Some of the sites we’ll be considering at the Commissioner’s Special Subcommittee on Yahoo Exit Strategy (Feb. 22, 7:30, location TBD) include the option (and in some cases, require) the creation of divisions. In such a scenario, the first place team in each division gets a bye.
We’ve talked before about creating divisions, and while there seemed to be some interest, we never established a formal plan. So my question to the group: If we decide to go with a division set-up next year, are you on board with it, and if so, how should we lay out the divisions?
Here’s a few non-radical options (you can read my Radical Realignment Proposal here).
Last Year’s Standings: The top 5 in one division, the bottom 5 in the other.
Positive: We guarantee at least one new playoff team.
Negative: We punish successful teams.
Age: Curt, Meer, Figgs, Feigh, Kirb (The Old School). Jason, Newman, Weiland, Tom, Colby (The Nu Skool).
Positive: It’s well balanced and relatively arbitrary.
Negative: None, that I can see.
Drawing Out Of A Hat
Positive: Completely random.
Negative: Might not be balanced.
AL Fans/NL Fans: Jason, Newman, Kirb, Colby, Feigh (AL). Curt, Meer, Figgs, Tom, Weiland (NL).
Positive: Well-balanced, and league biases would create an interesting dynamic.
Negative: It’s far from arbitrary. Although that could be considered a positive.
Core/Expansion: Jason, Newman, Kirb, Tom, Feigh (Original 5). Colby, Curt, Meer, Figgs, Weiland (Non-Original 5).
Positive: Plenty of natural rivalries.
Negative: It’s kinda divisive.
So, what's everybody think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What about a serpentine draft based on historical winning percentage?
Division A
Kirb, Feigh, Curt, Figgy, Colby, Expansion Team 1
Division B
Weiland, Lyons, Meer, Newman, Jason, Expansion Team 2
That's the most balanced separation of talent, IMO.
As for "rivalries", divisions will create way bigger rivalries than anything we have now.
By the way, if it weren't obvious, I wouldn't vote for divisions until 2008.
A couple more thoughts.
*The age idea isn't at all balanced.
*I wouldn't be in favor of divisions without doing an imbalanced schedule. MLB learned that lesson the hard way, how about if we not?
Here's one idea:
-proceed with divisions in 2008 when there are 12 teams
-shorten the season to 21 weeks by eliminating the all-star week
-each team plays the five other teams in their own division 3 times each
-each team plays the six team in their opposite division once
I'm against divisions until 2008. I like Tom's idea of using historical winning percentages.
Post a Comment