What if the World Series was played on a World Cup schedule?

Thanks to the constant flow of action, the close-fought matches and the Tiger Beat-ready athletes (looking at you, Antoine Grietzmann), America has caught World Cup Fever this summer. But with only two matches remaining after Wednesday's Netherlands-Argentina semifinal, the Copa is already all but gone until 2018.

Of course, it's the scarcity that makes the World Cup so special. Golden generations get only one or two chances to prove their worth on a global stage, and a single bad break can leave a nation reeling for years. Baseball names a new champion every October, creating hope for all 30 fanbases on an annual basis. But what if MLB operated on a World Cup timetable, with only one World Series every four years?

To start this thought exercise, let's assume that the World Series began not in 1903, but in 1930 (the first year that there was a World Cup), with subsequent Fall Classics played every four years after that. While the Yankees are still the all-time leader, they now have six championships. The Cardinals remain in second with five.

Here's the chart: 

Among the most successful soccer nations, Brazil has five World Cup trophies and Italy has four. Germany defeated Brazil on Tuesday to reach its eighth World Cup final. In addition to three titles, Die Mannschaft leads all nations with four second-place finishes. The Netherlands have never won the World Cup but have finished second three times. Argentina has reached four finals and won twice. 

Under the four-year system, the Red Sox, like the Cubs, would still be searching for their first World Series title. The Dodgers, despite three Series appearances, would also be ringless:

Only playing the World Series every four years would have altered some of the game's most storied rivalries. The Yankees-Dodgers showdowns of the 1950s, for instance, disappear into the aether. But such a schedule might also create its own new storylines. Tigers-Cardinals matchups would take on an added level of intensity if the Tigers had only appeared in two World Series and lost both to the Cardinals.

A quadrennial World Series would also change the way franchises are built and developed. With a less prestigious regular season title given to the team with the best record during the World Series' off years, teams would have to balance maintaining a roster competitive enough to keep fans entertained, while still working on a constant four-year plan. Young players would command a higher premium on the trade market following a World Series, while veterans would become increasingly valuable as the next Fall Classic approached. A loan system like club soccer's might even develop to fill in some of the gaps.

Tear-down-and-rebuild efforts like those overseen by the Astros' Jeff Luhnow and the Cubs' Theo Epstein would become the preferred option for all but the very strongest of teams. Sports Illustrated has already projected Houston to win the 2017 World Series, but in our exercise that may only net them a regular season title and not the World Series. While they would presumably be among the frontrunners for 2018, should an injury strike or a prospect fail to live up to his hype, there would be no second chance at a championship. At least not for another four seasons. 

International scouring and the Draft would take on even greater importance and teams might invest additional resources in up-and-coming baseball hotbeds like India, China, Brazil -- anywhere that athletic talent can be found. In a roundabout way, a four-year World Series could help the World Baseball Classic grow into an event closer in size to the World Cup - which featured 204 countries in the 2014 qualifying rounds.

Still, none of this answers the biggest question: just what would we do with ourselves in the three consecutive Octobers with no World Series? Go shopping? Clean out the gutters? Get more sleep? That sounds terrible. World Cup, you're great, and I can't wait to watch you four years from now. But thank the stars for annual playoff baseball.