View Full Version : Premier League Baseball
Red Sox 2004
02-03-04, 10:35 PM
Many of you are probably remotely familar with the idea of Premier League Soccer. How about the same idea for baseball?
We could have MLB ball with the Premier 9 Teams from each league playing only the other great teams and the other 12 teams playing each other. Then at the end of the season the teams with the best record in the PL would stay and the lowest ranked teams (say the bottom two teams in a given league drop to the lower ranks - while raising the top teams from the lower league to the premier).
This would ensure that the whole league would be interesting to everyone all year...no meaningless September games for anyone, you have to stay in the top by playing hard all season. Players could be traded amongst all 30 teams, so a top lower divison team could fight it's way to the PL, and owners would be forced to "play George" and try to keep their teams competitive for the larger revenue that being in the PL would bring from national TV. The lower divison title games would be exciting to see who makes it in to the PL as well.
Baseball has too many teams (imho) and I like the "purity" of the 1940's and 1950's where the winner wins and their was no wild card, extended playoffs or uneven divisons (the East is so ridiculously strong, why should the Central's winner get October baseball for being 2 games over 500 and all the other BS with that.
Based on last years final standings, current Premier AL Teams would be
Yankees
Red Sox
Oakland
Seattle
Minnestota
Toronto
Chicago
KC
Anaheim
Based on last years final standings, current Premier NL Teams would be
Atlanta
SF
Florida
Chicago
Houston
Phillie
LA
St Louis
Arizona
(with the Expos painfully missing because of one game).
Just an idea. Feel free to discuss, add your own ideas or ignore.
Oh, yes their would still be a world series, just in case you didn't think so - it would have been Atlanta vs NY.
Red Sox 2004
02-12-04, 04:25 PM
Nobody had a comment??!?!?
The site has it's own league...
Red Sox 2004
02-12-04, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by NYYFAN
The site has it's own league...
Your answer makes no sense. Can you read? This is not about some fantasy league. This is hypothetical about real baseball, going back to the roots and playingthe game as it was from 1900 to the 1970's.
penfold
02-12-04, 05:08 PM
I think it would be fascinating and ultra-competitive; however, the current minor league structure would have to be completely revamped. The Pawtucket Sox and the Columbus Clippers might no longer be attached to their MLB teams and instead be in the First or Second Division, clawing their way into the Premiere League, competing against the Red Sox and Yankees. That would be something!
However, "small market" teams might balk at having to fork out tons of dough. Not only would each MLB team need to own its own facilities but also the facilities for all of its junior teams as well.
It would be interesting to run the scenario through APBA or Strat-o-matic to see what would have happened over the years.
Saxmania
02-12-04, 05:12 PM
As a Brit, I think that Premier League football is a farce. It's been around a decade now, and only three teams have ever won the championship - and every year but one, it was one of Manchester United and Arsenal. The only reason the 2003/4 League isn't a two-horse race is that Chelsea were bought out by a billionaire who promptly spent more than $150m on new players in less than a year. Even so, they're struggling to compete.
Meanwhile, there are 17 teams left. Of them, 10 are happy to avoid being relegated each year, while the other 7 fight to get a share of the European money. There's nothing else left to fight over, and there's been almost no shift in power for the last few years. Leeds attempted to build a cheap, young, powerful team, and are now nearly bankrupt - they used the best available model for competing that didn't involve spending hundreds of millions, and it nearly shut them down permanently.
So not only will teams like Southampton, Bolton, Aston Villa, Middlesborough, Birmingham, Blackburn, Fulham, Portsmouth, Charlton, and so on have almost no chance to win the League for the next 20 years, but their major accomplishment will either be a) not being relegated, or b) maybe getting into the UEFA Cup. Twice. And no-one cares about the UEFA cup. Competitive balance just doesn't exist.
Whereas in baseball, we've seen the Diamnodbacks, Angels, and Marlins win the last three years. None of them was the favorite heading into the season; none was probably in the top 5 favorites. If you want to reform baseball, be my guest, but Premier League football is (in my opinion) absolutely the worst sport to model it on. For many, many reasons.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
DaBoys4LifeNYY35
02-12-04, 05:16 PM
Omg the Dodgers were good enough last season to be Premier League status? Man... sure coulda fooled me. :( Only their pitching to thank for that.
Red Sox 2004
02-12-04, 05:18 PM
baseball has had decades where only one or two teams won the series...it didn't hurt the fan base...i believe that there are many more variables here than in soccer (football) - the nature of the game, the amount of games played and the amount of money spent not meaning you have a champion.
Red Sox 2004
02-12-04, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by DaBoys4LifeNYY35
Omg the Dodgers were good enough last season to be Premier League status? Man... sure coulda fooled me. :( Only their pitching to thank for that.
Only the pitching got them there...but there it was in black and white in the standings (but then again they played the Pads and the Rockies quite a bit more than the central and east coast teams did.
penfold
02-12-04, 05:29 PM
Unfortunately, many sports are simply spending too much on players. The NHL is in serious financial straits because of this. I know that several European soccer teams are simply bankrupt. The Premier League is just as guilty...
The only economic alternative seems to be following the NFL's salary cap, which leaves the Superbowl open to anybody and everybody. There are no dominant dynasties. However, without dominant dynasties, I find American football less compelling to follow season after season. Dynasties give you somebody to root for or against.
I never liked the Lakers but it's fun when some other team manages to take them down. Same goes for the Yankees (not from me, though. I'm a Yankee fan!), Manchester United, Chicago Bulls, etc.
Bankrupt teams give nobody any joy whatsover. Unfortunately, I don't see any way other than salary caps to stop the outrageous salaries some players get.
BTW, Hollywood's experiencing similar problems with its movie budgets. If they continue to give Jim Carrey, et al $20M and spend $30M on special effects and $40M on marketing, there's really no money left for anything else. Sad, really.
Originally posted by Red Sox 2004
baseball has had decades where only one or two teams won the series...it didn't hurt the fan base...i believe that there are many more variables here than in soccer (football) - the nature of the game, the amount of games played and the amount of money spent not meaning you have a champion.
I'm glad you brought up this subject.
I read a very interesting BP article on how to distribute revenue more fairly and in a way where there is sufficient incentive to field a competitive team.
I wish you to read it and let me know what you think.
I think the author, Keith Woolner makes a lot of sense.
It's somewhat along the same lines as an imaginary PL I guess.
I think it's a system which both small and large market teams should live with to help competitive balance and not eliminate capitalism from the sport.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020418woolner.shtml
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0