- 24,937
- 12,736
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
I don't think doing away with Intraleague is a bad idea if you're talking about going to an NBA or NFL style schedule where you play everybody either every year or every couple of years...
MLB "considering radical division realignment plan"
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by RyGuy45,
- Start date
There's 162 games, might as well have everyone play everyone to a degree. If we're going to truly balance out the schedules. Maybe that way the divsions don't matter quite as much.
I dunno, gotta be an answer somewhere in between there.
But agreed on the salary floor. We had this discussion couple years back, the Pirates were a team that we beat the hell out of in that thread.
I dunno, gotta be an answer somewhere in between there.
But agreed on the salary floor. We had this discussion couple years back, the Pirates were a team that we beat the hell out of in that thread.
- 13,316
- 12,210
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
The hell. Why make things so confusing?
- 24,937
- 12,736
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
Only thing I wonder about is, with 30 teams over 162 games, that equates to playing each team ~5.5 times... So how do you really weight the schedules so that divisional play actually matters?
Like in the NBA (and I don't know that this is really a problem), divisional games don't matter. Only benefit is the division winner is guaranteed a playoff birth... You play more division games, but it's a more conference-weighted schedule than division-weighted...
In the NFL and current MLB format, divisional play is HUGE because you play such a huge chunk of the schedule against those teams...
So do you schedule with a division-heavy format and play everyone else 2 or 3 times a year or rotate divisions like the NFL? Or go conference-heavy like the NBA and play every 2, 3 or 4 times like the NBA?
Like in the NBA (and I don't know that this is really a problem), divisional games don't matter. Only benefit is the division winner is guaranteed a playoff birth... You play more division games, but it's a more conference-weighted schedule than division-weighted...
In the NFL and current MLB format, divisional play is HUGE because you play such a huge chunk of the schedule against those teams...
So do you schedule with a division-heavy format and play everyone else 2 or 3 times a year or rotate divisions like the NFL? Or go conference-heavy like the NBA and play every 2, 3 or 4 times like the NBA?
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
this is ******ed
like someone said just add 2 wild cards. it's not that difficult.
like someone said just add 2 wild cards. it's not that difficult.
- 3,486
- 93
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
I've always thought the MLB should go to the North, East, South, West setup like the NFL.
- 20,261
- 2,188
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- 22,885
- 2,317
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2000
- 6,247
- 18
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
Moving the Sox or yanks to NL,
Boston, NYY World Series
Boston, NYY World Series
- 17,626
- 456
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
Originally Posted by BostonThreeParty
Moving the Sox or yanks to NL,
Boston, NYY World Series
NYY/BOS
LAD/SF
- 2,920
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
Boo! I love MLB for the mere fact that it's a league/game that has ridiculous rules. You can call it tradition but I call it awesome.
1) Non-contact sport except for at the plate where you can absolutely demolish the catcher
2) NL vs AL. DH vs no DH. How does that make any sense? But it's awesome!
3) No standardized field specs. !++? That's like playing on a 10' rim in LA and 7' in NY.
1) Non-contact sport except for at the plate where you can absolutely demolish the catcher
2) NL vs AL. DH vs no DH. How does that make any sense? But it's awesome!
3) No standardized field specs. !++? That's like playing on a 10' rim in LA and 7' in NY.
- 21,365
- 812
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
Wow, that's just too weird. No way...
