It's not far-fetched at all because the other options are far worse. I feel like I kind of helped create the monster with Big Z's four-team concept, since I brought up the four-league PCL/CBL a few years ago. I have since come around to the idea that the CBL won't be the option to take because it's too radically weird looking for people to accept as a viable solution.
But a Pacific League and SOUTHERN LEAGUE makes complete and total sense compared to a 16-team AL and 16-team NL. And here's why. Montreal and Nashville gives you 8 PTZ/MTZ teams, 9 CTZ teams and 15 ETZ teams. So there's basically TWO WAYS to do 16-team AL/NL, and two radical ideas. Keep in mind that anyone switching divisions or leagues has veto rights
Option I: 8-team divisions, West and East:
AL West - LAA, OAK, SEA, TEX, HOU, CWS, MIN, KC
AL East - DET, CLE, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL, TB, Nashville
NL West - LAD, SD, SF, ARZ, COL, STL, CHC, MIL
NL East - CIN, PIT, MON, NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA
Looks good! Except you get to the schedule. Currently, you play 74 vs division, 68 vs league, and 20 interleague. Divisions would be bigger, fewer non-division league opponents. So that translates to around 90 vs division (12 each) and 52 vs league (6.5 each) and 20 interleague.
LAD, SD, SF, ARZ, COL are losing 10 PTZ/MTZ road start times; LAA, SEA, OAK are losing 6.
STL, CHC, MIL get 12 more PTZ/MTZ road games; CWS, MIN, KC get 7 or 8 more. And all six have veto rights.
Option II: 4-team divisions
Plenty of arguments to be made on HOW to divide these teams into groups of 4. Everyone is going to lobby for exactly what they want. So while THIS is probably the cleanest:
AL East - BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR
AL South - HOU, TEX, KC, TB
AL Cent - CWS, MIN, CLE, DET
AL West - LAA, OAK, SEA, COL
NL West - LAD, SD, SF, ARZ
NL Cent - STL, CHC, MIL, NASH
NL East - MON, NYM, PHI, WAS
NL South - PIT, CIN, ATL, MIA
18.67 vs division (54), 7 vs league (84), 24 interleague.
9 teams have veto rights and at least 5 definitely would not like that (ATL, MIA, KC, TB, COL)
Option III: Radical Realignment by geography. This is the Manfred proposal.
NL West: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL/Portland
NL Central: MIL, CHC, STL, CWS, KC, TEX, HOU, COL/Nashville
AL East: CIN, PIT, PHI, BAL, WAS, ATL, MIA, TB
AL North: DET, CLE, BOS, NYY, NYM, Montreal, TOR, MIN (?)
12 vs division, 1 series vs other 24 teams; 156 game schedule.
Only TB, LAD, SD, SF, ARZ and possibly COL would NOT have veto rights. The last time a commissioner tried radical realignment to look like the NBA/NHL, there was an ownership Coup and he was the only MLB commish ever to be removed and it was only resolved by Selig moving his Brewers to the NL. This would likely have 20+ no votes.
Option IV: the radical LOOKING Pacific/Southern option.
PL: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL
SL: TB, MIA, ATL, WAS, TEX, HOU, KC, Nashville
NL: MIL, CHC, STL, CIN, PIT, PHI, NYM, Montreal
AL: MIN, CWS, DET, CLE, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL
Schedule: 16 vs Division (112), 1 series vs half the others (48)
15 teams have veto rights:
LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL, TEX, HOU -- all 10 of them are getting every single thing they want out of realignment. It's a huge win. No vetos used.
KC, ATL, TB, MIA, WAS would have veto rights and objections.
To recap:
Option I: 14 No Votes, 10 teams have a veto
Option II: 9 No Votes, 9 teams have veto rights
Option III: 20+ No Votes, 25 teams have veto rights.
Option IV: 5 No Votes, 15 teams have veto rights.
Right off the bat, you can see it's between Option II and Option IV; Option IV has the edge in fewest no votes and fewest vetos. And the vetos include the same teams: KC, ATL, TB, MIA, WAS.
Compare the two options for those five teams:
KC gets road 26 CTZ games from O2 and 32 or 36 in O4. You won their vote.
TB would have every division game vs a CTZ team in O2. O4 gives them MIA, ATL, WAS in the division. They lose games vs NYY/BOS in both options; O4 gives them more games vs BOS/NYY/PHI/NYM than O2. You won their vote.
MIA would have PIT, CIN, ATL in O2. Only ATL is a rival and PIT/CIN are small market teams that aren't going to draw well on the road; O4 gives them ATL plus WAS and in-state rival TB. That's better. They lose NYM/PHI in both options, O4 is more games vs NYM/PHI/NYY/BOS. You won their vote.
ATL would have MIA, CIN, PIT in Option II; and Option IV gives them WAS as well, fewer games in the PTZ/MTZ, gets them NYM/PHI/NYY/BOS/ visiting more times than Option II. It's a better option for them as well.
Only WAS has a better O2 than O4. But you have a carrot to dangle: MLB can step into the WAS/BAL TV contract conflict;
And you have a Plan B: You can switch Montreal to the AL and sub in BAL to the South because BAL is about to be for sale and you can tie the sale to accepting the Southern League assignment (Just like MLB did with Houston to move to the AL West).
So there you have it. It is NOT CRAZY. Sorry this was so long.