The novelty has worn off for fans, and die-hard traditionalists like me can't stand it.

Players don't care for it either because they feel it adds unnecessary travel to an already grueling season and unfairly impacts playoff races.

So why doesn't Major League Baseball dump interleague play?

Unlike most major sports, which have two conferences under one league banner whose teams play each other all the time, MLB consists of two separate leagues, National and American, that play with different rules. (Designated hitters are allowed in the American League, for instance, but not the National.)

Before 1998, baseball was the only major U.S. sport in which the two teams that played for its championship had no chance of meeting during the regular season. The only time American and National League teams met before the World Series was in preseason exhibition games.

In an effort to boost fan interest following the strike-shortened 1994 season, however, MLB commissioner Bud Selig introduced interleague play in the expansion year of 1998. With interleague play, he reasoned, fans would get to see stars they wouldn't otherwise get to see; Atlanta Braves fans, for instance, could see New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter come to their home park.

 Selig also saw an opportunity to capitalize on potential regional rivalries — the Dodgers and Angels in Southern California, the A's and Giants in the Bay Area, the Yankees and Mets in New York, the Cubs and White Sox in Chicago, etc.

However, Selig didn't look at all the logistics.

Take the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, for instance. They're only a half-hour away from the Dodgers on Interstate 5, but San Diego's reasonably close too (90 minutes away), and the Angels and Padres have a rivalry dating to the old Pacific Coast League. So who is the Angels' true regional rival?

And what about teams that don't have a nearby opponent from the other league to compete with? Are fans of the NL's Arizona Diamondbacks supposed to get excited over an AL orphan like the Minnesota Twins?

Then there are playoff races to consider. Last year the Indians went 11-1 against the woeful NL West and vaulted into playoff contention. An NL team that has to face clubs from the perennially competitive AL East is going to have a much tougher time contending.

Wouldn't more intradivision games give playoff races more spice? Imagine the St. Louis Cardinals duking it out with Cincinnati in a heated battle for NL Central supremacy instead of feasting on the awful Kansas City Royals to put some distance between themselves and the Reds.

Then there is the issue of stars visiting different parks than usual. Each MLB division faces a division from the opposite league in two-year cycles; for instance, the NL West will face the AL West this year and next before moving on to either the Central or East. If, say, the Giants go to Boston one year, the Red Sox will come to San Francisco the next.

In other words, stars will only visit certain parks once every six years — which might provide short-term boosts at teams' box offices, but not enough to make it worth fans' while.

A Giants-Red Sox matchup probably wouldn't hold much appeal except to fans of those teams anyway.

What do you think, Bakersfield? Is it time for interleague play to get the heave-ho? Or does it bring more excitement to the game?