Should MLB Consider a Geographic Division Realignment?
Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred recently hinted at the possibility of a geographic division realignment if the league expands from 30 to 32 teams. Speaking during the Little League Classic in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Manfred said expansion would provide an opportunity to realign divisions more geographically. He emphasized that such realignment could reduce travel-related wear and tear on players and make the postseason format more appealing, especially for broadcasters like ESPN, who would benefit from more time zone-friendly matchups. The proposal envisions a shift from the current three five-team divisions in each league to a structure of eight four-team divisions in both the American and National Leagues, potentially grouping teams more by region than by tradition or historical alignment.
One clear benefit of geographic realignment is reducing the travel burden on players, which can improve both their welfare and performance. Traveling across multiple time zones has long been a challenge in MLB’s nationwide setup, often leading to fatigue and scheduling difficulties. Grouping teams more closely, such as the Baltimore Orioles with the Washington Nationals or the New York Mets with the New York Yankees, could spark fresh, intense regional rivalries while also making it easier for fans to attend away games thanks to shorter travel distances. Additionally, broadcasters could schedule more appealing matchups by clustering teams within similar time zones. This format could also help MLB tap into new markets and energize fan bases with geographically logical rivalries.
However, there are cons and concerns surrounding this potential change. Traditionalists fear the dilution or loss of historic rivalries that have defined baseball for decades, which could see fewer frequent matchups depending on how divisions are realigned. Some current rivalries could be disrupted, and teams might lose marquee matchups that draw national attention and generate significant television ratings. Furthermore, there is skepticism among fans and analysts about how well geographic realignment would work in practice, especially concerning competitive balance and potentially awkward divisional placements if expansion teams are located far from existing clusters. Certain teams, like the Atlanta Braves, could be negatively impacted by losing long-standing divisional matchups against the Mets and Phillies, which are critical for ticket sales and fan engagement.
Ultimately, while geographic division realignment promises logistical improvements and the opportunity for fresh rivalries, it faces the challenge of balancing tradition with progress. The reduced travel and lower player fatigue make a strong case for change, but the potential loss or alteration of beloved rivalries may alienate longtime fans. As MLB moves closer to possible expansion, the league must carefully weigh whether realignment can preserve the heart of baseball while modernizing its structure. Accommodating 32 teams and a national fan base with different interests will require thoughtful planning and sensitivity to the sport’s deeply rooted history.
In conclusion, the debate over geographic division realignment in an expanded MLB reflects broader tensions between innovation and tradition. If implemented thoughtfully, such a shift could enhance player welfare, fan engagement, and media appeal, but only if key rivalries are preserved or meaningfully replaced. Commissioner Manfred’s recent comments have opened an important conversation about the future landscape of MLB and whether geographic proximity can help redefine baseball’s divisional identity. As details emerge in the coming years, fans and stakeholders alike will be watching closely.
