Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkCuban
I do think the league is in dire need of realignment and/or expansion. I always thought the divisions were way too geographically far-flung. It detracts from the old-school feel of the league. There is no logical reason for the Portland, Oregon based Raccoons to play away games in Boston, Massachusetts.
I'd argue for moving two teams from the CL (Charlotte and Atlanta) to the FL and then expanding by four teams:
FL East: Charlotte, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Washington, Nashville and Richmond
FL West: Topeka, Sioux Falls, Salem, Sacramento, Denver, Los Angeles and Dallas
CL North: New York, Boston, Indianapolis, Expansion Team A, Expansion Team B, Expansion Team C, Expansion Team D
CL South: Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Portland, Vancouver, Las Vegas, Tijuana, San Francisco
A few tweaks could really bring the divisions together per se. For example, you could swap Salem (Oregon) for Milwaukee, and the alignment would work even better -- but I wanted to keep the CL and FL mostly intact.
The principle remains the same: more expansion teams will lead to lopsided divisions, with teams in the CL South able to pick up easy wins over non-division teams and remain competitive regardless of talent -- increasing the difficulty for Portland to make the playoffs.
|
7-team divisions are the worst alignment that MLB ever had. It is impossible to create a satisfactory schedule with them for a season with 162 games. When the American League had such an alignment (1977-1993), the teams played stupid schedules that saw them play more games out of the division. This increases the chance that a team with a losing record will win a division title. In fact, for several years the AL East was markedly superior to the AL West and this seemed likely to happen, though it never did, thankfully. Also, since time began, a basic principle had been that each team should play the same schedule as their opponents. When the leagues split into 2 divisions, the principle remained that each team should play the same schedule as the other teams in their division. But with 7-team divisions, this is impossible to satisfy in 162 games and the idiots in charge of the A.L. decided that the tradition of 162 games (at that time only about 15 years old) was more important than the tradition of competitive balance (at that time 100 years old). In fact, 162 games was not a tradition and merely a byproduct of following the principle of competitive balance, which, in a game where differences of 1 or 2 percent are enormous over the long season, is essential for fairness.
Also, a 4th place team in a 7-team division is in both the 1st and 2nd division, which is ridiculous.
Also, the meaning of your concluding sentence escapes me. I cannot argue against the logic of it, because I cannot even figure out what exactly it is suggesting to be logical.