Don't touch it BUD!

[2nd_city_saint787]

No way in hell can you give a team home-field advantage for an entire series. Horrible idea.

 

 

if its a one game play in game the you obviously give home field to the better team. pretty simple.....imagine if they had it this year those games with the red sox would have been huge, thered be a sox(red and white) watch at the end of the year. it would have been an exciting last couple games

[Buehrlesque]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/m...ns-count-again/

 

Not just a guy playing Devil's Advocate, but instead bringing up a legitimate argument against the 2 Wild Card system.

Hmm, that was an interesting point against the new model. But, it doesn't factor in the drama of the Sox vs. Sox series, as 2ndcitysaint78 said. The Red Sox finished only one game better than the White Sox at the end of the season, so they would have had to play to win on the last day to avoid a tie with the White Sox for the second WC spot.

 

Meanwhile, under the current scenario, the Rays and Yankees have been assured of a playoff spot for weeks and have been resting their regulars, not really playing to win at all. If they knew there'd be some heat on them for not winning the division, the outcome of their games over the last two weeks would be different as well.

 

I guess there theoretically could be a situation in which the second Wildcard team has a bigger lead over the third Wildcard team than the division champ does over the first Wildcard team, creating an unfair advantage to the lesser team. But I still think even in that scenario overall you'd see more of a sense of urgency and effort in the play of all teams involved up to Game 162, and it's a better system than what we have now.

[kitekrazy]

Man there is nothing like bonus play in games. I was at our game 163 in 2008 and it was electrifying. And even though I hate the twins and the tigers, their game 163 was one of the best games that I had ever seen. And we'd be guaranteed at least 2 games like that every year.

 

They also have the chance to be awful as well. It could be possible a "token" playoff team from the NL could enter with only 75 victories. I can't see a "Cinderella" existing very long in the MLB playoffs except maybe for that one game. I could see it making the playoffs even less interesting. It works in the NFL because everything is decided on 1 game.

 

The baseball seasons ends at a time when it has to compete with a lot more things on TV. Outdoor weather is less predictable in some areas of the country. If anything they should shorten the season. How many teams are really making any revenue in Sept?

 

[Buehrlesque]

They also have the chance to be awful as well. It could be possible a "token" playoff team from the NL could enter with only 75 victories. I can't see a "Cinderella" existing very long in the MLB playoffs except maybe for that one game. I could see it making the playoffs even less interesting. It works in the NFL because everything is decided on 1 game.

 

The baseball seasons ends at a time when it has to compete with a lot more things on TV. Outdoor weather is less predictable in some areas of the country. If anything they should shorten the season. How many teams are really making any revenue in Sept?

I would say 99% of people around baseball would say the season should be shortened. For example, there's little doubt MLB would be better with a 150 game season and a best-of-seven first round playoffs.

 

I wouldn't even be surprised if the players accepted a slight pay cut to go with a week or two off the season. However owners will never sign off on this kind of change because of the loss of revenue, which supersedes any other improvement to the game.

[Buehrlesque]

According to Phil Rogers, it looks like MLB/Bud Selig really is going to consider some playoff changes for next year:

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...ts-way-out.html

 

I'd prefer the one-game playoff to the best-of-three series, (in which case the true Game 163s might not have to be replaced with NFL-style tiebreakers), but in either case it will be very interesting to see how owners respond to this proposal next month!

 

[southsider2k5]

If it means more money for more teams, it will pass.

[chw42]

According to Phil Rogers, it looks like MLB/Bud Selig really is going to consider some playoff changes for next year:

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...ts-way-out.html

 

I'd prefer the one-game playoff to the best-of-three series, (in which case the true Game 163s might not have to be replaced with NFL-style tiebreakers), but in either case it will be very interesting to see how owners respond to this proposal next month!

 

I like the best of 3 series idea. One game is nowhere near enough of a sample size to determine which team is better.

[balfanman]

I like the best of 3 series idea. One game is nowhere near enough of a sample size to determine which team is better.

 

I would agree with this, however, the 162 game season ahead of this game should have already determined this.

[Buehrlesque]

I like the best of 3 series idea. One game is nowhere near enough of a sample size to determine which team is better.

I agree that one game is way too small of a sample size, and best-of-three is as well. Heck, I think best-of-five is too small for baseball. The only reason I am OK with a short series (one game or best-of-three) for this 2nd Wildcard idea is that I am OK with the Wildcard winner being somewhat random and uncertain. I feel like "eh, they didn't win their division, so they don't get that kind of security." If they want the "easy/fair" way in, they have to win the division.

[balfanman]

I agree that one game is way too small of a sample size, and best-of-three is as well. Heck, I think best-of-five is too small for baseball. The only reason I am OK with a short series (one game or best-of-three) for this 2nd Wildcard idea is that I am OK with the Wildcard winner being somewhat random and uncertain. I feel like "eh, they didn't win their division, so they don't get that kind of security." If they want the "easy/fair" way in, they have to win the division.

 

I agree with this post too.

[chw42]

I agree that one game is way too small of a sample size, and best-of-three is as well. Heck, I think best-of-five is too small for baseball. The only reason I am OK with a short series (one game or best-of-three) for this 2nd Wildcard idea is that I am OK with the Wildcard winner being somewhat random and uncertain. I feel like "eh, they didn't win their division, so they don't get that kind of security." If they want the "easy/fair" way in, they have to win the division.

 

I don't think they can do a best of 5, takes too much time.

 

If it were up to me, I'd try for at least 5 or 7. Hell, even 7 games isn't enough to really tell which team is the better team sometimes.

 

There's still a lot of randomness going on, even in a 162 game season.

 

As tangotiger once said, if you gave all 30 teams with equal talent, let them play in the same stadium, against the same number of teams, in the same weather conditions, etc etc. Not all of them would be .500. In fact, there will be 10 teams above .500, 10 around .500, and 10 well below .500. Now if all those teams played each other a million times, all of them will be at .500.

 

Just goes to show you how much of a crapshoot the playoffs are. If even 162 games isn't enough to separate teams, how can 5 or 7 games be enough?

[Buehrle>Wood]

First round needs to move to best of 7.

[greg775]

It'd be harder to win it all if they expand, but it is pretty tough to make the playoffs if you are not a big money team.

The wildcard will go to an AL East team every year so we have to figure a way to beat out Minnie or we stay home.

[NorthSideSox72]

It'd be harder to win it all if they expand, but it is pretty tough to make the playoffs if you are not a big money team.

The wildcard will go to an AL East team every year so we have to figure a way to beat out Minnie or we stay home.

Man do you have a short memory. The AL East's dominance hasn't been there for decades, its a recent phenomenon. Wildcard came from the Central just a few years ago.

 

[greg775]

First round needs to move to best of 7.

 

I would 100 percent agree with that.

[Leonard Zelig]

Man do you have a short memory. The AL East's dominance hasn't been there for decades, its a recent phenomenon. Wildcard came from the Central just a few years ago.

12 of 16 AL wild card winners have been from the east.

[NorthSideSox72]

12 of 16 AL wild card winners have been from the east.

Not really my point, I was saying things don't last forever. That's one thing that has been pretty constant in this game, over time, teams ebb and flow in terms of how strong they are. The Yankees are sort of the one exception to that rule. But BOS for example, had decades of awfulness, before a relatively recent renaissance. BAL was a big time team for quite a while, their suckage is relatively recent too. Things change. You can't just say the AL East gets the wildcard forever, that simply won't happen.

 

[Jerksticks]

Not really my point, I was saying things don't last forever. That's one thing that has been pretty constant in this game, over time, teams ebb and flow in terms of how strong they are. The Yankees are sort of the one exception to that rule. But BOS for example, had decades of awfulness, before a relatively recent renaissance. BAL was a big time team for quite a while, their suckage is relatively recent too. Things change. You can't just say the AL East gets the wildcard forever, that simply won't happen.

 

But you also can't just say it's a natural ebb and flow of team strength. 2 of these East teams spend considerably more money than the other 3 because they have bigger markets for baseball. I don't see Boston ever returning to the days of mediocrity because they sell such a likable and profitable product now.

 

The Rays have become a force through young talent and the Orioles and Blue Jays might be on their way too; but the Yankees and Red Sox will still always be there because of payroll. It's not a natural cycle like most other divisions.

[southsider2k5]

[/b]

 

But you also can't just say it's a natural ebb and flow of team strength. 2 of these East teams spend considerably more money than the other 3 because they have bigger markets for baseball. I don't see Boston ever returning to the days of mediocrity because they sell such a likable and profitable product now.

 

The Rays have become a force through young talent and the Orioles and Blue Jays might be on their way too; but the Yankees and Red Sox will still always be there because of payroll. It's not a natural cycle like most other divisions.

 

Money isn't an insulator from mistakes. Look no further than 8.1 miles north of USCF.

[witesoxfan]

Money isn't an insulator from mistakes. Look no further than 8.1 miles north of USCF.

 

Comparing the Red Sox front office to the Cubs front office is comparing apples to oranges. Not that the Red Sox don't make mistakes, but they are pretty good with their money, and they surely aren't in the mess that the Cubs organization is in right now.