oth sides want expanded playoffs, most of what is discussed is pretty clumsy.
I wasted some time this morning with the idea "What if the MLB adopted a two league / four division model similar to the NFL?"
The good news about this idea: Eight divisions is a good number to create an expanded playoff system that includes three & seven game series with all division champions (no wild cards). This makes a lot of sense
The less good news: MLB has two fewer teams than the NFL - so two divisions will have only three teams.
Assuming that the MLB adopts the DH in the NL (which I hate, but I think is going to happen), we can move teams around without being in different rules sets / forced restructuring of lineup (that isn't happening anyway). But I'm going to set some rules
1) Move as few teams as possible, but it's okay to move between leagues
2) League balance - not all big or powerful in one league vs the other. 15 teams in each league - each league must has one three team division
3) The regional names aren't a joke (except when following the NFL). Get regional teams closer together as possible (enabling car/train travel)
4) Except in strict geographic or market size determined groupings. Try to get same city teams (NYC, LA, SF/O) in different leagues which enables (rare but fun) subway series and doesn't have a good/bad team in one town as much - it's a tradition.
There are some regional "givens" - if you are going to have a team in Atlanta and division called "Southern" ... duh. and Florida is South of Atlanta. And some regional opinions: It's okay for Cincinatti, St. Louis, & Kansas City to be called "Southern".
Align as closely as possible with the NFL
- this is obvious and somebody is going to like it - I think it's stupid
this is obviously subjective and if you think you can do better - go for it in the comments. Phillies fans may like this model as it puts the Phillies in a three team division
obviously creates cross town rivalries of teams in the same cities, etc..
the idea here was to give smaller sized markets a chance by putting them in the same division with other smaller sized teams
I'm not a big fan of this idea as power is temporal and changes - but I took the 12 year W/L record & two year run differential as those were handy stats I had around by team - I'm sure the reader can suggest a better measure, etc.. Beyond a dozen years I don't see anything as very relevant for current day performance. Powerful teams with powerful teams, less powerful teams with less powerful teams given the regional assignments, etc..
sort of like the "maintain rivalries" with some geographic corrections
Comments very welcome - sorry if I gave up on trying to make the formatting look better (it's much better than the first cut)