8 comments MMQB Review: Finally, the Ravens Get Revenge on the Broncos Edition

Last week in MMQB Peter King talked about how great the NFC West was going to be this year, but don't go reading too much into free agent acquisitions and trades teams in the NFC West made, because it is going to be a tough division, but Peter can't guarantee us it will be a tough division. Peter also listed his best free agent signings of the offseason, even if he isn't sure how much money they signed for. Clearly, signing Danny Woodhead is a Top 10 move no matter how much money he signed for. This past weekend on Twitter Peter said that his MMQB was going to be very Ravens-heavy, which isn't a shock since the Ravens won the Super Bowl and MMQB has been pretty Ravens-heavy over the last two months anyway. MMQB has been very Ravens-heavy over the last two months, but this week Peter talks about how Baltimore finally got revenge on John Elway (the Ravens signed Elvis Dumervil...didn't Peter make it seem like the Ravens could sign Flacco and no other players just a month or so ago?) and Peter does a tribute to two NFL players who haven't retired so there is no point in really doing a tribute to them yet. Hey, it's the offseason and Peter has some space to kill in MMQB rather than just make it a shorter column.

Revenge is best served cold, but this is ridiculous. It took 30 years for Baltimore to finally get revenge on John Elway.

Quick, let's find a narrative in regard to this Elvis Dumervil signing by the Ravens! It's not enough of an interesting story that the Broncos tried to re-sign Dumervil but could not due to late paperwork and so Dumervil became a free agent, let's create an entirely different narrative!

Thirty years next month, the Baltimore Colts drafted Elway with the first pick in the NFL Draft. Elway didn't want to play for taskmaster head coach Frank Kush, and so his agent, Marvin Demoff, went about the work of trying to create an alternate market for Elway, both in baseball and in the NFL. Elway was a great baseball prospect too, having played a minor-league season with the Yankees' Rookie League team in 1982. Owner George Steinbrenner loved Elway and projected him to be a starting outfielder for the Yankees by 1985.

And when was one of George Steinbrenner's projections for a Yankees player ever wrong? The answer is "never." Since George Steinbrenner thought Elway could be a starting outfielder for the Yankees, this was definitely happening. So we've heard the story many, many times over the last 30 years of John Elway using his leverage and threatening to become an eventual Hall of Fame baseball player rather than a Hall of Fame football player if the Colts didn't trade him. There was no revenge exacted by the Ravens in this situation because the Baltimore Colts are now the Indianapolis Colts and the Ravens signing Dumervil had nothing to do with Elway forcing a trade to Denver, because the Baltimore Ravens have no affiliation with the Baltimore Colts other than having "Baltimore" in the front of the team name.

It's tough to equate -- no, not tough; impossible -- Baltimore losing Elway to, 30 years later, Baltimore stealing one of Denver president Elway's 10 most important players.

Yet this is what -- no, this is exactly what -- Peter King is doing here. It's impossible to equate the Indianapolis Colts losing John Elway to the Broncos, but that is exactly what he is doing here. It is a slow offseason and he creates stories where he can.

In Baltimore, Elvis is about to enter the building.

This is just bad. Just not good.

In the seven weeks since Baltimore won the Super Bowl, that's the lesson we've learned about the defending champs. First the Ravens had the Ray Lewis retirement, then the Anquan Boldin debacle, then the loss of Paul Kruger and Dannell Ellerbe in free agency, then the staredown with -- and loss of -- Ed Reed (which they really didn't mind), then the Thursday night opener mess ... and then late Sunday afternoon, pilfering pass rusher Elvis Dumervil from Denver.

It's really been a wacky time.

Has it really been a wacky time? The Ravens have made quite a few intriguing moves this offseason, but I clearly recall Ozzie Newsome and Steve Bisciotti stating they would be making tough decisions over the next few months. Peter took this to mean they weren't re-signing Joe Flacco, while the rest of the free world took it to mean free agents like Ed Reed may not be re-signed and Anquan Boldin could be let go. It's been interesting, but I think the Ravens gave a heads-up they would be making some bold moves.

I am also told Dumervil did not want to go back to Denver if he could find some team that would pay him more in 2013 ... even one dime more. Baltimore did it. With some of the cap savings from letting Kruger, Ellerbe and Reed walk, here's the breakdown of the deal the Ravens reached to sign Dumervil:

The deal: five years, $26 million, with a max value with incentives of $35 million.

Signing bonus: $7.5 million.

2013 salary: $1 million.

2013 total money: $8.5 million.

There you have it. Dumervil will make $500,000 more in Baltimore this year than he would have in Denver.

Coffee tastes a little better this morning, doesn't it, Raven Nation?

This free hotel coffee doesn't taste any better, that's for sure. 

But...but...but I thought the Ravens would have to make a choice to re-sign Joe Flacco or re-sign Darnell Ellerbe and Paul Kruger? This isn't what we have been told by Peter though. We weren't told the Ravens could re-sign Flacco and still have money to spend. My world is absolutely spinning right now. We all remember...Alex Smith would be the new Ravens quarterback and then they would have him compete with Tyrod Taylor for the starting quarterback position and use the draft picks they got for Flacco to rebuild the defense? At the time, I stated the Ravens were simply trying to get some leverage in contract negotiations with Flacco by suggesting they didn't know if they could re-sign him, but Peter really, really super-thought the Ravens would think about franchising Flacco and then trading him. He can be so naive at times.

According to the Elias Sports Bureau, no Super Bowl winner lost more than five starting players from its championship team the next season -- until this year. Reed leaving for Houston on Friday marked the eighth player defection, trade or retirement since the Ravens won the Lombardi Trophy. Reed didn't play like a $5 million player last season, which is what the Texans are paying him, and he'll be 35 in September. It was time to move on from Ray Lewis.

Well, plus Ray Lewis retired. This played a big hand in the Ravens moving on from him.

The expected return of Lardarius Webb from injury negates the loss of Cary Williams at corner. And paying $9 million a year for Kruger, a good but not great pass rusher, or $8 million for Ellerbe (lifetime starts: 14) would have created potentially untenable salary problems in the future. 

Peter says this now, but I vividly remember him writing in MMQB the Ravens can't or didn't want to lose Ellerbe/Kruger and they were even willing to let Flacco go in order to do this. I keep bringing this up because Peter is acting like not keeping Ellerbe/Kruger was a no-brainer decision from his point of view. It wasn't. It's like me pointing out why it was stupid to pick the University of New Mexico to make the Final Four this year. I am using information learned after the fact to make it seem like my opinion at the time was different.

And now the Ravens won't open the season at home, the first time in a decade the Super Bowl champ hasn't opened in its home stadium, because of a conflict with an Orioles-White Sox game at 7 p.m. that day in Oriole Park at Camden Yards,

You mean this tradition that isn't really a tradition is going to end because of a stupid baseball game? It's ridiculous the NFL can't just get its way whenever it wants to.

The city's not big enough to handle a baseball crowd exiting the area at, say, 7:15, with much of a football crowd already there, or trying to wedge in there. And a long game, rain delay or extra innings ... a nightmare.

So the Ravens...they are going to have to play ON THE ROAD the first week of the season? But what about the decade-long tradition of the Super Bowl winning team playing at home the first week of the season? Doesn't Bud Selig care about that? Doesn't Bud Selig care about football at all?

One final point that too few people don't understand when it comes to the scheduling of this game. Super Bowl champs like playing the Thursday game. It's a scheduling advantage -- a big one.

I can't believe the Baltimore Orioles have the audacity to dare to not allow the Baltimore Ravens a scheduling advantage. It's bad enough baseball even exists, but now baseball is getting in the way of the Ravens having a scheduling advantage? One more reason to fire Bud Selig.

And they're not the only ones. It was an open secret at the league meetings that New England would have favored being the Thursday night foe for Baltimore to open the season, giving the Patriots an edge headed into Week 2.

So now the Orioles are inconveniencing the Patriots as well? The NFL owners need to call an emergency meeting where Jerry Richardson can use a pie chart to explain how much revenue MLB is costing the NFL and the Ravens, Jerry Jones can use his time at this meeting to sell the naming rights to the urinals in his new stadium, and Robert Kraft will do an interview with Ian Rapport where he blames Wes Welker for the conflict with the Orioles.

it seems like this would be the toteboard for the Thursday night opener:

Most possible: Baltimore at Denver (rematch of the Rahim Moore Bowl, with the Dumervil drama an added twist).

I feel like this "Dumervil drama" is totally made up by Peter. I don't feel like there is any real drama. Dumervil's agent didn't get the contract in on-time, partially because the Broncos and he didn't work out a deal until the midnight hour, and then the Ravens signed Dumervil. End of story for me at least.

Less possible: Baltimore at Detroit (though a Flacco-Stafford matchup would be fun), Baltimore at Cincinnati (meh).

In Peter's opinion the Ravens playing another 2012 playoff team would be "meh," while the Ravens versus the mediocre Lions would be just a really fun matchup. Not that Peter judges games based on the hype around the game and not based on whether the matchup would be a competitive game or not.

I had this thought when trying to figure out a way to solve this problem:

This story is only getting more and more riveting. Let's hear Peter's idea to make sure the Ravens open the season at home, as opposed to waiting an entire week to play a home game.

Let the Ravens play away on the first Thursday on NBC, and let them play home on NFL Network in Week 2 on Thursday, to celebrate the Super Bowl in style at home.

It's almost like this crisis was easily corrected and not really that big of a deal.

Baltimore at Denver Week 1, Cleveland at Baltimore Week 2. Genius move! 

Because no one wants to see Baltimore and Cincinnati play, but everyone wants to tune in to see Baltimore and Cleveland go at each other...presumably this is a grudge match that has something to do with John Elway of course. Maybe the Browns are looking for revenge on John Elway for "The Drive," and this can be shoe-horned into the narrative for this game because Elvis Dumervil used to play for the Broncos. Maybe there will be an entirely different John Elway-related narrative. Who knows? That's why we watch the games.

Then I looked at the baseball schedule: Yankees at Orioles, Thursday, Sept. 12, 7 p.m. Curses. But I will say this: Is there any reason the fourth game of a four-game series, on getaway day for both teams, cannot be played at 1 p.m.? Other than local TV revenue lost from turning a midweek night game to day, it's a point worth considering, particularly if the NFL would reimburse the two teams for whatever loss of local TV revenue there'd be.

Other than the lost revenue and attendance from turning a game against an incredibly popular team into a day game? No, there is no other reason that game can't be played at 1pm. Is there any reason the NFL just can't play their game at 1pm...other than the lost revenue from turning a night game into a day game of course? Oh that's right, the NFL isn't going to do anything to lose revenue, but they expect every other league to bend to their will when necessary.

And the Ravens wouldn't lose the edge of the mini-bye; it'd just come between Weeks 2 and 3 instead of Weeks 1 and 2.

And again, it's important the Ravens don't lose the edge of this mini-bye.

And if you're a Ravens fan, look on the bright side.

There will be eight home games during the season regardless of when the first game is played?

Now for a tribute to two of the greats of our day.

Ed Reed left Baltimore for Houston. Brian Urlacher left Chicago, and would like to find a home so he could stick it to the Bears. But before we move on, let's remember a few things about both men.

Did Urlacher and Reed die and I missed it? I know, I know, it is the offseason. Any half-assed story is a good story for Peter to write about.

On Reed.

Now, at 35 he's not the player he was, but the Texans know that. In fact, he plummeted from the NFL's 12th-best safety in 2011 to 59th in 2012, according to safety rankings by ProFootballFocus.com.

According to those rankings, Ed Reed isn't the player nearly every other safety in the NFL is either. He's almost the worst safety in the NFL statistically. This is very important information to know considering Haruki Nakamura exists as a safety in the NFL. There needs to be a "Nakamura Line" used in the NFL much like the "Mendoza Line" that is used in MLB.

But Houston bought him to be Ed Reed, and to let Ed Reed rub off on good young players like J.J. Watt, Brian Cushing and Whitney Mercilus.

And Peter is obviously jealous that Ed Reed gets to rub off on J.J. Watt (nope, not going in that direction with this next comment...though by saying "I'm not going in that direction," I am sort of going in that direction). What Peter would give to rub up against Watt, feel his arms and just mentor him. Maybe sit down with Watt beside the fire with a cold wheat beer in his hand and show Watt what it means to be an NFL player who is covered by Peter King and what to expect when Peter calls him at 3:30am on a Thursday night just because Peter wants to talk. It would be one precocious time.

Where I'd worry if I were the Texans: They could have kept a rising young safety, Glover Quin, if they'd committed to him instead of spending on Reed. They obviously think the intangibles of Reed's presence will help a team that's close to getting over the top. I'm not sure Reed has much left, but defensive coordinator Wade Phillips, the ultimate players' coach, will know how to get out of him what is left.

But are the Texans close to getting over the top? Are they like really, really close? I'm confused because last time I checked they didn't make the AFC Championship Game this year and the AFC South doesn't appear to be as much of a clusterfuck next year with the Colts on the rise and the Jaguars/Titans seemingly having a plan. I don't know. I see the Falcons, Patriots or maybe a team like the 49ers as really close to getting over the top. The Texans? I see them as a really good team that hasn't come very close to the top quite yet. I'd like to see them win a playoff game either on the road or not against the Bengals before I consider the Texans "close to getting over the top."

"I've been real mum on talking too much about RGIII. He wants his recovery to be fairly private,

Oh, well then I understand that. There's no need to---

but I can tell you he's way ahead of schedule. His recovery has been unbelievable so far. RGIII is one those superhumans. First patient I ever had like that was Bo Jackson.

But you just said Griffin wants his recovery to be fairly private...but then you go and say he is recovering at a superhuman pace. That's not really being mum nor keeping Griffin's recovery private.

And recently I, of course, had Adrian Peterson, who is also superhuman.''

-- Dr. James Andrews, the surgeon who reconstructed Robert Griffin III's knee Jan. 9, to Stephania Bell of ESPN. I can see the Washington head coach, offensive coordinator and front office shaking its collective head over the expectations that quote will create.

Hey, remember back when Lance Armstrong made a superhuman recovery from cancer and then it turns out he had some PED-related help in making that recovery? Remember back when baseball players were achieving superhuman feats back in the late 90's and early 2000's, but then it turns out they had help achieving these superhuman feats? Isn't it interesting how sometimes the public falls for superhuman recoveries that don't seem logically possible and then it turns out we are disappointed when the player used some sort of PED to aid his recovery? Think about how prevalent PED and steroid use must be in the NFL. Those guys are just huge, so color me suspicious when any player makes a miraculous recovery. My point is that I am always going to have suspicions of players who make superhuman recoveries from an injury and then achieve feats we didn't think were possible.

One reason women's college basketball still struggles for acceptance in the sporting society: It's just not nearly as competitive beyond the top few teams as it needs to be to get the average sports fan interested.

On Saturday and Sunday, 16 teams seeded either 1, 2, 3 or 4 in the NCAA women's tournament played. They went 16-0, by these margins: 68, 20, 17, 21, 26, 22, 14, 20, 34, 20, 16, five, 33, 16, 30 and 42.

This is kind of an unfair comparison. Parity hasn't exactly hit the women's game as of yet. If you notice, more and more there are upsets in the men's NCAA Tournament over the last decade because parity has hit the sport. The women's game isn't quite at that point yet. I get what Peter is saying, but there was a time when there were more blowouts on the men's side of the NCAA Tournament and #15 and #14 seeds had very little chance against #2 and #3 seeds. So Peter's point stands, but the problem with the women's game lies in other areas as well. Mostly for me it lies in the idea watching women's basketball is like watching two unathletic high school teams play each other.

In the first three days of the men's tournament, a 1 seed (Gonzaga), 2 seed (Georgetown), 3 seed (New Mexico) and 4 seed (Kansas State) all lost, as well as three of the four 5 seeds.

Again, this isn't an entirely fair comparison. There have been quite a few upsets and Cinderella teams this year in the men's NCAA Tournament, which has been unusual. If Peter is saying women's basketball lacks parity, that is true, but the men's tournament hasn't experienced #15 seeds beating #2 seeds for very long. No #15 seed had beaten a #2 seed until 1991 and four of the seven #15 over #2 upsets have happened in the last 13 years.

More of a "Life in New York'' note than a travel note: Walking down East 51st Street Thursday, on the way to the Sports Illustrated offices in midtown, I heard a distinct whinnying sound. A loud one. So I did what most people do when they hear what appears to be a person imitating a horse behind him -- cross to the other side of the street, quickly. Once on the other side, I looked over and saw a man, maybe 25, in a business suit, galloping down the street while slapping himself on the right hip with his right hand, whinnying like a palomino. Person after person just walked on by. No moral to the story. That's just what you see once in a while living in this great city.

I can't get enough of these stories about how crazy of a city New York is. I almost fell off my plow and spilled my whiskey all over the corn crops I was planting upon hearing about all these crazies Peter encounters in the big city.

Ten Things I Think I Think

2. I think the one thing I took from sitting in a group for 50 minutes and talking with Sean Payton at the league meetings is that he'll be able to put the pain of the past year behind him, because he realizes it's not going to help him win -- and it's certainly not going to help the Saints. I didn't hear him say a bitter thing in nearly an hour of reporters trying to get him to admit anger or resentment.

I'm really happy Sean Payton isn't bitter and is not being a child about being punished for lack of accountability as the Saints head coach when the Saints defense was placing bounties on the head of opposing players. What a man of great moral standing Payton is.

Also, if anyone thinks Payton really isn't bitter about being suspended for a year and he isn't going to use his suspension as a rallying cry for the Saints during the 2013 season then you are a naive person. Payton may not be bitter or resentful, but he is going to play up the fact he is resentful or angry when trying to motivate his team. I have no doubt about that.

3. I think I still wouldn't trade Darrelle Revis if I were the Jets.

We know, Peter. You think Revis deserves a new, huge contract because cornerbacks are just so absolutely valuable it only makes sense to set aside 8-10% of your salary cap space for one cornerback. We very, very much understand this.

And I think New York GM John Idzik will try to find a way to not trade Revis. But in the end, I believe he'll go to Tampa Bay for two high draft choices sometime before draft day.

And what a mistake that will be! Whatever on Earth could the Jets do with two draft choices and some more salary cap room that trading Revis would allow? Certainly they couldn't improve the team, that's for sure.

4. I think Bruce Arians sure didn't sound like he wants to take a quarterback with the seventh pick in the first round. He's not in love with any of the quarterbacks, and it's looking more and more like Drew Stanton will have the best chance to be under center (or in the shotgun) to take the first snap for the Cards in Week 1. "I feel comfortable with Drew as our starter,'' Arians said at the league meetings.

Then Bruce Arians immediately excused himself, went into the bathroom, and burst out into laughter until he cried while muttering, "I think they actually bought it" repeatedly.

5. I think eloquent linebacker Scott Fujita outdid himself Sunday in the New York Times, writing about his support for marriage quality.

Marriage quality? There is a movement for legislation to improve the quality of marriage? Boy, the government certainly does enjoy invading people's bedroom doesn't it? Trying to pass a law supporting the quality of marriage...

I agree with him on the evolving acceptance of gay marriage among players I've been exposed to in recent years.

Now the players that Peter has exposed himself to in recent years, well, they aren't so sure about the "gay marriage" thing. 

8. I think the Lions will have some intriguing candidates at No. 5 in the first round. If they choose to let Dee Milliner pass, which would be an upset based on the Lions' crying need at cornerback, 

Plus we know from what Peter King has told us about Nnadmi Asomugha and Darrelle Revis that cornerbacks are the foundation of any winning NFL team. Just look at how many Super Bowl victories those two cornerbacks have between them.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them strongly consider one of the two tackles likely to be there then: Oklahoma's Lane Johnson or Central Michigan's Eric Fisher. Both could step in and play right tackle on day one -- if the hype is right -- and replace Gosder Cherilus, who left for Indianapolis in free agency.

Protecting the franchise quarterback. What a novel concept.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

This is as opposed to his football-related thought that dealt with gay marriage. Of course Peter was linking a football player's column about gay marriage, so it was totally football-related.

b. Yanks-Red Sox opener a week from today likely to have Melky Mesa and Jackie Bradley Jr., in the starting lineups. No Jeter. No Ortiz. No A-Rod. No Granderson. No Teixeira.

And yet, we will all somehow manage to go on enjoying baseball when the Red Sox and Yankees don't have a roster full of well-known players.

g. My rotisserie baseball draft is Wednesday night. I have not looked at one season preview of any sort. I am concerned. I just hope I don't reflexively pick Pedro Martinez in the fourth round.

I would say that Peter is going to pick mostly Red Sox players anyway, but I'm not entirely sure Peter knows the names of any of the players currently on the Red Sox roster. Of course if Peter knew the names of the players he would probably just complain how overpaid and underproductive they were anyway.

i. Memo from a concerned citizen to our legislators in Washington: Do not forget Aurora and Newtown. Do not let the passage of time and the ardor of some gun zealots prevent you from taking action to limit the kind of weaponry and equipment that make it possible for mass killings to happen -- and from taking action to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. We're watching.

Because we all know how easy it is to determine if a person is mentally unstable or not, so it should just be easy as pie to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Limiting the kind of weaponry and equipment may be a good idea, but glossing over the whole "keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable" part isn't going to help solve the problem. Limiting guns is one thing, figuring out who doesn't need access to a gun is another...and nearly impossible to do.

j. Thanks for all the kind words and wishes on the new website I'm working to develop for Sports Illustrated. It's an exciting time.

Peter King is getting his very own Grantland. If this site means we are going to get more Peter King entertainment reviews or anything like political commentary, count me in as not excited.

l. Coffeenerdness: So I go into the SI office more than I used to, and the coffee there is the Green Mountain Keurig cups, and I've taken a liking to the Dark Magic blend. One request: make it darker.

Green Mountain needs to change their Dark Magic blend specifically for Peter King. Why wouldn't they change around their coffee's flavor to meet the needs of one person?

m. Beernerdness: Fitting, on Saturday, when I met the Varisco family of New Orleans at a West Village bar in Manhattan, that I had an Abita Turbo Dog. On a raw Saturday in New York, nothing like Louisiana's best black beer.

"I have been drinking more Bud Light of late and taken a liking to it. One request: Make it not taste like piss." 

The Adieu Haiku

If Revis must go,
get a one and two next year.
Free advice, Idzik.

Nothing's free except a little bit of bad advice. If the Jets traded Revis then they may (potentially) have a better overall team, but they wouldn't have the NFL's best (second best?) corner. What good is a better team without a Revis Island?

17 comments Jay Mariotti Hates Baseball and I Don't Like Him

Ok, so my mock draft started out well and then became a complete disaster. I know it is currently the middle of the NFL Draft, or at least the first day after the first day of the draft, so the NFL is on our minds, but let's talk a little baseball today. Once all the picks are in I feel like I can talk the NFL Draft a little bit more. Since it takes an entire 3 day weekend to get through the NFL Draft now, we have to wait to make decisions on how teams do. So the draft is broken up and I can't just give my impressions of the draft because it takes three damn days for the thing to end. Don't worry (though you aren't), I will give my impressions of the draft, I just like for it to end first.

Today, Jay Mariotti decides that he hates baseball and so he imagines problems for baseball that aren't exclusive to that sport.

First, I wanted to thank Joe Sheehan. Thank you. He has written an article that should shut up all the realignment talk in MLB that has pervaded the world of late. I saw the article and thought I was going to have to take on Sheehan since I assumed he (like many others) would be in favor of realignment, but fortunately he has written beautifully and correctly against realignment. Not to pat myself on the back, but what he says sounds a little similar to what I wrote last week.

What I'm describing is what the MLB playoff picture would look like if baseball was like the NFL, with 16 games in a season and 12 postseason berths. (The NFL advanced six teams per conference in a three-division structure with 28, then 30, teams from 1990 through 2002, before moving to the current four-division-per-conference setup.) Every team in baseball has played 13, 14 or 15 games, putting us at a comparable point to Week 16 of the NFL season, with two games left. And as is often the case in the NFL, there's little separation among them at this point.

I made the very nearly same point in my post last Tuesday about why realignment is stupid and the whining about the competitive balance of baseball being way off. It's simply not true.

From Selig's injection of the term into collective bargaining to the cries of media who have never grasped the economics of sports to the relentless praise of the NFL by its partners, competitive balance has been cited as one of pro football's biggest advantages over baseball. Every team has a chance to win in football, every season allows more teams to contend, no teams start the season without "hope and faith," and rarely are teams locked into postseason berths when camps break.

I wish I had written this exact article last Tuesday now. It's simply a case of small sample sizes making the NFL look a lot better than it truly should look in terms of competitive balance. If the NFL played 32 games, think of how far ahead the Saints, Cardinals, and Colts would have been from their nearest rival in their own division. They probably would have blown the nearest team away in the standings. That's three of the eight divisions that would have been blowouts.

That balance, however, is merely an illusion created by the structure of the two leagues. The NFL never has baseball's September, never sees half the league playing out the string over the final sixth of the schedule, because when you play 16 games, you simply cannot get that kind of separation.

This is absolutely true. It's boring to agree with writers, I realize this, so forgive me. It's a numbers game in the NFL though. There aren't enough games for the division races to get that wide open, like what happens in baseball. I don't see it as a fault of baseball, but more an advantage/disadvantage of the NFL 16 game schedule.

Here's the disadvantage of the NFL and it's "parity." One injury to a player or an ineffective player can effectively ruin an entire team's season. A three game losing streak can ruin a team's season. It's what makes the NFL exciting, but it also is a disadvantage in that the true "best" teams don't always make the playoffs every year. The NFL schedule also plays a big part in whether a team is successful or not, because a quality team with an easier schedule will make the playoffs (most likely) over a quality team with a tougher schedule. Why does one team get a tougher schedule? Because they dared to be a good team the year before or played a tougher AFC/NFC division than the team with the easier schedule because of how the division rotations work in the NFL scheduling.

I am not saying this is a terrible thing, but in the NFL a team has a smaller window to win so teams that start off well or start off poorly can have their season decided merely because of that. I am not saying this is all bad, I just wanted to show there is some downside to the NFL "parity," in that teams don't have much room for injury or failure. That also makes the NFL exciting.

Last year the Cincinnati Bengals outscored their opponents by just 14 points in total, but by winning three early games by a field goal each, two of them road games over divisional rivals, they set the stage for a 10-6 campaign and a division title. No one injury or brief stretch of good fortune can impact a baseball team's record in quite the same way.

Good teams prove themselves as good teams in MLB because they have longer to do so.

More teams do have a chance to compete in the NFL, but that's simply because "compete" has been defined as "stay around .500 for 14 games."

Burn!

It's not that one league's structure is better than the other. It's that the two aren't comparable in any meaningful way. MLB plays 10 times the games that the NFL does and has a postseason that is more exclusive by a third. MLB has significant in-season roster turnover, both from a minor-league system and via trading; the NFL has virtually none.

In a discussion on scheduling parity and overall competitive balance in each league, I don't think they are comparable because of the difference in schedules. I just don't believe a fair comparison can be done.

For too long now, MLB has tried to be like the NFL, emphasizing the postseason at the expense of the regular season while embracing the idea that every team should be competitive every year. It was a ridiculous notion in 1994, when MLB realigned and foisted a new round of postseason play on us, and it's a ridiculous notion now.

Somewhere people who favor every team being competitive every year are taking major offense to this statement. It would be nice to have every team be competitive, but it is also incredibly unrealistic. Pittsburgh and teams like that are such poorly run teams they have no chance at being competitive...and as long as the team is poorly run it should stay that way. It is harsh, but true.

MLB and its leaders should stand up and brag about the differences that make its game great. It should note the math of the issue, that the NFL's competitive balance is the natural consequence of a short regular season and a larger postseason, and that MLB's competitive balance, considered in the context of its own sport, is good.

100% agreed. Just last year there was a one game playoff in the AL Central because the teams had the exact same record after 162 games. That's good balance in the division to have teams end up with the exact same record after 162 games. There were other divisions decided by 3 games, 6 games, and 7.5 games after 162 games. That's not bad competition in each division.

Sure, the NFL had closer division races, but three of the divisions were decided by 4 games or more. That's over a 16 game schedule. How far apart would these teams be if they played 10 times this many games like MLB does? MLB has good competitive balance as long as you recognize how many games MLB teams play.

Joe Sheehan was right and I hope others who complain about the competitive balance of baseball read his article. The competitive balance problem isn't a baseball issue, but an issue caused by the large amount of games played.

-Before I get to the Mariotti article, there has been a marriage of Joe Morgan and Dusty Baker. Morgan will be working with the Reds in a front office-ish capacity, which ensures the Reds will sign no base-cloggers for the foreseeable future. It's always good to see two guys behind the times helping to work with a team that should be on the rise. It does also lead me to wonder if Morgan is working for the Reds, how can he call Sunday Night Baseball games for ESPN? Isn't that a conflict in that he may learn information in production meetings he can use in his role with the Reds? Does this matter? Shouldn't this matter?

Onto the king of annoying sportswriting...Jay Mariotti thinks baseball is "doozing into oblivion." I disagree. I know there are people who can't stand baseball or don't enjoy the sport, and that is fine, but I don't believe it is an overall trend. Last year baseball ended the season with the 5th highest attendance ever. This year, depending on who you want to believe, baseball attendance is either rising or declining. I think it is safe to say as a compromise it is holding steady. Most of the examples of poor attendance used in those articles are for Toronto, which isn't a good team so probably wouldn't have good attendance this year anyway. Mariotti doesn't see it that way.

There are times, such as just the other night, when an old man's game known as baseball sneaks up and reminds us that it still can be relevant. In the space of mere hours, Colorado's Ubaldo Jimenez became the first pitcher whose name begins with a "U'' to throw a no-hitter, a walk-encrusted treat followed by 18 scoreless innings -- did you spazz, too, when the screen flashed NY 0, STL 0 17th? -- that left Cardinals manager Tony La Russa again looking like a wacky professor who thinks himself into conundrums ... and 20-inning losses.

So the only way baseball can be relevant is to have baseball records broken every night? Why isn't this standard held to other sports like the NBA or the NFL? Baseball isn't so boring that an all-time record has to be broken to make it interesting. Records aren't broken in those leagues every night, yet those sports are seen as relevant, so why does it have to happen in baseball? Fans of baseball find the sport exciting even during normal games.

It's OK, Tony -- really -- to disrupt your rotation in mid-April and use a starting pitcher in the seventh hour of a game. Certainly, it's a smarter option than trotting out utilitymen Felipe Lopez and Joe Mather to pitch the final three innings.

No, Jay--really--it's not fine to disrupt the rotation to win one game. The season is a marathon not a sprint, and it is currently April. If La Russa didn't want to disrupt his rotation, he shouldn't have to do that. He's the manager and at that point, winning one game isn't worth it to him compared to getting his rotation out of whack. The Cardinals are in the middle of a stretch of 25 games in 26 days. Sure, the rotation could have gotten out of order, but there is a bigger picture managers have to look at.

"The outcome was disappointing, but the heart the club showed was amazing," La Russa said. "I give them a standing ovation."

If so, the manager should be booed to the Illinois side of the Mississippi River. And thanked, in a perverse way, for giving us something to argue about.

One thing I hate about sports today is that the mere playing of a game isn't good enough for the media. There always has to be "something to talk about" or an angle on the season or game to make it worth talking about. The competition of a game is no longer sufficient to entertain the media...at least it feels that way.

Not until Saturday night did I even know the regular season had started -- what with Duke vs. Butler, the Tiger Woods debacle, Phil Loves Amy, the beginning of the NBA and NHL playoffs and this week's primetime debut of the NFL Draft.

And of course because Jay Mariotti didn't know the regular season had started means no one else was paying attention to the MLB season. Mariotti has his pulse right on the nation when it comes to knowing what they do or don't care about...as can be seen by the fact nobody fucking likes him or even other sports journalists think he has not one bit of credibility as a sports journalist.

I swear, it could be weeks before the masses pay much attention to baseball, as evidenced by stunning sections of empty seats in one-time hotbeds with formerly packed parks -- Baltimore,

They aren't very good.

Cleveland

They are terrible.

Toronto --

Also not a very good team. Maybe the fact these teams aren't very good contribute to the fan's apathy towards attending games in those cities, rather than are indicative of a trend towards more fan apathy towards baseball in general. Really, that's too far for Mariotti to look. He prefers to make snap judgments based on initial impressions to seeing or hearing data.

The first weekend of Fox's game coverage was down 16 percent from last year's ratings and down 27 percent from 2008.

I am sure this had nothing to do with the fact these games were competing directly against the Masters and Tiger Woods comeback there. There is no correlation there, right? Two different sporting events on at the exact same time, one a normal baseball game, the other the 3rd round of the most prestigious golf tournament where the best golfer in the world is in the running for the lead after taking a break because of a huge scandal...should baseball beat the Masters out in the ratings in this instance?

If not for the usual high demand in stadiums where the home team either is adored (Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Dodger Stadium, Citizens Bank Park) or breaking in a new crib (Target Field in Minnesota), baseball would be a niche attraction.

Summing up what Mariotti says here..."If not for all the cities where baseball is hugely popular, baseball may not be popular at all."

I think this could go for almost every sport. We don't use the empty seats at Jacksonville to show that the NFL is declining in fan interest do we? How can we just rule out these six cities where baseball is popular and act like they are the outliers of fan interest when there is interest in other MLB cities as well? Jay uses three cities that have terrible teams as proof baseball is declining in fan interest, but doesn't think the six cities he lists that have a huge interest in baseball prove this wrong. Something is wrong with believing this. I think even staying at the same attendance level as last year or the year before is impressive given the state of the economy.

"It's definitely different. I was here in the glory years, or whatever you want to call it, when it was packed every night. It's kind of a shame to see it the way it is now," mourned Blue Jays manager Cito Gaston, who now sees crowds of four figures at Rogers Centre in hockey-mad Toronto.

Again, Toronto is used as an example of why MLB-wide fan interest has dived. In the glory years all the fair-weather fans will be out, so attendance will be good. No one is going to pay money to go see a crappy team play. That's pretty much been proven in every sport every single year. This lack of attendance in Toronto is a result of the Blue Jays not being a good team, not because fan interest has declined overall. If the Blue Jays were good, fans would be there. I truly believe this.

"I didn't hear anything -- just quiet," Orioles third baseman Miguel Tejada told reporters last week in Baltimore after a game attended by an announced 9,129 fans, the smallest crowd in Camden Yards history.

The Orioles aren't a good team. Also, the unemployment rate in Washington D.C. is 11.6% , 7.7% for Maryland, 9.5% in West Virginia and 7.4% in Virginia. That's most of the Orioles fan base right there.

For the game to resonate in the future, the fuddy-duddies in charge must recognize the importance of making the product faster, younger, sexier and more streamlined.

Because Jay Mariotti is the type of person who likes to bitch about problems and not actually fix them, he provides no examples or suggestions for how MLB can do this. He thinks they should just do it...somehow.

Football, more popular than ever, doesn't have those problems. Basketball, now the No. 2 sport nationally, doesn't have those problems.

No, what the NFL has is a huge labor problem that could hurt the sport tremendously and the NBA has massive financial problems with many teams. I think MLB wouldn't trade their problems for the NBA's financial problems at this point. MLB isn't a perfect sport, but neither is the NBA or the NFL.

Nor are the powers-that-be investing their time in the right places when they pull stunts such as banning the hoodie of a rare character, Tampa Bay Rays manager Joe Maddon, because the pullover sweatshirt he wore last weekend in cold, rainy Boston wasn't OK'd by the league.

Are the powers-that-be in the NFL investing their time in the right places when they fine players thousands of dollars for violating the incredibly strict dress code players must follow? The dress code in the NFL is as strict, if not more so, than the dress code in MLB. Just Wednesday Mariotti wrote an article about how Tim Tebow needs to save the NFL from hoodlums and yet here he is acting like the NFL has their shit all together, even when they do the same thing to their players and coaches MLB did to Joe Madden...strictly enforcing the dress code. On Wednesday, MLB relaxed the dress code and said Madden could wear his hoodie, you don't see the NFL relaxing the dress code too often.

I think most of the dress code violations players, coaches and managers get fined for are stupid, but this happens in the NFL and MLB.

Keep wearing the hoodie, Joe. Let them come and tear it off you. It'll be the most fun we've seen in baseball this month.

This is strange coming from the guy who earlier in this column claimed he didn't know the MLB season had started. It's amazing that a guy who hasn't been paying any attention to the sport can somehow know exactly how fun has been seen in baseball games during the month. Only in a Jay Mariotti article can you read about how a sportswriter hasn't been paying attention to a sport, but then he also claims to know everything that has happened in that sport so far.

Meanwhile, too many games still run much too long. That's why I applauded Joe West, the veteran umpire, when he trashed the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox for turning what should be baseball's best ongoing attraction into unwatchable TV.

This happened in early April. So the whole "I haven't been paying attention thing" was hyperbole or just a lie to try and act like Mariotti had a point?

"They're the two clubs that don't try to pick up the pace," West said. "They're two of the best teams in baseball. Why are they playing the slowest? It's pathetic and embarrassing. They take too long to play.

As I have stated previously, if Joe West wants to pick up the pace of the game while he is the home plate umpire, he has every right in the rulebook to speed up the game...but he doesn't take advantage of it. Lay down the law as the home plate umpire or shut up about the speed of the game.

Naturally, Selig toes the line, refusing to order the sport's two most powerful teams to quicken their act. "It isn't the time of the game, it's the pace of the game," he said.

I agree the Yankees and Red Sox need to speed up their games, but they aren't going to do so until the current rules, the same rules on the books, are enforced by the umpire. If the hitter is taking his sweet time getting back in the batter's box, the home plate umpire can warn him and then call an automatic strike. The home plate umpire can do this again and again until the game is sped up. The rules are on the books, they just need to be enforced. No team is going to listen if there aren't repercussions for not listening.

The best executive order would be to make umpires consistently enforce the pitch/hit count that already is in place -- if a pitcher or hitter violates the rules, he is penalized with a ball or strike.

For the third time...for the hitter this rule is already on the books. I am sure there isn't a way a sportswriter should know this rule, it is not like it is his job to cover sports or anything.

And forget about the grandest idea of all: shortening the regular season to 140 games. That's 22 games in lost revenue per team. The owners are in it for greed, remember, not to satisfy the paying customers.

This is a separate paragraph. This is all Mariotti mentions about this. He just says it is a grand idea, but doesn't explain why it is a grand idea or what it will fix. He just throws this idea out for no particular reason and proclaims it "the grandest idea of all." Like I said earlier, Jay Mariotti is a man who spots problems, but has no realistic ideas.

The fast start of the Yankees suggests a repeat championship in the Bronx, not a healthy happening for those -- namely, Selig -- who think the game has competitive balance.

See the Joe Sheehan column above.

The Steinbrenners are subsidizing too many teams as it is in a revenue-sharing climate, and when the Yankees keep winning titles in spite of it, it almost causes a plantation effect that doesn't inspire hope in the vast majority of cities.

One title since 2000. The Spurs are more of a dynasty in the NBA than the Yankees over the last decade and the Steelers are more of a dynasty in the NFL than the Yankees in that span too.

And when we aren't lamenting lopsided economics,

Which is true, but is more of a result of one team (the Yankees) being the lopsided one, and not an effect of 5-6 teams that spend way more than any other team. Also, there is no viable solution to this.

slow games,

Can be fixed by umpires following the rules on the books.

nose-diving attendance

Which probably isn't true, but if it is true, "nose-diving" is a huge overstatement. The economy can be blamed partially for this.

and low TV ratings, there is the issue of race.

Here we go with this issue. I sometimes feel like some sportswriters and critics of MLB's diversity think MLB intentionally leads minorities in a direction to play a different sport. MLB has done a lot to try and increase the amount of minority players currently playing. MLB is the most racially diverse major sport in the United States if you pay attention to how many different countries are represented, but that's not good enough.

The best young, black athletes aren't playing baseball anymore, which makes Jackie Robinson Day a bittersweet experience and leads some African-American players to publicly ask if franchises are participating in racism by not signing black players in the twilight of their careers, such as Jermaine Dye and Gary Sheffield.

The idea MLB is blackballing these two players is madness. I am sure if these players had reasonable salary demands for their age they would be playing right now. Where's the cry for John Smoltz or Pedro Martinez to get sympathy for being blackballed? MLB has tried to get minorities involved with the sport, but it is easier to play football or basketball growing up because you don't need as much gear or space to play. You need a glove, bat, ball for baseball and you pretty much just need a ball for football. Plus, baseball isn't as sexy of a sport as football or basketball.

The most important player for the sport's future, it can be argued, is Jason Heyward (right), the Atlanta Braves rookie slugger who looks like the next great player and has embraced trying to promote baseball in the inner city.

Yet, for as dynamic as Heyward is, does America know anything about him?

I would say we know more about Jason Heyward than has ever been known about a 20 year old rookie in MLB history. He has been profiled everywhere, including in a huge Sports Illustrated spread two weeks ago. He is 20 years old and now overexposed already.

The season will plod along, ebb and flow as always into October, but by then, the only people who will care are fans of the teams still playing.

This is absolutely not true. Fans of baseball will be watching these games.

Be sure one will be the Yankees, and that their games will extend close to four hours and well past midnight.

Of course one team will be the Yankees, they have made one World Series since 2001 compared to the Cardinals, Red Sox, and Phillies two World Series appearances during that time. The Yankees are just a shoo-in to make it aren't they?

But, hey, at least Joe Maddon isn't allowed to wear that darned hoodie anymore.

Baseball has problems, just like other sports have problems. I don't think baseball's problems are any worse than any other major sport's. There are people who hate baseball and that is fine, but there are also people who hate football and basketball. It doesn't mean any of these sports are declining. Oh, and Joe Maddon can wear that darned hoodie still.

Major League Baseball isn't America's Pastime anymore, but I also don't believe it is "nose-diving" when it comes to fan interest.

Feel free to talk the NFL Draft down below in the comments.

15 comments 3 Articles For Friday or How I Learned To Hate Realignment

There is one of my uncreative titles for a post again. Maybe I should think of more creative titles to draw in readers, but I sometimes don't have the energy to think of something uber-creative so somebody Googling a couple random terms can accidentally come upon this blog. It would be nice if that happened and I always encourage people to just check it out, but creative titles sometimes end up with the blog being found by people Googling terms like "Hitler," which I am not a fan of. So today I have three articles I want to cover.

There is still a few spots left in the Yahoo Fantasy Baseball league. Sign up if you would like to. The information to sign up is in yesterday's post.

Tom Verducci is covering the realignment plan that Bud Selig has. A good two years ago today I tackled my first Verducci column and going back and reading it is a mix of "that wasn't too bad" to "I am embarrassed to have this exist" so I am not sure why I just linked it again. Either way, two years later Verducci covers the realignment plan of MLB and I don't like this idea.

When baseball commissioner Bud Selig named a 14-person "special committee for on-field matters" four months ago, he promised that all topics would be in play and "there are no sacred cows."

Speaking of sacred cows, how about fixing the All-Star Game? I am tired of defending the All-Star Game for mattering because the winner gets home field advantage in the World Series. Isn't there another way to make the All-Star Game matter? I have defended the tying of the All-Star Game winner to World Series home field advantage before, and I would possibly do so again, but I am only one person. Fix this so I don't feel so alone.

The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

I am not a traditionalist and I am adverse to change in my life so I may be predisposed to hate this idea, but doesn't this idea seem dumb? I like knowing the Braves are playing the Marlins, Nationals, Mets, and Phillies in their division from year-to-year. I like this. I don't want to find out before the season the Braves are now in a division with the Pirates, Cardinals and Padres now. I don't want to be in that division (well, competitively it would look better than playing the Phillies).

I feel like Bud Selig wants to not be seen as a conservative, traditionalist, behind-the-times commissioner so he floats out the idea of a radical change. "Floating realignment" sounds like something that would be done to my car by a mechanic in space or something out of a science fiction novel. Throw in the fact I think the idea is dumb and I am not in favor of this plan. Radical ideas are great, stupid radical ideas are not great.

The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season).

Fine. Let's compromise. Do that, but don't change the divisions every year. Let the Marlins play the Pirates every year and draw 4,500 per game or make the Yankees have a harder schedule, but leave the divisions alone. The NFL is able to use this scheduling parity and keep the same divisions, baseball should be able to do it as well. Great, its done. I am glad we decided this in a timely fashion.

As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East.

As most things do in the world, this revolves around those two teams. Really, why shouldn't it? I am at the point I wish Boston-New York would just play each other all 162 games and the winner of that series can play the winner of the actual baseball season that happens during the year between the other teams in the American and National Leagues. The World Series wouldn't be the World Series because the winner would play the Yankees-Red Sox 162 game winner and THAT would be the World Series.

Why was no one concerned when the Braves won 14 straight division titles? Why wasn't there a call to end their reign in the NL East/NL West? Because it was just one team doing the winning and they would later choke in the playoffs?

In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths.

The Colts, Patriots, and various other NFL teams have made the playoffs on many occasions over the past couple of years and no one gives a shit about this. Why is it such a problem in baseball? Because they spend the most money? Yes, that's the real problem. It has nothing to do with competition or anything other than the fact the Yankees and Red Sox spend more money and make the playoffs frequently.

The Yankees didn't always have the highest payroll in the majors every year and they won World Series doing this, but this didn't bother anyone until they started spending more money...even though when they spent more money they didn't get a whole lot of postseason results for a few years. If I have learned anything about baseball, it's always all about the Yankees and Red Sox.

Will Tommy Hanson or Jason Heyward end up on the Yankees or another high spending team in the future? Possibly. Will this eternally piss me off? Hell yes, it will. Does this mean I think the solution is to float divisions every year? No. The Yankees and other high spending teams are still going to sign players from my favorite team when/if they become free agents. From a competitive point of view, I think floating realignment may work because it will spread the Yankees and Red Sox around so other teams play them more often. It doesn't mean I like this idea. If the idea is the Yankees or Red Sox draw more fans than other teams, then this will help draw fans in Pittsburgh when the Yankees play them 9 times in Pittsburgh, but it won't do much about the Yankees having too much power overall when it comes to signing free agents or do much about them winning their division every year.

For those that don't like the constant stream of Yankees and Red Sox love that seems to come from places like ESPN, changing the entire divisional format of MLB in response to how good these teams are won't do anything to change this. "Tiger-proofing" doesn't work as well in baseball I don't believe.

The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons.

They have been good teams. There is no doubt about that. How many times in that span have teams like the Dodgers or the Cardinals made the playoffs? I know it isn't quite as much as the Yankees or Red Sox, but other teams have made the playoffs frequently since the Wild Card was instituted. The Yankees and Red Sox are good, that doesn't mean we change the divisions around to prevent them from making the playoffs...at least in my mind.

One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East.

Here's the thing about reduced payroll. It's not always permanent. The Twins for example...remember when they were a small market team with a low payroll? Next year, they are schedule to raise payroll to almost $95 million, which just happens to be the same payroll the Braves (who are not considered "small market") have been stuck on for the past 10 years. I am just saying that payroll and money matters aren't always permanent, so to base the movement of teams on payroll may not work as well as advertised...I don't hate the idea, but I really don't like it.

The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight.

So every team gets a chance to have better attendance when the Yankees and Red Sox come to town? That's the basis for this it seems.

A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

I know Tampa Bay has only won the AL East once, but they did win the division in 2008. Nothing says they couldn't do it again. Baltimore could also build a team that competes. It's not like Baltimore is afraid to spend money, they just haven't done it wisely of late.

I don't hate the Yankees or Red Sox, but I think it is stupid to build an entire divisional plan around them.

Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs.

I'm just glad MLB is paying some lip service to the actual names of the divisions. But, the West Coast teams get screwed because they don't get 18 home dates against the Red Sox or Yankees. So the plan to help teams in regard to attendance only goes for teams in the AL Central.

Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions.

Teams changing leagues???? So one season the Cubs may have to build a team around having a DH, but then the next season they won't need a DH? If that happens, MLB has to either permanently get rid of the DH or use it throughout baseball. It's unfair to a team to make them change leagues, even if it is 1-2 teams every 5 years. American League teams build their roster slightly different from National League teams. Making teams change conferences doesn't make sense to me. I don't like this idea.

Interleague games doesn't bother me as much. I know those who don't like interleague play think it ruins the World Series. The ALCS and NLCS aren't ruined by those teams having played each other during the season, so I don't think the World Series would be ruined either by more interleague games.

"But if there is something that comes up we feel should be addressed during the season, we can make a recommendation then," said committee co-chair and Braves president John Schuerholz, referring to less complicated issues such as pace-of-game directives.

Let's take care of those less complicated issues, like the fact baseball games go too long alienating viewers and reducing fans' interest in the sport and games, later. Who cares if Andy Pettitte takes a fucking lunch break between pitches as he hides behind his glove and decides whether to throw to first base or just stare at the catcher for another 15 seconds...WE NEED TO MAKE SURE PITTSBURGH, A TEAM THAT HAS SHOWN NO INTEREST IN PUTTING TOGETHER A COMPETITIVE TEAM, DRAWS A GOOD CROWD FOR AT LEAST 18 GAMES IN A SEASON!

If MLB wants to deal with competitive issues, figure out a way to make the Pirates and Royals competitive, and then figure out why they insist on taking a crap all over their fan bases with shitty signings and even worse trades. Personally, I think the pacing of the game is a bigger issue at this point. It's not just Andy Pettitte or one certain team, pitchers and hitters take too fucking long between pitches. I know there is strategy involved, but the game would probably increase in popularity if it didn't take 3 commercial breaks to get through a late inning because of pitching changes or the pitcher is throwing to first base 4 times in a row. I don't find these issues to be that much "lesser" and I find them to be competitive issues as well.

The floating realignment idea is nothing more than a concept at this point, part of the brainstorming sessions that have occurred in the committee's one in-person meeting and occasional conference calls.

Well, I don't like this concept.

But what is important is that the committee is making good on its mission to look at absolutely any on-field idea that could make the game better.

Before realigning divisions, I think the committee should look at pace-of-game problems (especially in the playoffs) and finding a way to help other teams compete the way the Yankees and Red Sox have. I don't think changing the divisional alignment is the answer to this. I really don't think having teams change leagues (unless the AL West got another team, which I would actually think is a good idea) is a solution either.

Blowing up fixed divisions as we know them -- and even leagues -- certainly qualifies as radical thinking.

Radical thinking doesn't always mean "good thinking." I just don't like this idea of floating realignment.

-Bill Conlin has an article up talking about how the current Phillies infield may be the best infield ever. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but he says some things I feel like I need to talk about.

Imagine if Tinker, Evers and Chance had put up the kind of numbers that Rollins, Utley and Howard routinely put up.

That would have been awesome. Imagine if Tinker, Evers and Chance played in an era when the baseball being hit didn't have the density of a wet diaper. Imagine if they played when the ball when it with the bat would go about as far as a wet diaper also. Again, I don't want to sound like I am saying this isn't the best infield in the modern era, but I think to compare them to a 1906 team is a bit of a poor comparison.

In fact, I think this Phillies fan broke down the argument into numbers pretty well. I will let you see his numbers, while I pick apart what Conlin is writing with my words.

Now, Placido Polanco is back. Polly brings less arm to the position but is a career .300 hitter and will do some wonderful things in the No. 2 hole.

Is Polanco the #2 hitter for the Phillies? I know Victorino has been in that spot for all of last year and seemed to do pretty well there. He has speed and a .370 OBP in that spot from last year. I didn't know for sure and tried to find some factual information on this issue, but I think Victorino is going to stay at the #2 spot. Phillies fans, please correct me if I am wrong. I have looked at box scores for spring training and in some Polanco is in the #2 spot and in others Victorino is in the #2 spot.

My point is this may not happen. Polanco may not be the #2 hitter.

Polanco hit just 10 homers for the Tigers last year, playing in one of baseball's toughest home-run parks.

Ok, so we have Polanco with 10 home runs last year.

He has a chance to hit 15-plus in the friendly alleys of the Bank,

So Bill Conlin thinks Citizens Bank Park can add 50% more home runs to a player's total? This is where I am having the major problem with this column. Polanco has gone from a pitcher friendly park to a hitter friendly park, shouldn't this factor go into the "the best infield ever" argument? If Citizens Bank isn't a hitter friendly venue then how does Bill Conlin think Polanco will increase his home run total by 50% from last year?

J-Roll hit 21 homers last year in a season when he was MIA most of the first half. The Gold Glove shortstop has hit as many as 30.

I am not dismissing what Rollins has done here. Citizens Bank opened in 2004. Rollins' home run career high was 14 home runs before that point. After that point he has had 14, 25, 30, 11, and 21. Granted, this can be explained by Rollins being in the prime of his career from 2004-2010 also. Rollins has also hit as many home runs on the road as at home during every year of this period except 2006 and 2007. So Rollins doesn't seem to have benefited from Citizens Bank Park too much in regard to home runs he hit there. He has hit more home runs at Citizens Bank, but not too many more home runs.

The same thing goes for Ryan Howard and Chase Utley. They have pretty equal splits as well, so that theory has been debunked. So we can't really say playing in Citizens Bank Ballpark is the reason for these player's prolific home run totals. So basically if Polanco has similar splits to the other three parts of "the greatest infield ever" his home run totals won't be assisted too much by the move to Citizens Bank Ballpark. 15 home runs for him may be an overestimate.

Ok, moving on.

And ponder this . . . Has any non-expansion team ever had the three best players in franchise history at the same time?

WOW! Really Bill Conlin? Didn't Mike Schmidt ever play for the Phillies? Only for 18 years and can't he easily be considered the best third baseman of all-time? Isn't he one of the franchise's best players? Apparently not in the opinion of Bill Conlin. This is idiocy.

How about Robin Roberts, Chuck Klein, or Steve Carlton? I think it is a bit insane to call Rollins, Utley, and Howard the three best players in franchise history. Let's not get carried away.

The closest I could come was Roy Campanella, Jackie Robinson and Duke Snider from Brooklyn's Boys of Summer.

Still wrong. Sandy Koufax or Don Drysdale maybe? Why do they have to be hitters to be considered the best player in a franchise's history?

And how often have you seen a major league infield line up 1-2-3-4 in the batting order?

It's debatable if this is actually going to happen. I would put Victorino 2nd in the order personally.

it is hard to find infields that can match the Phillies' output. The Dodgers had two great ones in Brooklyn's Cox, Reese, Robinson and Hodges, then LA's Cey, Russell, Lopes and Garvey. But both fall far short in overall power.

And of course home runs and RBI's are the only way to determine whether a baseball player and infield is any good or not. There is no other statistic that can determine how good a baseball player truly is/was.

Pat Gillick was the Baltimore Orioles' GM in 1996, when an infield of B.J. Surhoff, Cal Ripken, Robbie Alomar and Rafe Palmeiro put up some sick numbers. With Rafe "With God As My Witness" Palmeiro leading the way by producing 39 homers and 142 RBI, that infield pounded 108 homers and drove in an amazing 420 runs, an average of 105 for each infielder. But, sorry, Palmeiro hangs an asterisk on those numbers.

Even though it was debatable as to whether Palmeiro was using steroids at that point. I searched and searched and couldn't find any actual proof that Palmeiro was on PEDs at that point in his career. It's possible of course.

It doesn't matter, we can't have the three best players in Phillies franchise history overshadowed by this Orioles infield. Conlin will just assume Palmeiro was using steroids at that point in his career. He probably did, but this is still a bit of speculation.

Feel free to argue. And maybe somebody can come up with an eight-line poem that begins:

"These are the saddest of possible words:

"J-Roll to Chase to Ryno." *

I am not arguing with or against the idea Phillies current infield is the best infield in modern baseball. A normal writer would try to back this up with actual statistics, but Bill Conlin is old school, he doesn't need proof for his assertions. I actually like the statistics the Phillies fan that I linked had put together. I tell you what I know for sure, Rollins, Utley and Howard are not the three best players in Phillies history though.

Also, did Conlin put an asterisk in there to insinuate either Rollins, Utley or Howard had used steroids at one point in their career? What's up with that?

-Mike Celizic has just noticed there is college basketball being played this season. This is one of my least favorite March sportswriting devices. The whole "I have paid attention to other sports since October but now I am going to pretend I am alerting you to the fact college basketball is currently being played now that it is March...even though I am the one who is behind the times on this issue."

It also shows that Celizic is behind the times because it is clear he hasn't followed what has happened this season.

It’s the first Sunday of March. And that means college basketball. It means Northern Iowa vs. Wichita State, a game most sports fans wouldn’t think twice about.

Of course. Because Mike Celizic doesn't care, obviously no other sports fan does either. By the way, I respect Northern Iowa, but I don't think they are a very good team. I have seen them play twice and they aren't bad, but they also haven't played a ranked team all year and otherwise the strength of schedule isn't great either. I am going to be interested to see how far they can go in the NCAA tournament.

This is the beauty of March. Wichita State and Northern Iowa are important.

I don't completely like college basketball polls, but I would argue that any ranked team is pretty important in a discussion on college basketball just based on their record. Northern Iowa has been ranked for a good portion of this year. In fact, they are currently ranked at #25.

My point? My point is that Mike Celizic just started paying attention to college basketball and thinks because the school name "Northern Iowa" isn't sexy, the team isn't any good. He would be wrong. They even had an entire Sports Illustrated article done on them. They have been fairly prominent this year and have had their games featured on ESPN a few times.

I am being a college basketball snob. If you haven't paid attention all year, don't write an article about what a great and beautiful thing this time of year is. That makes you a college basketball fair weather fan.

All but one has a conference tournament. Northern Iowa won, so the Panthers are in. Wichita State took a seat on the bubble.

If Mike Celizic had actually read the article he just linked, he would see that Wichita State isn't mentioned in that article at all. They are mentioned in an article that is linked on that same page, but it's pretty clear Wichita State is not realistically on the bubble. Barring a miracle, they are out.

When the smoke clears on Sunday, the tournament committee announces the brackets.

Thanks for the update Mike. It's nice to know this is when the tournament committee announces the brackets. Without Mike Celizic, I would be lost.

In some ways this week is even better than the NCAA tournament.

In no way is conference tournament week better than the NCAA Tournament. I love conference tournaments but I don't find them to be better than the NCAA tournament in many fashions.

There are more teams playing more games, and there’s more at stake.

There is more at stake, but there are also more games between teams that aren't very good teams. Also, there is just as much at stake in the NCAA tournament since if a team loses at that point, there is no other tournament for them to play in. The season is over once a team loses in the NCAA tournament.

Most have to win to get in to the big dance.

A lot of the drama is taken out of this because most of the teams that have to win to get into the big dance are eliminated fairly early in the conference tournaments. I can accept this argument more easily for mid-major conferences, because many of these conferences only get one bid, so the team that wins the conference goes to the NCAA tournament and the rest go home.

This is not a time of year when any team leaves anything in the locker room. It all gets spilled on the court.

Hyperbole alert!

For all but the nation’s elite teams, every game is a Game 7. There is nothing like it in sports. Game after game and day after day, the team that loses goes home.

Why is the conference tournament better than the NCAA tournament again? Because even for the nation's elite teams, every game is a Game 7? The same goes for the NCAA Tournament except generally good teams are playing good teams.

The games are shorter, and the shot clock is 35 seconds as opposed to 24 in the pros, which further shortens the game. Every possession becomes more precious, which ratchets up the intensity.

This column is useless. Mike Celizic is basically just reviewing the rules of college basketball in order to fill space.

Some college teams could play four games in four days. Most winners will play three games, sometimes in as many days.

This is the definition of a useless column. He isn't saying anything of substance here and hasn't done so yet.

And after this week is done and the field of 65 is announced, we get three days to get our office pools together. Then it’s Thursday and Friday, the two best sports days of the year, when we get 32 games at eight sites in two days.

So to review: In some ways the conference tournaments are better than the NCAA tournament, but the first two days of the NCAA tournament are the two best sports days of the year. Apparently Mike Celizic thinks the other 2 days and 2 weeks of the 1st weekend of the NCAA tournament are really boring. He sees the conference tournaments are in some ways more exciting, yet also thinks the first 2 days of the NCAA tournament are the two best sports days of the year.

This is not a completely contradictory statement, but really I think the first 4 days of the tournament are the two best sports days of the year. I would love to know in what ways the conference tournaments are better than the NCAA tournament? In both cases, if a team loses they are potentially done playing for the year, so that really doesn't make the conference tournaments better than the NCAA tournament.

Like the conference championships, they’re all fought tooth-and-nail: 32 Game 7s over two days. Where does it get any better than that? Don’t bother answering. It doesn’t.

Apparently the other 16 games over the next couple of days aren't nail-biters nor are they played like Game 7s. I guess in the world of Mike Celizic the other two weeks of games can't be described like this either even though they are all single elimination and in most cases involve teams with higher skill levels playing each other, as compared to the first 2 days of the NCAA tournament. Personally, I think the entire tournament is played in this Game 7 manner, I don't know why Mike Celizic only spotlights the first 2 days.

The selection committee is right. The tournament doesn’t need more teams. It’s not as if the added teams would be threats to win the tournament. Most would be threats to win one game. A few would win two.

I agree with Mike Celizic on this. Yes, the world may be ending. I did a previous post on this issue, but I think the tournament should in no way expand.

So if you’re not capable of winning it and didn’t win a conference, shut up and be happy there’s the NIT.

Of course how would a team really know if they are capable of winning the NCAA tournament until they actually play in the NCAA tournament? That would be the argument those who want to expand to the 96 team tournament would say. This was such a rambling article. It starts off with how good the conference tournaments are, delves into how good the NCAA tournament's first 2 days are, and finally ends with a fairly unpersuasive argument against tournament expansion.

The NCAAs and conference championship week is already the best month of any in sports. You can’t improve it. Don’t even try.

As I sometimes say in regards to many sports columnists, I can't believe he gets paid to write articles like this. It was rambling, pointless, useless, and provided us all with no new important information or a different point of view. It's just a typical Mike Celizic article.

I will have four more MLB previews up tomorrow.

13 comments David Schoenfield Wants To Realign Major League Baseball

I feel a dark void in my soul today. It is because Gregg Easterbrook is not writing his TMQ anymore on Tuesday and I don't know what I am going to post on Wednesday. It's a dark void that only more bad sportswriting from ESPN.com will fix. Fortunately I have found some. David Schoenfield who have highlighted briefly in the past here when he gave the free agent signings of Scott Boras clients a rating using little Scott Boras heads. Ranking these signings, he proceeded to give Kevin Brown and Alex Rodriguez two "Scott Boras heads," which means he thinks both the Yankees and Dodgers got the same return on their investment when they signed A-Rod and Kevin Brown, respectively. I could not disagree more with this. So this is all I know of him before today's article.

Today, David Schoenfield wants to talk about realignment in baseball, which isn't in itself a bad idea. Unfortunately, he wants to realign just the American League, not a whole lot of the National League, and only certain teams in the American League.

Apparently he published this a few weeks ago and I just noticed it. Better late than never I guess. He calls it an "outside-the-box" recommendation to increase fairness and hope for more teams in baseball, even though I don't necessarily see it that way.

In this article, I explained why baseball's competitive balance is better than you realize, actually on par with the NFL's.

I am not an ESPN Insider because I am not going to pay to read online content from ESPN. If every sports site went to where you had to pay to read the online content, this blog would just be me talking about sports with no articles to link or anything. I will not pay for online content...at least not at this point.

The basic premise of the original article David Schoenfield had written (which I don't have access to) was that the Yankees, who play in the largest market in sports, won the World Series in 2009, while the Colts and Saints met in the Super Bowl and they both play in small markets. So naturally, David Schoenfield says everyone will assume there is no competitive balance in baseball compared to football. Then I am assuming he tries to disprove this theory in his column.
Based on the content of this article, I wonder if he was successful in proving both sports have good competitive balances?

Back to today's article...

This does not mean baseball is "fair" and it certainly seems most fans desire the sport to be more fair. And what makes baseball unfair, mostly, is the New York Yankees.

Well naturally. They dare to have their own network, an incredibly popular team, a ton of fans (bandwagon or otherwise) which buy their merchandise and then spend the money they make on baseball players. It's very unfair the Yankees have a deep revenue stream and then spend that money in an attempt to improve their team. Assholes.

As you probably know, the Yankees spend a lot of money and win a lot of games. They don't win it all every season, but they won it all last season, so now everybody is again hyper-concerned about fairness in baseball.

I actually agree with this comment. When the Marlins when the World Series again over the Anaheim Angels, everyone will be talking about how the competitive balance in baseball is great. The one time in the last decade the Yankees win the World Series, they have become evil again and are the reason baseball lacks competitive balance. As soon as they miss the playoffs again, the competitive balance will be restored in the eyes of many.

The lesson? It's fun to watch the Yankees spend money on Jaret Wright and suck, but when they start spending money intelligently on the best players available it's no fun anymore. I don't like it any more than the next person when the Yankees can spend money and go get the best free agents available. You think I like that Jason Heyward, Jair Jurrjens, and Tommy Hanson are probably all going to end up playing in New York? I do not like this, but it is the state of baseball today and I don't know how I feel about putting a cap on how much teams can spend on players.

Of course, leveling the playing field is a difficult task. How do you do it?

A salary cap.

Perhaps, allowing a team an exemption to where the team a player currently plays for can offer more money to him as a free agent than another team can. I have absolutely no idea how to do this though.

If you created a salary cap of $88 million -- the average MLB team payroll in 2009 -- several franchises would likely go bankrupt or possibly relocate.

I am not up-to-date on finances in MLB, and I don't want teams to have to go bankrupt, but if there are teams that are relying on revenue sharing and other streams of revenue for their team that would be affected by the salary cap, I honestly don't feel terrible for these teams. I am a jerk, but an organization has to put a team out on the field that is competitive and if that market can't support a team then perhaps the team should move elsewhere where they can make money. Maybe I am off point on this, but this isn't even really the issue here, but it is just how I feel.

the final eight playoff teams are not allowed to add any new players through free agency except to replace those they lose.

That's stupid. You are essentially penalizing a team for putting together a good team.

So, yes, it's a complicated situation without an easy (or realistic) solution. That's why I'm here. I have one.

Change the divisions. Each season.

Each season? I have to say this is a pretty dumb solution in my mind. There are certain advantages to having teams be in the same division year-after-year. Advantages like regional rivalries, rivalries that develop between teams in the same division every year, and it doesn't confuse everyone when a team changes divisions every year.

I hate this idea. Changing divisions may be a good idea, but not every year.

Why does baseball have to keep the same division format every year?

Because it make sense for the sake of continuity and developing rivalries among fans and perhaps even the players.

Why should Tampa Bay and Baltimore always have to beat out the Yankees and Red Sox while the AL Central teams duel each other to 87 wins?

I do agree it is not completely fair that the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays should have to try and beat out the Yankees and Red Sox every single year. But life is not fair and the Rays have proven the Yankees and Red Sox can be beaten for the division title and even in the playoffs. I don't think the situation is as dire as many want to believe it is.

As far as the AL Central teams dueling each other to 87 wins...that is exciting. I don't see how putting a team like the Rays in the AL Central will make baseball more exciting than the race to the end of the season, and even the one game playoff, the Tigers and Twins had last year. That was exciting. If you add the Rays to the AL Central, they are still the 3rd place team because they only won 84 games last year, so it's not like adding the Rays or any other team outside of Texas (they won 87 games) would have changed the result in the AL Central. Sure, hypothetically this would have changed if the divisions were realigned and every team played a different schedule, but no one can say for sure.

Realigning the divisions doesn't do a hell of a lot of good because whoever goes to the Red Sox or Yankees division will still be second fiddle and there is no guarantee the playoff races will be even more exciting than they currently are. This is assuming the Yankees and Red Sox will always be good of course, which is a fairly large assumption. It is also assuming the only rivalry in the American League that matters is the one between these two teams, which I naturally don't like.

Why should the Angels only have to beat out three teams instead of four in the AL West?

The record of the teams the Angels beat last year to win the AL West:

Texas: 87-75
Seattle: 85-77
Oakland: 75-87

Texas had the 5th best record in the American League last year and Seattle had the 6th best record in the American League last year. Though Anaheim "only" had to beat three other teams, they had to beat teams that were better top-to-bottom (in regard to record) than any other division in baseball.

So the plan is to realign the divisions after every season. For the American League, there would be three basic rules:

1. This premise is retarded.

2. Somehow make this premise more retarded.

3. In order to make the premise more retarded, propose the players dress like clowns when they are playing the field.

1. The Yankees and Red Sox always remain in the AL East. It makes sense and it's good for the game.

So the whole "it's not fair to have good teams being stuck behind the Red Sox and Yankees" thing just goes straight to hell when it comes down to it doesn't it? So rather than have the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays know they are in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox and design their team to compete accordingly, let's just make random teams each season be stuck behind these two teams.

I agree the Red Sox and Yankees should be in the same division...with 2-3 other teams that don't change every year.

2. Tampa, Toronto, Baltimore, Detroit and Cleveland can play only in the AL East or AL Central. All five cities are in the Eastern time zone and having them play in the West creates logistical and television issues.

So the Orioles and Blue Jays will only have a 50/50 chance every year of being in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox? What a brilliant idea that in the end really does nothing! There are 10 teams in the AL East and AL Central and 14 teams overall in the American League. David Schoenfield doesn't think 2 of the 14 teams should ever change division and 5 of these teams can only play in the AL East and AL Central. So basically this realignment would only serve the purpose of making sure Toronto, Baltimore and the Rays only get stuck in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees every other year on average, rather than every year.

If anyone can explain exactly how, regardless of Eastern time zone restrictions or whatever he is talking about here, Cleveland and Detroit can't be in the AL West but the White Sox and Twins can be considered more AL West-type teams then I would love to hear it. I don't care about time zones, Chicago and Minnesota really aren't that much further West than Detroit and Minnesota. They all seem more "Central" to me.

3. The Angels, Seattle and Oakland always remain in the AL West. This makes sense for logistical reasons, as well.

Wow, so out of the 14 teams, 5 of these teams can NEVER change division. Also, the AL West will only change by 1-2 teams every year. So it is not really American League realignment, but more of a 65% American League realignment that pays attention to certain rivalries (Boston-New York) and ignores other rivalries that aren't as cool or popular (Minnesota-Chicago) or (Tampa Bay-Boston/New York Yankees).

Any type of American League realignment that changes every year is dumb in my mind.

Now, how do we disperse the remaining teams? Simple. MLB holds a big telecast two days after the World Series ends.

Which no one will watch. Or if they do, they will be pissed their favorite team is changing divisions again. I bet the Rays fans of the world can't wait to start their collection of "Division Winner" jerseys that have AL Central written on them for one year and AL East for another year...because that makes sense and all.

We put all the team names in a big ball like during the NBA lottery selection show. Teams send their general manager and a star player and Hall of Famers like George Brett and Reggie Jackson draw out the team names.

But will there be clowns? I fucking hate clowns, so that's the only way I could think of me having less interest in this idea..and that's if clowns are present. If this lottery happened once a decade...maybe I could go for it, but every year is a bit of overkill. Plus, have I mentioned I think it is stupid to have the teams change divisions every year? There is no way to keep divisional continuity and rivalries alive. It sounds so bizarre to me to have some teams change divisions every year.

You wouldn't watch this?

Who are you? Bill Simmons?

You wouldn't love to see Dave Dombrowski throw up in his mouth when the Tigers draw the AL East?

No. I would like to see the Tigers play in the AL Central every single year and not move divisions. I guess I am just an asshole traditionalist.

You wouldn't get excited to see Andrew Friedman high-fiving Evan Longoria when the Rays draw the AL Central?

The Rays would have been 3rd in the AL Central last year, just like the Rays were 3rd in the AL East last year. I realize they had to play the two evil teams in the AL East repeatedly, but there is nothing that says the Rays would do any better in the AL Central. They may not get a chance to play the Orioles or Blue Jays multiple times per year and could instead get stuck playing two other good teams.

Each division would rotate as the four-team division once every three years.

Which under David Schoenfield's "The Red Sox and Yankees are better than anyone else" theory is completely fair to whatever team ends up in the 4 team AL East division.

2010 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Indians	Tigers
AL Central	Blue Jays	Rays	Orioles	Twins	Royals
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Rangers	White Sox

This is David Schoenfield's 2010 alignment. Let's see how much more fair this would be if based on last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Twins
AL West winner: Angels
Wild Card: Red Sox

Hey! That's exactly how the results were this past year. Sure, maybe other teams might move up from 4th to 3rd place, but if the entire purpose is to make MLB more competitively balanced it doesn't really matter if the playoff participants don't change does it?

2011 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Tigers	Royals	White Sox
AL Central	Blue Jays	Orioles	Indians	Rays
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Rangers	Twins

Let's see how the playoffs would look with this 2011 alignment, based on last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Rays
AL West winner: Angels
AL Wild Card winner: Red Sox

So instead of a 87 game winner in the AL Central, which David Schoenfield found boring, we have an 84 game winner in the AL Central with the 3 other teams being under .500. We also would have an 86 game winner in 3rd place in the AL East, an 87 game winner tied for 2nd place in the AL West and an 85 game winner in 3rd place in the AL West. None of these teams would be division winners, but instead the 84 win Rays team will be a division winner.

Wow! David Schoenfield really fixed this competitive problem in baseball!

2012 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Indians	Orioles	Rays
AL Central	White Sox	Twins	Blue Jays	Rangers	Tigers
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Royals

Let's see the 2012 playoffs would shake out using last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Rangers
AL West winner: Angels
Wild Card winner: Red Sox

Other than switching the 87 win Rangers for the 87 win Twins (they had 86 without the one game playoff), we have the same result as 2009 and 2010...except now the 86 win Detroit Tigers are 4th in their division while the Angels still only have to beat 3 other teams.

I would love to have the time to go back and figure out what each division race would look like if based on 2000-2008 standings as well, but I don't have the time to do that today. I may do that at another point if there is enough interest in seeing the results of this.

My point is the realignment won't really change that much and teams are still going to be screwed over by being in tough divisions or helped by being in easy divisions. It's just they are only in that situation for one year and then the divisions change again. So rather than knowing they are screwed and planning accordingly, they will have to rely on the luck-of-the-draw to know which division they are in. I think this is dumb.

Aren't things suddenly a lot more fair?

As I just showed, absolutely not.

Sure, the Yankees still have their big payroll advantage, but at least a team like the Orioles wouldn't be completely screwed by having to compete with New York every season.

It's just every other team that appears in the AL East would be screwed at that point. It's more like we are spreading the screwing around (insert Tiger Woods joke here) Major League Baseball, which apparently is more fair in the mind of David Schoenfield. This is of course assuming the Red Sox and Yankees will always be the best teams. This is a fairly large assumption.

This divisional realignment every year will also not allow other teams to develop rivalries with each other since they may not play each other every year. For example, the budding Tampa Bay/Boston rivalry (I feel like there is one) would be gone. I think this is a huge disadvantage in realigning AL teams every year.

Tampa Bay, with its plethora of young talent and low payroll, would suddenly be the favorite to win the AL Central in 2010 and 2011.

Yet statistically the only time Tampa Bay would have won the AL Central in their entire existence is 2008, which is the year they won the AL East from the "unbeatable" Red Sox and Yankees.

So regardless of the Rays future prospects, I don't think it makes sense to just automatically make them the favorites in the AL Central nor do I think it makes sense to move teams around so certain teams can thrive.

The AL West would have more competition with the White Sox or Twins joining the division.

Again, based on recent history, the Anaheim Angels would have won the division nearly every single year regardless of the infusion of competition with the Twins and White Sox joining the division.

The National League hasn't had the same disparity, primarily because the biggest spenders (the Mets, Cubs and Dodgers) haven't been as successful.

Let's ignore the fact the Phillies have made it to back-to-back World Series and they had the 5th highest payroll (higher than the Dodgers) in 2009. Let's also ignore the fact the 3 other highest payroll teams in the NL for 2009 have made the playoffs on a pretty consistent basis over the last couple of years. Out of the 12 slots available in the playoffs from 2007-2009, the Phillies, Mets, Cubs, and Dodgers have taken 7 of those slots. So more than half the time, the biggest spenders in the NL made the playoffs.

Obviously, this isn't as urgent of a problem as that in the American League in the mind of David Schoenfield...even though it may be. I feel like he just got lazy at the end of this article and just didn't feel like covering the National League, so he made an excuse for how realignment isn't a huge need in the National League.

But you could certainly do something similar; for example, the Cardinals move to the NL East for a season with the Marlins moving to the NL Central (where they become the favorite to win the division).

You could do this and it would be as idiotic as it being done in the American League.

No, this wouldn't solve all of baseball's problems. But it is a realistic solution to increasing fairness.

I don't think it is a realistic solution because it just replaces which teams are the ones that get "screwed over" from year-to-year by being in a tough division. This doesn't sound like a solution to me.

It provides more hope for more teams.

Actually, it doesn't really do this. It just jumbles the teams up from year-to-year and ensures there is no continuity within divisions, and divisional rivalries take a backseat to a sense of fairness that still won't exist.

Not to mention, I don't get why we would pay attention to why it is terrible for the Detroit Tigers to be in the AL West, but it is perfectly fine for the Rangers to be in the AL East or for the Orioles to be in the AL Central. It's a very disjointed idea in my opinion.

It's time for the sport to think outside the box.

I like how David Schoenfield wrote an entire article, that I can't read because you have to be an ESPN Insider, about how the competitive balance in MLB isn't a problem...then he writes an entire article about how to improve the competitive balance in baseball. So it's not a problem, except for when it is. I don't think changing the divisions in baseball every single year is the solution to the problem (?) of the competitive balance in baseball.