Anaheim Angels
Arizona D'backs*
Oakland Athlentics
Seattle Mariners

Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
Detroit Tigers*
New York Yankees
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Toronto Blue Jays

Colorado Rockies
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants

This structure will places more teams in similar time zones than the currents structure and erases the team imbalance (14-16) among leagues. This alignment retains the historic alignment as fans have grown to know and like. It also keeps teams who share a fan base within the same city in separate leagues. Since these teams share the same fan base it is important to keep those teams in separate leagues so fans do not have to choose between the two teams which would ultimately lead to one team with all the fans.

While teams in the same city are remaining in opposite leagues, Pittsburgh is the most logical choice to be moved from the NL central to the NL east with Philadelphia. Since the teams have successfully played in the same league, and are not in the same city, I believe this to be a respectable move. Along with Detroit and Texas, three teams are moved into a division in which the teams they play are in the same time zone. With this proposal, only Cincinnati, Cleveland and Colorado remain to play in a division where the other teams are located in and adjacent time zone.

With each league and each division having equal teams a balanced schedule can be more easily produced. I also recommend the schedule to be adjusted to create more regional games. The following schedule layout will allow for more than half of each teams games to be played in its respective division/time zone.

56 Games
(4 Home/4 Away)

60 Games
(3 Home/3 Away)

24 Games
(4 Home/4 Away)

Taking a note from the NFL's page, I am recommending each team to play an Interleague and Intraleague team based on ranking to allow for greater diversity among the team's schedule. The Interleague ranking games will allow for most teams to play a team from another league and division they would not get to play otherwise. The Intraleague ranking games will be the only guaranteed time when two teams play each other twice in the same location. I have eliminated teams traveling to the same stadium more than once in a single season with the exception of games based on rank. While I recognize this causes a problem for canceled games, I believe it will increase ticket sales since fans have only one chance per year to see their hometown team play any other team. This will also allow for teams to have more diversity among teams. The western and central division teams will play 20 different teams and the eastern division will play 21 different teams. This adds up to three additional teams for fans to watch compete.

This schedule and alignment will increase fan interest and , as a result, revenue through more regional games and fewer opposite coast games. Costs are cut by visiting distant cities only once per year, matching more teams based on skill level making the games potentially more exciting.

This schedule retains the 162 game schedule, but reduces league games substantially. The western divisions will play 98 games in their respective leagues, the central will ply 100, and the eastern will play 92. This allows for more games in the team's region and increases regional games (interleague and intraleague) to 88, 94, and 100 games for their respective divisions. As a result of more regional games teams will have shorter traveling trips to their opponent.

Their are a few drawbacks to this proposal. I have mentioned the canceled game factor. Since teams rarely will visit the same park more than once, how would games be made up? As more teams are building stadiums to address this concern cancellations will be reduced. They can not, however, be eliminated. In the most cases a double header can be played the following scheduled day despite the location. If the cancellation happens when there is not another scheduled game could be made up as needed and if it is needed to determine a play off spot or title. In 2001,this proved not to be a concern of MLB with the unbalanced schedule as teams visited several cities only once. Another drawback would be the disadvantage to the Eastern Division teams. . While I am not a fan of more expansion, it will indeed happen. Any new teams would be added to the Western Divisions first. (Sorry D.C., N.C.). Another concern brought to my attention is the fact that with 15 teams in each league an interleague game would have to occur almost every night.

The post-season schedule would remain the same. Wild card teams are important to keep as it prolongs the interest of the season much longer as teams battle for the final playoff spot.

Now, with contraction, this plan must be modified. I hated to see the Twins eliminated, and was happy when it was annouced that they would not be. The team has history, and the most championships in recent years with the exception of the ever-dominate Yankees. I also think it is inappropriate to place a team in Washington, D.C. as two teams have been placed there unsuccessfully and would also harm Baltimore. Baseball's ecomomic state needs a boost. By putting a team in an untapped market, more revenue can be generated. Personally, I think two teams need to be eliminated, period. No relocation. Expand the rosters by two players per team, to satisfy the union. It wouldn't matter. It would improve baseball's quality of play.

However, that will not happen. Therefore I suggest moving two teams (Montreal and Tampa Bay) westward to even out the divisions. Two possible markets would include Salt Lake City and Las Vegas:

With the Central and Eastern Divisions having the equal number of teams they both would play the 5-team division schedule I have outlined under the Central Division above.

Another possibility is to keep the teams in the east and just relocate Montreal. This seems to be the most likely option at this time. Again, I am against Washington D.C. I am intrigued by the idea of Puerto Rico. North Carolina is another viable option: