Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since you brought this particular series up, let me ask you this: other than the "local" rivalries, such as Cubs/White Sox, Mets/Yankees, Giants/A's (and maybe state rivalries like Cards/Royals, Indians/Reds and Marlins/Rays), don't you think this glorious experiment with interleague play has about run its course? Most of the other matchups just aren't very interesting. I'd rather see more divisional play and less interleague.
Since you brought this particular series up, let me ask you this: other than the "local" rivalries, such as Cubs/White Sox, Mets/Yankees, Giants/A's (and maybe state rivalries like Cards/Royals, Indians/Reds and Marlins/Rays), don't you think this glorious experiment with interleague play has about run its course? Most of the other matchups just aren't very interesting. I'd rather see more divisional play and less interleague.
Yes, the system is flawed, but I don't know if I'd say less interleague as a whole. I think these "rivalry" games are silly for the simple fact that very few of them outside Chicago/NY (and maybe the others you named) are not really rivalries at all.
I would be ok just rotating divisions as is and eliminating the rivalry games. That way the Sox/Cubs only play every 3 years instead of every summer.
Overall, I'm still on board for interleague play, I like seeing the unique matchups, among other situations. Like when my Sox were taking 2 of 3 from Milwaukee this weekend, it reminded me of when they used to be division rivals. It's fun to see your team play at a ballpark that your not accustomed to seeing them play at imho.
I'm sort of with Fred on this one, I too wish inter league would go away, but there's already enough games in the division, but that would give teams more games against other league opponents.
As the schedule is currently formatted the Red Sox were done playing the Angels by the end of April, that's not right there should be 2 sets of home and home with every league opponent one should be b4 the All star break and one after the all star break.
But my biggest beef with inter league is, how do you have two teams battling for the division crown and they both played different teams. example:
the Al east
Boston
6 games vs Atl
3 vs the Mets
3 vs Philly,
3 vs Fl
3 vs Was
NYY
6 vs the Mets
3 vs Philly
3 vs Fl
3 vs Atl
3 vs Was
TB
6 vs Fl
3 vs Philly
3 vs Was
3 vs the Mets
3 vs Colorado
Most people would agree that the Mets and the Phillies are jewels of the NL east, so on paper the Yanks have a tougher schedule than both the Sox and the Rays, why? all team fighting for a division crown should play the same schedule.
If the Rays win the East buy one game over the Yanks, and they go 5-1 vs the Marlins and the Yanks split with the Mets, who's the better team?
I would be ok just rotating divisions as is and eliminating the rivalry games. That way the Sox/Cubs only play every 3 years instead of every summer.
Actually, I was thinking of the exact opposite: eliminate all the interleague play except for the actual rivalries. Here in New York, Mets vs. Yankees is very much anticipated, as I'm sure Cubs vs. Sox is in Chicago. Those are precisely the games fans want to see, so those are the ones that should be a regular feature of each season's schedule.
As I write this, the Mets are in the middle of an interleague series with the Orioles. That's all very well and nice, because it lets the Met network do little highlight films of the 1969 World Series, which featured those two teams. But otherwise, honestly, nobody really cares. Three less of these games and three more against divisional rivals--which would have so much more meaning in a pennant race--would make for a better schedule as I see it.
Actually, I was thinking of the exact opposite: eliminate all the interleague play except for the actual rivalries
You are actually advocating eliminating all interleague, except for rivalry games? So Chicago teams would play interleague games but Toronto, with no natural rival, wouldn't? I assume you are saying that in somewhat jest, but it is not a prudent scenario.
You are actually advocating eliminating all interleague, except for rivalry games? So Chicago teams would play interleague games but Toronto, with no natural rival, wouldn't? I assume you are saying that in somewhat jest, but it is not a prudent scenario.
Toronto's natural rival would be the Phillies. They played in the 1993 WS and from 1943-1948 the Phillies were called the "Blue Jays"
But I do agree that they should balance it out, maybe add 2 teams and have 8 divisions with 4 teams and have one division out of league play another out of league division like in the NFL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
