|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 10, 2013 21:13:45 GMT -5
As I said bringing inter league play back to the PBL is a pretty deal for me. Here is a potential schedule and realignment look. Of all the ones I have seen, this might be one of my favorite ones..
# 32 team schedule, 162 games # Designed for the following configuration: # 2 subleagues each with 4 divisions, each with 4 teams # # # 22 games against 3 other teams in division (11H/11A) # 6 games against 12 other teams in league (3H/3A) # 6 games against 4 teams in corresponding division of other league (3H/3A) # # # No cases of more than 20 straight days without offday # # No homestands or roadtrips longer than 15 games # # All game times set at 7:05pm # # Schedule set to begin on exact calendar day and not certain day of week # Thus series and offdays do not fall within weeks in way modern MLB does # That can be changed by adding 'start_day_of_week="2"' in SCHEDULE line # # Season begins April 1st # Season thus ends late September # # All-Star Game set for July 4th
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 10, 2013 21:14:31 GMT -5
The only thing that I do not like is inter league is just against other division AL/NL East, AL/NL Central, AL/NL West.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2013 22:21:41 GMT -5
Love it! The interleague may not be ideal, but it should allow for Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Giants/A's, Angels/Dodgers. These may not be PBL rivals, but there is no reason why they can't develop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2013 23:04:22 GMT -5
No problems with this set up. Looks good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 0:05:31 GMT -5
Works for Carolina.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Jan 11, 2013 1:06:46 GMT -5
I am down with the idea just as long as there as still some effort to keep as many historically cool divisional rivals together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 2:16:14 GMT -5
I am down with the idea just as long as there as still some effort to keep as many historically cool divisional rivals together. Last time this was brought up, I came up with: AL West – Los Angeles (A), Oakland, Portland, Seattle AL Central – Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota AL East – Baltimore, Boston, New York (A), Toronto AL South – Houston, Kansas City, Tampa, Texas NL West – Arizona, Los Angeles (N), San Diego, San Francisco NL Central – Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St Louis NL East – New York (N), Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington NL South – Atlanta, Carolina, Colorado, Florida Based on a map, and keeping as many teams where they are today as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 8:39:16 GMT -5
I am down with the idea just as long as there as still some effort to keep as many historically cool divisional rivals together. Last time this was brought up, I came up with: AL West – Los Angeles (A), Oakland, Portland, Seattle AL Central – Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota AL East – Baltimore, Boston, New York (A), Toronto AL South – Houston, Kansas City, Tampa, Texas NL West – Arizona, Los Angeles (N), San Diego, San Francisco NL Central – Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St Louis NL East – New York (N), Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington NL South – Atlanta, Carolina, Colorado, Florida Based on a map, and keeping as many teams where they are today as possible. I would be ok this this setup....I hate to loose Mike out of my current division though. He may not be doing well right now but I know he is always trying to get better!
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jan 11, 2013 9:00:06 GMT -5
I am down with the idea just as long as there as still some effort to keep as many historically cool divisional rivals together. Last time this was brought up, I came up with: AL West � Los Angeles (A), Oakland, Portland, Seattle AL Central � Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota AL East � Baltimore, Boston, New York (A), Toronto AL South � Houston, Kansas City, Tampa, Texas NL West � Arizona, Los Angeles (N), San Diego, San Francisco NL Central � Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St Louis NL East � New York (N), Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington NL South � Atlanta, Carolina, Colorado, Florida Based on a map, and keeping as many teams where they are today as possible. I still cringe at the thought of Colorado from a 'geographical' standpoint in the south division.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 11, 2013 9:21:21 GMT -5
Two things need to happen with Colorado...
1) We need to relocate their asses to a geographical location that fits..
or
2) Create more teams in that are and start a nice new division. New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, Kansas....
Alright fuck it... Time to expand. I want at least 1 team in every US State minus Alaska and Hawaii.... LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jan 11, 2013 9:24:49 GMT -5
Two things need to happen with Colorado... 1) We need to relocate their asses to a geographical location that fits.. or 2) Create more teams in that are and start a nice new division. New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, Kansas.... Alright fuck it... Time to expand. I want at least 1 team in every US State minus Alaska and Hawaii.... LOL. Were our own league right? Weve gone 12 years past MLB. Why do we still need American and the National League? Our rivalries are not the same as the ML, the Red Sox and Yankees do not have the same hate as the real life teams do. Why not create divisions purely on geographic locations and not dependent on what league each team came into? Ive fought for this before and Ill try again. Lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 9:27:47 GMT -5
I would say we are closer to real division rivalries such as Seattle v Oakland than (not real) geographic rivalries. NYM v NYY is completely meaningless in OOTP as there is no New York, it is just names.
Wherever possible, keep teams together while moving to 4x4 is my preference.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jan 11, 2013 9:31:01 GMT -5
I would say we are closer to real division rivalries such as Seattle v Oakland than (not real) geographic rivalries. NYM v NYY is completely meaningless in OOTP as there is no New York, it is just names. Wherever possible, keep teams together while moving to 4x4 is my preference. Why not go back to the 2x8 divisions? What's the point of 4 divisions in each league?
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jan 11, 2013 9:32:11 GMT -5
I would say we are closer to real division rivalries such as Seattle v Oakland than (not real) geographic rivalries. NYM v NYY is completely meaningless in OOTP as there is no New York, it is just names. Wherever possible, keep teams together while moving to 4x4 is my preference. And NYM/ATL is meaningless in OOTP as is NYM/PHI.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 11, 2013 9:48:51 GMT -5
I would say we are closer to real division rivalries such as Seattle v Oakland than (not real) geographic rivalries. NYM v NYY is completely meaningless in OOTP as there is no New York, it is just names. Wherever possible, keep teams together while moving to 4x4 is my preference. So your saying Mets/Yankees in one division. Tampa, Miami in another, SF, LAA, LAD, OAK in another??
|
|