A new -- and slightly more palatable -- version of the proposed realignment of the major leagues is floating around.
Gone is the idea of eliminating baseball's six divisions with the current set-up largely still in place. But the idea of constant interleague play remains.
By tweaking the number of games played slightly -- possibly by just one game -- the plan is to have all the clubs play the teams in their opposite league one three-game set each (45 games). The clubs would play the 10 teams in their league a home three-game set and a road three-game set (60 games) and then the clubs would play 12 games each with the other four teams in the division (56 games). That works out to be 161 games. I'm guessing the interleague clubs would take turns hosting in alternate years. But who knows with the doofuses who make the major league schedules?
It's an improvement in that there would be some value to division rivalries. But it would basically cut the number of games in half with each team hosting two series. And I'm still not a fan of the constant interleague play.
Interleague play is great when the Yankees come to town. But what about when it's the Blue Jays who pay a visit? Does anyone think ESPN is going to show the Pirates playing the Indians on Sunday night? Or would they rather show the Cardinals play the Cubs?
Even the staged interleague rivalries between the Cubs and White Sox, the Cardinals and Royals, the Yankees and the Mets and the Angels and Dodgers would suffer because there would have to be less emphasis on those matchups if you have to make room for baseball's lesser stars on the schedule.
Like I said before, I would rather see interleague play eliminated if it meant the Redbirds could play more games with their traditional rivals the Mets, Dodgers and Giants. But who am I? Just another paying customer...