Alright, I listen to MLB on XM nearly every day. During interleague play there are a TON of arguments about schedules being fair. Well, here’s my take:
- Go back to a balanced schedule (and balanced leagues)
- Keep interleague play but make it balanced as well
- Get rid of the divisions and go back to AL/NL
Go back to a balanced schedule. Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE that my Sox play the Skanks 19 times a year. The problem is: we play each other 19 times a year. If we went back to a balanced schedule the rivalry would just go nuclear. I believe it is a better test of a team to play everyone the same amount of times. My ‘fix’ is to play everyone in the AL 8 times (FOUR game sets!); 4 at home and away. With a balanced league (yeah, that's right, Bud, 15 teams in each league) that would be 112 games in the AL (8 games times 14 opponents).
Keep interleague play but make it balanced as well. Now here comes the trick. You play ALL the teams from the NL 3 times. You rotate home/away every other year (i.e. Skanks play the Mutts in Queens this year and in the Bronx next year). Interleague game total = 45. Add that to the above ‘league only’ games and you have a 157 game season. Oh, yeah, and while we're at it: DH is used in NL parks and the pitcher hits in the AL.
Get rid of the divisions and go back to AL/NL. No more divisions. Yes, I know it ‘works’ for the NFL. However, it doesn’t work for the NBA (the closest comparison to MLB). IMAFO, with a 157 game season the top 4 teams go to the playoffs same as now. However, the shitty team in a weak division doesn’t get in. You’d have the ‘one seed’ play the ‘four seed’ and the same for the second and third seeds.
Can someone tell me why this doesn't make ANY sense?