I still hold to my comparison of Bud Selig to Richard Nixon:

Nixon went to China. This is roughly equiv. to Selig's internationalization efforts, such as the WBC and the outside-the-country games (Japan, Puerto Rico, etc.)

Nixon was president when man landed on the Moon, although he himself did little to nothing for it to happen. (This can be compared to Selig being commish when Ripken broke Gehrig's record, and to a lesser extent the Red Sox finally winning the WS)

Both started the "war on drugs". And both of them seemed/seem ignorant to the fact that said "war" should have been started years before.

Both were re-elected in landslides (although, to be fair, Selig only had to deal with his fellow rich people)

But both also made critical mistakes and lead to their downfall. And the TV camera isn't kind to either of them.

I'm no particular fan of Selig's, but what "downfall" are you talking about? It's not as if he's going out via the Chandler or Vincent route.

I think that's a fair analogy. For all the hand-wringing about Selig, and of course much of it is deserved, we're living in a golden age of baseball right now and it's difficult to gel that with the idea that he's a horrible human being/commissioner.

Nixon was a man of Shakespearian proportions. I don't know if Selig is quite that, but in the smaller universe of baseball he might be.

"downfall"

Okay, I was a bit overwrought with that. But....

There isn't much on that list that couldn't be equally or better applied to Bowie Kuhn. Of course, comparing authority figure to authority figure isn't the world's biggest metaphoric leap.

Both started the "war on drugs". And both of them seemed/seem ignorant to the fact that said "war" should have been started years before.

Yes because clearly Nixon's "war on drugs" was a success and no one uses illicit drugs anymore and all of the profitability has been taken out of it so that violent gangs, warlords, smugglers and mobsters have all but disappeared.

Perhaps a new commissioner will embrace the concept of two 15-team leagues, and schedule one interleague game every day, rather than 2 dedicated interleague periods, leaving a lone NL game on the schedule. Maybe he’ll recongize the necessity to go back to the balanced schedule, if for no other reason than to help the have-nots in the AL East have a fighting chance.

Is the objective to find a worse commissioner?

The thought of interleague play every day is sickening. And does a balanced schedule really help the have-nots of the AL East? They still have to win more games against the haves.

I'm not a Selig fan but this; "Avoiding a work stoppage for 15-plus years is a genuine accomplishment" doesn't get nearly enough attention. Obviously that has to be balanced with the disaster that was 1994 but if you ask that politician question "are you better off today than when Selig took over" I think the answer is yes.

Yes he's done some things I don't like (Interleague play) but that's not indicative of bad performance as much as a disagreement. MLB's online presence is terrific (much better than the NFL's in my opinion) and while he took awhile to get there I think his testing and enforcement policy on PEDs is fair and I think the revenue sharing program (yes yes Yankee Redneck, we know) has provided an opportunity for every team to compete. What I find interesting with Selig is the amount of grief he gets for things that didn't actually happen (Spider Man, contraction).

The thought of interleague play every day is sickening.

Disagree. It would only be one interleague game each day. Much easier to pretend it isn't really happening.

And does a balanced schedule really help the have-nots of the AL East? They still have to win more games against the haves.

It would help a little, but not all that much, since even a balanced schedule would only mean a few less games against the Red Sox and Yankees per season.

It's also unclear whether Rogers (or Angelos, or the Tampa Bay owners) would be willing to give up the extra home games againt the Yankees and Red Sox.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best commissioner in baseball? Did anyone, while he was alive, ever suggest...

1. Was he ever regarded as the best commissioner in baseball? Did anyone, while he was alive, ever suggest...
Page 1 of 1 pages

Jerome Holtzman did.

I'm no commish historian, but it seems to be that when ranking them, Selig would probably end up in lower-mid table at worst.

BTW, how can you be against the wildcard and criticize long playoffs for not producing the best team as the winner at the same time?

And in truth I wonder how many of the things that we object to that Selig's done (or hasn't done) are really the result of his own initiative, and how many simply reflect the balance of power between the big markets vs the small markets, and between the networks vs the aesthetics of the game on the field.

This is a real question, and not a rhetorical one: What commissioner in the foreseeable future is NOT likely to be in the Selig mold, given the fact that he's going to be elected by, and accountable to the owners?
It's obvious that the basic conflict that many of us have with many of the trends in modern baseball is little more than a reflection of the fact that we have varying degrees of aesthetic concerns that simply don't enter into the thoughts of 30 men whose near total focus is always on the bottom line.

I can't stand the late starting times in the postseason; others hate the wild card; others hate interleague play; and nearly everyone here could probably do without Buck and McCarver. And yet since every one of those developments reflects a perceived positive incremental dollar value to those who own the game, how is it likely (in the long run, at least) that any of those decisions would ever have been made any differently, no matter who was the commissioner?

I mean I'd love to see a Bill Veeck (or even a racially reformed Landis) step up and defend the interests of someone besides the owners once in a blue moon, but it ain't gonna happen. For better or worse, another Selig is more or less inevitable.

Maybe he’ll recongize the necessity to go back to the balanced schedule, if for no other reason than to help the have-nots in the AL East have a fighting chance.

Have a fighting chance at what? The Wild Card? Seems to me that the AL East produces the Wild Card as often as or more often than the AL West or AL Central does.

A balanced schedule will never happen again, though. The main point of going to the three-division format was to give each team as many games as possible in their home time zone. No team east of the Rockies wants to travel to the West Coast.

I mean I'd love to see a Bill Veeck (or even a racially reformed Landis) step up and defend the interests of someone besides the owners once in a blue moon, but it ain't gonna happen. For better or worse, another Selig is more or less inevitable.

Didn't Fay Vincent pretty much prove that in a battle between the commissioner and the owners, the owners will win? There's no point in fighting the owners if they're just going to toss you out on your ass and do whatever they want anyway.

With rare exceptions, the Commissioner has been a mouthpiece for ownership pretty much ever since Landis kicked the bucket.

Disagree. It would only be one interleague game each day. Much easier to pretend it isn't really happening.

Is it really better to have one kid molested, every day, rather than having 20 kids molested non-stop for two three week periods on end?

I mean I'd love to see a Bill Veeck (or even a racially reformed Landis) step up and defend the interests of someone besides the owners once in a blue moon, but it ain't gonna happen.

Personally, I'd settle for a change of title. Calling the CEOs of sports leagues "commissioners" implies that they're the heads of "commissions," which in turn implies all that impartial best interests of the game crap.

Is it really better to have one kid molested, every day, rather than having 20 kids molested non-stop for two three week periods on end?

I didn't say it was better. I said it was easier to ignore. Either way, I'm glad someone is thinking of the children.

Perhaps a new commissioner will embrace the concept of two 15-team leagues, and schedule one interleague game every day, rather than 2 dedicated interleague periods, leaving a lone NL game on the schedule.

Fine with me, but which NL team moves to the AL? Houston to the AL West would appear to make the most sense, but I don't know whether the Astros would be interested.

Maybe he'll recognize the necessity to go back to the balanced schedule, if for no other reason than to help the have-nots in the AL East have a fighting chance.

Not sure it would help that much.

If you did a balanced schedule, assuming every team played 18 interleague games (as most do now), you;d have teams play 10 games against each of the other teams outside your division and 11 against the four teams in it. That's an awful lot of two-game (or five-game) series. (The AL had something similar in its first two seasons with 14 teams and two divisions; teams in one division faced teams in the other 10 or 11 times. By 1979, it was altered to 13 games against teams in your own division, 12 gainst each team in the other, even though it resulted in the White Sox playing 84 games against the East and only 78 vs. the West.)

Perhaps you could install a second wild-card team, which would meet the other wild-card in a best-of-3 series while the division champions rested and set up their pitching rotations (or have the division winners with the second- and third-best records already begin their series, with only the division winner with the best record getting the extra rest).

I tend to agree with the comment that a balanced schedule will never happen again. I think you'd sooner see geographical realignment to minimize 10:05 p.m. (Eastern) starts from Seattle and Los Angeles and, conversely, games beginning at 10 a.m. (Pacific) on Sundays from New York and Cleveland.

Perhaps you could install a second wild-card team, which would meet the other wild-card in a best-of-3 series while the division champions rested and set up their pitching rotations (or have the division winners with the second- and third-best records already begin their series, with only the division winner with the best record getting the extra rest)..

Or the two Wild Cards could have a single play-in game. That would be pretty exciting.

Is it really better to have one kid molested, every day, rather than having 20 kids molested non-stop for two three week periods on end?

I dunno, but by god it's pretty clear that some children need to be taken away.

You'd need to have a better tie breaking system with two wildcards. There'd be collisions way more often, and you haven't got time for additional play-ins if you're already adding one.

I mean I'd love to see a Bill Veeck (or even a racially reformed Landis) step up and defend the interests of someone besides the owners once in a blue moon, but it ain't gonna happen. For better or worse, another Selig is more or less inevitable.

Didn't Fay Vincent pretty much prove that in a battle between the commissioner and the owners, the owners will win? There's no point in fighting the owners if they're just going to toss you out on your ass and do whatever they want anyway.

With rare exceptions, the Commissioner has been a mouthpiece for ownership pretty much ever since Landis kicked the bucket.

Exactly. Or to put it in the vernacular, Money Talks and Bullshit Walks.

And in truth I wonder how many of the things that we object to that Selig's done (or hasn't done) are really the result of his own initiative, and how many simply reflect the balance of power between the big markets vs the small markets, and between the networks vs the aesthetics of the game on the field.

Based on everything I have read about Selig, his style is to get in front of whatever direction he perceives an issue will go and then use his power to gather the final support necessary to get his new position accomplished. All the while raking in favors which he can use later on other issues. He's a consensus-builder, not an idea man, and I'm guessing most of what we give him credit/blame for are things that would have happened anyway with someone else in charge. If you want to give him credit personally, it should probably be for implementing things with maximum support and minimum owner infighting. Which, as much as I don't like him, is a major achievement given the egos he has to work with.

Fine with me, but which NL team moves to the AL? Houston to the AL West would appear to make the most sense, but I don't know whether the Astros would be interested.

Milwaukee could move back to the AL Central and Kansas City could slide over to the AL West.

If you did a balanced schedule, assuming every team played 18 interleague games (as most do now), you;d have teams play 10 games against each of the other teams outside your division and 11 against the four teams in it. That's an awful lot of two-game (or five-game) series.

I'd go with 8 inter-division and 16 intra-division games. It's still unbalanced, but at least it's consistent. The child-molestation of inter-league play could also be converted from the current seemingly arbitrary set-up to a straightforward division vs division format (plus the one obligatory "rivalry" series -- there's no good reason to have six Dodgers/Angels, Cubs/White Sox, Giants/A's, Nationals/Orioles, Marlins/Rays, Cardinals/Royals or Mets/Yankees games every year).

I think the revenue sharing program (yes yes Yankee Redneck, we know) has provided an opportunity for every team to compete.

Compete for the Free Money Lottery perhaps. Yes, yes, I know.

(plus the one obligatory "rivalry" series -- there's no good reason to have six Dodgers/Angels, Cubs/White Sox, Giants/A's, Nationals/Orioles, Marlins/Rays, Cardinals/Royals or Mets/Yankees games every year).

Don't forget to mention that legendary Jays/Phillies rivalry.

I don't real care for interleague play, but comparing it to child molestation is a little much.

You'd need to have a better tie breaking system with two wildcards. There'd be collisions way more often, and you haven't got time for additional play-ins if you're already adding one.

That, and with the WC team now being hugely disadvantaged, you'd have to have a playoff to break ties between first place teams who both qualify for the playoffs (Like 2005 AL East, and 2006 NL West).

I don't real care for interleague play, but comparing it to child molestation is a little much.

It is shocking that I, of all people, would go with the over-the-top absurdity tactic, huh? Next thing you know I'll be using cynicism, sarcasm and snark.

I don't real care for interleague play, but comparing it to child molestation is a little much.

Yeah, save the criminal perversion references for discussions of the DH.

That, and with the WC team now being hugely disadvantaged, you'd have to have a playoff to break ties between first place teams who both qualify for the playoffs (Like 2005 AL East, and 2006 NL West).

That's fine. You play any necessary tie-breakers on Monday, the play-in game on Tuesday, start the playoffs on Wednesday.

It is shocking that I, of all people, would go with the over-the-top absurdity tactic, huh? Next thing you know I'll be using cynicism, sarcasm and snark.

Maybe I'm autistic or something. Or maybe I'm just allergic to hyberbole here. While I don't expect everyone to write here as precisely as they would were they working on a dissertation, I expect the level of discourse to be higher than it is on one of those cable news network talking head shows.

BOS
NYY
BAL
NYM
PHL

NYM
PHL
WAS
PIT
CIN

TOR
DET
MIL
CLE
CHW

CHC
STL
KC
MIN

ATL
TB
MIA
HOU

SEA
OAK
ANA
TEX

LA
ARI
SF
COL

Seven division winners go to the playoffs. The eighth playoff team would be the best record of the divisional losers (WC) whose payroll did not exceed luxury tax limits.

Besides, Sam, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the difference is between autotune and a vocoder.

Still pissed about that 97 championship series Sam?

Seven division winners go to the playoffs.

Seems like you contracted the Marlins.

A vocoder translates voice into encrypted bits for transmission. Autotune takes a digitalized signal - traditionally an instrument but today more popularly used by hip hop artists who want to "sing" some of their lyrics but lack both the tune and the bucket - and automatically tunes it up or down to a pre-selected key.

Seems like you contracted the Marlins.

Nah, he contracted the Padres. Renamed the Marlins to "MIA," which seems strangely appropriate.

No, the Marlins are listed in the "NL South" with Tampa Bay, Atlanta and Houston. I simply used their new name, the "Miami Marlins" rather than their old name.

I did contract the Padres. Damn. Okay, take the Rockies and put them into the central divisoin with CHC, STL, KC and MIN. Put the Pads back in the NL West.

IIRC, Sam, you live close enough to attend games regularly. I imagine that for a fan like you, interleague is a better deal than it is for the rest of us. Even with basic cable, you can see a few out of market games a week. But, for the stadium goer, interleague gives you the chance to see some players live that you wouldn't normally see.

I live about 10 city blocks from Turner Field, yes. And you have a point, but I really hate what interleague play does to the integrity of the schedule and the integrity of the season. It's here to stay, obviously, but I really don't like it.

Being in a division with Boston and the two NY teams would certainly lead to a golden era of baseball for Orioles fans (although I guess competing with the Mets rather than the Rays is arguably an improvement.)

EDIT: And Baltimore is south of Philly, so why not flip those teams?

Practially, there are two teams that really throw wrenches into rational divisions/scheduling - SEA and COL. Seattle is just light-years away from anywhere else in the country, and Denver is an outpost of urbanized centralization in the otherwise wastelands of the Rockies. You could sort some of that by moving Oakland to Portland or Salt Lake City, I suppose, or just expanding (creating eight four team divisions) but you'd have two more teams living in markets similar to KC.

That's fine. You play any necessary tie-breakers on Monday, the play-in game on Tuesday, start the playoffs on Wednesday.

Take this situation. 2 NL East teams tie for first with 95 wins. NL Central is won with 94 wins. NL West is won with 83 wins. The other WC teams has 84 wins. Do you really want a situation where a team which ties for the best record in baseball has to play a tiebreaker against the other top team, then an elimination game against a team with 11 fewer wins but an extra day of rest, then game 1 of the LDS on consecutive days while a team which played essentially the same schedule and won a dozen fewer gets to rest and set up its rotation merely because of geography?

If you are going to a balanced schedule, eliminate divisions and take the top 4 or 6 teams and be done with it.

Baltimore has been in the AL for a long, long time, and Angelos is adamant about keeping them there. Phillie has always been an NL team. The geographical difference between the two doesn't really drive a need to re-align them, so I just went with tradition. I origianlly had PHL moving to the AL NEC to maintain the "two leagues in NY" thing, but I rethought it and decided that it would be more beneficial to the game to throw all of the major market spenders into one live or die division up there. Putting all of those guys in the same division and then tieing WC eligibility to a payroll below the luxury tax threshold breaks the "whoever comes in second in the AL East" monopoly that currently exists for the AL WC.

The integrity of the schedule?

I don't like interleague play either, but there hasn't been any integrity of the schedule since it ceased to be balanced.

I don't real care for interleague play, but comparing it to child molestation is a little much.

The October schedule is just as big a concern. When you don't start molesting a child until 8:30 PM on a school night, don't be surprised when the kid falls asleep before the end.

To bring it back to Bud, short of an extremely unlikely case, I can't see anyone being commissioner of the game I love for as long as Selig has without incurring my wrath at some point or another. Like most of us here, I care a lot about much of this stuff, and would feel that any outcome that doesn't match my philosophy exactly is completely wrongheaded.

I don't like interleague play either, but there hasn't been any integrity of the schedule since it ceased to be balanced.

Having the NL East runners up play against the AL East in interleague play, but then compete straight up with NL Central teams for the Wild Card absolutely impacts the integrity of the schedule. A team that has to line up against the Yanks or Boston six times shouldn't be equated with a team that gets six against KC.

The October schedule is just as big a concern. When you don't start molesting a child until 8:30 PM on a school night, don't be surprised when the kid falls asleep before the end.

I love you.

In a manly, non-homerotic way, natch.

I don't like interleague play either, but there hasn't been any integrity of the schedule since it ceased to be balanced.

There was nothing virtuous about the AL's balanced schedule from the late 70s through the mid 90s. Playing more games outside your division than inside your division, particularly when you're not actually competing against the teams in the other division for anything, was an absolute travesty.

the travesty of the All-Star Game tie

Yes, exhibition games should be played to the bitter end. The biggest "travesty" of that All-Star game was that the postured angst from people who wanted to see mud on Selig's face resulted in the All-Star game determining home field advantage of the World Series.

The biggest "travesty" of that All-Star game was that the postured angst from people who wanted to see mud on Selig's face resulted in the All-Star game determining home field advantage of the World Series.

As opposed to the calendar.

2 NL East teams tie for first with 95 wins

The two teams are, of course, the Marlins A Squad (led by Captain HanRam) and the Marlins B Squad (championed by Commander Cody Ross).

Option #2 (it's a slow day at work):

BOS - NYY - NYM

PHL - BAL - WAS - PIT - TOR

DET - CLE - CHW - MIL - MIN

CHC - STL - CIN - KC - TEX

ATL - TB - MIA - HOU

SEA - OAK - SD - COL

LA - ANA - ARI - SF

The final playoff spot comes via a Wild Card from any division other than the NEC (NYY/BOS/NYM). Luxury tax only applies to non-NEC teams.

the Commissioner has been a mouthpiece for ownership pretty much ever since Landis kicked the bucket.

By the end of his reign, Landis had been reeled in also.

As opposed to the calendar.

The calendar was at least neutral.

Just have NYY and Boston play each other 162 times with a 163rd game for a playoff if necessary. Winner gets into the postseason.

By the end of his reign, Landis had been reeled in also.

Actually, Landis was a mouthpiece for the owners throughout his reign. The fiction of Landis as *independent* was just that. Like Bowie did with Charlie Finley, Landis only disciplined owners who were upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.

-- MWE

Just have NYY and Boston play each other 162 times with a 163rd game for a playoff if necessary.

Not necessary. Just make it a winner take all comp between those two and other mega-market clubs. Or...

BOS - NYY - NYM - LA - ANA

DET - CLE - BAL - TOR

PHL - WAS - PIT - CIN

CHW - MIL - MIN - KC

CHC - STL - TEX - COL

ATL - TB - MIA - HOU

SEA - OAK - SD - ARI - SF

Straight WC comp for last playoff spot.

CHW - MIL - MIN - KC

I think I could live with that.

The calendar was at least neutral.

Not sure how that's a selling point.

The old method had nothing going for it. The new method is slightly better. It at least awards HFA based on something. There are other ways that would be a slight improvement on that, though there is no perfect method.

Just have NYY and Boston play each other 162 times with a 163rd game for a playoff if necessary.

Just imagine the noises that would come out of Larry Luccino.

And, I have to say, I think I'd largely agree with him.

Actually, Landis was a mouthpiece for the owners throughout his reign. The fiction of Landis as *independent* was just that.

Right -- he wasn't independent. However, in the beginning, he wasn't completely under the Lords' thumbs either (except in terms of property rights). He was a tool of the Lords -- a public mouthpiece, but also an instrument to squash political rivals amongst their own ranks. However, Landis did have one weapon to use of his own -- player control. He lost that when he lost the battle over the farm systems.

If you're not first, you're last.

The Wild Card can suck it. Teams that play 162 games and don't finish in first place deserve nothing. They are not the best, and a few games in October won't be convincing me of anything.

Not sure how that's a selling point.

It is the lesser of the current evil. The calendar is not subjective.

>>The old method had nothing going for it.<<

It did not allow randomness or subjectivity to determine home field advantage.

>>>The new method is slightly better.<<

I vehemently disagree.

>> It at least awards HFA based on something.<<<

That "something" is hardly related to the teams playing. "Something" is not always better than nothing.

It did not allow randomness or subjectivity to determine home field advantage.

How is the All-Star game method either random or subjective? There aren't figure skating judges out there weighing degree of difficulty? HFA isn't granted to the team that scores the most runs in an inning to be determined at a later date. Two teams comprised of players from each league compete in a game. The winning league's teams are awarded HFA in that year's World Series. Neither team has a meaningful structural advantage during the game. It's straightforward and fair.

Are there potentially better ways to determine HFA? Without question. But the old method wasn't one of them.

BASEBALL EAST

Atlantic: bos nyy nym phi tor

Southeast: bal was atl fla tb

Central: pit cle cin det

Scheduling: 12 games vs each team outside your division. Atlantic and Southeast would play either 13 or 14 games against each division opponent, Central 14 games vs. each foe.

BASEBALL WEST

Midwest: chc cws mil kc stl

Continental: min hou tex ari col

Pacific: sea sf oak lad laa sd

Scheduling: 8 games vs. each team outside your division. Midwest and Continental would play 18 or 19 against each division opponent, Pacific 16 or 17 games vs. each foe.

Kansas City and Minnesota can be switched if desired.

Two wild-cards in each league, no east-west play.

If you're a Baseball East team, you no longer have games outside your time zone. Great for TV scheduling.

The Wild Card can suck it. Teams that play 162 games and don't finish in first place deserve nothing. They are not the best, and a few games in October won't be convincing me of anything.


That's how I feel about divisions.

That's not fair to the large market teams. If you're going to realign, you've got to try to be fair to everybody. But there's no need to realign--just go with a seeded system and no divisions.

I don't understand why everyone is so wedded to the divisions. it would be far simpler to scrap the divisions and allow the top 4 teams in each league into the playoffs.

edit: Damn it. I guess I owe Vaux a coke.

If you're not first, you're last.

That doesn't make any sense at all, you can be second, third, fourth... hell you can even be fifth.

Spy Magazine used to have a great sobriquet of Donald Trump which applies just as much to Bud: "Fixer of Things We'd Rather Leave Broken."

My Pipedream (in the true, opium-induced meaning of the term):

NYY, NYM, BOS, PHL, TOR, BAL, WAS, NJ

DET, CLE, CWS, CHC, CIN, MIL, MIN, PIT

ATL, HOU, TEX, STL, FLA, TB, KC, COL

LA, ANA, SD, SF, OAK, SEA, AZ, Portland

Four 8-team Leagues, no wildcard, no inter-league, 154 or 161 games.

just go with a seeded system and no divisions.

Although I'd definitely prefer a system like that, the reason it'll never get done is because (and I'm not sure I'm paraphrasing) it's damn hard to sell a 10th or 14th place team. Although in reality the team would be just as far from a playoff spot as under the division format (in most years) psychologically speaking, there's a big difference between being in 10th place and being in 4th, even if you have the same record.

Then again, it would make it a lot easier to sell your fans on your team's progressive improvement. From 14th to 8th place in just 2 seasons! Oh, the places we'll go!

So far, this is the one I've liked the best:

SEA - OAK - SD - COL

LA - ANA - ARI - SF

...although that's mostly because I think it's funny to put the Mariners and the Padres in the same division but separate the Giants and the A's.

Watch out for your cornhole Bud.

<mumble>Don't come back in a dress </mumble>

We could have divisions and seeded playoffs; just don't have every division winner necessarily make the playoffs. Of course, that would be even harder to sell.

What would be feasible would be to shorten the regular season and expand the playoffs--not too much, but enough to let the big teams have their standard playoff spots but also open up the competition. Unlike the NBA, baseball is such that an 85-win team has a real chance of beating a 95-win team in a playoff series, so it wouldn't be just a sham. On the other hand, the 95-win team still has an advantage in that it's a better team.

6 playoff teams--3 division winners and 3 wild cards--per league seems an all-right number. That would mean 1 additional playoff series in each league, which would mean extending the playoffs by about 10 days.

The regular season could be shortened by 6 games and started an average of 10-12 days earlier in the year, so that the whole endeavor including playoffs only takes about a week longer than it does now. The first round gate receipts could be shared among all the teams, to account for the revenue loss of shortening the regular season, but the playoff teams themselves could get a bonus from the central fund.

2009 would have had

AL

Texas vs New York
Detroit vs Boston
Minnesota vs Los Angeles

NL

Florida vs Los Angeles
San Francisco vs Philadelphia
Colorado vs St. Louis

Vaux, I haven't read the whole thread, but what do you do after you get three winners from Round 1? Hold a round-robin group round?

I think the best solution is randomly drawn divisions each season, like in the UEFA Champions' League. It creates a marketable event, and gives every team not the Yankees or Red Sox the hope that they don't end up in or the fear that they will end up in a 'Group of Death' like the AL East.

I think the best solution is randomly drawn divisions each season, like in the UEFA Champions' League. It creates a marketable event, and gives every team not the Yankees or Red Sox the hope that they don't end up in or the fear that they will end up in a 'Group of Death' like the AL East.

Now THAT sounds like fun. But what do you do about the travel issues? You could quite easily end up with a division of NYM, TEX, CHW, SD, SEA or something that has to fly way too far way too often.