Re: Division alignment question
Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC CSA is 20th on Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas, with a population of 2,277,074.
You're right that it's going to be a huge area, especially if the ~20% growth rate continues for another 7-10 years. But... there isn't really a single large core, which is what Media companies really like. I'm not saying that it would be a bad choice (it would be better than someplace in the northeast, at least), it's just not a batter choice than... well, anywhere out West for starters. Especially since Major League Baseball really should grow out West before anywhere else. The simple fact that there are so few Western American League teams that a team in the Central time zone needs to be placed in the AL West still is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.
Re: Division alignment question
I see the Triangle and the Triad are #28 and 30 on that list, and as I said are within an hour's drive of each other.
The South is also very underrepresented, outside of Florida which is mostly transplanted Yankees anyway. Despite the East Coast "bias", there isn't a major league team within 2 hours drive of either the northernmost or southernmost border of North Carolina.
Re: Division alignment question
That is true - I moved to Charlotte, and the AAA Knights get no love (except on July 4th). I'm sure Durham is the same. People here are either transplants, Braves fans out of media market convenience, or simply have no association or love for baseball. I've never worked in an office where literally only 2 guys know more than 1 baseball team. Sad. but if we got a team (Charlotte, Raleigh, anywhere in NC), that's just another team trying to squeeze into a packed East division. Last time I checked, longitude-wise, Atlanta is further toward Central than Pittsburgh, even Cleveland. So there's some clutter towards the East. Maybe we could re-do divisions; instead of geography, alphabetical? Heh.
But how did this go into an expansion discussion? I don't think we need to add two new teams at all - just realign to 5-5-5. Then have interleague continue throughout the season, instead of all in one batch.
Ohms - what's this 'balanced schedule' phrase mean? Everyone faces the same teams the same number of times? (Then I wouldn't be able to rib the Yankees fans in my office, for their hard-fought sweeps of the Royals and such)
Re: Division alignment question
Well, in baseball a balanced schedule means you play all teams in the league the same or about the same number of times. MLB always had it bass ackwards IMO, because before the wild cards, they played a balance schedule. In other words, the teams from the Eastern Division played the teams in the East and West divisions the same number of times.
Then, once they went to the wild card, they started playing an unbalanced schedule. This is where you play teams in your own division WAY more times than the other teams in the league. For example, in the AL East, the Yanks and Sox will meet 18 or 19 times, and they'll play the Rays, Orioles, and Blue Jays about that often. But they'll only play teams in the other divisions usually just two series, one home and one away.
The reason I say its bass ackwards is because when only division winners made the playoffs, THAT makes more sense to play an unbalanced schedule so you play teams in your own division more. Once the wild card is in place, and you're team is competing against teams in other divisions for a playoff spot, then that's when it seems more fair to be playing a balanced schedule. I still say MLB has it backwards.
Re: Division alignment question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alloutwar
That is true - I moved to Charlotte, and the AAA Knights get no love (except on July 4th). I'm sure Durham is the same. People here are either transplants, Braves fans out of media market convenience, or simply have no association or love for baseball. I've never worked in an office where literally only 2 guys know more than 1 baseball team. Sad. but if we got a team (Charlotte, Raleigh, anywhere in NC), that's just another team trying to squeeze into a packed East division. Last time I checked, longitude-wise, Atlanta is further toward Central than Pittsburgh, even Cleveland. So there's some clutter towards the East. Maybe we could re-do divisions; instead of geography, alphabetical? Heh.
But how did this go into an expansion discussion? I don't think we need to add two new teams at all - just realign to 5-5-5. Then have interleague continue throughout the season, instead of all in one batch.
Ohms - what's this 'balanced schedule' phrase mean? Everyone faces the same teams the same number of times? (Then I wouldn't be able to rib the Yankees fans in my office, for their hard-fought sweeps of the Royals and such)
Baseball is more popular in eastern NC than it is in Charlotte, which is one of the reasons I think it would play better in Raleigh. The Durham Bulls draw pretty well, as they have a nice ballpark and a relatively high name brand recognition for a minor league team, but they would draw a lot better if they weren't located in the craphole that is downtown Durham. A MLB team in Raleigh would likely mean the end of the Bulls, which is no great loss as far as I'm concerned. But I know some people in this area, mainly Durham, would fight that hard.
Re: Division alignment question
Hmm. I gotta admit - I do like the rivalries with the Yankees, and the brewing upstart Rays - but I kind of miss not ever seeing the A's or Royals or White Sox or anything as much as I used to when I was a kid ('87-92 years). It gets kind of bland seeing the same 4 teams most of the time. Especially 18-19 games each? That's about half your season. It adds a depth to know these other teams perhaps more intricately - but to only have 80 games left to play 9 other AL teams, AND the whole 3-week interleague stuff? It does seem kind of unfair. Although 3 out of 4 spots are division titles, so division rivalries are 3x more important than that wild card spot...
Maybe it should just be lessened a bit - 18 games against the Rays was good for me when I lived in FL and tickets were $10, but both those things are gone now. 15 seems a lot better. 12 would even work, against teams in your division, for 48 games (over 1/4th of the season), and 114 games to play the other 9 teams in your division, and all the interleague games. That seems like a good compromise. How do basketball/football do it?
Even with all that, it doesn't solve the dilemma of the NL Central champion having to pile thru 5 other teams, which the small, weak AL West politely sits back and lets the Angels collect the best record. Even if you don't play them that much, having one 3 records to compare yours to, instead of 5, is a bit preferable, no?
Re: Division alignment question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oriole^
As for [Brooklyn], surprised? The Atlantic Yards project could be reworked into a baseball stadium - that was Rickey's idea at one point - and the populace is definitely there, with money and baseball knowledge and love.
Money, baseball knowledge and love, and strong fan affiliations with established teams. Hey, I live in Brooklyn and it'd be cool to have a team here in a way... but like every other baseball fan here I already have a team.
An expansion team in Brooklyn would've been great if it had happened within a few years of the Dodgers leaving, but there aren't a lot of Met and Yankee fans who are going to jump ship for some new organization.
Not to mention the Met and Yankee organizations would never let it happen, which is a problem with a few of the cities being discussed. That and that you can't just put a team in a city on a whim, you need support from city government, and you need potential owners ready to put up serious cash. In BM, sure, it's easy to drop a team into any city based solely on its population numbers but that's not the real world.
Re: Division alignment question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alloutwar
Maybe it should just be lessened a bit - 18 games against the Rays was good for me when I lived in FL and tickets were $10, but both those things are gone now. 15 seems a lot better. 12 would even work, against teams in your division, for 48 games (over 1/4th of the season), and 114 games to play the other 9 teams in your division, and all the interleague games. That seems like a good compromise. How do basketball/football do it?
Yeah, I don't think an unbalanced schedule in principle is necessarily a problem, but I'd like to see it a little less unbalanced. Even 14-15 games instead of 18-19 would be an improvement to me.
For your question, I don't know about the NBA but teams in the NFL play each divisional opponent twice, once at home and once away. There are four teams in each division (eight divisions across two conferences) so that's six divisional games and 10 non-divisional. They also have an interesting approach to selecting those ten opponents, in which the strength of a teams schedule is supposed to be determined by how well they did in the prior season. Stronger teams, that is, are supposed to play a tougher (non-division) schedule.
Anyway, 6 of 16 games being in the division would be just over 60 games in a MLB schedule. In a five-team division that'd translate to playing each opponent 15 times.
Re: Division alignment question
Personally, I'm 100% behind going back to a balanced schedule.
