The easy way out, which I have taken many times, is to put the knock on anything new. Mostly, I am against so-called progress, on and off the field. I held this view 24 years ago when the National and American leagues, after expanding to 12 teams each, divided into six-team divisions, East and West.
It won’t work, the purist in me insisted.
The late Warren Giles agreed. Giles was then president of the NL. He also expressed concern it would be possible the first-place team in one division could have a lower winning percentage than the second-place team in the other division and still qualify for the World Series.
An obvious impurity.
And so what happened? It wasn’t until the fourth year of divisional play, in 1972, that a team with a lesser won-and-loss record won a pennant. And almost nobody noticed what three years earlier had been considered a potential abomination.
Not only has play continued without complaint, but attendance records have been set almost annually as well. When I read baseball is dying, I can’t help but think of the Toronto Blue Jays, who in each of the last two years have had a home gate in excess of 4 million.
Or the Cubs. Counting no-shows, the Cubs’ ticket sales in recent years have approached 3 million; or the small-market Baltimore Orioles, who last season had a profit of approximately $25 million.
The owners are now in the midst of giving birth to an even more astonishing change: six divisions, three in each league; an extra tier of postseason playoffs and a “limited” slate of interleague games-Cubs vs. White Sox; Yankees vs. Mets; Dodgers vs. Angels, etc.
I have learned my lesson and am in support of the new deal. If it goes through, as planned, it would help bring the grand old game into the 21st century.
With eight teams instead of four eligible for the playoffs, fan interest will be increased. As Bud Selig, the commissioner pro-tem, explained, “Eight teams out of 28 is not an excessive number.”
Selig, of course, is correct. In the National Football League, 12 of 28 teams qualify; 16 of 27 in the National Basketball Association, 16 of 24 in the National Hockey League. I dislike these comparisons; it’s blasphemy. In the other professional sports, the regular-season schedules are virtually meaningless.
More Top Picks Best Lightweight Tripods For Travel Photography 2
As for the possibility of interleague play, I previously have been against anything that would weaken the rivalry between the two leagues and diminish the World Series. But I’m switching on that, too. Ten or 20 interleague games should not damage the “integrity” of the Series.
More than likely, the new three-division alignment would be as follows:
National League East-Florida, Montreal, New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; NL Central-Cubs, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Houston and St. Louis; NL West-Colorado, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.
American League East-Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, New York and Toronto; AL Central-White Sox, Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Minnesota; AL West-California, Seattle, Oakland and Texas.
Two schedules are being drawn, one with interleague play, one without. Assuming there will be 20 interleague games, each team would cross over into the other league and play each team in the “matching” division four times.
For example, the Cubs and White Sox would play four games, two home, two away.
The Cubs also would play the same number of games against Milwaukee, Minnesota, Kansas City and Cleveland. In addition to their four skirmishes with the Cubs, the White Sox schedule would include four games against St. Louis, Atlanta, St. Louis and Houston.
If the interleague competition is limited to 10 games, there would be only two games between clubs in the “matching” divisions. In the case of the Cubs and White Sox, they would meet once at Wrigley Field and once at Comiskey Park.
Some debate among the owners can be expected, not on the schedule but on which teams are assigned to the various divisions. But these arguments will not be of major consequence. Sooner or later, agreement will be reached.
During the owners’ meeting here Thursday, John Harrington of the Red Sox, co-chairman of the rescheduling committee, told his compatriots that in its various fan polls, 45 percent of those interviewed favored three divisions.
George W. Bush, one of the general partners of the Texas Rangers and the son of the former United States president, provided a moment of amusement. Said George W.: “If my father had received 45 percent of the vote he would still be president.”
The more difficult problem for the owners is their attempt for revenue sharing and/or a salary cap that is one and the same. To hasten this task, the owners agreed to show each other their financial statements. The vote was 27-1, with George Steinbrenner of the Yankees objecting.
The owners realize the Major League Players Association will not consider revenue sharing without this information. Still, there is a greater problem to solve. If there is revenue sharing, what revenue will be withheld? In other words, the owners are likely to advise the players that income from parking, concessions, etc., should not be thrown into the pot.
Already, the “games” are beginning. Some clubs, for example, have begun talking about reworking their stadium lease costs in an effort to exempt, say, parking revenue. As one owner said, “Sometimes we can’t trust each other.”
Much has been said against the owners; they seem to be wandering aimlessly in crucial off-the-field concerns. Fact is, they are trying to solve all their problems simultaneously: realignment, expanded playoffs and an agreeable salary-cap arrangement with the players union. If they succeed, the aggregate achievement would be enormous.