PDA

View Full Version : Which Playoff System Is Better


Rockabilly
09-28-2008, 04:32 PM
If you were the MLB Commissioner which way would you like the playoffs be played..

A) The Early Days Best Record in both leagues played one another in the World Series...

B) AL West VS AL East

C) The way it's today with the Wild Card...


My choice would be the AL West Winner vs The AL East Winner

tstrike2000
09-28-2008, 04:35 PM
For me, today's system is a no brainer because of excitement fans get to have actually playing for something in October that would other wise be lost. Plus, several teams have won the World Series out of the Wild Card.

Michstate45
09-28-2008, 04:41 PM
I like the way it is now. Even with the wildcard, it is still very difficult to make the postseason in baseball. This is compared to the NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. where half of the teams in each conference and sometimes teams with .500 records make the playoffs.

Dibbs
09-28-2008, 04:50 PM
They are all cool in their own way....but I'm going with the current format. It gives your team more of a chance, and keeps things exciting to the final game sometimes.

popilius
09-28-2008, 05:05 PM
I believe the current way is best. If we went back to the previous way (2 playoff teams per league), way too many teams will feel out of it by the All-Star game. There would be too many meaningless games being played in the final month of the season. The wild card was one of the only good things Bud Selig did, IMO.

However, I strongly feel that MLB should NOT add more teams to the playoffs. One of baseball's unique qualities is that it is difficult to get into the postseason, but so many teams have a chance to get it in late in the year.

:gulp:

chisoxfanatic
09-28-2008, 05:19 PM
I believe the current way is best. If we went back to the previous way (2 playoff teams per league), way too many teams will feel out of it by the All-Star game. There would be too many meaningless games being played in the final month of the season. The wild card was one of the only good things Bud Selig did, IMO.

However, I strongly feel that MLB should NOT add more teams to the playoffs. One of baseball's unique qualities is that it is difficult to get into the postseason, but so many teams have a chance to get it in late in the year.

:gulp:
Absolutely. All other sports have more than 2 or 4 teams making it to the postseason, and baseball is no *different* than the other sports. I understand expanding it to include 16 teams would be impossible, as it would extend the season into November; but, I like it the way it currently is.

FedEx227
09-28-2008, 06:04 PM
I like what we currently have. Do not expand it. Keep it to 4 teams each league, I think that alone makes it the best playoff system in sports.

Purists want the old way, but the MLB could absolutely not survive or flourish financially with that system.

PatK
09-28-2008, 06:09 PM
I'd like to see a mix of the old way and new way.

Go back to two divisions, and the division winners plus two wild card teams go to the playoffs. Even if that means 3 teams from the same division go to the playoffs.

Daver
09-28-2008, 06:14 PM
Why do so many people want to reward teams that don't win a damn thing in the regular season with a playoff spot? Get rid of the wildcard, if you can't win your division you deserve to sit at home.

thomas35forever
09-28-2008, 06:17 PM
Definitely the current system. More teams = a more exciting postseason where anybody can come out on top.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-28-2008, 06:35 PM
I say put in every playoff gimmick possible. Keep divisions and keep the wild card.

I also say play home run derby to break ties.

I say let any batted ball hit out of the infield count as a home run if a pitcher hits it.

When a fan catches a pop foul, he gets to the lead-off the next inning for whichever team he chooses.

When the Brewers get tired of playing in the N.L., do away with leagues all together. The over/under for Selig to do this is 2011.

I say whenever possible, flush down the toilet the relevance of a 162-game schedule. Football only plays 16 games and every moron in America thinks it works great!

:tongue:

turners56
09-28-2008, 06:37 PM
I would actually want the MLB to have a 12 team playoff like the NFL.

I want Mags back
09-28-2008, 06:42 PM
Why do so many people want to reward teams that don't win a damn thing in the regular season with a playoff spot?
because it's more exciting that way :rolleyes:

I would actually want the MLB to have a 12 team playoff like the NFL.

and give 2 teams 5-6 days off. no thanks

35th and Shields
09-28-2008, 06:47 PM
Why do so many people want to reward teams that don't win a damn thing in the regular season with a playoff spot? Get rid of the wildcard, if you can't win your division you deserve to sit at home.

But Boston and New York couldn't both be in the playoffs that way

chisoxfanatic
09-28-2008, 07:19 PM
Why do so many people want to reward teams that don't win a damn thing in the regular season with a playoff spot? Get rid of the wildcard, if you can't win your division you deserve to sit at home.
More times than not, the Wild Card team has more wins than the lowest divisional winner, as will be the case again this season. This is very flawed.
I say put in every playoff gimmick possible. Keep divisions and keep the wild card.

I also say play home run derby to break ties.

I say let any batted ball hit out of the infield count as a home run if a pitcher hits it.

When a fan catches a pop foul, he gets to the lead-off the next inning for whichever team he chooses.

When the Brewers get tired of playing in the N.L., do away with leagues all together. The over/under for Selig to do this is 2011.

I say whenever possible, flush down the toilet the relevance of a 162-game schedule. Football only plays 16 games and every moron in America thinks it works great!

:tongue:
Heck, why even play the regular season? Let the White Sox play Bud Selig's choice of a team in a 1-inning "tilt" to determine who wins the World Series. :tongue:
But Boston and New York couldn't both be in the playoffs that way
My god!
:tealpolice:

doublem23
09-28-2008, 07:56 PM
The current system is "more exciting," but the fairest way to administer play-offs would be the old 2-division, LCS only system baseball used from 1969 until 1995. Weren't those the "golden" years?

The problem isn't the number of teams that are eliminated early, it's the number of teams that don't try.

TDog
09-28-2008, 09:25 PM
More times than not, the Wild Card team has more wins than the lowest divisional winner, as will be the case again this season. This is very flawed. ...

This year the Yankees have more wins than either the Twins or the White Sox, a 163rd game to decide the Central could change that. Whichever team emerges from the Central is more deserving of the postseason than the Yankees. Whichever team emerges from the Central is more deserving than the Red Sox. Winning should still count for something. So should losing your division.

I don't believe in the wild card. When the 1972 White Sox had the third-best record in all of major league baseball, and the second-best record in the American League, I didn't whine about how the White Sox were more deserving than the Detroit Tigers who won the East. The Sox couldn't catch the A's. End of season.

I understand that the wild card keeps more fans interested in baseball for longer. No team in AL West was thinking wild card this year, though. The only teams in the AL Central thinking wild card were the teams contending for the title. The American League wild card extended hope to just fans in Toronto and New York. But you have to do something if you have three divisions. I think it likely baseball went to three-division leagues as an excuse to institute the wild card. Whatever. There are too many teams to go to divisionless leagues and perhaps two many teams to go to two-division leagues.

I don't care what lesser sports do. I hold baseball to a higher standard. If you finish second, third or fourth over six months of baseball, with games on nearly a daily basis, you shouldn't have a shot at getting to the World Series.

chisoxfanatic
09-28-2008, 10:52 PM
This year the Yankees have more wins than either the Twins or the White Sox, a 163rd game to decide the Central could change that. Whichever team emerges from the Central is more deserving of the postseason than the Yankees. Whichever team emerges from the Central is more deserving than the Red Sox. Winning should still count for something. So should losing your division.
In my book, the amount of games you win is the most important. The Red Sox are far more deserving of a playoff spot than either our Sox or the Twins.

TDog
09-28-2008, 10:58 PM
In my book, the amount of games you win is the most important. The Red Sox are far more deserving of a playoff spot than either our Sox or the Twins.

In that case, do away with the divisions and may the best team in the league go to the World Series. There is no reason to have divisions unless the winners go to the postseason and a team that can't win it's divisioin doesn't deserve to go to the postseason.

chisoxfanatic
09-28-2008, 11:05 PM
In that case, do away with the divisions and may the best team in the league go to the World Series. There is no reason to have divisions unless the winners go to the postseason and a team that can't win it's divisioin doesn't deserve to go to the postseason.
This will be argued adnausium, much like political topics, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

EuroSox35
09-28-2008, 11:27 PM
I would say no divisions, top 4 in each league

munchman33
09-28-2008, 11:38 PM
I'd expand to 32 teams, 4 divisions in each league. No Wild Card, no interleague play. You play the three teams in your division 30 times each. The other twelve teams in your league you play 6 games against each (3 home, 3 road).

All series are three game series. There is significantly less money spent on travel due to regional division alignment. And rivalries will flourish. You're also certain to get the best team out of each division.

Daver
09-28-2008, 11:51 PM
I'd expand to 32 teams, 4 divisions in each league. No Wild Card, no interleague play. You play the three teams in your division 30 times each. The other twelve teams in your league you play 6 games against each (3 home, 3 road).

All series are three game series. There is significantly less money spent on travel due to regional division alignment. And rivalries will flourish. You're also certain to get the best team out of each division.

Baseball has a few teams that can't draw flies for attendance, and you propose they add more teams?

Do you really believe the nonsense you post?

Nellie_Fox
09-29-2008, 01:38 AM
Absolutely. All other sports have more than 2 or 4 teams making it to the postseason, and baseball is no *different* than the other sports.Baseball is indeed different, in that they play a 162 game schedule. That should be sufficient to separate the wheat from the chaff.

munchman33
09-29-2008, 06:11 AM
Baseball has a few teams that can't draw flies for attendance, and you propose they add more teams?

Do you really believe the nonsense you post?

Rivalries are just the thing to save them. What if the Marlins and Rays were in the same division? What if they were both in the same division as Atlanta? That's 30 games each with the potential to draw 2 fanbases.

Moving a team could be an option too. There are plenty of other cities that would draw.

the gooch
09-29-2008, 07:25 AM
The only thing I would change is go back to the BALANCED schedule.

chisoxfanatic
09-29-2008, 10:27 AM
The only thing I would change is go back to the BALANCED schedule.
I agree on this. It makes everything as fair as they can be.

asindc
09-29-2008, 10:34 AM
I like the WC, because it allows an exceptional team to make the playoffs even when you have a slightly better team ahead of them that played lights out. I'm thinking of the 103-win Giants team that had to sit home while watching a 97-win Philly team play in the postseason ahead of it.

sox1970
09-29-2008, 10:39 AM
The only thing I would change is go back to the BALANCED schedule.

If you have a balanced schedule, then you can't have divisions. Otherwise, a team under .500 will make the playoffs. In 1994, the Rangers were leading the West at the time of the strike, and they were 10 games under .500 with the balanced schedule.

No system is perfect outside of a balanced schedule/no divisions, but that will never happen. Despite its inequities, the current system is good for baseball because it keeps more teams in the race, which gets fans in the stands and more people watching.

downstairs
09-29-2008, 11:14 AM
I believe the current system is near perfect.

However, one idea I had awhile back- and I think I still like it- is that you have the same current 6 divisions (3 AL, 3 NL). And only the division winners make the playoffs. The team with the best record gets a first round bye, and the two teams playing in the first round have a 5 game series.

This would give a team that has clinched incentive to keep playing hard to get that first-round bye. And, we'd have no wild card- so its win your division or nothing.

PKalltheway
09-29-2008, 01:12 PM
I like the current system as it is. Yeah, it has its flaws, but it is as close to perfect as you're gonna get.

I would also like to add that I do not feel any bit of remorse for Hank Steinbrenner, because his poor little Yankees, with their 200 million dollar payroll, missed the playoffs despite having a better record than the NL West champion Dodgers.

Sox4ever77
09-29-2008, 01:46 PM
If the Sox got into the playoffs as a WC, and then won the WS, would anybody here give a damn about the format?

sox1970
09-29-2008, 01:54 PM
If the Sox got into the playoffs as a WC, and then won the WS, would anybody here give a damn about the format?

Florida Marlins--0 division championships, 2 World Series titles.

They're not complaining. We wouldn't either.

PKalltheway
09-29-2008, 02:10 PM
Florida Marlins--0 division championships, 2 World Series titles.

They're not complaining. We wouldn't either.
I wouldn't be complaining. I would be happier than a pig in ****.

TDog
09-29-2008, 02:40 PM
If the Sox got into the playoffs as a WC, and then won the WS, would anybody here give a damn about the format?

Obviously people who dislike the wild card would be happy to see see the Sox get a wild card berth if the Sox failed to win their division. People who advocate the teams with the four best records making it to the postseason in each league would be happy to see the White Sox make the postseason this year, although the third-place Yankees would have a better 162-game record than either the White Sox or Twins.

If the Sox won the wild card, I would be happy that they made it when they didn't deserve to make the postseason, just as I'm sure Tigers fans were happy their team went to the World Series in a year they didn't deserve to go to the postseason. But that is irrelevant to the question. How do Cubs-hating White Sox fans feel about the wild card considering it has openened the door for the Cubs to go to the postseason but has never let the Sox in? Before you answer that, consider that the Cubs in 2003 lost to a wild card team when it appeared they would go to the World Series and the White Sox beat a wild card team to win the World Series.

It is what it is. I don't like the fact that teams who don't win their division after playing for six months, but it's not going to change.

nedlug
09-29-2008, 03:13 PM
Still no mention of another, non-traditional format of a completely balanced schedule with the winner of the most games getting the title. Also, a tournament/'cup' played interspersed with the season. This format would be similar to European soccer.

Think of the interesting situations with rotations/days off that this system could propose. Also would LOVE to see baseball adopt a promotion/relegation system that would almost eliminate franchises' abilities to screw a community out of a pro team, although that won't be happening any time soon.

Of the 'realistic' scenarios, I prefer the wild card.