So tonight both the Yankees and the Red Sox take on an NL East foe. For some reason it will be the Sox hosting the Mets and Yanks hosting the Phillies and not the other way around.
Because of my finals I let interleague play sneak up on me, but both Dan and I have had several discussion about the worthlessness of interleague play. Now, I'll admit that I do enjoy some of interleague play. Anytime the Mets take on the Yankees the series has a feel to it reminiscent of a Sox-Yanks game. Beyond that I couldn't care less if the Yankees get to take on the Rockies or the Marlins. Not to mention that having three or four series against teams you only play once a season really makes scheduling difficult especially if rain decides to show up for a weekend or two. And don't even get me started on competitive balance.
Both Dan and I have come up with the idea that you can still have interleague play while avoiding these ridiculous schedules and maintaining fan interest. Why not limit interleague to simple "rivalry" or "grudge match" series?
It would be tough and some teams would have to be rotated because of Selig's ill-designed 16-14 split of the NL and AL. But look at it this way. You match teams together based on either geographical or historical rivalry. Dodgers vs Angels, Giants vs A's, Phillies vs Blue Jays, Yanks vs Mets and Sox vs. Braves. Sure you would have stretch some of them, but even if it's a stretch to start it wont take long for a rivalry to build.
Interleague has been fun, but right now I think more fans look at it as a nuisance than something entertaining. Let the teams play the games against teams that make a difference.