Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilianth
No, that is not what I meant at all.
I meant that, in this case, the league could be filled with teams form NY. It would be NY NY NY NY, ATL ATL, Philly, Philly, Philly, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, LA LA LA LA. Maybe the occasionaly team from Dallas or something.
That type of set up would not be any fun at all. I like seeing a team from KC. People get the chance to see different cities on TV, other than the stereotypical NY/LA.
And besides the fact that, how would they fill out the divisions? Unless there are no divisions like it used to be. But in that case, you'll end up seeing the same two or three teams in the playoffs, because only two teams will actually get the chance of making it. Maybe 4 with the WC.
If you did have divisions, you would have very odd divisions, with maybe ATL have to be placed in either the central or western divisions.
|
There's no reason you couldn't have seven teams in New York, four or five in LA and Chicago, and one each in KC, Pittsburgh, Cincy, Baltimore, or where ever. In fact, with many teams splitting the markets in the three biggest metropolises it would be far easier for major league teams in Portland, San Antonio, Sacramento, Columbus, etc to compete. The bar will no longer be set at the level of a big-market team with a $120M payroll, the bar will be the natural equilibrium point the league as a whole will find.
The solution is to eliminate territorial barriers and make expansion far easier. Or just add 2-3 more competing major leagues.
In any case, with the population expansion and foreign talent influx you could expand to 60 or 80 teams (gradually, of course) before you'd get back to the competitive and talent levels of the 50s and 60s. And using places like the DR as an example, it seems that economic incentives drive people to become baseball players, so there's a good argument that there's no real limit to the number of MLB teams the population could supply with talent.