The only problem I see, besides the financial viability of 48 teams, is the fact that you could conciveably have multiple teams with sub .500 records making the playoffs. That would not be good for anybody. Especially if say the Red Sox, Giants, and A's don't.

It is way better than just adding more playoff teams to the current structure though. I also really like the idea of divisions being determined by previous year record. It is kind of like European Soccer Leagues.

Bill,

I don't think the sub .500 winners would happen too often. Most of a team's games would be against teams of about the same ability. So the liklihood is that one of the teams (if for no other reason than luck), would rise to the top of the division with a winning record.

I totally disagree with this idea. 48 teams? We can't even get enough talent to fill 30 teams? How would we increase the size MLB by 60%? We'd just be promoting a bunch of AAA teams, and I don't think that would make for a very interesting sport.

Wouldn't this create an incentive for a team to dive in one year so it can make a "soft" division for a run in the next? High draft picks don't mean much in baseball (especially in the current signability-driven era) but being able to lock in a playoff spot for the next year seems to warp the basic goal of winning as many regular season games as you can.

Jon,

How would teams take a dive? Are players who are potential free agents going to play badly so a team they are not going to be on can make the playoffs? Are you going to trade away good players, so those good players are no longer on the team? I see an incentive for the team, but I don't see the incentive for the individual players.

Oh sure, not the players - but I could certainly see GM's/Managers skewing who they call up, rotations, how aggressive they are with the DL and the like. You get some of that already with the types of teams mathematically eliminated franchises field in September. This would give that whole tactic a strong positive reinforcement.

A team going worst-to-first would have a serious advantage over a consistently excellent team, at least as far as being able to fly a pennant and make it into the playoffs.

I think you could probably do something if the churn were somewhat reduced - one team each bumped up and down each year rather than a complete reshuffle. If teams are faced with a long road to get back to the prestige division they may continue to try to avoid falling out of it.

I agree with Jon. Moreover, it's one thing for the 2nd or 3rd best team not making the finals, like what used to happen before the wild card, the current NBA, etc. But if I understand this correctly, you are virtually guaranteeing that there will be LOTS of playoff teams worse than non-playoff teams (i.e. the teams that finish 2-6 in the Babe Ruth League). This is passable as an exception; not as a rule

Eli,

It wouldn't be a rule. That's the point. If a weak team has a good year, then it has to prove it's really good by competing against other very good teams. Most year, I suspect, the Williams division would have two or three really good teams, and two or three weak teams that got lucky the year before.

Or...

Have three leagues like most European Soccer leagues have. Each league is a different level of ability, with the bottom three teams in the top two leagues being 'relegated' to the league below, and the top three teams in the bottom two leagues being promoted. Then you get no only the drama of who is going to win, but also who is going to lose...

Chirs, I think the advantage of the idea as presented is that every team has a chance to win every year.

First, out of the various schemes Stark presents, I like Leiter's the best. I think the main problem with the current playoff system is that a wild-card team and a a champion are pretty much in the same boat once the playoffs start. Leiter's suggestion gives incentives to the champion teams to try to become the best of the champion teams, and to the wild card teams to not settle for that and try to become a champion. At the same time, it doesn't put the undue pressure of a 1-game playoff in there.

As for the more radical ideas, I do like the soccer system of good teams rising and bad teams getting relegated, but there's no way the baseball owners or players would agree to that. Still, if we're fantasizing, how about two leagues, each with an upper, middle, and lower division--- the three best upper-division teams in each league go to the playoffs, the two best middle-division teams, and the one best lower-division team in each league. Plus one promotion from the lower and middle divisions and one relegation from the upper and middle.

Regular-season games would be, say, half against teams in your division, and then a few games each against the other division teams in your league, and then "interleague" games against teams from the other league at your same division level.

I dunno how the actual playoffs would go.

Adam

I think you're understating the importance of the rivalries that already exist in baseball. Good rivalries are built by playing meaningful games over a period of time. The other big problem I see is that of time zones. I'd hate to be an east coast team who had mostly west coast teams in my division.

Peder,

The rivalry problem is the biggest one this scenario faces. However, if the Yankees didn't play the Red Sox for a couple of years, think about the buzz when they did meet. Or how about a the possibility of a Yankees Red Sox World Series?

A) I'm one of those traditionalists that wants to go back to 12 teams, two divisions, no DH, etc.

B) I think that the problem with baseball attendance and fan interest isn't a frictional one that can be resolved with making baseball new & improved, extreme Mountain Dew Baseball. It's structural; there are simply too many choices for people to entertain themselves. In the 50's there were 3 channels, 3 sports, and four seasons. Now there's 500 channels, 80 sports, and four seasons. There's no need to ruin a 150 year old game because of structural changes in entertainment.

I totally disagree with your idea, the league is far watered down with talent already thats adding those teams would make baseball so much less competetive. #2. I wouldn't feel like trying to remember knew divisions every year. If my favorite team landed in the worst division along with 5 other horrible teams, i would not want to watch my team play these other horrible teams 18 times a season. Simple solution: Get rid of the all star non-sense and return to best team with home field advantage. make the wold card best of 7 to appease the players; the only off days are travel days. Simple as that, its traditional but it works.

P.S. You thing your smart ehh, what with your dago mustache and your greasy hair

The question that needs to be asked, quite simply, is will any of these reform ideas either make the game better or draw more fans to the sport? I think the answer is no to both parts.

First of all, the system as it is pretty much guarantees that a very good baseball team will win the World Series. All three of the Wild Card teams that have won the Series have been excellent teams (yes, even the Marlins last year). You don't have the Baltimore Ravens winning or some mediocrity sneaking through. In fact the most average team to win it all recently was probably the Yankees in 2000 who only won 88 games, but still won the division. Do we really need to see more teams in the playoffs? If we're rigging the system anyway so that teams with worse records have it harder than the others why don't we just skip a step and not have them be there in the first place?

It is also somewhat hypocritical to castigate Selig for seemingly shortsighted changes to draw more people to the game and then turnaround and make even more radical proposals that will probably have no long-term appeal, and which cheapen the game. 48 teams? Is baseball coming to Fargo finally? At long last Danny Garcia will get his big break.

Don't take this personally. It's good that someone is thinking about change. I'm a traditionalist, but at the same time a little bit of change can be a good thing. I'm just not sure that there's anything seriously flawed with the playoff system, except homefield should be determined by record.

I think there's more than enough talent to fill 48 teams. Think about it: 60 years ago, only white Americans played baseball. Nowadays, while we have 20 more teams, we're drawing from all of American and incredible amounts of talent from Latin America and Japan. If you shrink active roster sizes to 23 it would make it work even better.

But the major problem I have with your suggestion, Dave, is the NHL factor. In the 90's the NHL rapidly expanded, adding two or more teams every couple of years, reshifted and realigned the divisions a bunch of times, changed the playoff structure, and changed the point system for standings. The result of these actions--which were mostly innovative and forward looking--confused the hell out of even the most diehard NHL fans, and pushed away the needed casual fans. Consequently, no one watches hockey anymore.

Even good ideas need to be implemented in a context in which they would succeed. I think starting with making the first round of the playoffs best of 7, and getting rid of the home field advantage for ASG winner and going to best regular season record would be a better idea. Then gradually start instituting the more radical changes. But you can't do it all at once.

regarding the idea that teams might tank for a year, they do that already. If you've got a team that's underperforming (say, Mariners, Diamondbacks, Blue Jays this year) you get rid of the best players (who usually cost the most) and have a few years of putridness. The hope is that you invest in a good farm system and return to competitiveness (see, 1990s Indians).

The 48 team leagues is an interesting idea, but the problem truly is geography. Britian can do it, because it's about the size of California. Even throwing in the continent and travel & time zones aren't the nightmare it would be in the states.

Still, it is nice to see some fresh ideas. Good work David.

Um, has no one thought of the financial impact on the 18 new cities? On past performance, all those new owners would want new stadia at $250M or so a pop, and they certainly wouldn't want to pay for them themselves. Good for the construction biz in those towns, maybe, but not so good for the rest of the taxpayers.

Just what we need, more places for Bud to visit and threaten the team will move or just plain suck unless the people ante up some tax money.

Where the heck would you add 18 cities...even 12? They're not sure they can add 1 right now with moving Montreal to wherever. I think legitamitly you could 5-6 (N. Virginia, Portland, Vegas, Charlotte, maybe Nashville, maybe New Jersey) but hard to find more than that.

Players are the 2nd issue, yes we've opened up where we're getting players but hardly enough to have to add that much talent and still not see a lot of bad baseball.

I always proposed a economic restructing by division, something like this (if Stark already this I apologize as I haven't read his article yet):

AL BIG MARKET:
Anaheim
New York
Boston
Baltimore
Texas

MID-MARKET:
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Seattle

SMALL-MARKET:
Kansas City
Minnesota
Oakland
Tampa Bay
Toronto

NL:

BIG-MARKET:
Chicago
Atlanta
New York
Los Angeles
San Francisco

MID-MARKET:
St. Louis
Philadelphia
Colorado
Arizona
Houston
Cincinnati

SMALL MARKET:
Florida
Montreal
Milwaukee
Pittsburgh
San Diego

You could move some teams around and there would be safeguards and I'll have to think about exactly how it would work. Travel and natural rivalries are the 2 big problems, but competitve advantage due to payroll would certainly be solved.

Anyway a humurous thought:

Check my site: http://transplantedcubsfan.blogspot.com as I will post something more on this in the next few weeks.

Um, no. I'm still looking for a single benefit. Also, wondering why you need to try and "improve" a game which will have record attendance in 2004. If it ain't broke...

Bear with me, this may take a while...

For this to work, the Expos and Marlins would have to stay put, and ten new teams would have to be formed. May I suggest teams in Washington, Las Vegas, Ottawa, Vancouver, Indianapolis, Memphis, New Orleans, San Antonio, Tucson (all have populations over 475,000) and Salt Lake City, for geographical reasons...

These new teams, added to the 30 already in existence, would bring the number of major league franchises to 40, of which 20 could legitimately be classed as "Western" and 20 as "Eastern". This is extremely convenient, because it means we can do away with American and National Leagues, and replace them with Eastern and Western Leagues. What is also convenient is that we can form four geographical divisions in each league...

EASTERN LEAGUE

New York (Yankees)
New York (Mets)
Boston
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh

Toronto
Montreal
Detroit
Milwaukee
Ottawa*

Cleveland
Cincinnati
Baltimore
Washington*
Indianapolis*

Florida (Marlins)
Tampa Bay
Atlanta
New Orleans*
Memphis*

WESTERN LEAGUE

Chicago (Cubs)
Chicago (White Sox)
St. Louis
Kansas City
Minnesota

Texas (Rangers)
Houston
San Antonio*
Seattle
Vancouver*

Colorado (Rockies)
Arizona (Diamondbacks)
Las Vegas*
Tucson*
Salt Lake City*

Oakland
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Anaheim
San Diego

The only real problems are that Milwaukee are in the Eastern League while the Chicago clubs are in the Western League, that Seattle and Vancouver aren't really that near to the three Texan clubs at all, and that there are two divisions, one in each league, that look horribly difficult. But that's the best I could do geographically while trying to keep as many rivalries together as possible.

Here is the next convenient thing. If we do away with interleague play altogether, we can create a 162 game regular season if teams play each of their 4 divisional rivals 18 times (6 series of 3 games, 3 series at home and 3 on the road) and each of the other 15 teams in their league 6 times (2 series of 3 games, 1 series at home and 1 on the road). Also extremely convenient is that the schedules for all 20 teams in each division will be of the exact same difficulty, something we don't have now because the number in each division is not the same and because of interleague play.

The 40 team format as proposed above also lends itself extremely kindly to the postseason. Let's have the top two teams in each division make the playoffs, meaning a total of 16 teams in the postseason, 8 from each league. According to their regular season records, the eight teams in each league should be seeded one to eight. A set of playoffs in each league of the following format would be used to decide the two league champions who would contend the World Series...

League Quarter-Final Series (Best of 5, higher seed has home field advantage)
Q1) Seed 1 vs Seed 8
Q2) Seed 2 vs Seed 7
Q3) Seed 3 vs Seed 6
Q4) Seed 4 vs Seed 5

League Semi-Final Series (Best of 5, higher seed has home field advantage)
S1) Winner Q1 vs Winner Q4
S2) Winner Q2 vs Winner Q3

League Championship Series (Best of 5, higher seed has home field advantage)
Winner S1 vs Winner S2

World Series (Best of 7, neutral stadium)
Eastern League Champions vs Western League Champions

So there you have it. A baseball season that is entirely fair and symmetrical yet still 162 games long, that embraces traditional and geographical rivalries, thereby limiting the impact of travel and time zones as much as possible, that rewards the teams with the best records while discouraging mediocrity and outright failure, and that creates brand new baseball markets in ten sizeable cities across America and Canada. If you're still with me after all that, what do you think?

John,

Yes, it's another good idea. However, you still have the problem of a team like Pittsburgh getting stuck in a really tough division where it's difficult to win every year. One thing I was trying to accomplish with this post was a way to get different teams in the playoffs.

Dave, I can entirely understand that sympathy, and I too share it, but I cannot possibly approve a system that rewards mediocrity over excellence on the basis of that sympathy. The postseason should comprise the best teams, and if Pittsburgh want to make the playoffs, they should earn that right by winning more games than their divisional rivals. The balance of power does shift, over time, perhaps more than we might realise; empires rise and fall, and as long as the draft gives those that fail another chance and powerful teams trade the future for the present, that will all continue. Look, for example, to the success enjoyed by the Padres, Rangers and Tigers this year, to the hardships that the Indians, Diamondbacks and Mariners have this season endured, to the sudden strength of the NL Central. In light of examples such as those, I don't see the Pirates potentially sharing a division with the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Phillies as a problem, especially if the second placed team also makes the playoffs.

There's a lot wrong with your proposal, and to some extent I'm just repeating what others are saying.

- There is nowhere near enough talent for 48 teams.

- There is nowhere near enough market for 48 teams. Some of the big draw AAA cities like Sacramento do well enough, but part of their attraction is that they showcase up and coming players. How attractive would Sacto residents find a bad major league team playing other bad major league teams from far away?

- It's extremely unfair to force the six best teams to play for two playoff spots while six horrible teams are also guaranteed a berth just for being less bad than the others. In English soccer do all the leagues play for the same championship? I thought the lower tier leagues were equivalent to minor leages and could not win a title.

- Teams have rivalries because they play each other consistently. If the Yankees and the Red Sox were to play in the same division only once in a while, the rivalry would dry up. Absence does make the heart grow fonder, but only for a little while.

- The more teams, the smaller chance that any one team will win a title. A fan could grow old and die before his team made its 1/48 chance of winning.

There is a very simple solution to the problem of teams playing in strong divisions: Reduce the number of intradivision games. If you think it's unfair for the Devil Rays to have to play 19 games each against the Yankees and Red Sox, reduce the number of those games.
(I don't think this is necessarily best, but it sure beats 48 teams of random divisions).

"In English soccer do all the leagues play for the same championship? I thought the lower tier leagues were equivalent to minor leagues and could not win a title."

First of all, it's called football! Goalkeepers aside, no picking the ball up and throwing it or running with the ball in hand! And no fighting either!

The English football system features four professional divisions. The highest of these is the Premiership (20 teams), and below that there exists the First Division (24), below that the Second Division (24), and below that the Third Division (24). Below that, leagues are semi-professional or amateur, and things get so complicated and obscelete that they're really not worth worrying about. All teams are independent of each other (there are no affiliations), and so in that respect it's nothing like the minor leagues.

Each team plays the other teams in the division twice, once at home and once away. The only matches against opponents from different divisions are cup matches (in a knock-out competition that involves virtually every football club in the country). When all fixtures have been played, the following happens...

PREMIERSHIP
Bottom 3 relegated

FIRST DIVISION
Champions (title winners) promoted
Runners-up promoted
Play-off winner promoted (3rd takes on 6th for the right to face the winner of 4th vs 5th, the winner of that match promoted)
Bottom 3 relegated

SECOND DIVISION
Champions (title winners) promoted
Runners-up promoted
Play off winner promoted (as First Division)
Bottom 4 relegated

THIRD DIVISION
Champions (title winners) promoted
Runners-up promoted
Third placed team promoted
Play off winner promoted (4th plays 7th for the right to play the winner of 5th vs 6th, the winner of that match promoted)
Bottom 2 relegated

There is nothing to stop a team repeatedly being relegated or promoted. In fact, there are numerous teams that alternate between two leagues, and others that achieve successive promotions or suffer back to back relegations.

I seem to remember that Dave had, a few years back (when the blog was still yellow), a proposal for a system that involved something called a "super minor league", with the worst major league teams going to this super minor league together with the best minor league teams, and then relegations between the major leagues and the super minor league. Dave, could you remind us of what it was? In my opinion that made much more sense than a 48-team major league.

It's absolutely true that relegations make many more games meaningful. At the end of every year in Spanish soccer there is great excitement involving teams which are trying to escape relegation, and sometimes competition gets as furious as the fight for the title. I think some kind of relegation would be an excellent way to avoid teams tanking and selling off when they have no chance.

Yes, I did propose such a system when contraction was on the table. I thought it was be better to have another level of independent baseball than to have teams disappear all together. I'm not really sure which system I prefer, I'm just trying to get a discussion going with ideas.

It's times like these that I'm really glad the people who make decisions in baseball are afraid of change...

48 teams!?!??!?!?!??!

12 teams making the playoffs?!?!?!?!?

Just from scanning the debate here I liked what this gentleman had to say...

"A) I'm one of those traditionalists that wants to go back to 12 teams, two divisions, no DH, etc.

B) I think that the problem with baseball attendance and fan interest isn't a frictional one that can be resolved with making baseball new & improved, extreme Mountain Dew Baseball. It's structural; there are simply too many choices for people to entertain themselves. In the 50's there were 3 channels, 3 sports, and four seasons. Now there's 500 channels, 80 sports, and four seasons. There's no need to ruin a 150 year old game because of structural changes in entertainment.

ChrisS : July 16, 2004 03:16 PM"

Dunno if this has been suggested before, but how about consolidating new and old markets into to 24 organizations:

NL WEST
San Francisco/San Jose Giants
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego/Mexico City Padres
Houston/New Orleans Astros
Denver/Salt Lake City Rockies
Phoenix/Las Vegas Diamondbacks

NL EAST
New York Mets
Atlanta/Nashville/Charlotte Braves
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis/Kansas City Cardinals
Cincinnati/Cleveland Reds
Philadelphia/Pittsburgh Phillies

AL WEST
Oakland/Sacramento A's
Seattle/Portland/Vancouver Mariners
Minnesota/Milwaukee Twin Brews
Dallas/San Antonio Rangers
Los Angeles Angels (retro!)
Chicago White Sox

AL EAST
New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
Miami/Tampa Bay Devil Marlins
Baltimore/Washington DC Orioles
Detroit/Toronto Tigers
Montreal/Buffalo Expos

Could play around with some of the city pairings, or add others to the mix.

162 game schedule similar to the 12 team, 2 division leagues:

18 games versus the 5 teams in your own division, 6 games versus the 6 teams in the other division, and 6 games versus 6 teams in one of the other league's divisions. Split the home games between host cities.

This way you expand the game by getting more markets involved, and increase ticket demand by having less games in a single city.

I'm a traditionalist that has come around to interleague play, but still detest the unfair scheduling practices. I hate the wild card and would love to have a revenue cap to go along with a salary cap and salary floor.

And what about eliminating individual team ownership? MLB makes enough money so it doesn't need billionaires to write the player checks. Have cities and/or fans appoint a CEO or GM type to run the franchise.

I'll stop now, I'm tossing out too many ideas that I've thought about over the years...

Regarding Rob G.'s alignment, how can San Francisco be a big market team and Oakland be a small market team?