Here we go again.....take a look at the schedule.....

[MattyHo4Life]

Originally Posted by indyred

I guess I don't mind....Things always even out........I always believe it's when you play them and not who.....Even terrible teams can get hot and beat better teams

Exactly! For example, every team in the NL Central plays 6 games against teams in the other NL divisions. Those 6 games may be split so that you play 3 games in April and 3 games in September. Well...a team like the Phillies or the Diamondbacks may be completely different in April than they are in September. They may be a first place team in April, and a last place team by the time September comes around. Teams in the other NL divisions that play the Cubs before Lee, Prior, and Wood will obviously be playing a lesser team than those that play the Cubs later in the season. It al levens out in the end though. Last year the Cardinals were 2-1 against the Royals. It didn't factor into the final results at all, and I doubt it makes a difference this year either.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by OldXOhio

I'll take games against a team on a long winning streak any day. Eventually, all streaks come to an end.

Vegas will teach you that it doesn't pay to bet against a streak.

Yes, all streaks must come to an end, but the odds favour it continuing in the meantime.

[Newman4]

Originally Posted by indyred

I guess I don't mind....Things always even out........I always believe it's when you play them and not who.....Even terrible teams can get hot and beat better teams.....The NFL has a very unbalanced sked, where teams in the same division don't play the exact same sked as other's......In baseball you play each team in your own divison so many times now, that helps balance things out a bit more...........

The problem is the Reds "natural rival" is the Indians and the Cards is the Royals. The Indians are pretty much always better than the Royals. Thus, the schedule in favor of the Cards.

The NFL I believe schedules based on the team's record from the previous year. The first place team plays a tougher schedule than say the last place team. MLB doesn't do that.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

More reason to understand why Bud Selig and his cronies are masters of crud.

Actually, we have our very own John Allen to thank for that. In either the first or second year of interleague play, the Reds were going to play the Indians series away only. Allen managed to trade a series (it may have even been the Royals ) for an extra appearance with the Indians. I think it was 1999. The following year, Bud and those guys instituted the "natural rival" scheduling BS.

You're right, it's absurd to make the schedule unfair just for the sake of a couple thousand extra dollars. Like you said, I doubt the Royals coming to St Louis even sells extra tickets. In fact, since the Royals are so bad, it may be a negative factor. I know they said on the radio once that when bad interleague teams (like Tampa, Royals, etc) come to an NL stadium, they are usually some of the worst draws.

I think interleague play has run its course. I'd like to drop the whole thing and go back to balanced schedules within the league. It's not fair that the weak NL west teams play each other more times too, and get a boost in the wild card race.

[OldXOhio]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

Vegas will teach you that it doesn't pay to bet against a streak.

Yes, all streaks must come to an end, but the odds favour it continuing in the meantime.

Ah yes, the Vegas streak theory....I'm very familiar with that one.

I'm in a line of work where momentum is often king, so while I won't disagree with you, I will say that merely "adhering to the streak" can also get you killed. Detroit's train will lose its steam - the longer it runs, the higher the chance it will break down.

[RedsManRick]

The Cards are the Packers to the Royals' Vikings. Definitely more of a one-way rivalry.

[TeamBoone]

I agree that 3 games against teams in Interleague play is enough. If it's a "natural" rival, they play at home one year and away the next. Six against one team is three too many.

IMHO, teams should NEVER play out-of-league teams as often as they play out-of-division teams within their own league.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by TeamBoone

I agree that 3 games against teams in Interleague play is enough. If it's a "natural" rival, they play at home one year and away the next. Six against one team is three too many.

IMHO, teams should NEVER play out-of-league teams as often as they play out-of-division teams within their own league.

Yeah, efforts to regularize the schedule should be made whenever possible. I can't stand the imbalance of that quirk, either.

However, I'd say the Cards' gift of the Royals has hurt a team like Houston much more than it has Cincy; the Reds haven't been within sniffing distance of the Cards for an eternity, so it's been a pretty null issue on this front.

They just gonna have kick Tiger Tail!!!!!

[dsmith421]

Both interleague play and the unbalanced schedule were stupid ideas when instituted and worse ideas now.

If the Reds are competing against the entire National League (which we are, for a wild card spot), we should play an identical schedule to everyone else. Same number of games against all teams in the NL, no interleague play. Anything else is inherently unfair.

If baseball wants the revenue from a Yankees-Mets series (which is what this is all about, at heart), then have them play exhibitions on off days.

But man can you imagine how much they make off those weekend series with the NY and CHICAGO TEAMS. We couldnt imagine how much they pull in.You know NY is making a haul up there.......

[KronoRed]

Originally Posted by Centralchamps05

Interleague stinks. End of story.

Agreed.

It was fun for about 2 years, get rid of it..and the DH..in fact..get rid of the entire AL

[MattyHo4Life]

Originally Posted by TeamBoone

I agree that 3 games against teams in Interleague play is enough. If it's a "natural" rival, they play at home one year and away the next. Six against one team is three too many.

I agree, but it doesn't happen that way. In 2003, the two teams played a 3 game series in KC and a 3 game series in St. Louis. In 2004 and 2005 the Cardinals played a 3 game series in KC. The Rotals haven't been to St. Louis since 2003.

[MattyHo4Life]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

However, I'd say the Cards' gift of the Royals has hurt a team like Houston much more than it has Cincy; the Reds haven't been within sniffing distance of the Cards for an eternity, so it's been a pretty null issue on this front.

True, but the Astros play the Rangers, and they aren't usually much better than the Royals year after year.