>Why not make a rule that a division isn't represented if no team has a winning record? In that case, you take the next highest record among others if there's one with a winning record. If not, top team (or the top team that doesn't already have one) gets a bye.
>
>After all, if you really can't produce enough teams with winning records, then the ones that have them must have been really good.
>
>You'd have to eliminate inter-league play and you'd have to diminish division rivalries, and have each team play the same # of games against all the other teams in the league.
>
>If you don't....you face a scenario where (for instance), the Padres could lead the NL West with a .498 record (maybe going 80-82), yet maybe they had a winning record against the NL East, or at least the winners of the NL East. It wouldn't be fair to penalize the Padres for having a losing record in their own division but winning at a higher % in fewer games against the East.

If the best team in a division has a losing record, it's not just because of division play. (By definition, the worst possible case for division play is that all the teams in the division are tied in those games.) It's because of the games against other divisions. In theory, you could have one team that did very well in the division, but sucked against the rest of the league, while another team played terribly in the division and great against everyone else, but given the unbalanced schedule, having the latter time come up with the best record and it still be a losing record would be pretty hard.

FWIW, I can't remember a baseball team going to the playoffs with a losing record. It happens occasionally in the NFL. I think it happens more in basketball and hockey, where far too many teams are in the playoffs (but that is, I suppose, a separate issue).

Tamar