cabiness42 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,7714798.story The City Series, one of the most popular features of Chicago’s baseball schedule, will be reduced from six to four games between the Cubs and White Sox in most seasons, according to union leader Michael Weiner. Commissioner Bud Selig declined to discuss the specifics of the schedule being finalized for baseball’s first season with 15 teams in each league, saying only that interleague play would become a season-long feature. But Weiner told members of the Baseball Writers Association of America on Tuesday that "traditional rival" series like the Cubs and White Sox will go from six games a year to four games in most seasons. Weiner suggested that it is likely those four games will be broken up into two-game series at each park rather than playing four games at a park one year and then four games at the other park the following year. There could still be six Cubs-White Sox games once every three years. Weiner said inter-league play will rotate between divisions, with teams playing the five-team divisions in their opposite league every three years, and will comprise six series a year, the extra series being one with a so-called “traditional rival." In years that the two Central divisions play, the Cubs and Sox could play two three-game series, one at each park. I know this isn't new news, but this seems to be the first "official" confirmation of the scheduling changes for 2013. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,7714798.story I know this isn't new news, but this seems to be the first "official" confirmation of the scheduling changes for 2013. I hope it is something like Thursday Friday at one place and Saturday and Sunday at the other and not a Tuesday Wednesday in May and then a Tuesday Wednesday in September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) I hope it is something like Thursday Friday at one place and Saturday and Sunday at the other and not a Tuesday Wednesday in May and then a Tuesday Wednesday in September. lot's of nice series splits on the horizon. that's stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The whole 15-15, full season inter-league play thing is just stupid. Go all in and "dissolve" the league differences, or re-segregate the leagues again. Don't go half way. If they want to do inter-league play throughout the year, then do like the NBA does where you play ALL teams, but teams in your league and division are played more often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balfanman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:34 AM) The whole 15-15, full season inter-league play thing is just stupid. Go all in and "dissolve" the league differences, or re-segregate the leagues again. Don't go half way. I agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 The whole 15-15, full season inter-league play thing is just stupid. Go all in and "dissolve" the league differences, or re-segregate the leagues again. Don't go half way. If they want to do inter-league play throughout the year, then do like the NBA does where you play ALL teams, but teams in your league and division are played more often. My belief is that eventually the NL will adopt the DH, and at that point the leagues will be eliminated and all the teams will be realigned geographically. I think the changes for 2013 are the first step, but there are apparently enough NL owners still resisting the change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) The whole 15-15, full season inter-league play thing is just stupid. Go all in and "dissolve" the league differences, or re-segregate the leagues again. Don't go half way. If they want to do inter-league play throughout the year, then do like the NBA does where you play ALL teams, but teams in your league and division are played more often. I don't see how interleague all season is a big deal. It's still 6 series. I think spread out over the season makes it easier to ignore. 7 NL, 7 AL, 1 IL- most of the time. Fine by me. And if they stuck with the Sox and Cubs playing 6 per season, they can have one series in April or May, and the other series in August or September. Having them back-to-back weeks or even back-to-back months is what makes it stale. If you split them 2-3 months apart it makes it better. Also, the once a decade Opening Day versus the Cubs would be kinda cool. Also, nobody should be complaining the Sox have 84 games in the city. All things considered, the Sox have the easiest travel schedule in MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 09:56 AM) My belief is that eventually the NL will adopt the DH, and at that point the leagues will be eliminated and all the teams will be realigned geographically. I think the changes for 2013 are the first step, but there are apparently enough NL owners still resisting the change. That's what scares me. I feel like if they go to all DH, it opens that possibility of radical realignment. The Astros/Rangers thing is going to test this. If they ever have the Sox and Cubs play 18-19 games a year, I might be done with baseball. That would be jumping the shark in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 If they ever have the Sox and Cubs play 18-19 games a year, I might be done with baseball. That would be jumping the shark in my book. I know it sounds like a terrible idea to traditionalists, but what it would do is make the Sox much more visible to Cubs fans. Seeing the Sox above the Cubs in the standings all the time might chip away at that fan base . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) I know it sounds like a terrible idea to traditionalists, but what it would do is make the Sox much more visible to Cubs fans. Seeing the Sox above the Cubs in the standings all the time might chip away at that fan base . . . Honestly, I feel the opposite. I think having the Sox and Cubs in the same division would kill the Sox. We've already seen that these games don't sell out. Now you're going to add more Cardinals and Brewers, where those fan bases have embraced rivalries with the Cubs...they aren't going to come to USCF over Wrigley, like it or not. And as far as chipping away at the Cubs fan base, it's not going to happen. The Sox need to focus on the casual fan, and get more of them to the park. They have to find a way to make kids who don't have strong allegiance either way, to become Sox fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 10:03 AM) That's what scares me. I feel like if they go to all DH, it opens that possibility of radical realignment. The Astros/Rangers thing is going to test this. It's not as easy as you might think. If you want to group division based on close location (I call it Hyper Regionalism), it falls apart pretty quickly. You end up with uneven divisions of 3,4 and 5 teams. The only way to do smaller, evenly number divisions is to add 2 expansion teams... which is a VERY bad idea. I actually have a Google Doc over about 5 different realignment scenarios and they all suck. Divisions of 5 each are actually easier and the fairest arrangement. Edited July 11, 2012 by Athomeboy_2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 10:26 AM) It's not as easy as you might think. If you want to group division based on close location (I call it Hyper Regionalism), it falls apart pretty quickly. You end up with uneven divisions of 3,4 and 5 teams. The only way to do smaller, evenly number divisions is to add 2 expansion teams... which is a VERY bad idea. I actually have a Google Doc over about 5 different realignment scenarios and they all suck. Divisions of 5 each are actually easier and the fairest arrangement. Not necessarily. What if they make a West Division with the 8 teams in the Mountain/Pacific time zones, a Central Division with the 8 teams from the central time zone. And 2 East Divisions with 7 teams each from the eastern time zone. So it would be 4 Division winners, with 6 wildcard teams. Although by the time they do radical realignment, they'll probably be up to 12 playoff teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Dont get me wrong, I like the way things are but how about expansion? Add one additional team to each league and do what the NFL did by having four divisions to each league? This can then eliminate the "wildcard" and there will be 8 divisional winners each year competing in the post season. Example: AL East : Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles AL South: Rays, Rangers, Astros, Royals AL North: White Sox, Twins, Tigers, Indians AL West: Athletics, Angels, Mariners, Expansion team (Portland?) NL East: Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Nationals NL South: Marlins, Braves, Rockies, Expansion team (Oklahoma City?) NL North: Cubs, Brewers, Reds, Cardinals NL West: Giants, Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Padres Just an idea since the MLB seems to be desperate for change these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 No. You can't have divisions of four teams. One is bad enough. If you have 8 divisions of four teams, too many bad teams will make the playoffs. The NFL has a bad system, but they can get away with it with only 16 games. With 162 games, you can't have 8 divisions of four teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev211 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) Dont get me wrong, I like the way things are but how about expansion? Add one additional team to each league and do what the NFL did by having four divisions to each league? This can then eliminate the "wildcard" and there will be 8 divisional winners each year competing in the post season. Example: AL East : Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles AL South: Rays, Rangers, Astros, Royals AL North: White Sox, Twins, Tigers, Indians AL West: Athletics, Angels, Mariners, Expansion team (Portland?) NL East: Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Nationals NL South: Marlins, Braves, Rockies, Expansion team (Oklahoma City?) NL North: Cubs, Brewers, Reds, Cardinals NL West: Giants, Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Padres Just an idea since the MLB seems to be desperate for change these days. There is literally no chance this happens. The MLB will make sure that both the Yankees and Red Sox can get in every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (kev211 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 12:44 PM) There is literally no chance this happens. The MLB will make sure that both the Yankees and Red Sox can get in every year. How did that work out last year? How is that going this year? How does the new system with the potential 2nd best team having to win an extra game help the Yankees or Red Sox? The new playoff system hurts the Red Sox more than anyone. And the new CBA draft rules knocked them down even more. It's time fans start realizing the Red Sox aren't as good as they were, even if they still get the attention from ESPN. The Red Sox can pay to compete every year, but them making the playoffs as much as they did, is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balfanman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (kev211 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) There is literally no chance this happens. The MLB will make sure that both the Yankees and Red Sox can get in every year. And if I'm the Blue Jays or Orioles I hate the set up now, and want nothing to do with that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 03:00 PM) I don't see how interleague all season is a big deal. It's still 6 series. I think spread out over the season makes it easier to ignore. Very very easy to ignore. Who will care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 It's not as easy as you might think. If you want to group division based on close location (I call it Hyper Regionalism), it falls apart pretty quickly. You end up with uneven divisions of 3,4 and 5 teams. The only way to do smaller, evenly number divisions is to add 2 expansion teams... which is a VERY bad idea. I actually have a Google Doc over about 5 different realignment scenarios and they all suck. Divisions of 5 each are actually easier and the fairest arrangement. I could see five divisions with six teams each: Northeast: Blue Jays, Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Pirates Southeast: Orioles, Nationals, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Reds Great Lakes: Indians, Tigers, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals Midwest: Twins, Royals, Rangers, Astros, Rockies, Diamondbacks Pacific: Mariners, Giants, A's, Dodgers, Angels, Padres Maintains the most important rivalries and cuts down significantly on travel. Play 18 games per year against division opponents and 3 games per year against non-division opponents. You could probably work the schedule so you only have one 9-game road trip to each of the other divisions per year. How much would the players love that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) I could see five divisions with six teams each: Northeast: Blue Jays, Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Pirates Southeast: Orioles, Nationals, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Reds Great Lakes: Indians, Tigers, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals Midwest: Twins, Royals, Rangers, Astros, Rockies, Diamondbacks Pacific: Mariners, Giants, A's, Dodgers, Angels, Padres Maintains the most important rivalries and cuts down significantly on travel. Play 18 games per year against division opponents and 3 games per year against non-division opponents. You could probably work the schedule so you only have one 9-game road trip to each of the other divisions per year. How much would the players love that? What happens to the AL and NL then? Obviously my four divisions idea in each league will never happen. And it appears as if the wildcard is here to stay (and to give Selig credit, it does give those outsider teams a chance which is good for baseball). Just wish that 1 game wild card game was a 3 game series. Also in this years playoff format in the divisional round the first two home games will be awarded to the lower seed and the next 3 games will be awarded to the higher seed. I hope they fix that for the 2013 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 What happens to the AL and NL then? There would be no AL and NL. Playoffs would be 5 division winners and 3 wild cards. Or if they really want to, 6 wild cards that play each other in an opening round and then 3 of them moving on to join the 5 division winners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) There would be no AL and NL. Playoffs would be 5 division winners and 3 wild cards. Or if they really want to, 6 wild cards that play each other in an opening round and then 3 of them moving on to join the 5 division winners. Forget it there. Baseball will never give up the AL and NL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) What happens to the AL and NL then? Obviously my four divisions idea in each league will never happen. And it appears as if the wildcard is here to stay (and to give Selig credit, it does give those outsider teams a chance which is good for baseball). Just wish that 1 game wild card game was a 3 game series. Also in this years playoff format in the divisional round the first two home games will be awarded to the lower seed and the next 3 games will be awarded to the higher seed. I hope they fix that for the 2013 season. Yeah, I agree that this is the glaring problem with the new system. To play 162 just to get 1 more really seems like a waste, and the loser of that game won't really feel like they were a "playoff" team in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Forget it there. Baseball will never give up the AL and NL. Sure they will, because at some point the TV networks will figure out that getting rid of the AL and NL means that it becomes possible for the Red Sox and Yankees to meet in the World Series, and the TV networks will throw any amount of money at MLB in order to get that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnoxSox Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) It's not as easy as you might think. If you want to group division based on close location (I call it Hyper Regionalism), it falls apart pretty quickly. You end up with uneven divisions of 3,4 and 5 teams. The only way to do smaller, evenly number divisions is to add 2 expansion teams... which is a VERY bad idea. I actually have a Google Doc over about 5 different realignment scenarios and they all suck. Divisions of 5 each are actually easier and the fairest arrangement. Care to share that document with us? I'd be interested in reading. Thanks! Knox Sox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.