4E636E7F78697E3E3D0C0 wrote: Changing the schedule would basically nullify season ticket and advanced sales. Fans could have tickets for games when a new schedule has an off day or the team is away instead of home. Not to mention against different opponents from what the fans expected to see when the tickets were bought. I think they would have to use the existing schedule from whatever point games were resumed.
As a STH, some info passed on from the Pirates. Those of us using their installment plan, the final installment will not be charged (it was going to be yesterday). They have to wait until MLB sets a schedule. At that point, they will rework and reprice STH packages. I have a half season weekend plan. If the season were to be delayed only two weeks, and pick up from there, my plan, I only miss three games. Depending on which package, a half season mid week plan could result in 6-8 games affected.
Individual game tickets will no doubt be treated in a similar way they did with Spring Training. People will be given an option of a refund, a credit to a future game, or exchange for a specific date.
When you think of the logistics of reworking a new schedule, there is no way MLB starts by mid April, unless they just go with "pick it up from here". Dates where teams are on the road are not necessarily available for a new, reworked home date, for instance, PNC Park has two August concerts that the Pirates won't be able to use the park.
Season Prediction thread! ;)
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Season Prediction thread! ;)
4D676C5C6B7D7D711E0 wrote:
That could happen, Doc. Who do you see getting the two expansion teams? I have long thought that Charlotte and Las Vegas are underserved major markets.
A few cities that I'd like to see considered:
--a third team in New York. They used to have three (Yankees, Giants, Dodgers), have the population to support three (Brooklyn alone would be something like the tenth largest city in the U.S.), and have three NHL teams (Devils are technically New Jersey, but NYC metro area)
--Vegas...already have an NHL and NFL team. Why not add MLB?
--New Orleans
--Indianapolis (Vegas, NO, and Indy already have AAA teams)
--Montreal...give them a second shot, and the team should absolutely be called the Expos
--Mexico City...big problem here would be exchange rate between dollars and pesos, not nearly as wide a gap as U.S. and Canadian dollars, but I don't think insurmountable
--San Juan, Puerto Rico
--Charlotte
That could happen, Doc. Who do you see getting the two expansion teams? I have long thought that Charlotte and Las Vegas are underserved major markets.
A few cities that I'd like to see considered:
--a third team in New York. They used to have three (Yankees, Giants, Dodgers), have the population to support three (Brooklyn alone would be something like the tenth largest city in the U.S.), and have three NHL teams (Devils are technically New Jersey, but NYC metro area)
--Vegas...already have an NHL and NFL team. Why not add MLB?
--New Orleans
--Indianapolis (Vegas, NO, and Indy already have AAA teams)
--Montreal...give them a second shot, and the team should absolutely be called the Expos
--Mexico City...big problem here would be exchange rate between dollars and pesos, not nearly as wide a gap as U.S. and Canadian dollars, but I don't think insurmountable
--San Juan, Puerto Rico
--Charlotte
Season Prediction thread! ;)
To help balance out geographically, teams toward the west would make sense. Vegas certainly.
Season Prediction thread! ;)
Portland
A third team in LA
Maybe Vancouver? Just thinking outside the box a little.
Salt Lake City?
Problem is, most of the major western markets already have teams, e.g. Denver, Phoenix, Seattle, LA (two), San Fran, Oakland, San Diego. What other western cities are there?
Cheyenne is way too small and is the biggest city in Wyoming. Ditto Helena in Montana. Ditto Boise, ID. I'm not sure about New Mexico. I think their biggest city is Albuquerque. Don't know much about that place. One possibility is Nebraska. Omaha already has a AAA team and is 45 minutes from Lincoln. Between the two metro areas, there's probably 1 million people.
Also, I realize "west" to an Iowan is different than "west" to a Pennsylvanian.
A third team in LA
Maybe Vancouver? Just thinking outside the box a little.
Salt Lake City?
Problem is, most of the major western markets already have teams, e.g. Denver, Phoenix, Seattle, LA (two), San Fran, Oakland, San Diego. What other western cities are there?
Cheyenne is way too small and is the biggest city in Wyoming. Ditto Helena in Montana. Ditto Boise, ID. I'm not sure about New Mexico. I think their biggest city is Albuquerque. Don't know much about that place. One possibility is Nebraska. Omaha already has a AAA team and is 45 minutes from Lincoln. Between the two metro areas, there's probably 1 million people.
Also, I realize "west" to an Iowan is different than "west" to a Pennsylvanian.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Season Prediction thread! ;)
How about Calgary?
Granted it wasn't the first on my mind either, but it's the 3rd largest city in Canada
Granted it wasn't the first on my mind either, but it's the 3rd largest city in Canada
-
johnfluharty
Season Prediction thread! ;)
0D0506312702252A440 wrote:
That could happen, Doc. Who do you see getting the two expansion teams? I have long thought that Charlotte and Las Vegas are underserved major markets.
A few cities that I'd like to see considered:
--a third team in New York. They used to have three (Yankees, Giants, Dodgers), have the population to support three (Brooklyn alone would be something like the tenth largest city in the U.S.), and have three NHL teams (Devils are technically New Jersey, but NYC metro area)
--Vegas...already have an NHL and NFL team. Why not add MLB?
--New Orleans
--Indianapolis (Vegas, NO, and Indy already have AAA teams)
--Montreal...give them a second shot, and the team should absolutely be called the Expos
--Mexico City...big problem here would be exchange rate between dollars and pesos, not nearly as wide a gap as U.S. and Canadian dollars, but I don't think insurmountable
--San Juan, Puerto Rico
--Charlotte
That list would make an interesting poll. Choose your favorite city for an expansion team.
That could happen, Doc. Who do you see getting the two expansion teams? I have long thought that Charlotte and Las Vegas are underserved major markets.
A few cities that I'd like to see considered:
--a third team in New York. They used to have three (Yankees, Giants, Dodgers), have the population to support three (Brooklyn alone would be something like the tenth largest city in the U.S.), and have three NHL teams (Devils are technically New Jersey, but NYC metro area)
--Vegas...already have an NHL and NFL team. Why not add MLB?
--New Orleans
--Indianapolis (Vegas, NO, and Indy already have AAA teams)
--Montreal...give them a second shot, and the team should absolutely be called the Expos
--Mexico City...big problem here would be exchange rate between dollars and pesos, not nearly as wide a gap as U.S. and Canadian dollars, but I don't think insurmountable
--San Juan, Puerto Rico
--Charlotte
That list would make an interesting poll. Choose your favorite city for an expansion team.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Season Prediction thread! ;)
092328182F3939355A0 wrote: If MLB were to remake the entire schedule for this season, I'd love to see the elimination of the Interleague games. Those games just screw-up the schedule anyway, and interest in them has run its course. I mean, who stays up late waiting for that epic Twins/Padres showdown? I'd also like to see more of an emphasis placed on Division games, perhaps as many as 20 played against each team.
I wouldn't think the owners want the schedule remade, however. Travel plans, hotel stays, etc, have already been arranged. It wouldn't be impossible, though.
In exchange for scheduling doubleheaders on, say, every other Sunday (that would make-up 13 lost days), owners could expand rosters to 30 players just for the second game on those days.
Most important, I think the owners want the playoffs to start no later than they're currently scheduled because of the weather. I would think they'll start with the last possible date for Game 7 of the Series and then work backwards to determine the latest date to start the season.
With an odd number of teams in each league, and a strong need for all teams to play on the weekends, there's no way we can eliminate interleague play. The math was the reason for it in the first place. I have a couple of great ideas for how it should be scheduled though, if anyone's interested.
Good catch, I forgot about the odd number of teams in each league. I look for any excuse to eliminate Interleague play. I'm interested in hearing your ideas.
Thanks, Doc.
I would assign interleague games to the teams, ranking them 1 thru 15 based on last season. 1 vs. 1: a replay of the World Series; 2 vs. 2, the what could have been series. Continue until the worst teams play each other home and away, 6 games total. The "Benchmark" series would tighten the standings and become a point of pride between the two leagues. I think these games would be well attended.
My next series would be the "We've missed you" series. Starting with the top teams, which opponent in the other league have you not played for the longest period of time? Play them in another home and away 6 game series. Fans should be happy to see teams that they haven't seen for years.
Finally, around the AllStar game, have a 4-game, 2 home and 2 away series against their "traditional rival". Examples would be Mets vs. Yankees, White Sox vs. Cubs, Angels vs. Dodgers. Some of these matchups will be tough, and may not repeat every year. Where geographic proximity fails, have all 4 games played in one park, then the other in the following year.
16 games total, or about 10% of the schedule. And I would decide the DH-no DH issue with that of the VISITING team. Give the fans a taste of how the other league lives. It might lead to a national consensus.
Sorry you said you wanted to hear my ideas?
Interesting ideas, and worth consideration. I believe MLB will continue with Interleague play into the future, but I've hated it from the beginning and would rather see it disappear. (That and the DH.)
I believe the powers in Baseball have a long-range plan to dissolve the two leagues as we know them and reorganize the teams geographically. Baseball has always been a sport with strong geographic rivalries and I think the owners want to take advantage of that. I can see a 32-team league divided into eight divisions with four teams in each, the teams in each division being in close proximity to each other. That's easier to do in the east, of course, but it could work out west, too.
That could happen, Doc. Who do you see getting the two expansion teams? I have long thought that Charlotte and Las Vegas are underserved major markets.
That's a good question. There are some cities currently without teams that have populations big enough to support a major league team. Besides Vegas and Charlotte, others could be Montreal and Vancouver in Canada (but I'm not sure the people there care enough about baseball), San Antonio, and Portland. Next would be cities like Nashville and New Orleans, but they might be a stretch.
If baseball were to expand, the owners would have to agree to make payrolls equitable. It would be so shortsighted to have so many teams floundering. And having divisions made up of four teams would enable many of the teams to stay in contention throughout the season.
I wouldn't think the owners want the schedule remade, however. Travel plans, hotel stays, etc, have already been arranged. It wouldn't be impossible, though.
In exchange for scheduling doubleheaders on, say, every other Sunday (that would make-up 13 lost days), owners could expand rosters to 30 players just for the second game on those days.
Most important, I think the owners want the playoffs to start no later than they're currently scheduled because of the weather. I would think they'll start with the last possible date for Game 7 of the Series and then work backwards to determine the latest date to start the season.
With an odd number of teams in each league, and a strong need for all teams to play on the weekends, there's no way we can eliminate interleague play. The math was the reason for it in the first place. I have a couple of great ideas for how it should be scheduled though, if anyone's interested.
Good catch, I forgot about the odd number of teams in each league. I look for any excuse to eliminate Interleague play. I'm interested in hearing your ideas.
Thanks, Doc.
I would assign interleague games to the teams, ranking them 1 thru 15 based on last season. 1 vs. 1: a replay of the World Series; 2 vs. 2, the what could have been series. Continue until the worst teams play each other home and away, 6 games total. The "Benchmark" series would tighten the standings and become a point of pride between the two leagues. I think these games would be well attended.
My next series would be the "We've missed you" series. Starting with the top teams, which opponent in the other league have you not played for the longest period of time? Play them in another home and away 6 game series. Fans should be happy to see teams that they haven't seen for years.
Finally, around the AllStar game, have a 4-game, 2 home and 2 away series against their "traditional rival". Examples would be Mets vs. Yankees, White Sox vs. Cubs, Angels vs. Dodgers. Some of these matchups will be tough, and may not repeat every year. Where geographic proximity fails, have all 4 games played in one park, then the other in the following year.
16 games total, or about 10% of the schedule. And I would decide the DH-no DH issue with that of the VISITING team. Give the fans a taste of how the other league lives. It might lead to a national consensus.
Sorry you said you wanted to hear my ideas?
Interesting ideas, and worth consideration. I believe MLB will continue with Interleague play into the future, but I've hated it from the beginning and would rather see it disappear. (That and the DH.)
I believe the powers in Baseball have a long-range plan to dissolve the two leagues as we know them and reorganize the teams geographically. Baseball has always been a sport with strong geographic rivalries and I think the owners want to take advantage of that. I can see a 32-team league divided into eight divisions with four teams in each, the teams in each division being in close proximity to each other. That's easier to do in the east, of course, but it could work out west, too.
That could happen, Doc. Who do you see getting the two expansion teams? I have long thought that Charlotte and Las Vegas are underserved major markets.
That's a good question. There are some cities currently without teams that have populations big enough to support a major league team. Besides Vegas and Charlotte, others could be Montreal and Vancouver in Canada (but I'm not sure the people there care enough about baseball), San Antonio, and Portland. Next would be cities like Nashville and New Orleans, but they might be a stretch.
If baseball were to expand, the owners would have to agree to make payrolls equitable. It would be so shortsighted to have so many teams floundering. And having divisions made up of four teams would enable many of the teams to stay in contention throughout the season.