Time to Take Realignment Seriously

Realignment is a complex issue filled with equal support and opposition. For some, it amounts to an unnecessary and indefensible change. For others, it is an exciting and thought-provoking issue. Both sides have a justifiable stance, but the key is to remain somewhere in the middle. Change for the sake of change is no good, but change that makes sense can do a lot for the sport.

The biggest issue that many agree on has to do with evening out the divisions and the leagues. Currently, the National League Central has two more teams than the American League West, and the National League has one more team than the American League. This creates unfair circumstances. Why should some teams have more opponents than another?

The easiest solution is to take one team from the NL Central and move it to the AL West. Both divisions and both leagues would be evened out. The team that makes the most sense would be the Houston Astros, as they are the closest to the other members of the AL West. It would also create a rivalry with the Rangers, which is always good for the popularity of the game.

Evening out the leagues, though, would create an unintended result. Both leagues would have 15 teams, which means there would always need to be at least one inter-league game. That is hardly negative, as inter-league match-ups have proven to increase interest in the game.

Another popular suggestion has been to create another wild card team. This would make it easier for teams in tough divisions to compete. The NBA and the NFL, some argue, have many more teams make the playoffs, and MLB should follow in their footsteps.

However, the basketball season is half that of the baseball season, and the football season is less than a tenth. After 162 games, you are given a clear picture of who the best teams are. Why should we give teams a second chance if they haven’t proven themselves in such a long period of time? It makes sense, then, that any addition of a wild card would be accompanied by a reduction in season length.

Many also suggest that it would be a good idea to do away with divisions. It’s an idea that is far too radical and has little chance of passage, but it deserves some thought. While it would remove the unfair burden on a team like the Orioles, who is forced to compete in a disproportionately difficult division, it would also destroy some of the biggest marketing tools for the game. Division rivalries would be smashed, and classic match-ups between the Yankees and Red Sox, for example, would lose much of their significance.

In my last post , I explored the effects of traveling distance on a team’s performance. While the conclusions are in dispute, the data clearly indicated that traveling time does, in fact, have an effect on a teams chances of winning.

Removing divisions would further complicate this issue. Divisions reduce the amount of travel because you play more games within your teams general location. Doing away with divisions would mean more games between, say, the Yankees and Mariners, which would mean many more cross-country trips.

If traveling distance is to be taken seriously, there is one more slight change that would make sense. Switching the Rays and the Nationals would significantly reduce travel-time for teams in both the AL and NL East. It would also create an exciting new rivalry between the Marlins and the Rays.

With an innovative approach, realignment can critically improve the efficiency and popularity of the game. It’s the radical and extreme approaches that undermine the productivity of this debate, and any suggestions that invoke unnecessary change should simply be disregarded. It’s time for us to stop tossing the word “realignment” around, and finally take the issue seriously.

twitter.com/jesskcoleman