From The Athletic:
Feb 7, 2023
221
Another MLB season is almost here, and despite the many changes to the game this year — from new rules to a new schedule — 30 teams from six divisions will take the field on Opening Day, as they have for 25 years. But make no mistake, expansion is coming, and when it eventually arrives, it could — and should — lead to a radical realignment of the league.
When I spoke to commissioner Rob Manfred at the World Series last October, I asked if expansion was still on the table, and he assured me it was. Manfred said, as he has for many years, that the Tampa Bay Rays and Oakland A’s respective stadium issues must be resolved first, and he acknowledged that has taken much longer than expected.
But it’s clear the commissioner and the club owners he represents want to expand to 32 teams soon. What’s less clear is “where to?” and “what’s next?”
Manfred hasn’t indicated what cities could be the front-runners, though he has previously named potential expansion locations such as Nashville (Tenn.), Charlotte (N.C.), Portland (Ore.) and Las Vegas, as well as Montreal and Vancouver in Canada. (The Athletic recently examined four of those options in stories that we’ve linked to here.)
So, once the stars align for expansion, what’s next for baseball?
It’s way too early to say, of course. But when MLB finally expands to 32 teams, it should seize the opportunity to implement a dramatic geographic realignment of the sport. The league could do so while maintaining the American League and National League framework, but a complete overhaul would arguably maximize revenue and certainly improve the travel burden on teams.
MLB has carefully considered geographic realignment for years, and Manfred cited “a more geography-based alignment” as a benefit of expansion in an interview with The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal in 2018.
It’s impossible to predict what will happen because there are so many expansion variables and scenarios. Yes, the AL and NL could survive. But I think the move to 32 teams is the perfect time to do away with those leagues and form Eastern and Western conferences consisting of four geographically-aligned divisions apiece. Four teams per division, 16 teams per conference. With significantly more interleague play (46 games per team per season, starting this year) and the universal designated hitter, there’s no reason — beyond tradition and losing some rivalries — to keep the present infrastructure.
Think about what MLB would gain. Leaning into geographic rivalries would likely increase attendance and excitement in the regions where each team is located. Imagine divisions that featured the Mets and Yankees, Dodgers and Angels, Giants and A’s, Royals and Cardinals, Rangers and Astros, Marlins and Rays, and Orioles and Nationals. It would be easier for fans to travel to see their teams play.
MLB could maintain the 12-team postseason field, with six clubs from each conference — the four division winners and two wild-card berths — and the playoffs could be structured in a similar manner to last year if desired. Or not!
So what could the new conferences and divisions look like? Just for fun, here’s the Bowden Realignment Plan. (For this exercise, I included Charlotte and Nashville as the expansion cities, both in the Eastern Conference, and left open the possibility of the A’s remaining in Oakland or moving to Las Vegas.)
New York Mets
New York Yankees
Philadelphia Phillies
Cleveland Guardians
Detroit Tigers
Toronto Blue Jays
Charlotte expansion team
Pittsburgh Pirates
Washington Nationals
Miami Marlins
Nashville expansion team
Tampa Bay Rays
Chicago White Sox
Milwaukee Brewers
Minnesota Twins
Kansas City Royals
St. Louis Cardinals
Texas Rangers
Oakland/Las Vegas A’s
Seattle Mariners
San Francisco Giants
Los Angeles Angels
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
Can you imagine the EC East? You’d have the New York rivalry of the Yankees and Mets combined with two of the other biggest markets in the sport, Boston and Philadelphia. All four would duke it out in the same division, without a single small-market team having to worry about the payroll disparities.
Or how about the WC West? You’d get all the Southern California teams along with the Diamondbacks — making home and away travel more feasible for avid fans. And in the WC Pacific Coast, the Seattle Mariners players will get a bit of a reprieve, with road division games that are closer than what they’re dealing with now.
Bottom line: Geographic realignment would enhance the schedule and save teams considerable time and expense that’s currently consumed by unnecessary travel. I hope to see it happen when MLB expands, and the sooner the better. How about you?
Bowden: MLB expansion should include geographic realignment — so let’s build new divisions
Jim BowdenFeb 7, 2023
221
Another MLB season is almost here, and despite the many changes to the game this year — from new rules to a new schedule — 30 teams from six divisions will take the field on Opening Day, as they have for 25 years. But make no mistake, expansion is coming, and when it eventually arrives, it could — and should — lead to a radical realignment of the league.
When I spoke to commissioner Rob Manfred at the World Series last October, I asked if expansion was still on the table, and he assured me it was. Manfred said, as he has for many years, that the Tampa Bay Rays and Oakland A’s respective stadium issues must be resolved first, and he acknowledged that has taken much longer than expected.
But it’s clear the commissioner and the club owners he represents want to expand to 32 teams soon. What’s less clear is “where to?” and “what’s next?”
Manfred hasn’t indicated what cities could be the front-runners, though he has previously named potential expansion locations such as Nashville (Tenn.), Charlotte (N.C.), Portland (Ore.) and Las Vegas, as well as Montreal and Vancouver in Canada. (The Athletic recently examined four of those options in stories that we’ve linked to here.)
So, once the stars align for expansion, what’s next for baseball?
It’s way too early to say, of course. But when MLB finally expands to 32 teams, it should seize the opportunity to implement a dramatic geographic realignment of the sport. The league could do so while maintaining the American League and National League framework, but a complete overhaul would arguably maximize revenue and certainly improve the travel burden on teams.
MLB has carefully considered geographic realignment for years, and Manfred cited “a more geography-based alignment” as a benefit of expansion in an interview with The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal in 2018.
It’s impossible to predict what will happen because there are so many expansion variables and scenarios. Yes, the AL and NL could survive. But I think the move to 32 teams is the perfect time to do away with those leagues and form Eastern and Western conferences consisting of four geographically-aligned divisions apiece. Four teams per division, 16 teams per conference. With significantly more interleague play (46 games per team per season, starting this year) and the universal designated hitter, there’s no reason — beyond tradition and losing some rivalries — to keep the present infrastructure.
Think about what MLB would gain. Leaning into geographic rivalries would likely increase attendance and excitement in the regions where each team is located. Imagine divisions that featured the Mets and Yankees, Dodgers and Angels, Giants and A’s, Royals and Cardinals, Rangers and Astros, Marlins and Rays, and Orioles and Nationals. It would be easier for fans to travel to see their teams play.
MLB could maintain the 12-team postseason field, with six clubs from each conference — the four division winners and two wild-card berths — and the playoffs could be structured in a similar manner to last year if desired. Or not!
So what could the new conferences and divisions look like? Just for fun, here’s the Bowden Realignment Plan. (For this exercise, I included Charlotte and Nashville as the expansion cities, both in the Eastern Conference, and left open the possibility of the A’s remaining in Oakland or moving to Las Vegas.)
Eastern Conference
East Division
Boston Red SoxNew York Mets
New York Yankees
Philadelphia Phillies
North Division
Cincinnati RedsCleveland Guardians
Detroit Tigers
Toronto Blue Jays
Mid-Atlantic Division
Baltimore OriolesCharlotte expansion team
Pittsburgh Pirates
Washington Nationals
Southeast Division
Atlanta BravesMiami Marlins
Nashville expansion team
Tampa Bay Rays
Western Conference
Midwest Division
Chicago CubsChicago White Sox
Milwaukee Brewers
Minnesota Twins
Southwest Division
Houston AstrosKansas City Royals
St. Louis Cardinals
Texas Rangers
Pacific Coast Division
Colorado RockiesOakland/Las Vegas A’s
Seattle Mariners
San Francisco Giants
West Division
Arizona DiamondbacksLos Angeles Angels
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
Can you imagine the EC East? You’d have the New York rivalry of the Yankees and Mets combined with two of the other biggest markets in the sport, Boston and Philadelphia. All four would duke it out in the same division, without a single small-market team having to worry about the payroll disparities.
Or how about the WC West? You’d get all the Southern California teams along with the Diamondbacks — making home and away travel more feasible for avid fans. And in the WC Pacific Coast, the Seattle Mariners players will get a bit of a reprieve, with road division games that are closer than what they’re dealing with now.
Bottom line: Geographic realignment would enhance the schedule and save teams considerable time and expense that’s currently consumed by unnecessary travel. I hope to see it happen when MLB expands, and the sooner the better. How about you?
