PDA

View Full Version : Balanced vs Unblanced Schedule



getfoul
09-26-2011, 05:26 PM
Which would you rather have when they expand the playoffs:

Balanced Schedule
No Divisions--Diamondbacks move to the AL
156-game schedule in 25 weeks
Play your four former division teams 11 games, other ten league teams 10 games, 12 interleague games
Interleague Play--5 weekends of 3 series, and one series the rest of the time
Top-3 make the playoffs, seeded in the right order
4th and 5th best teams play a best-of-3, and the winner plays the 1-seed.
Postseason-
All rounds best-of-7, with the World Series still ending in October

Unbalanced Schedule
6 Divisions of 5 teams--Astros move to the AL West
162-game schedule in 26 weeks
Play your four division opponents 16 games, other ten league opponents 8 games, 18 interleague games (all teams from one division play all teams from another division, plus one more: local rival if they have one)
Interleague Play-20 weekends of 3 series, and one series the rest of the time
Postseason-
3 Division winners, plus 2 Wildcards
Wildcard teams play a one-game playoff, even if one team has 102 wins and the other has 85 wins (which was the case in the AL in 2001)
Winner plays the best record team only if they aren't from the same division.
Division Series remains best-of-5
Rest of postseason best-of-7, and may or may not finish in October.

This thread isn't for saying what MLB will do or won't do. This is for your preference as a fan if you had a choice.

Obviously, I am for the balanced schedule, but I can take it if you'd rather stick with the unbalanced schedule.

theslick1
09-26-2011, 05:58 PM
I prefer the unbalanced schedule, 15 teams per league, one interleague series going on at all times in place of having all interleague games played simultaneously. I like the rest of what's under "Unbalanced Schedule" alternative.

Also, for the Wild Card play-in series, I'd have that series played entirely at the home of the wild card team with the better record (i.e., no back and forth), so there's a benefit to being the better wild card team.

getfoul
09-27-2011, 11:36 AM
I prefer the unbalanced schedule, 15 teams per league, one interleague series going on at all times in place of having all interleague games played simultaneously. I like the rest of what's under "Unbalanced Schedule" alternative.

Also, for the Wild Card play-in series, I'd have that series played entirely at the home of the wild card team with the better record (i.e., no back and forth), so there's a benefit to being the better wild card team.

I agree the Play-In series should be at the 4-seed's park entirely, with some revenue sharing with the 5-seed.

I'd also have the 1-seed get 5 home games in the best-of-7 first round, or whatever they call it if there are no divisions. 2-2-3 format.

benzni
09-27-2011, 11:37 AM
I prefer the unbalanced schedule, 15 teams per league, one interleague series going on at all times in place of having all interleague games played simultaneously. I like the rest of what's under "Unbalanced Schedule" alternative.

Also, for the Wild Card play-in series, I'd have that series played entirely at the home of the wild card team with the better record (i.e., no back and forth), so there's a benefit to being the better wild card team.


I agree with this

whysodevious
09-27-2011, 01:36 PM
Oops I voted 'Balanced' without reading the actual thread. Thought it was just a simple balanced vs unbalanced comparison. If I had read the post I would have voted unbalanced because the above 'balanced' scenario sucks :/

scottythegreat1
09-27-2011, 03:33 PM
Balanced Schedule!!!!

As a Blue Jays fan, Im sure most of you would understand why I feel this way

GasMan
09-27-2011, 06:53 PM
Unbalanced unless you split the teams into leagues by East/West.