5/11/2026

A New Schedule

As most/all of you know, anytime you expand a league you need to make changes to the schedule format. Our last expansion was 1966, and that was the last time we changed the format of the schedule. I don’t expect to expand again before the 1990’s (and maybe not even then), but I do want to change the schedule format soon.

For the ’66 season I made the decision to go heavy on intra-division games and light on inter-division games:

This certainly wasn’t the only way I could have gone. I made that choice because I wanted to a) keep the schedule at 162 games and b) not have teams play more games out of their division than in it.

I could have instead opted for this:

This format seemed attractive due to the division/non-division split being less extreme, but there were two problems with it:

1. Reducing the schedule by two games seems unrealistic. The historical trend has always been towards adding to or maintaining the schedule, not subtracting from it. Reducing the number of games says “We’re willing to make less money just to have a neater schedule.” No real-life owner of any team in any sport has ever said that.
2. 10 games is awkward. How do you split that up? Two five-game series? Five-game series are awkward. Two threes and two two’s? Two-game series are kind of weird. Two threes and a four? Then you’ve got one team playing two to four more games at home than the other team. I’m not saying it couldn’t have been done, but with the 162-to-160 reduction already pushing me away from this idea, it seemed like more trouble than it was worth.

In retrospect, I wish I had given the following format more consideration:

Which is not to say it doesn’t present its own set of issues:

1. An odd number (13) of games vs. an opponent means an uneven split; against certain opponents teams would have to play seven home games and six road games, and vice-versa.
2. Teams would play more games out of the division (78) than in it (84).

However:

1. It’s only one more home or road game per divisional opponent, and it would be easily evened out the following season by flipping each team’s home and road games.
2. 84 to 78 is only six games, a negligible difference compared to the massive 120-42 split we have now.

I got too caught up in the imaginary edict that teams shouldn’t play more extra-division games than intra-division games; it’s really not that big a deal. This is a superior schedule format to the one we’ve been using because it will make it much more likely that the four playoff teams from each league will actually be the four best teams, as opposed to three good teams plus one that was lucky enough to be in a weak division. Playing the same number (or almost the same number) of games against every other team in the league eliminates

• the positive effect that being in a weak division tends to have on a team's won/lost record, and
• the negative effect that being in a strong division tends to have on a team's won/lost record.

Essentially, with this format a team’s record at the end of the season will be a more accurate reflection of how good they really are.

Not saying it’s perfect; there’s still a chance that the fourth place team in one division will be better than the first place team in the other division, but it’s more of a longshot.

So, better late than never. We won’t be making this change until the 1982 season, because I’ve already made the schedules through 1981 using our current format, and they took a long time to make. So you have plenty of time to prepare, not that there’s really any preparation necessary. I guess what you have plenty of time to do is argue about it, if that’s your thing. I don’t think most people would even notice the change if I didn’t draw their attention to it, and I think few, if any, would care. But I’ve been wrong about such things before, so we’ll see what the reaction is this time.

More essays

Home