OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Look here for schedules to import into OOTP6

Le Grande Orange · 02-07-2005, 02:31 AM

For what it's worth, there have been occasions in the minors where a league has operated with an odd number of teams. The ones I know about are:

1961 Florida State League (7 teams)
1966 Carolina League (11 teams, split into a 6-5 divisional alignment)
1969 Midwest League (9 teams)
1980 California League (9 teams, split into a 5-4 divisional alignment)
1985 California League (9 teams, split into a 5-4 divisional alignment)
1993 Florida State League (13 teams, split into a 7-6 divisional alignment)

I have the schedules for all of these except the 1985 California League. I've only typed out two of the list, and haven't examined all of them in detail, but of the ones I looked at I can make a few general comments.

The 1966 Carolina and 1969 Midwest Leagues played a balanced schedule; in most cases series were limited to 2 games long so that a team was never off for more than 2 days in a row. The 1993 FSL was mostly balanced, and again 2-game series were the main series length (along with some 1-game series). Teams were off for no more than 1 or 2 days in a row. The strange part about the published schedule is that it does not add up to the 136 games for each team it is supposed to. It seems a couple of teams were given an extra series and ended up playing 138 games.

The 1980 California League was interesting in that not only was it an odd number of teams in the league, but the schedule played was a divisionally weighted one. The published schedule here is again not correct in that the teams do not all play the same number of games, with it varying from 138-141 games (it was nominally a 140 game schedule). How a schedule could be adopted and published without anyone noticing it doesn't add up to the right number of games is something I don't understand. Anyway, I haven't typed this one out yet, but I probably will soon just to see what it looks like all laid out, even if the games don't add up properly.

So, taking all the above into consideration, for an odd number of teams in a league you may want to consider making the primary series length 2 games. This will mean teams won't have more than 2 days off in a row, which isn't too bad. Of course, you may have to throw in some 3-game series to round things off and give teams a 3 day break, but perhaps this could be limited to only one or two instances during the season.

Given the complexity involved, I'd suggest making it a balanced or nearly balanced schedule, since it would be much easier to deal with. It may be possible to make it divisionally weighted in spite of the odd number of teams, since the California League was able to do it, but I suspect it would be a very difficult problem to solve.

02-07-2005, 02:31 AM	#448 (permalink)
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Scheduleslovakia Posts: 10,203 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1,157x in 686 posts	For what it's worth, there have been occasions in the minors where a league has operated with an odd number of teams. The ones I know about are: 1961 Florida State League (7 teams) 1966 Carolina League (11 teams, split into a 6-5 divisional alignment) 1969 Midwest League (9 teams) 1980 California League (9 teams, split into a 5-4 divisional alignment) 1985 California League (9 teams, split into a 5-4 divisional alignment) 1993 Florida State League (13 teams, split into a 7-6 divisional alignment) I have the schedules for all of these except the 1985 California League. I've only typed out two of the list, and haven't examined all of them in detail, but of the ones I looked at I can make a few general comments. The 1966 Carolina and 1969 Midwest Leagues played a balanced schedule; in most cases series were limited to 2 games long so that a team was never off for more than 2 days in a row. The 1993 FSL was mostly balanced, and again 2-game series were the main series length (along with some 1-game series). Teams were off for no more than 1 or 2 days in a row. The strange part about the published schedule is that it does not add up to the 136 games for each team it is supposed to. It seems a couple of teams were given an extra series and ended up playing 138 games. The 1980 California League was interesting in that not only was it an odd number of teams in the league, but the schedule played was a divisionally weighted one. The published schedule here is again not correct in that the teams do not all play the same number of games, with it varying from 138-141 games (it was nominally a 140 game schedule). How a schedule could be adopted and published without anyone noticing it doesn't add up to the right number of games is something I don't understand. Anyway, I haven't typed this one out yet, but I probably will soon just to see what it looks like all laid out, even if the games don't add up properly. So, taking all the above into consideration, for an odd number of teams in a league you may want to consider making the primary series length 2 games. This will mean teams won't have more than 2 days off in a row, which isn't too bad. Of course, you may have to throw in some 3-game series to round things off and give teams a 3 day break, but perhaps this could be limited to only one or two instances during the season. Given the complexity involved, I'd suggest making it a balanced or nearly balanced schedule, since it would be much easier to deal with. It may be possible to make it divisionally weighted in spite of the odd number of teams, since the California League was able to do it, but I suspect it would be a very difficult problem to solve. __________________ . "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." . Last edited by Le Grande Orange; 02-07-2005 at 10:47 PM.