I’d like to weigh in on the issue.
To truly effect the kind of change people want (more competition, better rivalries, exciting pennant races, meaningful games), I look at what I think MLB’s success was at the outset.
I think it was grounded in a sense of “league loyalty.” When the AL first started, and there were 8 teams in each league, the fixed universe on both sides of the aisle was quite parallel. 5 of the cities in each league had a representative in both (New York had three, if you count Brooklyn), so the fans in those markets had easy access to every player in both leagues. Because of that, and because there was initially a state of “war” between the leagues, fans tended to be more loyal to their team AND their league.
This was born of a sense of familiarity with the players within the league. Rivalries were more intense, because there were fewer teams and you played them more often. In the 8 team league/154 game format, you played every team 22 times a year. Its much easier to become familiar with your rivals when you play them that often, instead of the nonsense in today’s schedule.
I think the most effective way to realign is to go for a regional set-up. Trash the current AL and NL alignments, and radically re-align based on region. Expand to 32 teams, and go back to the 8 team format and the 154 game schedule. Forget interleague play, have 4 seperate leagues that don’t play each other at all. Or, if you must continue interleague play, make it as limited as possible.
The playoffs would be two tiered, with the 4 league winners playing for the World Series. No wild cards necessary.
For those who would claim traditional rivalires would be lost, I would say for the most part that would not be so. The regional alignments would assure that Dodgers/giants, Yankees/Red Sox, Cubs/Cards would continue. The only real change for AL fans would be the concept of hating the Yankees, and I think we’d all get over that after a few years. New rivalries (like Cubs/WhiteSox, Angels/Dodgers, Mets/Yankees) would soon make the old rivalries forgetable.
Some of the so called “rivalries” are only so when two teams are competing for the pennant (like the current White Sox/Indians rivalry. When I was a kid in the late 60s, that was never considered much of a match up). We’d all adjust.
The only reason there is a “baseball tradition” is the stability the 8 team per league format gave to baseball for nearly 70 years. Prior to that, no format lasted more than 8-10 years. Since 1969, the changes, while tolerable in some instances, have made league loyalty and traditional rivalries a joke. I’d be in favor of scrapping it all and starting over.
As an aside, no one has mentioned the possiblilty of “reverse expansion” to make this work. Back in 1899, the NL went from 12 teams to 8 to manage competition and make pennant races more interesting (if not to also cut back on the concept of “syndicate ball”). Why could’nt we take one or two of the current marginal teams (the Expos come to mind) and simply eliminate them? I know the players unon would find a way to object to that, but it would make it easier to balance the leagues in an attempt to realign.
Just thoughts from one who passes in and out here.
) That makes quite a difference.