Another Wild Card

[msgkings322]

You think there is any chance in HELL MLB or the players union would give up a WC team?

Me neither.

As for expansion? Portland, LV, Birmingham would be the top three I'd think. Maybe Vancouver.

Why not? Until this new system there were 4 playoff teams per league, and it would be back to 4. With smaller divisions you'd have just as much chance to get in.

I did just realize, if we did have 4 4-team divisions per league, the AL East (NYY, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore/expansion team in NJ) could only send 1 to the playoffs and since both Boston and NY have to go every year you are right after all...

 

[msgkings322]

You think there is any chance in HELL MLB or the players union would give up a WC team?

Me neither.

As for expansion? Portland, LV, Birmingham would be the top three I'd think. Maybe Vancouver.

Also I forgot Charlotte for expansion possibilities.

 

[tzill]

Why not? Until this new system there were 4 playoff teams per league, and it would be back to 4. With smaller divisions you'd have just as much chance to get in.

I did just realize, if we did have 4 4-team divisions per league, the AL East (NYY, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore/expansion team in NJ) could only send 1 to the playoffs and since both Boston and NY have to go every year you are right after all...

Exactly...two less teams making playoff money. Two less teams' owners making playoff money.


Not....gonna...happen.

 

[msgkings322]

Exactly...two less teams making playoff money. Two less teams' owners making playoff money.


Not....gonna...happen.

I hear you, tzill, but what I'm saying is for the last 16 (?) years we have had 4 playoff teams per league and the owners are happy with it.

Adding 1 more team for just 1 game, for what could be all of 3-4 years, doesn't seem like that much for them to 'give up'. All they are doing is going 'back to' 4.

Anyway who knows, we'll see. I just see a path to 32 teams. The revenue from 2 more markets and 2 more franchise fees, etc seems like enough to give up the 1 game play in. Especially with the extra 'fairness' of 8 divisions.

 

[SF11704]

The WC is an interesting aspect of any sport. I think it's major purpose is to 'hold' the fanbase in for a long as possible. The longer you hold them the higher the revenues. So I guess it all comes down to money. I remember baseball in 1954. Two leagues. A winner in each and then off to the world series. No wild cards and no divisional playoffs. I can remember losing interest in June when things were going bad for your team. Pretty difficult to feign interest in a team that's in 6th place at the time. Almost impossible to climb past 5 other teams in 3 months. WCs add another dimension for the fan. If your team can reach the playoffs anything is possible. You also realize that being the best team in baseball (wins) doesn't mean squat. It's almost like another 'mini-season' that takes place. I also think that the WC is trying to make up for the 'imbalance' that can and will exist within our current divisional structures. It would be pretty unsettling to have the 2nd or 3rd best record in your league and not make the playoffs.

 

[msgkings322]

The WC is an interesting aspect of any sport. I think it's major purpose is to 'hold' the fanbase in for a long as possible. The longer you hold them the higher the revenues. So I guess it all comes down to money. I remember baseball in 1954. Two leagues. A winner in each and then off to the world series. No wild cards and no divisional playoffs. I can remember losing interest in June when things were going bad for your team. Pretty difficult to feign interest in a team that's in 6th place at the time. Almost impossible to climb past 5 other teams in 3 months. WCs add another dimension for the fan. If your team can reach the playoffs anything is possible. You also realize that being the best team in baseball (wins) doesn't mean squat. It's almost like another 'mini-season' that takes place. I also think that the WC is trying to make up for the 'imbalance' that can and will exist within our current divisional structures. It would be pretty unsettling to have the 2nd or 3rd best record in your league and not make the playoffs.

All of that is undeniably true, and why I like the current (and new) wild card structure(s). You can make a pretty good case that the Giants missing the playoffs in 1993 with 103 wins was the tipping point to getting the wild card instituted.

But with 4 divisions of just 4 teams each I think you have just as much 'hold' on fanbases. Unless you are terrible, you can always hope to catch just the team or two above you. And if you are terrible you weren't getting excited about the wild card anyway.

 

[SF11704]

But with 4 divisions of just 4 teams each I think you have just as much 'hold' on fanbases. Unless you are terrible, you can always hope to catch just the team or two above you. And if you are terrible you weren't getting excited about the wild card anyway.

I agree. 4 divisions with 4 teams would be a good way to go. Eliminates the WC nomenclature at least. There may have to be some realignment to even it all out but that should be expected. The AL East with NYY, BOS, TB and anyone else would be interesting to say the least.

 

[Heathbar012]

I'm in favor of the 4 division set-up, too, but in addition to it never happening because they just negotiated a fifth team into the playoffs, the NY-BOS factor ends any thought of solely division winners. They obviously both have to be in the same division, and given that one of the reasons for expanding to the "play-in series" was to keep the big spenders in the October scenario (in addition to "holding" fan interest for more teams as SF/New York pointed out). I agree that it won't happen, but I think it should. Of course, that is a fan opinion, and those only moderately sway the discussion until the "voting with dollars" occurs. I don't think this is an issue that is important enough to me to refrain from spending money on MLB entertainment. We'll see during the next CBA discussions.

 

[msgkings322]

I agree. 4 divisions with 4 teams would be a good way to go. Eliminates the WC nomenclature at least. There may have to be some realignment to even it all out but that should be expected. The AL East with NYY, BOS, TB and anyone else would be interesting to say the least.

Actually I would gather TB would end up in a new 'southern' division.

Here's some more time wasting division-bation:

AL West: Angels, As, Mariners, new team in Vegas or Portland
AL North: Chisox, Tigers, Twins, Indians
AL South: Royals, Rays, Astros, Rangers
AL East: Yankees, Bosox, Jays, Orioles

NL West: Giants, Dodgers, Dbacks, Padres
NL North: Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals, Rockies
NL South: Reds, Marlins, Braves, new team in NC or TN or some such
NL East: Phillies, Mets, Pirates, Nats

 

[msgkings322]

I'm in favor of the 4 division set-up, too, but in addition to it never happening because they just negotiated a fifth team into the playoffs, the NY-BOS factor ends any thought of solely division winners. They obviously both have to be in the same division, and given that one of the reasons for expanding to the "play-in series" was to keep the big spenders in the October scenario (in addition to "holding" fan interest for more teams as SF/New York pointed out). I agree that it won't happen, but I think it should. Of course, that is a fan opinion, and those only moderately sway the discussion until the "voting with dollars" occurs. I don't think this is an issue that is important enough to me to refrain from spending money on MLB entertainment. We'll see during the next CBA discussions.

It sickens me to, but I have to agree that the ironclad rule that both Boston and NYY have to be in the playoffs every year is what might actually derail this really good idea.

It's those teams' fault that we don't have a salary cap and floor either. And that's why anyone with any knowledge of the sport who doesn't root for those teams hates them both.

 

[Heathbar012]

Actually I would gather TB would end up in a new 'southern' division.

Here's some more time wasting division-bation:

AL West: Angels, As, Mariners, new team in Vegas or Portland
AL North: Chisox, Tigers, Twins, Indians
AL South: Royals, Rays, Astros, Rangers
AL East: Yankees, Bosox, Jays, Orioles

NL West: Giants, Dodgers, Dbacks, Padres
NL North: Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals, Rockies
NL South: Reds, Marlins, Braves, new team in NC or TN or some such
NL East: Phillies, Mets, Pirates, Nats

I don't know thing 1 about the logistics, but I would love to see teams in Nashville, TN (because they have supported a AAA team fairly well - no less than 305,000 paid attendance for a season for the last decade [and peaked at 420K+ when the economy was better]) and Portland, OR (even though they can't support a AAA team - just love the city).

EDIT: Sorry. The Sounds never beat 419K in attendance.

 

[Heathbar012]

It sickens me to, but I have to agree that the ironclad rule that both Boston and NYY have to be in the playoffs every year is what might actually derail this really good idea.

It's those teams' fault that we don't have a salary cap and floor either. And that's why anyone with any knowledge of the sport who doesn't root for those teams hates them both.

Well-put. Rep, if I can.

 

[tzill]

I hear you, tzill, but what I'm saying is for the last 16 (?) years we have had 4 playoff teams per league and the owners are happy with it.

Adding 1 more team for just 1 game, for what could be all of 3-4 years, doesn't seem like that much for them to 'give up'. All they are doing is going 'back to' 4.

Anyway who knows, we'll see. I just see a path to 32 teams. The revenue from 2 more markets and 2 more franchise fees, etc seems like enough to give up the 1 game play in. Especially with the extra 'fairness' of 8 divisions.

Dude, you and me -- simpatico on this. I'd love to see 4, 8 team divisions and 4 playoff teams per league. And, let's eliminate interleague play and the DH while we're at it. Imagine:

18 games vs. NLW (SD, LA, AZ)
9 games vs. NLE (NYM, PHI, WAS, PIT)
9 games vs. NLC (CHI, MIL, COL, STL)
9 games vs. NLS (ATL, FLA, HOU, CIN)

26 man rosters, no DH. To get into the playoffs, you have to win your division.

 

[tzill]

Actually I would gather TB would end up in a new 'southern' division.

Here's some more time wasting division-bation:

AL West: Angels, As, Mariners, new team in Vegas or Portland
AL North: Chisox, Tigers, Twins, Indians
AL South: Royals, Rays, Astros, Rangers
AL East: Yankees, Bosox, Jays, Orioles

NL West: Giants, Dodgers, Dbacks, Padres
NL North: Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals, Rockies
NL South: Reds, Marlins, Braves, new team in NC or TN or some such
NL East: Phillies, Mets, Pirates, Nats

Rep. I wish I'd read this before my last post. I still have the Stros in the NL, but this would work too.

 

[msgkings322]

Rep. I wish I'd read this before my last post. I still have the Stros in the NL, but this would work too.

Thanks!

I figured with the Stros going to the AL it'd be that much more confusing to switch them back in 5 years...

Check out the randomness of that AL 'South'. All 4 teams currently in different divisions.

 

[SF11704]

I think a 'fan' views all of this much differently than anyone that has a financial interest in a team. I agree with much of what this forum posts. I personally like the 4 divisions and 4 teams in each division alignment. I just want to see my team play. Play well and be rewarded for playing well. Never been a fan of interleague play. Next we'll add a round of professional softball games to the schedule. If it makes money, it has a chance of being adopted. Back to interleague. As much as I hate it I would venture to guess that some interleague series generate more money that anyone else on their respective schedules. Living in NY I can tell you that the NYM and NYY series must pull in more cash flow than almost any other combinations. At least for the NYM it does. I'm guessing that a NYY and BOS serioes also generates a lot of cash. NYM fans hate NYY fans and the reverse is also true.

 

[msgkings322]

I think a 'fan' views all of this much differently than anyone that has a financial interest in a team. I agree with much of what this forum posts. I personally like the 4 divisions and 4 teams in each division alignment. I just want to see my team play. Play well and be rewarded for playing well. Never been a fan of interleague play. Next we'll add a round of professional softball games to the schedule. If it makes money, it has a chance of being adopted. Back to interleague. As much as I hate it I would venture to guess that some interleague series generate more money that anyone else on their respective schedules. Living in NY I can tell you that the NYM and NYY series must pull in more cash flow than almost any other combinations. At least for the NYM it does. I'm guessing that a NYY and BOS serioes also generates a lot of cash. NYM fans hate NYY fans and the reverse is also true.

There's no doubt that the 'natural' rivalry games pull in a lot of extra $, starting with NY as you mentioned, followed by Chicago, then probably SF-Oakland, and perhaps LA. After that you don't have any real strong interleague rivalries. Cleveland/Cinci? KC/Stl? Florida/TB? Meh.

But I sort of like a little bit of interleague. There is something to be said for fans of an NL team getting to see the big AL names once in a while, and vice versa. Does that outweigh the sadness of Pittsburgh-Seattle or Tampa-Colorado? Who knows?

 

[Heathbar012]

There's no doubt that the 'natural' rivalry games pull in a lot of extra $, starting with NY as you mentioned, followed by Chicago, then probably SF-Oakland, and perhaps LA. After that you don't have any real strong interleague rivalries. Cleveland/Cinci? KC/Stl? Florida/TB? Meh.

But I sort of like a little bit of interleague. There is something to be said for fans of an NL team getting to see the big AL names once in a while, and vice versa. Does that outweigh the sadness of Pittsburgh-Seattle or Tampa-Colorado? Who knows?

Not for me, but I suggested returning to higher mounds and fields that run 450' to center (among the no DH that all NL fans, and all AL fans should, agree on).