Psycory wrote:
Sounds like the start of trying to get some form of relegation...Have a premier baseball league and a second division.
They already have that. It's called the American league and the National League.
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Floating realignment https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=43774 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Floating realignment |
I am a baseball purist and HATE change for fear these dumb dicks will fuck it up (the DH rule, interleague play, indoor baseball) but this is JUST! PLAIN! STUPID! I agree that something has to be done to level the playing field and prevent two teams from buying the market but this is NOT it. When baseball commissioner Bud Selig named a 14-person "special committee for on-field matters" four months ago, he promised that all topics would be in play and "there are no sacred cows." The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not. The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season). As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East. In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths. The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons. One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston. Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs. Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions. It is important to remember that the committee's talks are very preliminary and non-binding. "But if there is something that comes up we feel should be addressed during the season, we can make a recommendation then," said committee co-chair and Braves president John Schuerholz, referring to less complicated issues such as pace-of-game directives. "This is all about any ideas that help make the game better." The floating realignment idea is nothing more than a concept at this point, part of the brainstorming sessions that have occurred in the committee's one in-person meeting and occasional conference calls. (Selig is pushing for another in-person meeting, such as at the All-Star Game. The committee includes current managers and executives, making in-person meetings logistically difficult.) The mechanics of the system are far from nailed down. But what is important is that the committee is making good on its mission to look at absolutely any on-field idea that could make the game better. Blowing up fixed divisions as we know them -- and even leagues -- certainly qualifies as radical thinking. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
Yeah that is brutal. |
|
| Author: | mel junior [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
So the Cubs/Cards and Twins/Sox rivalries could go away under this as well .... |
|
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
It looks like all rivalries could go away except Yankees/Red Sox. The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not. How the hell do you sell that one to your fanbase?? |
|
| Author: | Bucky Chris [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
This is a terrible idea, IMO. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
Keyser Soze wrote: How the hell do you sell that one to your fanbase?? Ask the GM in Pittsburgh. |
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
Maybe they should stop the open bar at MLB executive meetings. |
|
| Author: | Psycory [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
Sounds like the start of trying to get some form of relegation...Have a premier baseball league and a second division. |
|
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
Psycory wrote: Sounds like the start of trying to get some form of relegation...Have a premier baseball league and a second division. They already have that. It's called the American league and the National League.
|
|
| Author: | newper [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
I get the idea, but it seems way, way too hard to implement. You'd need one team willing to leave a division to go to another, and I really don't get what you gain from it. Even in their example, Tampa gains a ton because they don't have to play the Yankees or Red Sox as much, but why would the Indians do it? If their theory is that they can sell more tickets then great, but how are they planning on getting back OUT of the division once you are a contender? What are the limitations on moving around? Can teams move from the NL to the AL? The whole idea smells of crazy. |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
That is the worst idea Ive ever heard in my life. |
|
| Author: | man of few opinions [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
stupid idea. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
A touch of "tl;dr" but I saw enough to be close to vomiting. I share everyone's disdain for similar reasons. Having said that ..... Back in the days of the Commodore 128, I had a soccer game that was apparently built on some existing real-world model wherein there were four 'leagues' and, long story short, I think the top two of the lesser three leagues moved up the next year and, conversely, the worst two of the upper three moved down a league, and that each league had it's own championship. I could see them (for the sake of money only ... not for baseball purity mind you) going to, say, two leagues ... which would mean not just a DS/LCS/WS for the "upper" league, but a parallel set of similar games (albeit nothing called a "World Series", of course) for the lower set of teams. Then, of course, four teams would move leagues (top two up / bottom two down). I'm aware that half of the "league" would be ineligible to play for a chance at the WS ... but, really, isn't it just about that way already? And, while teams like the Royals and Pirates haven't been worth a shit in a long time (and I don't see anything changing anytime soon), at least they could play for something ... there's always going to be someone to go to the games, and it's more television programming which means more ad revenue for TV. I'm not supporting it or saying it's well thought-out but it's just a sketch of something they could do that would be as feasible. (yes, I'm aware this post was in itself a "tl;dr" candidate ... m'eh) |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
 This idea...it is terrible. |
|
| Author: | walkrman5 [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
I love MLB, but it is so fucked up on so many levels. Teams like the Yankees can have a bench player making 12M per year, and can buy any fucking player they want...and they do....while teams like KC & Marlins have a total of a 20M-30M dollar total payroll. I dont care what anybody says....That is fucked up and is in no way, shape, or form...competitive balance. They need a salary cap & floor. I also dislike the fact that some divisions have as many as 6 teams...while others have only 4. I realize the total number of teams currently dont allow for equal divisions...but how is it fair for one team to only have to be better than 3 teams....while another has to be better than 5??? Not to mention how that affects a teams schedule. At least the wild card addresses that on some level....but... Whatever. Opening day is about 3 weeks away, and I am still looking forward to another season of baseball. |
|
| Author: | Elar [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
Wow !!!!! This would be an absolute clusterfuck. And, being a Pud Selig Production, it would also be a disaster. This would be impossible to implement without ruining MLB. |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
Bucky Chris wrote: This is a terrible idea, IMO. +1 |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
This is the dumbest fucking idea that I have ever heard. |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
Major League Baseball has done some stupid things since Allan H. Selig became the full-time "Commissioner" in 1992, but floating realignment? You've got to be kidding! |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Floating realignment |
J.J. Abrams wrote: Let's not stop there, man. Keep going. How about this? Floating time travel. What if the '76 Pirates...would play the '03 Cubs?
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|