• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

MLB Floating Realignment

PlanetFrnd

Head Coach
Just heard this on ESPN radio, links are starting to trickle onto the intertubes:

Bud Selig, MLB committee considering radical floating realignment - Tom Verducci - SI.com

Selig, committee considering radical realignment plan

When baseball commissioner Bud Selig named a 14- person "special committee for on-field matters" four months ago, he promised that all topics would be in play and "there are no sacred cows." The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season).

As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East. In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths. The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons.

One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs.
Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions. It is important to remember that the committee's talks are very preliminary and non-binding.

"But if there is something that comes up we feel should be addressed during the season, we can make a recommendation then," said committee co-chair and Braves president John Schuerholz, referring to less complicated issues such as pace-of-game directives. "This is all about any ideas that help make the game better."

The floating realignment idea is nothing more than a concept at this point, part of the brainstorming sessions that have occurred in the committee's one in-person meeting and occasional conference calls. (Selig is pushing for another in-person meeting, such as at the All-Star Game. The committee includes current managers and executives, making in-person meetings logistically difficult.) The mechanics of the system are far from nailed down. But what is important is that the committee is making good on its mission to look at absolutely any on-field idea that could make the game better. Blowing up fixed divisions as we know them -- and even leagues -- certainly qualifies as radical thinking.
 
:lol: for the super-quick tag

A complex solution to a modest problem | River Avenue Blues

A complex solution to a modest problem

By Joseph Pawlikowski in Musings. ? Comments (41) ?

Does baseball need to realign its teams and divisions? Probably not, but that won't stop interested parties from discussing the possibilities. A few weeks ago Ben addressed Ken Rosenthal's plan, which includes many teams switching teams and leagues. That might have sounded radical, but it's not quite at the level of the plan Tom Verducci shares. Unlike Rosenthal's, this plan, which involves changes on a yearly basis, is actually being considered by baseball officials.

Just how would a floating realignment scheme work?
One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.
For starters, I'm sure only three teams want to break up the AL East. The rest would rather see the Yankees and the Sox in the same division. After all, why would you want one of the two biggest spending teams to separate and possibly move into your division? That could actually make it easier for both the Yankees and the Red Sox to win their divisions, since 1) they?re not fighting for the same division title, and 2) they would no longer play each other 18 times a year. In fact, if one moved to the NL - interleague moves would be permitted under this plan - they wouldn't play each other except during the interleague period.

At first I thought that the complexity of a floating system was a bug in the system, though after further thought I think it?s a feature. Fans love the off-season. The Yankees won the World Series this year, yet more people visited the site during the Winter Meetings than the World Series. A series of measures to determine yearly realignment could add another level to the off-season. I'm sure we'd all pay close attention as teams vied for optimal places within divisions, thus determining their main competition for the following season.

The flipside is that plenty of teams would try to use the system as a way to punt their rebuilding seasons. In Verducci's example, the Indians would essentially be running and hiding from the competition, taking their licks from the AL East - or whatever division at the time presents the toughest competition. This not only allows teams to hide away as they rebuild, but it allows better teams to face weaker competition. This is the part of the idea I like least. If floating realignment does become a real possibility, I'd far rather see a system where the best teams get grouped somewhat together, so that they can play each other more often.

While MLB likely won't implement this plan, it is a much better option than static realignment in order to break up the Yankees and Red Sox. Again, only three teams really care about this issue. The rest probably like having the two in the same division. Static realignment also ignores the possibility - and, in the long term, certainty - that the Sox and Yanks fall from power. The whole thing will be for naught if two teams in another division accumulate the power the Yankees and the Sox currently wield.
Still, floating realignment does have its benefits. I'd like to see a sampling of exactly how teams can change divisions. That will determine its viability. If it allows for strong teams playing strong teams more often, they might be onto something. But if it allows low payroll teams to hide out among the big boys, raking in cash at the gate when those teams come to town, I'm not sure I favor it. Any realignment plan should favor the teams that put out a quality product. To favor the Indians just because they're rebuilding doesn't seem like a solid reason to propose a plan like this.
 
Upvote 0
poolmay04_thumb.jpg


I'm pretty sure that taking a shit in your own kiddie pool and then drinking the water is a better idea than this.
 
Upvote 0
Why don't they spend their time fixing the salary structure rather than this insanity? I would love to see all 3 major sports get something similar to the soft cap in the NBA as long as the cap is set at a low enough level that it is fair to most teams i.e. 80 mil with the tax kicking in at 100. At least that way teams would be able to keep their good players, but couldn't buy championships like the Yankees and Sox do. They would also need to set a salary floor to force cheapskates like the Marlins to spent at least a certain amount of money on payroll in order to get the tax payout from the big money teams.
 
Upvote 0
The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight.

I'm not sure how much of a benefit this would be. The 10 lucrative home dates would likely be offset by the lack of being in the playoff chase. My thought is that staying in the Central and being competitive could help them just as much as the proposed plan. Moving to the East would also be a blow to the psyche, it already seems as though the Indians are a glorified farm team, this move would increase that feeling exponentially.
 
Upvote 0
No real good way to do it.

MLB is a 30 team league with 18 teams east of the Mississippi and 12 west of it. Also you have 16 NL teams and 14 AL teams.

The simple move is to take 1 team from the 6 team NL central (Houston) and move them to the 4 team AL west. Then at least you are 3x5 in each league.
 
Upvote 0
I love the idea, outside of not getting to play the sCrUBS many times per year(as a Brewer fan).

I think they should implement it by team salary levels. Put the top 4-5 salary teams in one division. The next 4-5 in another, etc.

Imagine the cost cutting going on to try to NOT be in the top division with those idiots.

If my brewers spend 80M they should be expected to compete with teams in the same salary range. That way your team is vs the team with similar pay costs and it's a "see who spent their money more wisely" league.

I LOVE IT. Let Boston/NY, etc spend 500M if they want....I don't care as long as I am not in their division. (unless of course they go to a much more preferrable salary cap of say 100M). But of course the players union would NEVER allow it. Hence the problem.
 
Upvote 0
I think MLB should realign the divisions based what each team charges for a hot dog at their games.

Also better ideas:

  • Salary cap
  • Salary floor
  • International draft
  • League contraction
  • Relegation structure similar to EPL
  • Getting rid of the DH
 
Upvote 0
[quote='BusNative;167131;3]I love the baseball purists out there for a steadfast stance on this topic, but, I can't lie, National League baseball just isn't as good to me....

I understand the other side, but I've fully come around on the DH[/quote]

I'm not even coming at it from a purist standpoint. I'm just thinking of the kind of excitement we've missed out on by not having guys like David Ortiz playing defense.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705;1671316; said:
I'm not even coming at it from a purist standpoint. I'm just thinking of the kind of excitement we've missed out on by not having guys like David Ortiz playing defense.


Ahhh, and I was only thinking about dudes in warm-up jackets up to bat for the first time in weeks trying to lay down a bunt... not interesting to me. I see what you're saying though.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top