[EDITOR'S NOTE] Oaktoon had the audacity to point out that the problem with the following diary is that the simple math in it doesn't work at all. Some people are, like, really picky. The concept, however, can still be debated--just figure that the numbers have been changed to protect the innocent (the number 15 insists he was framed by the square root of 2, who is known to be quite irrational).
Enjoy me while you can, because I just learned that Buster Olney has rotated me so that in 2007, I will be to writing for the NL East on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But "worst ideas I've heard in a while" aside, Buster's rotating-carousel-o'-bad-baseball-teams idea did get me thinking about how baseball is scheduled--always a topic bound to produce subjective disagreement and the occasional thrown chair.
I am not a big fan of interleague play, but I am also not a purist: I think a little interleague play could go a long way. What I personally do not like is the unbalanced schedule. First of all, frankly, I find it a bit tedious for the A's to play 1/3 of their schedule against only 3 of the 29 other major league teams. I also think the unbalanced schedule is fundamentally unfair because of the Wild Card. Teams competing for the same playoff spot should have, give or take a dead rat, the same schedule.
My ideal schedule for baseball would be thusly and as follows:
- 6 interleague games--enough to be novel but not enough to be a significant part of the 162 game schedule. You either play one team home and away, or two teams for one series each (except the Yankees have to play 6 different teams in 6 different places on 6 consecutive days, just because I don't like them).
- 12 games (National League) or 13 games (American League) against each of the opponents in your league.
<takes x-ray of Bud Selig's brain, finds nothing>