I haven't checked all schedules, but next season the Dodgers and SF both play all the teams from the AL East. My guess is the same goes for AZ, SD, and COL. The only different opponents on our schedule are the "rivalry games" with the A's and Angels. I think the Astros division move makes it so all divisions are balanced by number, and the league can now balance those interleague games.
I don't see any way MLB considers going away from the "rivalry games", because there is too much fan interest (my interest included). 6 games. <4% of the schedule. I'd say there's easily more fluctuation in "schedule degree of difficulty" between similar opponents based on injuries and pitching matchups.
Well true but those are unforseen ... L.A. playing the Angels while S.D. plays the Mariners is just plain unfair and preplanned. It might equal out 10 years from now, because maybe someday the Mariners will be better than the Angels like the A's were this year. Overall, we all know the Angels and Rangers will generally be the best two teams in the AL West over the long haul due to money so playing them will usually be tougher than the Astros, Mariners, or A's. I guess it is what it is. We are in a big market, therefore we have to play a big market team. Funny thought that the rivalry games usually make no sense because teams like S.D., AZ, COL have no crosstown/regional rivals. I'd rather just scrap the whole idea really. I get no thrill playing the Angels anyway. The interleague regional rivals list is shorter than the list that simply is nothing more the fillers. Chicago Bay Area L.A. N.Y. Baltimore/Washington D.C. That's only 10 teams...Did I miss any? I guess you can add the silly state rivals. Florida Missouri Ohio That's a total of 16 teams. So half the teams have an actual rival, and again I personally think the state rivals are a bit lame...especially Florida. My vote is to be rid of the "rivalry series"! It's unbalanced and pretty much played out. Too many teams don't have one. When it cycles around every few years fine. Just match the divisions every year and there will be some rivals in there.
Those games are basically a Toss-up that simply add some spice to a sport that has lost all inter-team drama. All the rivalries were created earlier because of the old division format, so you have a division of 7 teams trying to climb over each other... that's how I came to hate the Braves and Reds (other than the Giants). When they split the divisions into 3 they took away part of that drama, as now you dont have to fight with so many teams for a playoff spot. Sure, there was one WC, but it was usually won by a team that was fighting for the division and came short on it, but it was set at least a week before the playoffs and with only 1 or 2 teams into the fight by the end of the regular season. Look at this year... if it wasnt for the second WC, Atlanta would have been locked into the division fight without caring about whoever was behind them for the WC. This new second WC will create more drama and close races. its funny how some analysts say "we dont like it cuz it allows a leaser team to get into the playoffs and maybe win it all". Reality is that Selig doesnt care a rat's ass if a 110 game winner or a 75 game winner gets the ring, as long as the sales are there and the people fills the stadiums. That's why the second WC was created and why the rivalry weeks wont either, even if that means having Mets/Yankees on one game but D-Backs/Astros on the other one.
I like the 2 team Wild Cards. I just don't like the inter-league "rivalry series". With inter-league on a daily basis now, get rid of it.
Well inter-league is kind of a must have with 15 teams in each league. I hate it though, but especially having to play the Angels while the giants get the A's every year.
Again, we need 3 wildcards, this system blows. 3 WC play 3 DW in a 5-game series. Shorten the season to 150 games. Done.
Shorten the season?!!! NO! I am so against that....that's a sin! It has to stay at 162 games...it just has to.
Also, you'd then end up with 3 teams in the second round...that ain't gonna work. What would the 3rd team do, sit out a week?
10 teams is enough. Anything more deludes the post season. The MLB post season is supposed to be an exclusive club. Unlike the NBA.
I too hate the wildcard. Personally I'd rather go back to two divisions and the winner of each plays an LCS before the WS. Since I know that will never happen, take bottom 12 teams in terms of attendance and combine them. If you can't sell half your stadium, you don't need 81 home games. These bottom feeders largely suck and would ultimately improve by combining rosters. It would probably improve attendance per game as the fans will have less choices in when to with 40 options instead of 81 (the remaining extra game can rotate annually). Once this is done you can realign into 4 divisions per league and only the winners per division make the playoffs. Competition will improve as talent will be less spread out. Parity will improve because even the bottom feeders will be able to keep talent. Fuck the owners of these teams that get combined, you own a failing business in terms of competition and I'm sick of seeing the Astros, pirates, marlins, royals, mariners, twins, padres, Indians and blue jays suck every year. The a's did well this year and the dbacks last year but largely they suck too. The only team with an argument is the rays, but they can't even sell playoff tickets and there succes is just the last few seasons. It's not like they a great history.
Wait... your plan is to get rid of 6 teams by combining teams who will split their home games? Like the San Diego/Oakland Padr-A's, the Seattle/Toronto Mari-Jays, and the Houston/Pittsburgh As-Pirates? And then we have eight 3-team divisions?
Wow, you are mean! LOL. I feel your hate for those teams though. It's just ridiculous how they suck year in year out, and the damn luxury taxes havn't made a fucking dent in the problem. Those fucking owners probably pocket the money anyway. Should be illegal.
there's only a small problem with your logistic... I HIGHLY DOUBT fans will, for example, drive from Miami to Tampa for a baseball game... if they barely support the team that plays in their back yard, a long drive for a middle of the week game is a crazy idea... the problem is mostly created by teams that simply take the money and run with it... I heard that the Orioles GM said that based on their season they dont expect to make big spending in the offseason... that's bullshit, and there's where the issues start... next year they wont be competitive because this year was a lucky year, so when their extra innings miracle and late game heroics come back to the normal rate, they will be a 75-78 wins team, while the owner will be swimming in the cash generated by the playoffs... MLB should impose a minimum team payroll, so you force teams to spend on at least one or 2 big name players... that is the way that the competition gets even...
that's a good idea but I doubt the player's union/association would approve it players will still get paid by other teams and a minimum would give MLB/owners leverage in trying to impose a maximum -- i.e., salary cap and all marvin miller fought for for will be for naught
