PDA

View Full Version : Neutral Site World Series?


Frontman
07-06-2008, 05:48 PM
Bud Selig was on "Talking Baseball" yesterday; and afterwards LeVine and Coppack were going on about how within 5-10 years, MLB will move the Fall Classic to a neutral site city.

Now, there are a few merits to it; but let me throw this out there. Is there a dome over the New Yankee Stadium or will they put one over Fenway? Because as long as those two organizations can bring a World Series to their respective cities, their ownership will fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening.

LITTLE NELL
07-06-2008, 05:57 PM
Horrible idea.

FarWestChicago
07-06-2008, 05:59 PM
Horrible idea.:tool

Don't forget I invented tie games!

UofCSoxFan
07-06-2008, 06:03 PM
Really really bad idea. About the only merit to this would be that it means the ASG would no longer determine home field advantage...of course that was another Selig bonehead idea so go figure.

The neutral site thing works for the super bowl b/c it is one game and fans can actually travel for that one game (although I would argure the NFC/AFC Championship is a much better atmosphere). No other sport that is played in a series has a neutral site championship. I'm honestly not sure you would sell out say a Marlins/Indians World Series (which happened not too long ago) in the host city of say Seattle, for example.

chisoxfanatic
07-06-2008, 06:29 PM
Lemme give this one a big hell freaking NO! There is no way we should have to pay for a plane ticket and hotel costs in order to see our team in the World Series! Whomever thought of this idea oughtta get a Darwin Award.

eastchicagosoxfan
07-06-2008, 06:32 PM
Terrible idea. The bread and butter of MLB are the season ticket holders. A nuetral site Series? Nothing says **** you season ticket holders quite like that.

hose
07-06-2008, 06:33 PM
Bonehead idea !!!

chisoxfanatic
07-06-2008, 06:35 PM
Terrible idea. The bread and butter of MLB are the season ticket holders. A nuetral site Series? Nothing says **** you season ticket holders quite like that.
Thank you! I shell out enough money for mine, as does every other season ticket holder. We'd have to pay up the ass in "traveling" fees in order to see our Sox in the World Series???

SoxNation05
07-06-2008, 06:52 PM
I am gonna be ****ing pissed.

JB98
07-06-2008, 07:39 PM
It's a horrible, horrible idea. Worst idea since Chris Snopek.

Frontman
07-06-2008, 07:40 PM
It's a horrible, horrible idea. Worst idea since Chris Snopek.


Ouch. Truthful, but.....ouch.

chisoxmike
07-06-2008, 07:42 PM
This idea is just awful.

Could you image if the Cubs were in this World Series and it would be played in LA or something not as magical like Wrigley Field.

Imagine Game 1 of the 2005 World Series being played somewhere else besides Chicago. :(:

PKalltheway
07-06-2008, 07:44 PM
This is a spectacularly terrible idea. Let's say the World Series was held somewhere like Pittsburgh. Who the **** in Pittsburgh would care if it was a Rangers/Dodgers World Series?

Who would care in Denver if it was a Marlins/Orioles World Series being held there?

Who would care in Cincinnati if it was a Blue Jays/Padres World Series being held there?

RockRiversoxfan
07-06-2008, 07:47 PM
there was a previous talk about this toipic during the cold and rainy 2006 postseason. the 4 rainouts tied the all time record. the tempature was below 50 degrees for 4 of the 5 games during the world series. every fall is diffrent though. last fall there were no rainouts at all. the illinois high school and collage baseball champinships are at neutrel sites.

Madscout
07-06-2008, 07:47 PM
NO NO NO NO NO NO, and NO!

Madscout
07-06-2008, 07:48 PM
This is a spectacularly terrible idea. Let's say the World Series was held somewhere like Pittsburgh. Who the **** in Pittsburgh would care if it was a Rangers/Dodgers World Series?

Who would care in Denver if it was a Marlins/Orioles World Series being held there?

Who would care in Cincinnati if it was a Blue Jays/Padres World Series being held there?
I'd go, depending on the cost.

ilsox7
07-06-2008, 07:49 PM
While we're at it, let's make it a single game event. Better yet, the two teams play one inning to decide it all.

sox1970
07-06-2008, 07:51 PM
I'll pile on this heap...it's a stupid idea.

Brian26
07-06-2008, 07:55 PM
Part of the prize of making the World Series is being able to see it contested in one's home park. Just an insanely terrible idea on many different levels.

doublem23
07-06-2008, 07:59 PM
I can't believe that would ever actually happen. What a crock of ****.

chaerulez
07-06-2008, 08:03 PM
This is stupid on so many levels. The Super Bowl being at a neutral site makes sense. This doesn't. Teams also build around their stadium. The A's don't necessarily have to go after high strikeout pitchers because they play in a pitcher friendly park. The Rangers always seem to load up on hitting so they can take advantage of their hitters park.

CallMeNuts
07-06-2008, 08:46 PM
First, let me be perfectly clear: I despise this idea!

Second: It will happen.

Just like everything else. They will do it for the money.

They will add one more round of playoffs for the extra TV money. That will push the Fall Classic into Winter. So the whole thing will be played in a dome or in the South.

We season ticket holders like to think we are the backbone of the game. And we are right. But when it comes to the neutral site World Series, we'll be lucky to be in the upper deck, while the good seats are occupied by advertisers and network honchos.

Sorry. Like I said: I despise this idea.

Railsplitter
07-06-2008, 08:50 PM
Another Wisconsinian could describe this idea than I could.

:dumbass: idea there, Dud.

roylestillman
07-06-2008, 09:19 PM
there was a previous talk about this toipic during the cold and rainy 2006 postseason. the 4 rainouts tied the all time record. the tempature was below 50 degrees for 4 of the 5 games during the world series. every fall is diffrent though. last fall there were no rainouts at all. the illinois high school and collage baseball champinships are at neutrel sites.

Hey I sat through rain and the 40's for Game 2 and loved every minute of it.

Its a stupid idea and won't happen because of money. Take away the rights to World Series seats in your own park and season ticket sales will be cut in half. The owners will never go for it.

thomas35forever
07-06-2008, 09:23 PM
Why would Bud Selig even think about this? A World Series is supposed to help a city economically. Why make the hot vacation spots richer if their teams aren't playing? Besides, no one in San Diego would care about a Rays-Phillies World Series. It's not fair for the fans that would need to pay air and hotel expenses to watch their team play in another city.

SoxandtheCityTee
07-06-2008, 09:29 PM
It's always good to stretch out your mind to take in the ever more spectacularly stupid ways that MLB can attempt to ruin this beautiful game. You need to stay on top of Bud, he's a sneaky one.

DumpJerry
07-06-2008, 09:36 PM
I will cancel my season tickets if this happened.

Everyone email Brooks.

Email Selig, if you're a ST holder.

I could not locate Bud's email address on the MLB site, but his snail mail address and phone number are:
Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Commissioner
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10167
Phone: (212) 931-7800

If you call, they might give you an email address, but do you know for certain it will be read? You might get an automatic response which looks personal thanking you for writing, but no human eyes actually see it.

A letter will be opened and seen by someone.

I would also let the following individuals at the Commissioner's office know how you feel:

Bob DuPuy-President and Chief Operating Officer
Jimmie Lee Solomon-Executive Vice President, Baseball Operations
Tim Brosnan-Executive Vice President, Business.

I would imagine these four execs are the main decision makers.

DumpJerry
07-06-2008, 09:45 PM
Bud Selig was on "Talking Baseball" yesterday; and afterwards LeVine and Coppack were going on about how within 5-10 years, MLB will move the Fall Classic to a neutral site city.
I just re-read your post. Did Selig say something about this or is it something LeVine and Coppack were speculating about after Selig left?

goofymsfan
07-06-2008, 10:08 PM
Terrible idea. The bread and butter of MLB are the season ticket holders. A nuetral site Series? Nothing says **** you season ticket holders quite like that.

Agreed! this is a stupid idea.

doublem23
07-07-2008, 12:21 AM
I just re-read your post. Did Selig say something about this or is it something LeVine and Coppack were speculating about after Selig left?

I have to believe this is just LeVine/Coppack speculation... There's no possible way Selig or the owners could ever actually think about a neutral site World Series; it would literally be worse than canceling the 1994 Series.

ComiskeyBrewer
07-07-2008, 12:45 AM
I will cancel my season tickets if this happened.

Everyone email Brooks.

Email Selig, if you're a ST holder.

I could not locate Bud's email address on the MLB site, but his snail mail address and phone number are:
Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Commissioner
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10167
Phone: (212) 931-7800

If you call, they might give you an email address, but do you know for certain it will be read? You might get an automatic response which looks personal thanking you for writing, but no human eyes actually see it.

A letter will be opened and seen by someone.

I would also let the following individuals at the Commissioner's office know how you feel:

Bob DuPuy-President and Chief Operating Officer
Jimmie Lee Solomon-Executive Vice President, Baseball Operations
Tim Brosnan-Executive Vice President, Business.

I would imagine these four execs are the main decision makers.

Bud's milwaukee office would be quicker. He's almost never in NY.

TDog
07-07-2008, 03:51 AM
The difference between in-market and out-of-market television ratings for World Series games should keep a neutral-site World Series from ever happening. A neutral site is an idiotic concept for professional sports. The neutral-site Super bowl is one of the reasons I don't take the NFL seriously, but with baseball, the idea seems destined to fail. Perhaps if you can afford season tickets, you can afford to put your life on hold at short notice to spend a week in a distant city.

There is no way the Yankees or Red Sox, or the White Sox or Cardinals or Cubs for that matter would agree to surrender any homefield advantage to Arizona, San Diego or Los Angeles or any team in Texas that may make it to the World Series when they are chosen as a neutral site because they have weather suitable for baseball.

I chalk this discussion up to speculation of men who can't remember the last time they paid to see a ballgame.

downstairs
07-07-2008, 11:07 AM
Impossible

Imagine you have a chance at tickets for game 6. Do you risk spending hundreds (thousands) to travel across the country for a game that may not be played? You'll get a refund on tickets, but not the hotel/plane/etc.

It works with the Superbowl because it is one game.

munchman33
07-07-2008, 11:26 AM
If this means the All-Star game, with 4 very flawed methods of selecting players, no longer has meaning, then I'm all for this.

doublem23
07-07-2008, 11:47 AM
If this means the All-Star game, with 4 very flawed methods of selecting players, no longer has meaning, then I'm all for this.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Chez
07-07-2008, 12:58 PM
An idea so incredibly flawed and assinine, that it could only have been hatched by Coppack and Levine. No way Bud would ever leave his fingerprints on this one.

VeeckAsInWreck
07-07-2008, 01:10 PM
That is the dumbest idea I've ever heard from Bud Selig. Interleague play was actually Bill Veeck's idea and he tried to introduce that back when he owned the St. Louis Browns.

But even Bill Veeck would agree that having the World Series in a neutral city is the dumbest thing for the game. Just because it works for the NFL it does not mean that it will work for baseball. Next thing you know Bud will try to implement 16 game schedules with only Sunday games to boost ratings.

wKjxFJfcrcA

tebman
07-07-2008, 01:31 PM
I remember Roger Angell wrote about this some years ago in one of his New Yorker baseball articles. He was lamenting the power that TV and big money has over baseball and wondered if it would ever come to this. Move the series to some warm weather site and call it "Superweek!"

I agree it's a bad idea. I don't think even TV would go for it because it's the draw of the two teams that affects ratings, not the location of the games.

TDog
07-07-2008, 02:48 PM
If this means the All-Star game, with 4 very flawed methods of selecting players, no longer has meaning, then I'm all for this.

You might want to learn the concept of "lesser of two evils."

Eddo144
07-07-2008, 02:59 PM
A neutral site is an idiotic concept for professional sports. The neutral-site Super bowl is one of the reasons I don't take the NFL seriously, but with baseball, the idea seems destined to fail.
I totally agree that a neutral-site World Series is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, but I think you're off with your judgment of the NFL (and, by extension, college football). A neutral site championship is necessary in a one-and-done format, because giving one team a home game without reciprocating at all (obviously one team will get more in a 4-out-of-7 series, but they've "earned" it) is just too much of a disadvantage. I don't have as big an issue with homefield advantage for the rest of the playoffs (those are teams within your own conference, who you have proved yourself to be better than by virtue of your record (lots of common opponents)).

UofCSoxFan
07-07-2008, 03:10 PM
It's a horrible, horrible idea. Worst idea since Chris Snopek.

Don't you think that's a little unfair to Chris Snopek?:cool:

TDog
07-07-2008, 03:48 PM
I totally agree that a neutral-site World Series is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, but I think you're off with your judgment of the NFL (and, by extension, college football). A neutral site championship is necessary in a one-and-done format, because giving one team a home game without reciprocating at all (obviously one team will get more in a 4-out-of-7 series, but they've "earned" it) is just too much of a disadvantage. I don't have as big an issue with homefield advantage for the rest of the playoffs (those are teams within your own conference, who you have proved yourself to be better than by virtue of your record (lots of common opponents)).

College football has had a tradition of quasi-neutral site championships with bowl games. Championships used to be a matter of opinion based on who people believed was the best team. Bowl games aren't always neutral sites, though. When USC and O.J. Simpson beat Indiana in the Rose Bowl, USC was the home team (although I didn't follow college football enough to know if USC was named national champs).

Before the Super Bowl, the NFL and AFL championships offered homefield advantages that were staggering in their dimension. When I lived in Dallas as a kid, people were whining for years about the Cowboys having to play for the championship in Green Bay. The Super Bowl was a single game between warring leagues after the season in the tradition of college football (or boxing or professional wrestling). You even had two networks televising it because one had the rights to the NFL and one had the rights to the AFL. The first World Series in 1903 was in the tradition of barnstorming baseball where teams traveled to play in other teams' cities.

The neutral site was retained for the Super Bowl after the merger because the hype was successful in building interest. Now, with the NFL being a single league, I find the neutral site pretentious. If I were a Bears season ticket holder and the Bears made it to the Super Bowl, I would have to watch it on television. I'm not and I don't.

Eddo144
07-07-2008, 04:41 PM
The neutral site was retained for the Super Bowl after the merger because the hype was successful in building interest. Now, with the NFL being a single league, I find the neutral site pretentious. If I were a Bears season ticket holder and the Bears made it to the Super Bowl, I would have to watch it on television. I'm not and I don't.
Ah, but there's another point in favor of a neutral-site Super Bowl, in my opinion.

In the World Series, fans of both teams get home games, and thus an opportunity to attend a World Series game. Astros fans got to see their team in person in 2005, despited not having homefield advantage.

However, when the Bears went to the Super Bowl, they would indeed have hosted. Bears fans would get a chance to go to the championship, and all is great, right? Not quite. What about all the Colts fans? Don't they deserve a shot? Isn't it unfair that only fans of one team get the opportunity to root their team on.

Under the current system, both fanbases get equally screwed. While they're still getting screwed, there's no way to assure a fair chance without making the Super Bowl a series, which is logistically impossible in football.

whitem0nkey
07-07-2008, 04:46 PM
Horrible idea. and since were on this.

Also please stop with the all-star game determining the home field.

I would rather use inter league records between AL and NL. The league that won more gets home field.

MeteorsSox4367
07-07-2008, 04:59 PM
What's next? Maybe we could have two captains and they could choose their teams. First choice goes to the person who has their hand closest to the top of the knob of the bat without going over.

Good grief, Bud. This idea ranks right up there with New Coke.

No, no, no!!!!

slavko
07-07-2008, 05:15 PM
Was this something postulated by Selig or did Levine and Coppock come up with it on their own? (There's a trio of intellects for ya.)

TornLabrum
07-07-2008, 05:54 PM
I think the planet's collective IQ dropped 10 points just by those three being in the same room.

EndemicSox
07-07-2008, 06:35 PM
Terrible idea. The bread and butter of MLB are the season ticket holders. A nuetral site Series? Nothing says **** you season ticket holders quite like that.

I'm wondering if this is still the case. I'd like to see a balance sheet for a MLB team. If television/media/advertisement bring in most of the bacon, this type of crap is simply a matter of time. Any links handy?

Frontman
07-07-2008, 06:38 PM
I'm wondering if this is still the case. I'd like to see a balance sheet for a MLB team. If television/media/advertisement bring in most of the bacon, this type of crap is simply a matter of time. Any links handy?

I have some breakfast sausage in the fridge, but that isn't handy. :rolleyes:

I have a feeling nationally, not every team makes the most of its revenue off of season tickets. However, for many teams *cough*White Sox*cough* they rely on a loyal fanbase to balance out the obnoxious amount of money spent on advertising teams favored by ESPN and MLB to be "top draws."

TDog
07-07-2008, 08:46 PM
...

Under the current system, both fanbases get equally screwed. While they're still getting screwed, there's no way to assure a fair chance without making the Super Bowl a series, which is logistically impossible in football.

The NFL is all about pretending to be fair and screwing fans, so a neutral-site Super Bowl does make sense.

In the 1970s, there was an idea floated that would have made the NFL championship a best of three series. Football never got serious about it, probably because of the negative reaction to the idea. I'm not sure if the idea was home-home-neutral, but as I recall, one of the criticisms involved the logistics of a neutral-site game that wasn't guaranteed to be played.

Because the World Series usually doesn't go seven games, you would usually have planned neutral-site games that are not necessary. Often you would have neutral-site games that are only certain to be played less than 24 hours before the scheduled first pitch.

Dan Mega
07-07-2008, 09:02 PM
Horrible idea. It would turn into the Superbowl where only 5 cities get the game and reap the rewards.

mccoydp
07-07-2008, 10:21 PM
Another great idea from the office of Hawk's favorite commish of all time.

Nellie_Fox
07-08-2008, 03:16 AM
Everybody has locked in on this being Selig's idea; I don't read the original post that way at all. Levine and Coppock interviewed Selig, and AFTER the interview, talked about a neutral-site WS. I might be wrong (I'm only going off the original post, didn't hear the show) but I think people here are jumping to conclusions.

whitesox901
07-08-2008, 03:41 AM
total dumb idea, what is this the NFL??, Game 1 of the WS should be to the team with the best record, **** the all-star game and **** this idea

ilsox7
07-08-2008, 04:32 AM
total dumb idea, what is this the NFL??, Game 1 of the WS should be to the team with the best record, **** the all-star game and **** this idea

Actually, best record is a bad idea too.

TDog
07-08-2008, 05:35 PM
total dumb idea, what is this the NFL??, Game 1 of the WS should be to the team with the best record, **** the all-star game and **** this idea

What is this, the NBA? Assigning the team with the best record the homefield advantage in the World Series is arbitrary and capricious. For example, if the Cubs and Sox played in the World Series and the Cubs had the best record, should the advantage go to the team that against the Pirates, perhaps, went 14-4 when the other team went 3-0? The team that went 2-2 in San Francisco when the other team went 3-0? The team that went 0-3 in St. Petersburg when the other team went 3-4? Head-to-head the teams split, but most possible World Series matchups have no head-to-head to compare.

The World Series gimmick, at worst, is akin to a coin toss. Alternating the World Series homefield advantage, simulated a coin toss in a perfect world. Homefield advantage didn't help the Tigers in '06, and it rarely means anything anyway.

But, of course, one of the things that makes baseball exponentially more fan friendly than football is that the World Series has homefields. Complain about the weather if you're watching the game on television. Was there any Sox fan who endured miserable conditions at the 2005 World Series who were sorry the Sox were playing in late October in Chicago?