Maybe I'm missing something here, but does this proposal essentially say that half the teams will be playing something like a 70 game season as they're only par

Maybe I'm missing something here, but does this proposal essentially say that half the teams will be playing something like a 70 game season as they're only part of the "Standard" league? How is the revenue sharing agreement going to work, you only get a cut of the rev from the leagues your in? The issue right now is that the Yankees and Dodgers each get one vote, while the Marlins and Pirates also each get one vote on any matter like this. Most of the teams are not located in NY, CA, or Chicago where there's major fan bases and ownership that's willing to spend to appease these fan bases. At best, I could see about half a dozen owners benefitting from this, a dozen actively harmed by it, and the rest in a grey area of "being motivated to do better at baseball" by it. I can see how this idea serves the fans and players, but how does it help billionaires fleece local governments for stadium subsidies/cozy up to local politicians to help grease the wheels of their ACTUAL businesses? I'm very anti-owner class, but I'll still admit you need to propose an idea they would actually like for it to be considered serious. This does not help the majority of owners fulfil their actual goals, which is acquiring currency at the greatest rate possible.