WhiteSoxfan1986 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Why were Cincinnati and Atlanta in the west while St. louis and the Cubs were in the east? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 11:43 PM) Why were Cincinnati and Atlanta in the west while St. louis and the Cubs were in the east? In all likelihood, it's the same concept as the NFL having Baltimore and Cincinnati in the AFC North, even though they are both further south than Indianapolis, which is in the AFC South. In other words, sports and geography don't always mix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Rowland Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If I recall correctly, there was a balanced schedule back then so it really did not matter from a scheduling standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Zelig Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 She can tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 12:43 AM) Why were Cincinnati and Atlanta in the west while St. louis and the Cubs were in the east? From what I can recall, StL and Cubs owners wanted to stay playing Pitt, Philly and the Mets. Kind of why Dallas is in the NFC East still. Rivalries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 kinda crazy how both Atlanta teams in football and baseball were once in the West at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox84 Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 The Reds and the Dodgers had a pretty good rivalry going for many of those years, but dont recall whether that actually figured in to the original alignment or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Law Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I didn't understand until recently why the Brewers moved to the NL. It's because you need to have an even number of teams in each league (16 and 14) or else one team would have to not play each day (or would have to be playing an interleague game). Kansas City was offered the opportunity to switch to the NL and they declined, leaving it to the Brewers to move. Bad call, Royals (at least right now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Houston was offered a chance to join the AL, but Colangelo pressured Selig to make Arizona an NL team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 5, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) Houston was offered a chance to join the AL, but Colangelo pressured Selig to make Arizona an NL team. didn't know that, I seem to think Selig wanted to bring his Brewers over to the National League too. the worse division alignment was the NFC West. San Francisco St. Louis New Orleans Atlanta Carolina I know St. Louis used to be in Los Angeles and Carolina was a new team, but still it was a pretty strange division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 The new AL West teams have the biggest advantage since they only have to beat 3 other teams for the division. Compare that to 5 other teams in the NL Central. This scenario becomes even more skewed if 1 or 2 of those teams are horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.