One of the best parts of baseball is that we can have such passionate debates about it! I respect your opinions, but disagree. Agreed...and that's OK. I don't think baseball needs to be blown up. You can always improve things here or there, but I think the sport is thriving. "Blown up" was maybe the wrong term...I mostly meant changing some of the nagging things that could be improved. I think the NL/AL distinctions are historic. And while the differences between the leagues are certainly diminished from the days when there were separate league offices, I think it's important to respect that history. I still think the Astros are in the NL half the time. Yabbut, if the DH is added to the NL, then there is no more need to have the distinction. It becomes historical, which is fine with me. As an NL purist, I think it would make the transition more palatable. When I tell my grandkids about the "good old days", I can talk about the differences and nuance that made the NL special. Once the DH becomes universal, that is gone. I think MLB would have a better time selling abolishing the differences in the leagues than adding the DH to the NL. I think MLB is more likely to add two teams to deal with the forced inter-league games rather than realign. And I like the inter-league games. More opportunities to see the Mets. I'm sure they will, too. But I don't like adding more teams. I'd contract if anything. I feel the talent pool is diluted and better competition would be forced by fewer teams. I don't know if there is a huge need to reduce travel -- it's not like they are flying economy on Southwest -- and I like seeing more teams, rather than the sames ones over and over. Poll the players and owners and see what they say. It is an expense and it also creates wear and tear on players. Realigning so that the Mets play the Yankees 18-24 times per year rather than the Marlins or Braves saves thousands of air miles and reduces road trips. Players would be fresher and, theoretically, would perform better and last longer. And I'm not saying they would never play other teams. Ideally, I would advocate for 8 four team divisions where teams play their division rivals 24 times and then one series against every other team in the league (alternating home/away each year). That would be 156 games and the schedule would be set. You would know that the Mets are coming to Detroit every other year rather than the random scheduling that happens now. *On edit - I guess my premise here does mean there would be expansion of two teams. I don't see a benefit in shortening the season. It's been 162 going on 60 years. And if they are going to have more doubleheaders, it would be of the day/night variety and those suck. Again, ask the players. Travel and scheduling in baseball is worse than ever. I have a feeling that players are going to negotiate mandatory off days after road trips and playing no more than something like 10 days in a row. Reducing the number of games while keeping the April through October timeframe allows schedule makers to put in more off days. Doubleheaders would help with that as well...and I would hope that they would be true twin-bills and I'm talking like no more than two or three a season. More off days means that players again would be fresher and last longer.