You can review my plan that i sent to Bud Selig and the MLB owners at:

http://thefairball.com/2009/06/mlb-realignment-plan/

I lobby for divisions based on Payroll and Geogragphy with adding 2 more teams to the playoffs to get a total of 6 per League.

Here is how the divisions would lay out to start.

Team Payroll
avr Rank
New York Yankees 1
Boston Red Sox 2
New York Mets 3
Philadelphia Phillies 9

Los Angeles Angels 4
Los Angeles Dodgers 5
Seattle Mariners 7
San Francisco Giants 13

Chicago White Sox 8
Chicago Cubs 6
St. Louis Cardinals 11
Houston Astros 14

Atlanta Braves 10
Baltimore Orioles 15
Toronto Blue Jays 16
Detroit Tigers 12

San Diego Padres 17
Arizona Diamondbacks 19
Oakland Athletics 22
Expansion #1 31Portland

Minnesota Twins 21
Milwaukee Brewers 23
Texas Rangers 18
Expansion #2 32 San Antonio

Cleveland Indians 25
Cincinnati Reds 20
Colorado Rockies 24
Kansas City Royals 26

Florida Marlins 29
Tampa Bay Rays 30
Washington Nationals 27
Pittsburgh Pirates 28

This way you would be groped with teams who have like payroll. So you would have 4 division winners and 2 wild cards.

Basically the more you spend on payroll that impacts who you play in your division.

That being said, I would propose a more timezone-based, four-division setup with the American and National Leagues essentially living on in name only. For my proposal to work, two expansion teams would be added: I chose Calgary and San Antonio, as Calgary has a Triple-A team and Alberta’s economy is incredibly strong, and San Antonio due to sheer population and the fact that they have only one professional team, and the Spurs play during the winter months.

In the American League (Eastern Conference, essentially), the divisions would be as follows:
ATLANTIC
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Mets
New York Yankees
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
Toronto Blue Jays
Washington Nationals

CENTRAL
Atlanta Braves
Cleveland Indians
Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox
Cincinnati Reds
Detroit Tigers
Florida Marlins
Tampa Bay Rays

In the National League (Western Conference, essentially), the divisions would be as follows:
MIDWEST
Colorado Rockies
Houston Astros
Kansas City Royals
Milwaukee Brewers
Minnesota Twins
San Antonio expansion team
St Louis Cardinals
Texas Rangers

PACIFIC
Arizona Diamondbacks
Calgary expansion team
Los Angeles Angels
Los Angeles Dodgers
Oakland Athletics
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants
Seattle Mariners

Each team would play it’s divisional rivals 10 times a piece (10x7=70), it’s League rivals 6 times each (6x8=48), and two-game sets against each team from the other league (2x16=32). This gives a schedule length of 150 games.

This schedule styling would create weeks where a team plays two three-game sets (fifteen weeks), and weeks where a team plays three two-game sets (ten weeks). Off-days could be spread throughout the week, with weekend games for all teams.

This scheduling strikes a balance between in-division games, which are necessary to ensure that the best team in the division is crowned champion, and allowing fans to see each other team at least once every two years.

The playoff format would involve six teams from each league. The top three teams from each division would qualify, with the best receiving a bye to the Divisional Round, and the other two facing each other in a five-game series. The winners of each of those series would face the divisional champion of the opposing division in a five-game series. The winner of this series would play each other in a third five-game series for the pennant. Finally, the two League Champions would face each other in a seven-game World Series.

I believe this system would be the most balanced, fair and reasonable option available. Also, while I do not consider myself a purist, one league-related tradition I do support whole-heartedly is the NL’s take on the DH-rule. I would suggest it be removed from both leagues for the purposes of this realignment, as teams who have followed tradition since baseball’s inception should be able to continue to do so. Barring that, a second option would be to continue to allow the DH at the home fields of former AL teams, regardless of which league they belong to after realignment.

**For folks who don’t want to see St Louis and the Chicago Cubs in separate leagues/divisions, it could be worked so that Milwaukee and Minnesota take up residence in the AL Central, and the two Chicago teams move to the NL Midwest division.

I tend to agree with you, but as you know, how good teams are is somewhat cyclical, although Kansas City and Tampa Bay are notorious for their lack of funds. I think you’d agree with me that both teams look a little better this year. If the true goal is geographical alignment (and I think it should be), this is the only option for the American League, short of making teams hop over from league to league or relocating them. You are right about the NL South. Here’s an idea:

AL South
Arizona
Houston
Kansas City
Texas

NL South
Atlanta
Florida
Tampa Bay
New Team A (New Orleans or Nashville)

This means each league gets one expansion team, rather than the AL getting both. The divisions are closer geographically, but it makes 3 teams switch leagues. Also, most “geographic rivalries” (like Chicago/Chicago, New York/New York, Baltimore/Washington, SF/Oakland, etc.) are split up because of revenue concerns. I don’t think placing Houston and Texas in the same division is a huge issue since they’re 5 hours apart, but the idea may meet resistance.

Jim,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. This is one of my favorite baseball topics to discuss, especially since I spent so much time on this post. I’m sure you can relate.

I don’t like your “Alignment A” at all, simply because I don’t think Baltimore or Washington belong in the South division. Alignment B is good, except that I don’t like Chicago being split from Milwaukee or Cincinnati. I do like what you did with the AL Central and Midwest.

I haven’t decided if I like the idea of a 144 game schedule. I, unlike a lot of baseball purists, am a fan of Interleague play. The schedule can still be balanced if you use the remaining 18 games for Interleague. One final note: I agree that postseason games should be played in the afternoon.

Thanks for the posts, keep reading!

But here’s how I would do it:

As I see it, there are six strong candidates for the two proposed American League expansion teams: Buffalo, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Portland and San Antonio. The realignment scheme to be employed will dictate, in large measure, which of theses cities will be awarded the new franchises.

Once expansion has taken place, the leagues can be divided according to two possible geographical schemata:

ALIGNMENT A:

American League North: Chicago, Cleveland or Detroit, Kansas City and Minnesota.

American League South: Baltimore, Charlotte or San Antonio, Tampa Bay and Texas.

American League East: Boston, Cleveland or Detroit, New York and Toronto.

American League West: Anaheim, Las Vegas or Portland, Oakland and Seattle.

National League North: Chicago, Colorado, Milwaukee and St. Louis.

National League South: Atlanta, Florida, Houston and Washington.

National League East: Cincinnati, New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

National League West: Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.

ALIGNMENT B:

American League East: Baltimore, Boston, New York and Tampa Bay.

American League Central: Buffalo or Indianapolis, Cleveland, Detroit and Toronto.

American League Midwest: Chicago, Kansas City, Minnesota and Texas.

American League West: Anaheim, Las Vegas or Portland, Oakland and Seattle.

National League East: Florida, New York, Philadelphia and Washington.

National League Central: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh.

National League Midwest: Chicago, Colorado, Houston and St. Louis.

National League West: Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.

Thinking “outside the box”, so to speak, it would certainly be possible for one league to employ one alignment and the other league to employ the other alignment. In the alignment scenarios I have presented, for example, Alignment A would work best for the National League, while Alignment B would be the American League’s best option. There is no law, after all, that dictates that both leagues must align according to the same geographic formula.

With regard to scheduling, it doesn’t necessarily follow that expansion would automatically dictate an extension of the regular season. In fact, using an eight-division alignment, you could very easily abbreviate the schedule from the present 162 games to 144. And for the record, I would wholeheartedly recommend such an abbreviation, for reasons I will soon outline.

Under the eight-division alignment, each team could be slated to play its three division opponents twenty-four times apiece, for a total of seventy-two divisional games. Then each team could be slated to play the twelve non-divisional teams in its league six times apiece, for a total of seventy-two non-divisional games. There would be no inter-league play.

Three-game series would be the rule under this scheduling scheme. Each team would be scheduled to play six games a week, with an off day on either Monday or Thursday. All Thursday and Sunday games would be played in the afternoon, as would all Saturday games before June 1st and after August 31st. (This provision would be optional for Arizona, Atlanta and the Florida and Texas teams.)

The advantages of this alignment and schedule are numerous vis a vis the current format. The scheduling formula under the new plan is much simpler and more straightforward than the current system; by contrast, the present alignment necessitates a “crazy quilt” scheduling system that is very cumbersome, often defies logical explanation and results in numerous logistical headaches for many teams because of the travel requirements involved.

In addition to simplified scheduling, the new format would reduce travel time and travel expenses for every team. It would compress the pennant races into a shorter time frame, which would hold the fans’ attention much more easily than the current schedule does. It would be much less taxing on the players, both physically and mentally; thus, the players would be able to present a better quality game to the fans. It would alleviate the weather problems often encountered in many Northeastern and Upper Midwestern cities in April, September and October. And it would dramatically reduce the utterly perverse likelihood of having to stage World Series games on chilly nights in November.

As for the playoffs, I would structure them in three rounds, as is currently the case, but with a few significant changes.

The first round, the so-called “Division Series”, would consist of concurrent best-of-three series featuring the eight division winners. There would be no “wild cards”. To qualify for post season play, a team MUST win its division.

The four division winners in each league would be paired in a “1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3″ seeded format for the Division Series, determined by regular-season won/lost records.

The winners of the Division Series would advance to the League Championship Series, which would revert to the more sensible best-of-five format that was used from 1969 through 1984. The winners of the League Championship Series would then meet in the best-of-seven World Series.

All post season games would be afternoon contests, with the first pitch at 2:00 p.m. local time.

www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.

Thanks,
David