as we baseball fans enter the clutches of interleague play, the debate over the merit, worth, and viability of the idea is rekindled.  interleague play presents us with an annual reassessment of whether or not american and national league teams should play one another during the regular season.  espn hypes its matchups, runs a nationwide poll to see what fans think of the system, interleague play happens, and then it is forgotten until mid-may the following year.  baseball fans, analysts, players, and officials all have and hold their convictions, and we hear the same regurgitated arguments for and against interleague play on an annual basis.

baseball purists will say that the only time one league should play the other comes in october, but i believe that this system provides all those involved with a positive and engaging environment that fosters competition.  as a proponent of the idea, i have thought of five solid arguments for having interleague play, with the hope that these reasons, among others, will work to retain this current system, as well as disolve the yearly assessment of it.

1) entertaining matchups - the split of major league baseball into its two leagues is not done based on geography, economics, or any other measureable factor.  this creates a situation wherein teams of similar status (whether it be revenue, spending, proximity, fan base, etc.) may be in opposite leagues.  likewise, there is no rule preventing the trading of players from one league to the other, nor a similar rule preventing one team changing their league affiliation.  interleague play brings all these factors to the forefront, and their resolution (and the intrigue associated with them) is realized in a concrete and tangible manner.

when the mets play the yankees, the cubs play the white sox, or the dodgers play the angels, it allows common debates amongst overlapping fan bases to come to fruition objectively within the confines of the diamond, rather than subjective attempts to solve these quandries in over drinks at a bar, the water cooler in the office, or steaks on a dinner table.  similarly, when a high-profile player is traded to another league, it allows him to matchup against his former teammates and employers.  given the volatility of free agency and trades in the current sports landscape, interleague play provides the player to prove his perhaps previously undervalued worth to his employers, or, in cases such as barry zito's debacle against the a's last week, the employers may feel final vindication in letting a player leave for a big payday or trading him away for more than his worth.  finally, there are many matchups throughout history, whether during the regular season when teams were previously in the same league, or during a world series, that may be revisited through interleague play, since the odds of both teams with such a history meeting in october are slim.  for example, when the a's play the dodgers, and a pinch hitter comes to the plate to face huston street in the 9th, anticipation o####ibsonesque moment instantly fills the air and excitement abounds.  

2) evening of the playing field - as i mentioned (however, did not expand upon) in my first argument, teams with analogous economic climates oftentimes are in opposite leagues.  these teams tend to come from similar geographic locations as well, since most are part of a two-team, one-city situations, such as new york, chicago, los angeles, and balimore/washington, d.c.  given the size in both the area and population, as well as the economic prosperity of these cities, they are able to support two teams comfortably.  even when taking into account the split of the fanbase and corresponding disposable incomes, the loyalties in terms of population and pocketbooks are more than most teams that have a city to themselves experience.

as i wrote in a previous posting, there is an absolute need for a salary cap in baseball to, among other positives, foster competition and level the playing field.  while i still vehemently believe that to be the case, i will also argue that one of the very points used to argue against interleague play is actually a factor which enhances its value.  detractors will say that it is unfairly scheduled, with traditionally better teams having to play against the best in the other league, thus skewing the strength of schedule in favor of the weaker teams.  i counter with the idea that the majority of better teams come from bigger markets (since they spend more on personnel and amenities), so interleague play actually works to even the playing field, since these teams must play each other.  without a salary cap, the mets and yankees can spend frivilously and recklessly since they have the revenue to support such activities.  in kind, they must then play each other for two series each year during interleague play, which balances the powers in major league baseball.  while larger market teams are playing their equally powerful rivals from across town, smaller market teams get a bit of a repreive in scheduling, usually playing teams with similar salaries, fan support, etc.  while the yankees and mets slug it out, the devil rays then have a chance to make a run with a three game set against the marlins.  while the schedule does favor the smaller market (and financially weaker) teams, it does help to counter the injustice that is baseball without a cap.

3) shows disparity between leagues - in every sport, there is a stronger league or conference.  the nba's and nhl's western conference and the nfl's afc are both experiencing relative domination against their counterparts.  while this balance of power shifts and teams from the weaker league or conference occassionally wins in the finals (i.e. the miami heat in 2006), there are noticeable trends in each sport.  the way these trends can be objectively measured is through interleague play.  

this is of great importance when analyzing statistics for historical significance, or for managerial or personell decisions.  there is a longstanding tradition of pitchers succeeding during a switch from the american to national league, and subsequent failure if the switch is reversed.  there are many reasons for this, including: smaller american league ballparks, the use of the dh on american league teams, and increased spending of american league teams (during the 2007 season, seven of the top ten spending teams were in the american league).  when the red sox and blue jays acquired josh beckett and a.j. burnett, respectively, from florida, their eras and whips rose significantly in the following year.  likewise, if a position player from the national league cannot field his position effectively, the option for dhing in the american league becomes a way to retain hitting ability while resting and focusing on offense.  this is seen in mike piazza's move from san diego to oakland.  also, hitters in the minor leagues who are dreadful in the field can be called up, or traded, to american league teams, like travis hafner of the indians.  for these aforementioned reasons, among others, the relative success on the field for both teams and players must be analyzed according to the balance of power amonst the two leagues.  in fact, it is my belief that the homefield advantage for the world series should be decided by interleague play records, rather than by the all-star game.  it gives more players and teams a chance to make a difference over more games, and increasing the sample size to more data is key to making a solid decision in this matter. 

4) small percentage of games breaks monotony - the entire interleague play schedule encompasses a total of four series, or twelve games, each year.  that makes up only 13.5% of total games played by a team in a 162-game schedule.  however, like a class taking two or three field trips in an academic year, or a businessman going on a few sales trips in a fiscal cycle, a small number of trips or experiences outside the daily routine can make a fairly significant positive impact on a person's mental and physical state.  it may not seem like a series during interleague play is all that different from a regular intraleague series, but there are variations that create a more intriguing environment for those involved.  oftentimes, media coverage and fan interest are heightened, and players are able to travel to cities, play in ballparks, and interact with players they might have otherwise been unable to do.  one such example is a story from the atlanta journal-constitution over the weekend, naming several young atlanta braves players who were awestruck over the chance to play in historic fenway park.  seasoned veterans who have been in the same league for their entire career also welcome the change, as was also evidenced from john smoltz's chance to pitch in fenway over the weekend during the same series.  while a game or series may look the same across the board to us as fans, it is vitally important for the players to have a chance to experience some changes in their yearly routine.

5) excersizing managerial prowess/dh rule disparity -  the designated hitter is only allowed in the american league, while national league pitchers must bat while they remain in the game.  as i have also mentioned in a previous post, i believe the dh rule should be universalized between the leagues.  however, interleague play does afford some interesting and exciting situations with regards to the dh rule. 

primarily, it forces pitchers from the american league to bat, leading to some awkward and comical plate appearances.  i personally feel that this makes games entertaining, as it allows these players to exhibit their hitting ability (or at the very least, no longer hide their inability).  pitchers who were otherwise relegated solely to the mound and defense are now able to aid in their own cause offensively.  however, this rule affords more than simple intrigue or comedy.  it also forces managers to adapt to a new rule, and how they react in these instances showcases their ability as a manager to a greater extent.  while its fairly easy to send hafner or david ortiz to the plate as a dh every game, eric wedge and terry francona must decide if their increased production at the plate is worth decreased efficiency in the field when playing in national league parks during interleague play.  likewise, national league managers must decide whom on their team might benefit the most from hitting without fielding duties during series in american league ballparks.  pinch hitting and fielding changes are much more scrutinized and important in these cases.  it takes teams, players, and managers out of their element and comfort zone, and the decisions they make when faced with these obstacles provides an insight into their prowess as managers. 

we as bloggers all have opinions as to how sports can be altered to better meet our needs as fans.  while we all have differing ideas as to how this can be accomplished, but we generally require lots of scoring (why soccer hasn't taken off), lots of action (why baseball games are tedious to watch in their entirety), and a solid understanding of rules and strategies (why hockey fails to crack the top three in america). 

but beyond those aspects of on-the-field rules changes (perhaps the subject of a later posting), there are many "behind the scenes" changes i feel are needed in the current sports environment.  these are manipulations of rules regarding issues in sports that do not directly affect the on-field performance, but are still ifluential in how we watch and perceive sports.  here are five such changes i believe are necessary:

1) Enact a salary cap in baseball

why its needed: while parity in baseball has been more substantial during the last decade, with teams like the marlins and diamondbacks winning the world series and wild card and smaller market teams succeeding deep into the playoffs, the larger markets and more powerful teams still drastically attract the talent pool.  bottom-dwelling teams like the devil rays, royals, rockies, marlins, and pirates act as an extended farm system for the yankees, red sox, cubs, mets, angels, and dodgers.  to put this in perspective, last year the yankees' payroll was just under $200 million, compared with the marlins' $14 million.  you read that correctly; you could square the marlins' payroll and it would still be less than that of the yanks.  each year, it is a case of the smaller market teams bringing up their young talent (acquired through their good draft positions and trades with the larger market teams) and having them individually succeed while the team fails.  following this "tryout," one of the more prominent teams offers up more money than the weaker team could ever hope to match, and that player moves out of an area where he is beloved and offers a ray of hope to a fledgling franchise.  don't be surprised if carl crawford, alex gordon, hanley ramirez, carlos quentin, and other young studs end up in new york or boston.

how it can happen: just like the nba and nfl, cap the salaries that can be offered to a full roster of players.  instead of wild spending sprees each offseason that encourage teams to bid up mediocre players and lavish good ones, have the contract negotiations mean something.  have general managers and scouts do their job by identifing bargain and bust players, and operate within the salary cap.  there is no need to drastically cut salaries overnight - the cap could start at $180 million and shrink by $10 million a year for 3-5 years.  that way, teams like the yankees would need to curtail spending, while owners of the pirates, marlins, and royals could increase theirs with the knowledge that they can't always be outbid.

why it won't happen:  the player's union and larger market teams would never agree to this, since it is these groups who have originally inflated player salaries and now reap the benefits.  also, smaller market teams gain funds through revenue-sharing and the luxury tax.  these teams make more money (as a percentage of total income) than larger market teams since their payroll is so small and their take from revenue sharing is so high.  while fans of these teams have long complained about the ownership inactivity, the owners themselves see these teams as business ventures set up to bring in revenue, and under the current system that is precisely what they do. 

2) Establish a tournament in college football   

why its needed: championships, seedings, careers, legacies, memories, and livelihoods of college student athletes, coaches, and fans are decided by computers and out-of-touch sportswriters.  the former of these ranking systems is too objective and the latter too subjective.  with so much riding on each game, including the lifelong dreams and livelihoods of so many underprivledged young adults, any discrepancies in rankings and seedings should be played out on a field where the individuals the outcome effects are the only ones who have an affect on the outcome.

how it can happen: immediately following the end of the regular season, begin playing a 16-team tournament with the top 2 teams earning first round byes.  there is well over a month (and sometimes close to two) between the end of the season and the bcs bowl games, which is ample time to play through the rounds of the tournament.  other non-bcs games are irrelevant the way it is, and can be played during the week between these tournament games.  can you imagine watching bcs tournament games friday night and saturday throughout the day, then nfl on sunday for a month and a half straight?  the whole tournament would be over by the time the nfl playoffs roll around, and wouldn't take away any viewership or interest from the pro league.  the higher-ranked teams would get homefield for each matchup, with the "final four," third place, and championship games being played on neutral sites, which would constitute the 4 existing bcs games we have now, rotating each year for the championship.  this way, teams like boise state, who finish the year undefeated, would have a chance (albeit slim) to knock off ohio state and florida, negating any guesswork about who is college football champion.

why it won't happen: there is too much money to be made by schools, administrators, ncaa officials, and bcs system supporters to have them change the current methodology.  year after year there exists a split national title, or several schools who stake some claim to the trophy, clouding the awarding of the championship in controversy.  likewise, year after year bcs supporters point out the flawlessness of their system (its computer-based and objective, it rewards playing tougher opponents, etc.) while attacking several aspects of an idea such as this (the season would be too long, recruiting would be cut short, there is a risk of injury, the other bowls would be negated, etc.).  basically, those with the power have too much invested interest in maintaining the status quo.

3) Allow basketball players to skip college and enter the NBA draft

why its needed: i am a staunch proponent of an 18-year-old age indicating one becoming a consenting adult in all ways, shapes, and forms.  if one can be sent to fight and die for a cause determined by one's nationality, then one can also make his or her own decisions within the confines of the law.  in the case of basketball, i believe david stern was misguided in his attempt to "save young men from themselves" by instituting the rule requiring players to attend at least one year of college or turn 19 before entering the nba draft.  not only does it prohibit young men with a talent from earning money and providing for their family as an adult, it has also damaged the college game as well.  while many will point to durant, oden, conley, wright, and others enhancing the college game, there also exist many negatives to this rule.  first, these student-athletes are failing classes knowingly because they will be gone the following year, jeopardizing the academic integrity of the school.  second, the turnover on teams will be too great, hindering the recruitment process and making it hard for fans to establish affinity for a player.  finally, each year many players will be in the national spotlight for many months, taking away from the team concept and being a distraction as they look toward the future.  

how it can happen: simply put, david stern must revoke the ruling and allow 18 year old adults to enter the nba draft.  if he is concerned about these young men getting misinformed about their future and promised riches and influence they can't acheive, then enact a rule that allows high school players who sign with an agent and go undrafted to re-enter college for another year or have a supplemental draft for the nbadl.  if funding and marketing efforts are increased for the dl, then these players can still support families, as well as build a name for themselves.  if done correctly, the dl can act as a farm system for the nba, and more prominent and recognizable faces will enter this league for grooming before their time in the nba.

why it won't happen: america has already fallen in love with durant and oden, and many believe that they would not have seen these stars in action before the nba draft if not for this rule.  a higher percentage of draft picks will be more recognizable, as there will be more from american colleges, less foreign players, and no high school players.  we like to know our stars, and this rule allows us the opporunity to get to know them before they are professionals.  the only problem is that this rule violates their rights as americans.

4) Universalize or eliminate the DH  

why its needed:  in no other professional sports league are two divisions or  conferences seperated by an on-field rule such as this.  imagine if only the afc counted safeties, or only the nba's western conference allowed dribbling with either hand, or only the nhl's atlantic division enforced power plays.  this drastically changes the way the game is played, and as teams go through a season, their mindset, strategy, etc. are completely different than other teams in the same league vying for the same title.  its somewhat comforting to know that when the heat play the bulls, they will be playing by the same rules and using the same positions as the clippers do when they play the spurs.  in mlb, this isn't the case.  when the indians and red sox duel, ortiz and hafner slug it out and then ride the pine while their team fields.  however, when the cardinals and cubs play a series, chris carpenter and carlos zambrano have to face each other in alternating roles usually two or three times a game.  furthermore, stats and awards are heavily affected by this rule.  national league pitchers have an easier role, since they do not face a dh.  in addition, mvp awards and hall of fame honors are kept from dhs due to their role (there has not been a full-time dh mvp or hall of fame inductee in the history of the game).  i am not a proponent of either side of this coin - both have positive and negative aspects.  however, the fact that two leagues have a rule so divisive between them is absurd.

how it can happen:  perhaps a trial period can be enacted to test the alternate rule in each league prior to a leaguewide vote.  interleague play does not offer a long enough period of time to adequately test this new rule.  this way, american league managers can throw pitchers out to bat and use pinch hitters and runners more selectively, while national league teams can move an underacheiving fielder but overacheiving hitter to the dh slot, upgrading two aspects of the team (i.e. dodgers' use of piazza).  of course, players like ortiz and hafner would need to learn a position, but i don't think that too many national league pitchers (minus arroyo) would mind taking a break between innings instead of stepping to the plate.

why it won't happen: both leagues are too set in their ways and too many memorable moments have happened on either side of this rule (fisk's waving hr in boston, gibson's walk-off in la, etc.), that either side can defend their position.  in addition, too many players make too much money as dhs to ever allow that position to be given up.  the al is considered more competitive and exciting because of the dh, and the players' union would certainly never allow the dh to be abolished.  on the flipside, the nl embraces the strategic element of pinch hitting and pitchers hitting too much to give up.  being that a rule change would require 2/3 of the vote, it will not be happening in the near future.

5) Guarantee NFL contracts  

why its needed: the nfl is the only major professional sports league that does not guarantee its players the dollars for which they signed, regardless of length of time with the team, quality of play, etc.  many point to this aspect of the league as a positive, as players must keep up their level of play in order to retain the contract they were awarded.  however, there are several reasons why this is a misinformed position to take.  first, teams backload contracts in order to push players away following their prime and take the least amount of salary cap hit they can.  for instance, a player can be signed for 5 years, $25 million.  at face value, this looks like a standard $5 million/year salary, which is pretty good.  however, it could look like this: year 1 - $2 million, year 2 - $3.5 million, year 3 - $4.5 million, year 4 - $7 million, year 10 - $10 million.  the team may have every intention of cutting a player after year 2 or 3, meaning that they only pay about 20-30% of the total contract, even after the player provides almost half the service to the team.  second, if a player is injured, there is no team accountability to pay him after the injury.  football is a violent sport, marred with career-altering or ending injuries.  under the current structure, if a player breaks his leg and is unable to play ever again in the first year of his deal, he is cut and the team takes that money back, without taking a cap hit.  third, teams could not spend frivolously and overpay mediocre players.  they would be held more accountable to their financial decisions, since cutting or releasing a player would result in the team taking the financial hit for as long as the contract lasted after that.  finally, the nfl's treatment of ex-players has long been scrutinized, hindering the livelihood of a cut or injured player following their career.

how it can happen: the nfl and nflpa would simply need to agree on this change to the collective bargaining agreement, and allow players to collect all the money owed to them over the course of the contract.  although original contracts would be cheaper, the amount would be guaranteed, thus allowing the players to focus on their performance, instead of remaining healthy.  in addition, their financial future would be guaranteed, so making choices with regards to finances would be easier and less controversial.  teams would also be willing to listen to this offer, since there would not be so much salary cap manipulation year in and year out.

why it won't happen: although the nflpa would tend to agree with this stance, the owners would not.  while the owners would have a bit more simplicity and order in their negotiations, the thought of paying a player long after he has been released or injured is too much for them.  they would also be concerned with a performance drop-off with guaranteed money, as well as an inability to sell or move the club with so much already set.