Interleague Play How Would you Improve it.?

Question

I like the concept of Inter-League play but am getting tired of seeing the same "geographical" matchup 6 times each year. If say the Mets - Yankees or Cubs - Whiteshox only played each other every 3 years that would make those games more worth while. If you have a viable idea for Interleague lets hear it.

Answer 1

Honestly I wish they would get rid of it because it gets a little boring after awhile...I am so tired of interleague play this year. If they do keep it I definitely think they should get rid of the interleague rivalry games (i.e. Mets vs. Yankees, Cubs vs. White Sox, Red Sox vs. Braves, etc.) because they aren't that exciting anymore. Also have each team in a division play the same teams so it's a fair schedule.

Answer 2

I like inter-League play. I know a lot of people really don't think its a good idea, but I'm a fan of inter-league play because it allows people to see teams that it would be difficult to see. I live in Knoxville and if the Red Sox didn't play the Braves, it would be difficult for me to see them play. I do think it should be revised as well, though. I have 2 ideas to fix it.

The first is that each team in a division should play the same teams. There are 162 games, which is 54 3 games series. If there are 5 teams in each division then each team should play 5 inter-league series. This would keep the rivalry games, which seems to be important to baseball, and it would keep the teams on a level playing field with all the other teams in their division. For the divisions with 6 and 4 teams amend the inter-league series accordingly. That still leaves between 48 and 50 series for the teams to play who ever they want. There is also no reason for there to be 6 rivalry games. Either rotate the years that each team has the home game or play a 4 games series splitting the series between the 2 stadiums, rotating between who gets the Saturday Sunday games, this is the solution I think works best. This would throw off the balance of schedule by one game, but 1 games isn't going to make or break a team like a 6 games series.

My second idea is the one that most long time baseball fans seem to hate, but its my favorite. I think each every team should play at least once every other year. There are 30 teams, 16 in the NL and 14 in the AL. I think all AL teams should play 8 NL teams each year, rotating the stadium the game is played in. The rivalry games would then take place every other year. Since there 54 series there would still be 90 games left for the AL to play 14 teams, split up however they want. The NL would only play 7 inter-league games, so they would have 93 games to spit up between 16 teams. It would be easier if there were equal teams but with the Brewer's connection with Bud Selig, that's probably not going to happen.

Answer 3

I'd make the schedules more even, and get rid of most of these "rivaly" matchups.

They should schedule the interleague games the way the NFL schedules games. Of the 10 games an NFL team plays outside of it's division, 8 will be against common opponents with the other teams in this division. This is done by scheduling each team in a division to play all 4 teams in a particular division in each conference.

Right now the schedules are imbalanced because of the forced rivaly matchups--for example the Braves and Red Sox. The Braves left Boston over 50 years ago--these teams are not rivals! I remember a couple of years ago during rivaly weekend the Blue Jays played the Rockies. What?!?!

There are some rivalries that I think should be played every year though, like Yankees-Mets, Cubs-White Sox, and maybe Dodgers-Angels and A's-Giants. But I agree that 6 games a year is too much, so I propose this:

There are 18 interleague games per team each year. Each team in a division could play 15 games against all the teams in another division. Most divisions have 5 teams so it would usually work out well--5 series of 3 games each.

When N.L. teams play the A.L. West, which only has 4 teams, they could play 3 teams in a 4 game series to bring it up to 15 games.

When A.L. teams play the N.L. Central, which has 6 teams, they could play either play 3 games in a short 2 game series, or simply leave one team out.

The final 3 games for each team could be against any other team in the other league. Now for the teams with true rivalries I mentioned above, the final 3 games could be against their rival opponent, with the home team alternating each year. That way you don't have to give up the true rivalries, but you can get rid of the fake ones.

Answer 4

I think your idea of having the Yankees-Mets play only once every three years sounds great but there is no chance of it ever happening. They have sold out every single game they played since interleague began in '97 so from a supply and demand standpoint the clear arguement is that there are too few games and in fact they should play more than the 6 until they start having empty seats. I don't that would be good but I wouldn't mind seeing an odd number of games, 7 would be ideal, the last two years they have each won 3 so no one got true bragging rights.

Answer 5

1. Eliminate it.

Okay, that's not really practical, so...

2. Reduce it to 6-10 games per season. Dump three-game series in favor of two-game series. "Rivalry" series (NY, Chicago, etc) get to play two-and-twos on consecutive weekends. (This mucks up the schedule, but the schedule is already pretty mucked up as is. Six "rivalry" games is too many. Four is palatable.)

3. Memorial Day is always part of the fun.

Bonus concept: for the geographically close ones, one full weekend: one team home on Friday, the other on Saturday, and a day-night, two-site doubleheader on Sunday. ESPN would go nuts. These could be spread out -- LA/Anaheim on the first weekend, Chicago on the second, SF/Oakland the third, and save Noo Yawk for the marquee finale.

Oh, last thing. Visitor rules apply -- DHs in the NL parks, no DHs in the AL. If, as MLB claims (and it's just lip service, but let's force-feed it back), interleague is intended to let fans see teams they typically would not be able to, should not interleague games then showcase THE ENTIRE TEAM? AL teams use DHs, but fans at NL-visited parks are currently denied that. Similarly, don't AL fans want to see those famous NL big-hittin' pitchers (snicker)? Visitor rules.

Answer 6

Get rid of it. It was fun at first but with the scheduling it is a bit ridiculous. The divisional teams don't even have same IL schedule. For example the Braves don't play NYY but the Mets do. I don't think the Mets play Boston but the Braves do. It's not balanced at all. I mean it is very unfair how some teams get off scott free with weak IL play and others get shafted. I was fine with baseball before IL play and I would be fine now without it. I think it is more interesting come WS time when that's the first time the teams face each other. It's like two different leagues and then in one defining moment the best of each league face each other. I miss that.

Answer 7

ok we could in simple terms think of roughly that lower back. i'm an NL fan and that i nonetheless no that the NL has lots of communities that couldnt beat my grandma. the AL had stable communities or perhaps the ROYALS had a over 500. checklist in interleague play. THE NL will continually be the greater serious league because of the fact we r the NL. Wait some years whilst howard, wright, and reyes are the main appropriate stars. yet for now u gotta say that the AL remains the DOMINATOR!

Answer 8

Expansion for One, Four Divisions for Teams for Two and making such the Play their Close Inter league rival plus at least Four teams from that Division for Three.

Answer 9

Here's an idea, instead of having all Interleague Series in the same few weeks, put a interleague series every week.

Answer 10

Play different teams each year. If your team never makes it to a World Series you will have a chance of seeing a team from a different league.