How MLB Expansion Can Help Baseball

Less is usually more, but there are always exceptions. And expansion could solve some of Major League Baseball’s problems. Commissioner Rob Manfred said at a luncheon with the Baseball Writers of America in Cincinnati during All-Star week that he was open to expanding the league in the future.

Maybe one of the reasons I got this job is, I’m bullish on this game. I think we are a growth business, broadly defined. And over an extended period of time, growth businesses look to get bigger. So yeah, I’m open to the idea that there will be a point in time where expansion may be possible. — Rob Manfred

Well, commish, let me illustrate the ways expanding to 32 teams helps baseball.

The obvious is more money. Expansion fees, more merchandizing revenue, two more markets with pro teams combined with an extra 162 games per year equates to more television dollars. Not to mention an additional 10-15 minor league franchises to expand pro baseball into even more cities.

(Side note: On math, yes it’s only 162 games, not 324. If the Yankees play the Red Sox, it’s one game even though each team separately counts the game.)

The players win too. Two more teams bring 50 more big-league jobs along with 30 more spots on a 40-man roster and even more in the minors. Managers and front office executives also see increased job opportunities.

Beyond the economic incentives, expansion for baseball makes sense. Ever since Tampa Bay and Arizona entered the league in 1998, MLB has struggled finding equilibrium with 30 teams. It tried the 16/14 format to avoid regular interleague play, only to realizing having one division with four teams and one division with six was awkward.

While 15/15 format evens out the divisions to five teams each, the drawback is it killed the hype of interleague play. Instead of being the two-week block in early June fans became accustomed to for more than a decade, interleague play is now a regular part of the schedule. Teams lost their home-and-home rivalry series and for the most part interleague play went from being something MLB went out of the way to hype up to a mundane occurrence. A nightmare from a branding perspective.

A 16/16 format solves that problem. I don’t think MLB should eliminate interleague play, but I’d rather teams play a few series per year in a condensed ritual than have it be an every-week occurrence. MLB can go back to having a two-week block of interleague play limited to a few regional rivals, or rotate through the teams. (And maybe even integrate it into deciding which league hosts the World Series, as I suggested last week.)

Now, let’s talk about playoffs.

Yes, playoffs. Right now the MLB has the perfect playoff system at 10 out of 30 teams. Expanding to 32 teams gives it a built-in excuse to expand the playoffs further, to six teams out of 16 per league just like the NFL.

This is probably my favorite reason for expansion. Imagine a world where there are two divisions of eight in each league. Each division winner receives a bye to the Divisional Round. The next four best records are then seeded 3/6 and 4/5 in two play-in games. (Or best-of-three series, but I like the play-in format. It gives a team extra incentive to win its division.)

Two leagues with two divisions of eight makes sense for scheduling purposes too. Assuming MLB keeps the 162 game schedule, teams could play 12 games/four three-game series in their division (84 games), a home-and-home of three-game sets against the other division in its league (48 games), and six three-game interleague series (30 games) against five teams from the other league with a home-and-home against an interleague rival just like before.

Add it all up: 84+48+30 = 162.

The math may work nice and neat, but there is a key problem with my proposed solution — there aren’t enough weeks for teams to only play six games every week (it’s why those annoying two-game and four-game series exist, I hate them). My proposal, counting for the All-Star Break, would expand the MLB season by a little more than a week. Which is not good.

So why not reduce the schedule to 156 games by only playing 24 interleague games per team, or two rotating teams from each division? This idea may happen anyway, but expansion gives baseball relief from the drawbacks from cutting games, at least from a television perspective. Reducing the schedule to 156 games cuts 90 games from the schedule The two new teams would bring 156 games, thus MLB has a net gain of 76 games even with the reduction.

A 156 game schedule with 84 division, 48 cross-division, and 24 interleague games all three-game series with six games and one off day per week fits nicely into the 26 allotted weeks for baseball.

So what two cities get teams? A lot of good choices have been mentioned, but if baseball goes the expansion route at least one should be an international city. It’s too golden of an opportunity to grow beyond America. If I had my say, I’d pick two — Montreal and Mexico City.

Portland, San Antonio, Oklahoma City and Charlotte are all good choices, but Montreal and Mexico City strengthen baseball’s international presence and don’t come with the territorial rights baggage that a U.S. city would.

(Side note: Seriously, baseball, figure out this territorial rights thing.)

If baseball can smooth out some of these territorial rights issues and baseball decides to relocate, I say Portland and San Antonio deserve relocated franchises from Oakland (to Portland) and Tampa Bay (to San Antonio).

Regardless of what cities win teams, expansion makes sense for baseball. It should seriously consider using it not just as an opportunity to broaden its reach, but improve the overall product.