September. MLB likes to take advantage of the interleague play gimick by staging the games in the dead of summer.

 

Think about it. It's the first series of the season. Who is the opponent of the 15th team when the other 14 teams in the league are paired off?

 

Changing the game count would do absolutely nothing. It can only be accomplished by having an even number of teams. Expanding interleague play would be the only solution. It would establish an even number of teams (30) by creating a de facto single league. I don't think MLB will do this and thankfully so.

 

 

None the less your post was still relevant to what I'd had said.

 

And a feasable option would be more 2 game/4 game series and more days off. Which effectively would alter the game count. I'm not about to create a schedule for you here... but I'd imagine that it would be much like a bye week in football. Except it ends up being a bye series. One in each league. And if that team has a 4 game series leading into their bye week... and the next team they'd have to play just played a 2 game series, they can effectively skip only 2 or 3 days while still accomplishing being unpaired. Yes, there will always be an unpaired team, but an MLB team does not play EVERY day. They play almost every day. So by using those days off and properly grouping them it is possible. Scheduling is already a nightmare, it might be hard to comprehend but it's honestly not that much harder.

I'm not opposed to expansion, however I don't think it's necessary right now. The more realistic scenario is that a team like the A's or Rays, one without a new ballpark deal, ends up moving. As a soccer fan in South Florida though the concept of teams relocating and/or folding is painful and for the sake of the fans I don't like to see it happen anywhere. Heck I got sick to my stomach when just the idea of the Marlins being contracted or moving was brought up in the last decade. I'm happy for DC, I've been to the ballpark there and it's great, but I still kinda miss the Expos and feel very sorry for the fans they did have in Montréal...

 

As far as the "uneven" leagues, ideally I'd like to see MLB ditch the antiquated division-based scheduling(and seeding for the postseason) system and move to a fully balanced, interleague schedule. Eliminate the DH, add 12 games to the schedule and play 3 at home and 3 away versus every other team in the league for 174 games and have the top 8 make the playoffs. Schedule some double headers and expand the roster and it could be done easily, and make for a much more competitive league. Of course, baseball desperately clings to tradition like no other sport so I doubt that ever happens.

 

I'm tired of the damn Phillies, Mets, Braves and Expos/Nats. I want to see the Mariners, A's, Yankees and Sox come to town ever year(and lose)!

I like the idea of more interleague games. You do get tired of seeing the same teams all the time. It appears to be working wonderfully in hockey when the schedule was changed so that each east team plays each west conference team during the season. Cutting down on the number of divisional games hasnt hurt the rivalries from what can be seen.

We're just a few years removed from contraction talk, with this and the economic situation as it is. Due to this I think expansion would be a bad idea.

I also agree with the dilution of talent to a degree, there are certainly players in the Majors right now who wouldn't have been there without expansion, but there are also players in AA that could be thriving in the Show.

Its possible they need to look into expanding Rule 5 drafting to help open spots for players stuck behind someone and that would help distribute talent a little more evenly.

The reason why I consider balancing leagues (no, it doesnt have to be 15, 15, that's just the current number of teams and Im against both expansion and contraction) is because it is harder to be in a 16 team league and win a Wild Card or win in a larger division.

 

Each team should have equal odds and equal opponents. Every other sport has achieved that... I think that's a priority.

Honestly, I think it is actually kinda fair to have fewer teams in the AL, because the Yankees are so strong. They are by far the most successful franchise in baseball history and such a strong playoff contender every year that the odds of a non-Yankee team making the playoffs in any given year is probably pretty similar in both leagues.

Personally, eliminating the novelty of Inter-league Play and having every team play every other team atleast once should be the way to go.

Then, RE-Relocating the Brewers to the AL West would solve alot of issues league size wise.

 

However, Interleague is just that, a fun novelty that gets Joe Couchpotato out of his seat every 4 years to watch the Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays come to town.

 

32 teams would be cool, but 1 in NC and one in California Would be the way to go.

 

Cali is big enough to Handle it, maybe even Portland.

Just from what i have seen, NC would have great support for a team. I cant vouch for many of the high league teams in the area but the grasshoppers always have a high attendance and an enthusiastic fanbase. The region was buzzing about the Marlins game in greensboro and it was a great experience. North Carolina is making many changes to its transportation infrastructure. Another train is going to be added to the Piedmont route, which connects 3 major cities, Raleigh Greensboro and Charlotte. Greensboro is right in the middle and it only takes 2 hours in good traffic if that to get to either Raleigh and Charlotte.

 

If not Expansion, then i think NC should be on the top of the list for a relocated team, if it comes down to it. Im sure we would could build a great rivalry with Atlanta. It would be a very interesting time, the only problem i could envision is getting a stadium. If i recall correctly there was an amount of uproar about public funds being used to build a stadium when the Twins were talking about relocating. I dont know how the perception has changed on that.

I'm against it, no need to dilute the talent pool. Eventually you'll reach an NHL-style impasse where the game gets worse for it. I'm not sure if 34 teams would be the magic number for that but no need rolling the dice.

 

Guys like Hayden Penn are on Major League rosters. Further dilution would be bad.

 

By the way, Rab, I

League expansion, and to some degree league contraction, is a poor idea. There are no teams that can't succeed in MLB, and Pittsburgh is currently in the process of proving that any team can rebuild if they do it right... and the Marlins have done it numerous times in the past.

 

Each team should have equal odds and equal opponents. Every other sport has achieved that... I think that's a priority.

 

Yeah, the NHL/NBA did it by having sub .500 teams make the playoffs (Hello Raptors/Bulls) and the NFL isn't entirely fair, but that's a separate discussion. If anything, I'd argue that the MLB has the best playoff system in pro sports, 162 games, mostly divisional, there's the importance of winning the division, as a result and then the congeniality prize that is the Wild Card. The actual playoffs being a crapshoot thing is generally unavoidable in most sports, though, so I don't hold that against anyone.

 

As for individual teams being in divisions that may or may not be "fair"... we've come out of the East against the Mets and Phillies and the Rays topped the Sox and Yankees... no excuses.

League expansion, and to some degree league contraction, is a poor idea. There are no teams that can't succeed in MLB, and Pittsburgh is currently in the process of proving that any team can rebuild if they do it right... and the Marlins have done it numerous times in the past.

 

Each team should have equal odds and equal opponents. Every other sport has achieved that... I think that's a priority.

 

Yeah, the NHL/NBA did it by having sub .500 teams make the playoffs (Hello Raptors/Bulls) and the NFL isn't entirely fair, but that's a separate discussion. If anything, I'd argue that the MLB has the best playoff system in pro sports, 162 games, mostly divisional, there's the importance of winning the division, as a result and then the congeniality prize that is the Wild Card. The actual playoffs being a crapshoot thing is generally unavoidable in most sports, though, so I don't hold that against anyone.

 

As for individual teams being in divisions that may or may not be "fair"... we've come out of the East against the Mets and Phillies and the Rays topped the Sox and Yankees... no excuses.

 

That's the structure of your playoffs and a different story. NFL/NHL let too many teams into the playoffs and it's not fair, you are right. Sub .500 teams should not be in the playoffs. .500 teams should not be in the playoffs. But again, different discussion. Fairness in terms of odds of making the playoffs is referring to 4/16 versus 4/14 whereas in the NHL/NBA it's 8/15 West and 8/15 East. In the NFL it's 6/16 AFC and 6/16 NFC. I love the MLB's playoff structure. I love the idea of minimal teams making the playofffs. I love the idea of a shortened first series so as not to give chances to the team who doesnt perform well. I think the MLB and NFL have much better playoff formats than the NHL and NBA. But again, I was referring to unequal odds for AL teams and NL teams, whereas every other major league sporting has acheived fairness so that every team has equal odds in making the playoffs.

What does "equal odds" in that regard even matter then?

 

The only things that actually matter in baseball regarding playoffs are: winning the division, and THEN winning percentage. You play your division the most, so like I said, you control your own destiny... and if you find yourself in a division that's particularly stacked at the top, but you still put up a great record, you can be rewarded with a wildcard berth. So who cares if your league is 14 teams or 16 teams, so long as you play your division the most? Losing divisions is a terrible idea, and adding teams would significantly lower the quality of the league, if not add more basement dwellers, increasing to a lack of disparity. Therefore, the only idea to equalize anything would be contraction, and there's generally no reason to do that and no viable candidates for it.

What does "equal odds" in that regard even matter then?

 

The only things that actually matter in baseball regarding playoffs are: winning the division, and THEN winning percentage. You play your division the most, so like I said, you control your own destiny... and if you find yourself in a division that's particularly stacked at the top, but you still put up a great record, you can be rewarded with a wildcard berth. So who cares if your league is 14 teams or 16 teams, so long as you play your division the most? Losing divisions is a terrible idea, and adding teams would significantly lower the quality of the league, if not add more basement dwellers, increasing to a lack of disparity. Therefore, the only idea to equalize anything would be contraction, and there's generally no reason to do that and no viable candidates for it.

 

 

For real? Is it that hard to grasp this concept?

 

One league has more competition than the other league. The NL central has 6 teams competing for the title. 6 teams of competition fighting for 1 spot. the AL West has 4 teams competing for that spot. LA only has to formulate a team good enough to beat 3 other teams, for example. St. Louis must formulate a team better than 5 other teams to win their division. Of course a good team is a good team and they are barely dependant on another team in their division being good/bad, but you've gotta think that LA has less to worry about in the AL West when there are 3 teams that could go and create competition whereas in the NL Central there are 5 teams.

 

And then when it comes to the WC... 11 teams in the AL fight for 1 spot. 13 teams in the NL fight for another. From any offseason you have 12 other teams that can put together a better team than your own to win the WC, whereas in the AL there are 10 other teams.

 

 

Are you going to claim that if the NL had 50 teams while the AL still had 14 it would be fair? Judging that divisions remained the same... 47 teams compete for a WC spot whereas 11 teams compete for a WC spot. How is that fair?

 

If you only played your division, and only your division, your argument might have some basis to it. But that's not the case, you still play... if I'm not mistaken... the majority of your games outside of the division against other teams. It seems to me that you're just trying to troll me to this point... because this is ridiculous.

What does "equal odds" in that regard even matter then?

 

The only things that actually matter in baseball regarding playoffs are: winning the division, and THEN winning percentage. You play your division the most, so like I said, you control your own destiny... and if you find yourself in a division that's particularly stacked at the top, but you still put up a great record, you can be rewarded with a wildcard berth. So who cares if your league is 14 teams or 16 teams, so long as you play your division the most? Losing divisions is a terrible idea, and adding teams would significantly lower the quality of the league, if not add more basement dwellers, increasing to a lack of disparity. Therefore, the only idea to equalize anything would be contraction, and there's generally no reason to do that and no viable candidates for it.

 

 

For real? Is it that hard to grasp this concept?

 

One league has more competition than the other league. The NL central has 6 teams competing for the title. 6 teams of competition fighting for 1 spot. the AL West has 4 teams competing for that spot. LA only has to formulate a team good enough to beat 3 other teams, for example. St. Louis must formulate a team better than 5 other teams to win their division. Of course a good team is a good team and they are barely dependant on another team in their division being good/bad, but you've gotta think that LA has less to worry about in the AL West when there are 3 teams that could go and create competition whereas in the NL Central there are 5 teams.

 

And then when it comes to the WC... 11 teams in the AL fight for 1 spot. 13 teams in the NL fight for another. From any offseason you have 12 other teams that can put together a better team than your own to win the WC, whereas in the AL there are 10 other teams.

 

 

Are you going to claim that if the NL had 50 teams while the AL still had 14 it would be fair? Judging that divisions remained the same... 47 teams compete for a WC spot whereas 11 teams compete for a WC spot. How is that fair?

 

If you only played your division, and only your division, your argument might have some basis to it. But that's not the case, you still play... if I'm not mistaken... the majority of your games outside of the division against other teams. It seems to me that you're just trying to troll me to this point... because this is ridiculous.

 

Haha, don't think so highly of yourself, I would hardly go out of my way to troll you.

 

But yeah, you're making a dumb argument... to make the World Series, you have to be the best team in your league. As such, the two leagues operate independently of each other, short of brief interleague appearances, the ASG and the WS. So, consider that before saying that teams are on an unfair level. Think for a second though, in a division with fewer teams, each division game is worth more, so yes, it is still fair.

Haha, don't think so highly of yourself, I would hardly go out of my way to troll you.

 

But yeah, you're making a dumb argument... to make the World Series, you have to be the best team in your league. As such, the two leagues operate independently of each other, short of brief interleague appearances, the ASG and the WS. So, consider that before saying that teams are on an unfair level. Think for a second though, in a division with fewer teams, each division game is worth more, so yes, it is still fair.

 

 

You're right, it's only nature of a troll... to troll.

 

Of course it's a dumb argument in your eyes. Because everything I say is dumb in your eyes. And you cant actually formulate a reasonable logical argument to back that up, you just deviate from the topic slowly until you are arguing stupid little things.

 

 

Winning it all in every single major sport around here is stratified. to win a championship you need to advance levels first. No, being the best team does not get you into the world series. Being one of the best in the regular season and then being the best in each playoff round is what gets you into the world series. In order to advance to that first step... you need to be one of the best. You need to be better than at least 11 other teams. Common sense tells you that the more teams there are, the harder it is to be the best.

 

Does league size directly effect your ability to make it into the playoffs? No... however it is indirectly a cause. Everyone has the same amount of games to play for sure, although with more teams comes more potential to be the lesser team in a divisional race or a wild card race, end of story. It's not to say that just because your statistical odds are worse your actual odds are worse at winning the division, but rather to say that your potential odds are worse to win the division simply because there are more teams who can and will acquire more talent in order to compete with you, thus creating more competition. The Marlins only compete with the Phillies, Braves, Mets, and Nationals for the division. Each year these teams adjust their rosters and acquire new players. There is more of a chance that one of those teams ends up being successful at making a better team than yours, thus winning the division in a 5 team division rather than in a 4 team division.

You're against contraction, you've admitted expansion's a bad idea, yet you want to realign divisions... albeit this would require expansion in the AL... alrighty.