In a recent Sports Illustrated article, baseball columnist and part-time orthopedic surgeon Tom Verducci reports on a radical realignment plan up for proposal by a “special committee for on-field matters.” Among the things the committee discussed is floating realignment plan in which teams would not be fixed to a division. Instead, some teams would switch divisions based on several factors such as geography, payroll and something Verducci calls “plans to contend or not.”
Like most decisions that come out of the commissioners office, this floating realignment plan is a stupid idea, but only because it doesn’t do enough to change the dynamics of baseball. There would be too many factors in play for teams to move divisions. In Verducci’s article, he talks about teams spending time in the AL East so they could increase revenues by hosting the Yankees and Red Sox, or move to the AL Central if they want to contend.
This sort of system is too complicated. While it is likely to help those owners cozy with Bud maximize their revenues, it’s not assured to fix a lot of the problems in the game. Franchises should draw fans and make money because they field competitive teams, not because they are looking forward to getting pounded by the Yankees. If, as Verducci says, there are “no sacred cows,” then let’s try and do something that is likely to have a major impact. Something that will give teams incentives to win games and gives fans a reason to show up to the ballpark.
My idea for a baseball realignment would be a radical shift in terms of American sports, but is something sports fans around the world would be much more familiar with. My proposal would be to institute a promotion and relegation system. Yes, yes, I know what you are saying. Relegation? Promotion? This is the United States! We hate parliaments, prime ministers and the 30-hour workweek. The last thing we need is to let the greatest game in our nation be ruined by a bunch of Europeans.
But before you get your All-American jockstrap in a twist, read that Verducci article again. There are a lot of reasons why a relegation system would work for baseball. For those of you not familiar with the concept, it’s a process where teams are transferred among divisions, usually sorted by relative strength of the teams in their division. Typically, two or three teams from the top division are transferred to the lower division while two or three teams from a lower division are transferred up. In European football, relegation can reach five or six levels, but in American baseball we would only be dealing with two.
The basics of the new system would bring the top 16 teams into the top division. For our purposes we call this the American League. There will have to be a lot of changes; since all of the teams are lumped together based on record and not geography, having regional divisions wouldn’t be very effective especially since they could change every year. Instead, all of the teams play each other six times; three home and three away.
While this wouldn’t give us 18 Yankees-Red Sox games to froth about, it also would spare us the 18 Pirates-Reds games we currently have to endure. To use Verducci’s example, teams like the Orioles would only have to play New York and Boston a combined 12 times a year. More importantly, the Orioles would play 24 games against teams not named the Yankees and Red Sox. This would give them a better shot at winning a playoff spot.
The balanced schedule also gives every team around the league the revenue boost from playing the popular teams. Baseball’s current scheduling banks on creating regional rivalries among the teams, but for every Red Sox vs. Yankees, Giants vs. Dodgers, and Mets vs. Phillies – you get a Baltimore vs. Tampa, Washington vs. Florida, and Arizona vs. anybody. Also, losing interleague play might hurt some marketers, but our schedule would make for a more interesting game.
The balanced schedule extends further. Since our top division has 16 teams, it leaves 14 teams for the lower division, the National League. Because baseball has long-time rivalries and our system could keep some teams from playing each other for years, we would have the American League teams play all of the National League teams three times a year, alternating home and away by year.
Since we are throwing away divisions, teams will instead accumulate points for wins. Although other sports award a different amount of points for wins in regulation and overtime, baseball would be much simpler. Perhaps with teams playing two levels of competition, we may want to award more points for wins against the American League than the National League. If enough people complain, perhaps you give a point to teams that have an extra innings loss.
At the end of the year, the playoffs are still largely the same, but we’ll take only the four top teams since there are 16 teams in the league. At the end, we still have a World Series champion. But that’s where things really start to change.
After the World Series is over, the bottom three teams in the American League are sent down and the top three teams in the National League are sent up. This movement means that there is going to be a lot of drama towards the end of the year even for teams that are outside the playoff picture.
Depending on how close the races are, there could be four to six teams fighting for a playoff spot and another four to six fighting to avoid relegation. It gives a team that had a down year a reason to fight down the stretch. The National League would have their own playoffs (with another championship: call it the Jackie Robinson Classic or something), and while their championship might not be the World Series, it would still generate plenty of interest and give a lot of those teams a chance at a postseason that they may not see very often.
Now, I know what you are saying. After doing the math (15 x 6 games vs. American, 14 x 3 games vs. National) that means that the American League is only playing 132 games during the season. Thirty games of baseball is a lot to make up right? Don’t worry; we have a plan for that as well.
One of the great parts about having this type of schedule is that it gives us a lot of flexibility for other types of competitions during the year. One of the most exciting parts about European football teams is the in-season knockout tournament. I am thinking along the lines of the FA Cup in England, Copa Del Rey in Spain, and the Coppa Italia in Italy. A single-elimination tournament with 5 rounds each featuring a 5 game series would add up to 25 games a year, and would offer even more must-see games during the season. Spreading the rounds out during the year would be a good way to break up the season.
Because we are separating the two leagues, this tournament (which we could call the Cooperstown Cup or something equally cheesy) would offer another goal that all teams could compete for. Granted, it won’t be as great as the World Series, but imagine all of the scenarios for intriguing games. The tournament would have a random draw each round, so you could get the top two seeded teams playing each other in the first round. A team that misses the playoffs in either league or is destined to be relegated could make their whole season by eliminating a one of the top teams from the tournament.
It would also create a new triple crown in baseball (most points in the regular season, World Series champ, and Cooperstown champ) that would give us another way to separate some of the truly great teams from every era.
As you may have guessed, what I consider radical probably differs with what the MLB executives consider radical. I’ll admit that there is a lot to get used to and it is going to cause some problems. We would be destroying a lot of rivalries, there wouldn’t be an All-Star game, and there would definitely have to be some agreement on what to do with the DH. Baseball has always been about legacies and history and with two distinct levels of competition, the Hall of Fame debate gets even more complicated.
Overall, however, I think that all of this would be good for baseball. More teams in contention, more chances for all teams to taste the post-season, and unique schedules each and every year. Higher revenues and TV contracts would make a great incentive for general managers to put together a team that could compete in the American league, while at the same time those cash-strapped teams can give their fans something to cheer for outside of another 90 or 100 loss season. Most importantly, it is brings a system where the quality of play is still the most important way to determine how you’ll finish each season.

And we could replace announcers like Rick Sutcliffe with British guys who sound really smart.
*Props to Moses Hightower for also contributing to this article



43 Comments
Praveen March 14, 2010 23:27
In the 8th Paragraph I think you mixed up ” you get a Baltimore vs. Tampa, Washington vs. Florida “
long time listener March 14, 2010 23:30
I know this is exactly what you don’t want people to say, but when someone says “this will make Major League Baseball more like soccer” I just tune it out.
ShouldaWonTheRapContest March 14, 2010 23:51
12th graph, last sentence. “Are” instead of “our.”
Steve March 15, 2010 00:07
It’s way too late on a Sunday night for me to be reading something this complicated. That’s probably why I think it sounds like a good idea right now.
JJ March 15, 2010 00:09
Isn’t everyone bitching because the same few teams are always in contention and the same bunch of teams never are? Why would we look to soccer to solve this problem, the EPL has 4 teams in contention, while every other league has 2.
All this crap will blow over when the Yankees lose in the ALDS one of these years and then everyone will be like “LOL MONEY CANT BUY CHAMPIANS FAGGOTS!” again.
A-Bomb March 15, 2010 00:38
What is this, Blitz the league?
wade March 15, 2010 01:07
Why dont we just get a salary cap and remove the profit sharing with the teams who dont pay and leave the divisions the same….just a thought
Voomo Zanzibar March 15, 2010 02:53
Yeah, Reginald needs a good editor.
Anyway, here’s one:
What active player who originally came up with the Yankees has been in the league the longest?
I think this is the answer:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sprinru01.shtml
Adam West March 15, 2010 08:48
@JJ
That is a good point, with the exception of Liverpool this year, and those top teams are usually the biggest spenders too.
But the article is correct in that the supporters of the non-elite teams have something to get excited about when faced with promotion or delegation. And the in-season tournaments are wild, as the article states. Some third division Spanish team knocked off Real Madrid in their domestic tournament. You think that the winning team and its fans have something to cheer about? Definitely.
Adam West March 15, 2010 08:52
And that’s probably one of the best photoshop integrations I’ve ever seen.
Steve March 15, 2010 09:27
What exactly, is the huge “problem” that this aims to solve?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s creative and well reasoned, and I appreciate the effort, but as a longtime baseball fan and semi-traditionalist, I have to say I would not welcome something so radical when there are simpler solutions.
1. Re-balance the schedule. This seems so easy and obvious that it’s odd that so many other crazy ideas are being tossed around. I understand that this would lead to more traveling and less TV revenue from Yankee games starting at 10 PM, but this is the easiest way to make it “fair” for the Blue Jays and Orioles (which is what everyone seems to be complaining about anyway, that the AL East is “unfair”).
2. As a natural companion to #1, you have to get rid of inter-league play. If you want to keep some of the cash cows (Yankee/Mets and ??) turn it into inter-league weekend. One series a year.
3. If this doesn’t go far enough, institute some sort of salary cap. Give teams 3 years to comply.
That’s all you have to do.
Butcher March 15, 2010 09:30
I hate soccer and anything that is styled after it.
I don’t like this idea. My idea…go back to two divisions each league and no wild card. Contract some of these teams that draw horribly and complain about not being able to compete….You want to complain about not being able to compete…ok you’re contracted.
There are way too many teams in baseball…and way too many horrible players in the MLB. If you’re a franchise and not going to put a good product on the field…you lose that franchise…I’m not saying to do this based on a small sample. The Pirates have run a HORRIBLE franchise for years and should be punished. They should have their team pulled.
Just sayin’.
The Ripper March 15, 2010 10:14
Well as far as the hall of fame debate, yeah this would really screw things up. Like players who played their entire careers or the peak of their careers in the bottom of the NL, getting good numbers off some terrible teams. But really, everyone is overblowing this. Cause the Yankees won the world series, so everyone is tired of them throwing money in everyones faces.First ring in 9 years. We just played threw a decade which we saw 8 DIFFERENT W.S. CHAMPIONS. Isn’t parity the goal here?
Butcher March 15, 2010 11:15
I’m a fan of not changing anything or changing back to the way it was. I don’t like change in baseball. I hate it. The more they change things the worse it becomes.
Last Night I Dreamed I Was Playing Centerfield in Yankee Stadium in My Underwear March 15, 2010 11:19
I hope baseball becomes more like soccer. We especially need “baseball hooligans”. Imagine a bunch of 20-year old drunks standing on top of the Green Monster, pissing on each other and the left fielder; then after the game trashing car windows on Landsdowne Street. Charming!
Adam West March 15, 2010 11:25
That already happens in Boston. Would be nothing new.
Reginald Cornelius III March 15, 2010 11:37
To answer a few of the criticisms.
I currently don’t mind the current. While I think a promotion/relegation system would work great anyway, I am trying to offer a better alternative than whatever it was the people were talking up in Verducci’s article.
I think a balanced schedule and removing interleague play would work as well, but MLB is interested in keeping bad franchises alive. A balanced schedule still doesn’t give the Royals or Nationals much of a chance of winning anything, ever. And when they are eliminated from the playoff spot in the first week of September, their games aren’t worth much. In my system, many more teams are in play for playoff spots.
This system does not seek to fix the idea that there will always be several dominant teams in contention. I don’t see this as a problem because I want to see the best teams playing for the world series. Parity is not really the goal here, but I think when each team has a similar strength of schedule, we will see who really is the best. What this does do is remove the excuse a lot of small market (or poorly-run) teams have about the current system.
craig March 15, 2010 11:42
i agree – with a salary cap teams wont be able to buy wins and it wouldnt be the same teams in the playoffs every year and there would be a changing of the guard more often within the division.
keep the divisions the same although i would move the brewers back to the AL and have 6 divs of 5, and there would be at least one interleague series happening.
Trev March 15, 2010 12:00
I vote salary cap, but also want some sort of salary minimum. If a team can’t afford the minimum then it shouldn’t exist, because it’s just hurting the quality of the rest of the league. This would hopefully reduce some of the teams creating a larger player pool, and disperse the talent more evenly since the smaller market teams will be forced to spend on players and the bigger market teams won’t be able to just buy all the best ones
Brian March 15, 2010 12:24
Another benefit would be that the “Cooperstown Cup” could be replaced by the Olympics every 4 years… consider how interesting the USA-Canada hockey game was this year. Much better than the “World Baseball [Spring Training] Classic.”
geoffreywayne March 15, 2010 12:52
A few months ago I was thinking about this and how fun it would be for semi-competitive teams and their fans to rebuild under this system. While you might not win a WS in the first year of contention, you can build up the ranks as your players develop.
I was also thinking about how AAA really isn’t necessary for player development these days and how it would be fun to incorporate these teams and markets into the fray. Obviously, stadium requirements would be necessary (or at least the potential for added seats if teams are promoted), as well as a slew of other issues I cannot even contemplate.
Basically, I just want to see the Toledo Mud Hens get their due and win a World Series.
Butcher March 15, 2010 12:53
The Royals and Nationals don’t deserve a chance to win anything. Who even cares about them and their horrible franchises.
Jack March 15, 2010 13:51
I am very wealthy and would like to own a pro baseball team, but I don’t want to spend my money on the team or acquire players that will cost me a lot of money to stay. I will just soak in the luxury tax money I am entitled to. Who cares if I put a quality product on the field? OK, maybe i will have 1 or 2 star players to surround my AAAA skilled team. Put my team in the AL or NL Central.
ckm March 15, 2010 15:11
The fact that these two separate leagues would be almost entirely separate and that the teams in the “National League” would not have the opportunity to make the World Series completely kills this otherwise intriguing idea, making it neither desirable nor practically plausible.
Adam West March 15, 2010 15:15
The teams in the National League wouldn’t have a shot at the World Series anyway, because they are not good teams.
Throbbin Wood March 15, 2010 16:52
Only thing I didn’t like was the part about the AL and NL playing each other to preserve rivalries. There’s plenty of historic rivalries up and down the football league hierarchies all over the world. If they can’t play each other because one of the teams is shit, well that’s tough. In the mean time, feel free to ridicule the lower league team. Just makes any future showdowns (cup or league game) more intense.
The thing to consider is that if the system were in place, all the best guys would want top flight ball found in the AL. That’s where the best players will go, which would make most AL vs. NL fixtures cheap wins for the AL.
Americans wouldn’t get into it or understand, though. The loyalty and community isn’t there. Most people would jump ship and go elsewhere if their team got relegated. This is a bandwagon nation. Shame, really, because promotion/relegation would sure give people a reason to care about Royals vs. Orioles in September. It would also be a proper laugh to see someone like the Red Sox or Mets get relegated. Imagine the banter and ridicule…
If they were going to change things, I’d want it like this or I’d want to go back to two divisions per league, top two in the East and West play in the LCS to go to the World Series. Or keep it as is. Whatever happens, the reality is that the guys who run the game will cock it up anyway.
Zero March 15, 2010 20:49
Or just force teams to spend their free Yankee luxury tax money on baseball operations or force teams to be sold if they dont field a winning team inside of 4 years. There are way too many teams in MLB that are just a tax write off. The threat of relegation isnt going to make these particular owners field a competitive team.
Adam West March 15, 2010 20:57
In Europe, if teams are relegated, they lose sponsorships and other sources of revenue.
ckm March 15, 2010 23:27
Adam West:
That’s not necessarily true. The teams relegated to the “National League” would be there because they were bad in the previous season. Somebody previously here cited the 2008 Rays as an example of why that would be a stupid system, in fact, a worse system than the current one. A system in which bad teams are relegated to a different division could, in theory, provide greater impetus for franchises like the Pirates and Royals with no commitment to winning to acquire said commitment, but it could also result in disaster for those franchises.
In seasons of relegation, in which teams had no chance to go to the World Series, how would relegated teams generate revenue? How would they get people to go to their ballparks? Would they advertise the fact that they were playing to maybe get a chance to compete for something meaningful next year? This would not seem to be a catchy advertising slogan.
Then, after this utterly dead year in which relegated teams generate no revenue, are they expected to go out and spend big on the free agent market? Are they expected to spend big on the free agent market the offseason before they are relegated? Why would any free agent sign with a team doomed to relegation, with no chance of playing in the World Series? Maybe if they offered extra money, but, in that case, this is a system that forces small-market teams with tight budgets and stingy owners to overpay for free agents.
Relegation would not increase parity. It would lessen it.
ckm March 15, 2010 23:29
As much as we Yankee fans hate to hear it, a simple salary cap would be a superior solution.
Hiro March 16, 2010 00:05
How about we just fine a team 1 million dollars every time they win a game and give that money to the loser. Balance at last!
Baseball is fine the way it is. As someone else said, 8 different teams won the world series in the last decade. What more do you want?
Joe March 16, 2010 06:30
This might be the dumbest article I ever read. Revenues would disappear immediately if this system were adopted. Nobody would go to these mid season tournaments and the television revenues that come just from the rivalry matchups will be eliminated. Wow, what a friggen idiot.
Adam West March 16, 2010 07:53
Ah, Joe the angry American!
Butcher March 16, 2010 07:58
No salary cap. Force teams to spend the money they’re getting through luxury tax/revenue sharing. Someone else made these points above.
Baseball is the last sport I really care about. I mean adding a “wild card” team to the mix was bad enough…making three divisions was bad enough…lets not water this thing down further.
ckm March 16, 2010 09:02
Salary floor would also be better. I wasn’t suggesting that a salary cap be implemented, just saying that its better than relegation.
Jim Leyritz Love Child March 16, 2010 14:28
Here’s what I find amazing about the Royals, Orioles and Pirates:
-Each have great baseball tradition.
-Each has a great stadium
-Each have TERRIBLE OWNERSHIP!!
John March 16, 2010 14:52
So, every year, you’d have 14 teams in this so-called “National League” that start the season knowing they have NO CHANCE to win the World Series. They play the whole season with the hopes that maybe, if they’re good enough, they get to play in the “American League” for a chance to win WS NEXT season. A lot of the ideas involved in this piece are great, but this part don’t fly with me.
BernieWilliamsDay.org March 16, 2010 17:16
In my view, the much larger problem is when a team gets squeezed out of the playoffs because their division is too good – i think this will happen to the Rays or the Red Sox this season. I think it would be far simpler to do away with the divisions entirely and disperse the big market teams between the two leagues as evenly as possible. Then, at the end of the year, take the top four teams from each league and put them in the playoffs. Hell, I’d be for trimming the schedule down to 150 games and adding another round of playoffs rather than doing some kind of rotating division every year.
Barry March 16, 2010 20:08
I just threw up in my mouth. You are a moron.
old dog March 17, 2010 15:04
Not a bad idea at all – although instead of breaking it down by league (AL or NL) why not just have the top 16 teams play in the top division and compete for the World Series and the 14 other teams would play out a regular season to see who gets promoted. This alignment would also allow for expansion where teams would start in the bottom league an work their way up. Being a soccer fan and following the international leagues there truly is no let up in the season as every game matters.
Granted American sport leagues will never let this happen since most of the leagues and especially baseball are very poorly run when it comes to competition.
old dog March 17, 2010 15:14
John: Good point but right now wouldn’t you agree that the majority of the teams in baseball don’t have a legitimate chance to make the playoffs let alone win a World Series?
Not that I am completely agreeing with the article but this style of system would put the 16 teams most equipped to compete for a WS championship in the same division and the other teams would have an opportunity to better themselves by playing against similar competition.
In the true European leagues every time a team is promoted they get a financial reward which allows them to sign top players and thus speed up the process to gain ground on the teams previously in the top league. For example if say the Marlins were in the bottom division and get promoted, as they get promoted they are given $20 million (Revenue Sharing) that $20 million now can be used for top free agents…the money can be more or less but as a point this is how the European leagues operate.
This type of system could also create a natural balance on contracts as teams may only be inclined to pay a top player for a year or two instead of giving out 6 yr contracts, since they may or may not stay at the top level.
z March 21, 2010 12:21
AWESOME. I love it
Pingback: Guest Post: A Soccer Style Relegation Plan For Baseball | New York Yankees blog, Yankees blog, A blog about the New York Yankees | The Yankee Analysts