The Dream of Realignment

Bud Selig and MLB have recently proposed a floating realignment plan which, in brief, allows certain teams to decide which division in which they will play the following season. Now, although I'm very glad to hear this, in that it is a definite and positive sign of neural activity from the commissioner, I think the thinking should continue on with even more vigor. And though this plan has both its pros and cons, it did (strangely enough) stir my own thoughts. What is the impetus behind these talks, and what is it exactly they are trying to avoid or achieve? Competitive balance? Parity? Even Playing field? If baseball is truly attempting to, in effect, level the current field of play, it is absolutely incumbent upon the stubborn, stodgy sects of the MLB, the MLBPA, and the franchise owners, alike, to mitigate a plan which does not preclude the possibility of success for the smaller market teams.

 The perennial metropolitan juggernauts, as it were, presently extend legitimate exceptions about current collective bargaining agreements and fund allocation, and is, therefore, safe to opine that all sides look towards a phase shift. So that is why I extend this modest proposal to the MLB, its owners, and players.

Due to the rich history of baseball, its traditions, its records, and icons, the sport has always taken pride in viewing itself as the stalwart bastion of normalcy in a sports ocean of change. Ironically, this level of pride may be exactly what has been holding it back. The NFL, NBA, and the NHL all have experienced eras of dramatic change, which, for the most part, have made their respective sports better, competitively. Realistically, my plan is a dream, in that it would require all sides to fasten their seat belts and brace for impact. The key is competitive balance. And in order to do execute this, the leagues would have to reflect equal and symmetrical morphologies.

I would expand the amount of teams from 30 to 32, and create 8 divisions (N, S, E, W). Obviously, this would have some teams switching divisions to reflect their geographies, however, would not break up classic and natural rivalries. I would contract the season to 158 games, have six playoff teams per league, add a round of playoffs, do away with the DH, and have home field advantage in the world series given back to the team with the best record. Each team in its division would play 16, not 18, divisional games. So, they would travel to rival divisioinal cities twice per season, in four game series. That is 48 games. Teams will also have a schedule which reflects their finishing place in the season prior. For example, if a team finishes in last place, they will play the other last place finishers in each division in baseball 8 times; one 4 game series at home, one away. So, if a first place team has to play all of the other first place teams, they are playing similarly talented squads 56 times per year, over 1/3 of a team's games. The other remaining 54 games will be split in league with the other second, third and fourth place finishers in the other three divisions. A team will play these teams in three game series, once at home, and once away.

Here's how the divisions shape up. AL East: NYY, Boston, Baltimore, and expansion Philadelphia. AL North: Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, Minnesota. AL South: CHS (they are at least in S. Chicago), KAC, Tampa Bay, and expansion New Orleans. AL West remains the same with Seattle, Texas, LAA, and Oakland. The reason for the expansion Philadelphia team (could be called the "Macks") is that Philadelphia is a large enough sports city in the east to support two baseball teams. It has before, and can do it again. New Orleans is a shoe in for baseball.

The National League looks like this. NL West: LAD, San Diego, SF, and Col. NL North: St. Louis, CHC (you can't break up this rivalry), Pittsburgh, an Milwaukee. NL South: Arizona, Cincinnati, Florida, Houston. NL East: Philadelphia, NYM, Washington, Atlanta.

The other way to do it is to have Florida switch leagues to the AL East, not have an expansion team in Philly, but in another baseball-phyllic town, and have an expansion team in each league.

The playoffs have the first two seeds in each league awarded with a bye for the first round (similarly to the NFL). The 3-6, 4-6 seeded series can either be three or five games. The remaining playoff schedule is unchanged.

This proposal sees teams playing many more of the other teams in opposite leagues who are similarly matched. Because there are more four game series, there will be less travel from city to city due to the extended stays (there are a total of 26 four game series, and 18 three game series). Because of the expansion, the players who are current DH's can be given the option to play a position with their current team, or be placed in that draft (if they can play at all). With the fewer travel days, and the four games left off of the schedule (the plan can be enacted with 154 games, as well), the fourth round of the playoffs can more easily fit into the calendar year without seeing the world series over a turkey dinner. And with two more teams in each league going to the post season, ticket sales will increase in regularly lacklusterly attended ball parks, TV revenues will increase, as will advertising sales, merchandise, etc.

When I was younger and looked upon the world with bright, naive eyes, I would have thought that this plan is a slam dunk, a home run. But with the inability of MLB to enact timely and well thought out change, this plan is a pipe-dream. It does, however, have its own set of drawbacks. Many opponents will say that enacting this realignment plus plan will be admitting that baseball is inherently flawed, and is looking towards the NFL's schedule plan and divisional layout for a solution. Other opponents will gripe about the expanded interleague schedule, and losing the magic of seeing a team in the world series for the first time (which, has already been answered with current interleague play). Others may say that this plan hurts divisional play in subtracting games. And, of course, fans of the designated hitter rule, namely the MLBPA, will complain that it is taking a job away from a currently employable athlete. I say that change is inevitable if this game is to not just survive, but thrive. And, if an athlete cannot play, or from the view of the pitcher, is not allowed to play one half of a position, is he half of an athlete, or even an athlete at all?