What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

MLB 2011 Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

If they're going to do this realignment thing, which I don't think is a good idea, I think the team to move has to be Houston. It makes the most sense to just slide the Astros into the division with the Rangers and the divisions are all even.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

jen said:
I nominate anyone except Milwaukee. Florida, perhaps. Pretty sure their fan wouldn't care. Then move Pittsburgh to the East.
Click to expand...

That's why I nominated Milwaukee.

I'd rather see a team with fans, a nice new ballpark, etc. I wasn't slamming the franchise. :)
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

Shirtless Guy said:
And tell me what you todo to fix that problem? You want to be in the Midwest and have one of the chicago teams in the central?
Click to expand...
Contract Pittsburgh? ;)

Kansas City is further west than MN and Milwaukee is further east. So clearly that division was put together based on existing rivalries instead of geographic integrity. So really the American Central and Midwest should be mixed together differently. Obviously the central was just thrown together as an after thought in his article.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

If you're going to do this, which, again, I think is a stupid idea, it is tough to get the geographic divisions to work, there aren't enough teams for 2 divisions out west unless you get over into Texas or Missouri to pull teams from. Here is what I thought up, going geographical, and making sure to keep teams in the same city in the same division:

Boston, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto
Baltimore, Washington, Florida, Atlanta, Tampa
Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, St. Louis
Chicago, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Kansas City
Texas, Houston, Colorado, Arizona, San Diego
Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim

Here is what it looks like on the map: edit (still trying to get the map thing to work)
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

bigblue_dl said:
If you're going to do this, which, again, I think is a stupid idea, it is tough to get the geographic divisions to work, there aren't enough teams for 2 divisions out west unless you get over into Texas or Missouri to pull teams from. Here is what I thought up, going geographical, and making sure to keep teams in the same city in the same division:

Boston, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto
Baltimore, Washington, Florida, Atlanta, Tampa
Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, St. Louis
Chicago, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Kansas City
Texas, Houston, Colorado, Arizona, San Diego
Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim

Here is what it looks like on the map: edit (still trying to get the map thing to work)
Click to expand...

If only the AL hadn't added the DH . . . .

There is sort of a competitive balance to this alignment, but . . . holy hell, the Northeast league would be a bloodbath.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

I first heard creating two leagues, with no divisions. Just 15 in one, 15 in the other. The top 5 or 6 make the playoffs. Just like the old days (except for the post season format). I actually like this idea and it will get rid of the uneven schedule which means less Boston/Yankees series which I like.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

Can't the Dodgers get out of paying him that money due to the steroids issue's he had in LA?
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

bigblue_dl said:
If you're going to do this, which, again, I think is a stupid idea, it is tough to get the geographic divisions to work, there aren't enough teams for 2 divisions out west unless you get over into Texas or Missouri to pull teams from. Here is what I thought up, going geographical, and making sure to keep teams in the same city in the same division:

Boston, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto
Baltimore, Washington, Florida, Atlanta, Tampa
Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, St. Louis
Chicago, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Kansas City
Texas, Houston, Colorado, Arizona, San Diego
Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim

Here is what it looks like on the map: edit (still trying to get the map thing to work)
Click to expand...

Why would the owners of those five northeastern teams (especially Toronto) go along with this? The Yankees and Red Sox already do battle for the AL East crown, now you want to add Philly and the Mets to the mix? Would the Peter Angelos allow the O's to be in the same division as the Nationals? Likewise, I don't think the Cubs/White Sox and Giants/A's owners would go for that alignment. Geographically it might make sense, but the owners would never go for it.

Plus the players aren't going to give up the DH, so the NL clubs would have to switch to the DH rule (which owners aren't going to like either).
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

Priceless said:
Why would the owners of those five northeastern teams (especially Toronto) go along with this? The Yankees and Red Sox already do battle for the AL East crown, now you want to add Philly and the Mets to the mix? Would the Peter Angelos allow the O's to be in the same division as the Nationals? Likewise, I don't think the Cubs/White Sox and Giants/A's owners would go for that alignment. Geographically it might make sense, but the owners would never go for it.

Plus the players aren't going to give up the DH, so the NL clubs would have to switch to the DH rule (which owners aren't going to like either).
Click to expand...

Not to mention, splitting up St. Louis and the Cubs is never going to happen, geographical considerations be ****ed.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

Priceless said:
Why would the owners of those five northeastern teams (especially Toronto) go along with this? The Yankees and Red Sox already do battle for the AL East crown, now you want to add Philly and the Mets to the mix? Would the Peter Angelos allow the O's to be in the same division as the Nationals? Likewise, I don't think the Cubs/White Sox and Giants/A's owners would go for that alignment. Geographically it might make sense, but the owners would never go for it.

Plus the players aren't going to give up the DH, so the NL clubs would have to switch to the DH rule (which owners aren't going to like either).
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree completely, I was just posting what I actually came up with when building divisions by geography. I definitely don't think it will work or that they should even consider this kind of change.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

bigblue_dl said:
Oh, I agree completely, I was just posting what I actually came up with when building divisions by geography. I definitely don't think it will work or that they should even consider this kind of change.
Click to expand...
True...all they really need to do is get to 15 in each league (move houston the AL) and have an interleague series going on somewhere in baseball 6 days a week...you could do:
18 games (9 home/9 away) vs your division opponents (4 teams),
6 games (3 home/3 away) vs the rest of your league (10 teams),
6 games (3 home/3 away) vs one of the divisions (rotating) in the other league (5 teams),
which gets you to 162. That way every team in baseball plays in your park once every 3 years or every year depending on what league they are in and every team in a given division plays the same schedule. Not this bull crap unbalanced **** they have now:

NL Central is horribly unbalanced for interleague play:
Chicago Cubs - at Boston; vs. New York; at Chicago; at Kansas City; vs. Chicago
Cincinnati Reds - at Cleveland ; vs. Toronto; vs. New York; at Baltimore; at Tampa Bay; vs. Cleveland
Houston Astros - at Toronto ; at Texas; vs. Tampa Bay; vs. Texas; vs. Boston
Milwaukee Brewers - at Boston; vs. Tampa Bay; vs. Minnesota; at New York; at Minnesota
Pittsburgh Pirates - vs. Detroit; at Cleveland (June 17-19); vs. Baltimore; vs. Boston; at Toronto
St. Louis Cardinals - at Kansas City; vs. Kansas City; vs. Toronto; at Baltimore; at Tampa Bay
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

bigblue_dl said:
If you're going to do this, which, again, I think is a stupid idea, it is tough to get the geographic divisions to work, there aren't enough teams for 2 divisions out west unless you get over into Texas or Missouri to pull teams from. Here is what I thought up, going geographical, and making sure to keep teams in the same city in the same division:

Boston, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto
Baltimore, Washington, Florida, Atlanta, Tampa
Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, St. Louis
Chicago, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Kansas City
Texas, Houston, Colorado, Arizona, San Diego
Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim

Here is what it looks like on the map: edit (still trying to get the map thing to work)
Click to expand...
Try to make a schedule work in 162 (or less) games. If you do 3 home / 3 away with all the teams NOT in your division, you're already up to 150 game. If you play 4 games (2 & 2) outside your division, then you can play 14 in your division for a 156 game schedule.

What I'd also try to do is play Saturday Day / Nite (separate admission) doubleheaders to squeeze the season down in terms of playing weeks. If you ran 10 DH's in the summer, you'd cut almost 2 weeks off the season and we'd get done with the World Series before Veteran's Day.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Part 1

Ah, but it gets better!!!

The divisions are gone. If passed, two 15 team leagues with Houston going to the AL.

7 games against own league and 4 against other league = 158 games (I THINK).

Guess the rivalry games (Yankees - Red Sox & Cardinals - Cubs) are being deemphasized.

I think its dumb, but I am not Bud Selig.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top