PDA

View Full Version : An idea on tweaking the Wild Card


Fenway
11-25-2009, 11:30 PM
I have a radical idea on how to tweak the wild card in baseball and at the same time possibly help MLB solve the Boston-NYY problem.

Very simply - a team can not win the wild card two years in a row. If you are the WC you then must win the division the following year or you go home no matter how many wins you have.

In the long term it would even the playing field.

DSpivack
11-25-2009, 11:32 PM
Sounds like to me that'd just water down the playoffs. Weaker teams would get in over stronger ones.

Twins_Morneau
11-25-2009, 11:41 PM
Only problem I have with the set up now is how late the playoffs go, going into November is RIDICULOUS...

Boondock Saint
11-26-2009, 12:01 AM
No offense, but that's a terrible idea. The best teams should get in. Period.

cards press box
11-26-2009, 12:15 AM
I have a radical idea on how to tweak the wild card in baseball and at the same time possibly help MLB solve the Boston-NYY problem.

Very simply - a team can not win the wild card two years in a row. If you are the WC you then must win the division the following year or you go home no matter how many wins you have.

In the long term it would even the playing field.

The NY metropolitan area has around 8 million people. The Yanks are on cable systems though NYC, the State of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and I don't know where else. Some New Yorkers who post here, or perhaps Fenway himself, could supply that information. As long as home teams, get 100% of local media revenue, I can see only three ways to solve the NYY-Boston economic problem (i.e., the disparity between what the Yankees (or Boston) spends on payroll and what every other teams spends on payroll:

(1) If the Yanks can spend the vast local media revenue they take in, then MLB could make it a complete free market and let teams relocate wherever they want. Right now, the Yankees are the beneficiary of exactly what the antitrust laws were designed to prevent -- they can spend whatever they make in their market but they can also block other teams from doing business in the same market. And consider this: if New York had, say, four major league teams, wouldn't that foster competition that would actually lower prices and benefit the consumer. What's more, if K.C. can't make it in Missouri, shouldn't they have an opportunity to go to Jersey City and try and succeed there? I realize, of course, that allowing every team to go wherever they want would lead to instability, fan cynicism and probably a regional imbalance of teams. That brings me to proposal #2.

(2) MLB should allow teams to relocate to markets that can afford them, regardless of whether a team or teams currently resides there. For example, the New York are is twice as large as the next largest market, L.A. Let's assume that L.A. and Chicago have maxed out the number of teams they can support well at two (not an unreasonable assumption, in my view). But if L.A. and Chicago can each support two teams, then New York can support at least three teams and probably four. MLB could put a team in Jersey City (or somewhere in Northern New Jersey) and probably could put another team in either Long Island or Brooklyn. Relocating a team to Brooklyn, particularly a National League team, has the added benefit of redressing the psychological hurt from the Dodgers' relocation to L.A. in 1957. Could Boston (or more appropriately) New England support a National League team? It would be fun to have a National League team in Fenway Park but I imagine that Hartford or even Providence would be possibilities. MLB is awfully conservative, though, and would likely resist free market principles that involve any risk. That brings me to proposal #3.

(3) Just increase the luxury tax and see if that can close the current 60% gap between the Yankees and the next highest payroll.

Noneck
11-26-2009, 12:15 AM
Balanced schedule, top 4 of 14 go to playoffs.

DSpivack
11-26-2009, 12:23 AM
The NY metropolitan area has around 8 million people. The Yanks are on cable systems though NYC, the State of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and I don't know where else. Some New Yorkers who post here, or perhaps Fenway himself, could supply that information. As long as home teams, get 100% of local media revenue, I can see only three ways to solve the NYY-Boston economic problem (i.e., the disparity between what the Yankees (or Boston) spends on payroll and what every other teams spends on payroll: .

New York City has around 8 million people. The metro area has nearly 20. In comparison, the Chicago area has around 8-9 million, while Brooklyn alone has about the same population as the city of Chicago.

TDog
11-26-2009, 01:25 AM
Balanced schedule, top 4 of 14 go to playoffs.

If you have two divisions. No second place team should ever play for a championship.

LITTLE NELL
11-26-2009, 04:52 AM
Add 2 more teams, each league will have four 4 team divisions, no wild cards that way. It will also lead to a more balanced and fairer schedule.
The biggest problem I have right now is that teams in each division are playing differant opponents which can and has led to an unfair situation.

Tragg
11-26-2009, 08:08 AM
Dump the divisions and take the top 4 records.

Noneck
11-26-2009, 08:17 AM
If you have two divisions. No second place team should ever play for a championship.

No divisions, just 14 teams.

Red Barchetta
11-26-2009, 09:12 AM
Balanced schedule, top 4 of 14 go to playoffs.


I agree. 1 plays 4 seed no matter what division they are in. While we're at it, get rid of the interleague play as well. I would much rather watch the SOX play the Yankees or Red Sox more often than the Cubs or other "rivals" such as the Marlins, Pirates, Astros, etc. I like the idea of the AL not meeting up with the NL until the World Series and continuing to let the All-Star game determine home field advantage.

oeo
11-26-2009, 11:20 AM
It's fine the way it is.

Rdy2PlayBall
11-26-2009, 01:16 PM
I hate the idea of involving previous years in new seasons. Also, instead of the league adjusting around Boston and NY... why don't teams just suck less? :tongue:

guillen4life13
11-26-2009, 01:40 PM
In theory, the idea of NYC taking on one or two more teams would be awesome. However, especially for the Yankees, the fan allegiances are already well defined and very strong. Factor in the cost of moving a team (let's use the Royals as a hypothetical), building or securing a stadium--all with no guarantee of developing a strong fan base--and from a business standpoint, I think even the Royals would hesitate to do that.

However, I think that New Jersey could take on a team given that, in general, NJ residents have a lot of pride in being from there. Beyond that, getting to and from NYC for a game can be an ordeal with traffic and parking, and NJ has already shown that it can support sports franchises quite well.

New England could take another team since getting to Boston for many fans can be an issue. I just don't know which city would be ideal for that.

Side note: The Miami Marlins will win at least one World Series this coming decade. I really do think this new stadium is going to really boost their attendance and brand, not to mention the great things the new stadium will do for that neighborhood. I think that the Marlins are going to become the dominant team of the NL for and extended period of time. It will take a couple years, but I'm excited to see their development.

Frater Perdurabo
11-26-2009, 02:34 PM
The NY metro area could support two more teams. I'd put one in New Jersey (AL) and one in Connecticut (NL).

waldo_the_wolf
11-27-2009, 06:10 AM
I like the idea of continuing to let the All-Star game determine home field advantage.

:o:
Are you serious!!!????

doublem23
11-27-2009, 07:26 AM
:o:
Are you serious!!!????

I like it, too. You can't deny that the All-Star Games have been 100x better since they started "making them count," and hey, it's not like the old way of deciding (AL hosts in odd-numbered years, NL in even) was any better.

twinsuck
11-27-2009, 03:05 PM
meh, that's not fair at all. :?:

TDog
11-27-2009, 03:52 PM
No divisions, just 14 teams.

If you have no divisions, you have no reason for a playoff, unless two teams tie for first. No second place team should be allowed in the playoffs.

october23sp
11-27-2009, 03:55 PM
It's fine the way it is.

Winner.

pearso66
11-27-2009, 05:30 PM
If you have no divisions, you have no reason for a playoff, unless two teams tie for first. No second place team should be allowed in the playoffs.


If that's the case then why have a wild card? Since that is essentially a 2nd place team. Give the team with the best record a bye in your scenario.

oeo
11-27-2009, 05:34 PM
Winner.

I think most younger people would agree. That's what we know. Others would like it scrapped because it's still relatively new.

The system works well, and keeps a lot of teams in the playoff race late in the season, which makes for exciting baseball. The Wild Card usually is not the worst playoff team in each league, anyway. It usually comes from the best division in each league and they usually finish with a better record than the worst of the division champions.

If that's the case then why have a wild card? Since that is essentially a 2nd place team. Give the team with the best record a bye in your scenario.

I'm fairly certain he doesn't want a Wild Card.

I like it, too. You can't deny that the All-Star Games have been 100x better since they started "making them count," and hey, it's not like the old way of deciding (AL hosts in odd-numbered years, NL in even) was any better.

Bingo. The old system was worse, and it's the only All Star Game in professional sports worth watching. My only beef is, if it's going to determine home field advantage in the World Series, the fans should not get to vote for the starting position players. Or each player needs to meet certain standards to be eligible, regardless of what the fans vote. You need to play so many games, be in the top percentage of your position, etc.

TDog
11-27-2009, 05:57 PM
If that's the case then why have a wild card? Since that is essentially a 2nd place team. Give the team with the best record a bye in your scenario.

I don't like the wild card. I think it's silly that the Florida Marlins have won two championships without finishing higher than second place in their history. But in baseball you can't give any team a bye.

In 1969, when baseball expanded to 12 teams in each league, each was divided into two six-team divisions so that you could have a playoff every year. And you have four pennant races, even if some of them may not be competitive.

When baseball went to three-divisions in each league, there was no way to logistically run a playoff system without a wild card. Three divisions is a problem. (Things are so watered down now that some people believe the 1969 Cubs played well enough to make the postseason.) The National League could break into four divisions and the American League could merge into two seven-team divisions, but that isn't going to happen. Of course the AL essentially would get a bye before going into the World Series. That could be minimized by starting the ALCS when the NLCS begins, but that isn't going to happen either.

Baseball is stuck with what it's got because everything else you can do with two three-division leagues is worse.

waldo_the_wolf
11-27-2009, 06:14 PM
I like it, too. You can't deny that the All-Star Games have been 100x better since they started "making them count," and hey, it's not like the old way of deciding (AL hosts in odd-numbered years, NL in even) was any better.

I agree that the old way was ridiculous too. To me, the obvious way they should decide home-field advantage is the team with the better record should have it. As far as the all-star game, I feel it's outdated and unneccessary but that's a different discussion.

TDog
11-27-2009, 06:27 PM
I agree that the old way was ridiculous too. To me, the obvious way they should decide home-field advantage is the team with the better record should have it. As far as the all-star game, I feel it's outdated and unneccessary but that's a different discussion.

This is really off-topic but giving the home field to a team who has a better record in one league over a team with a better record in another league is less equitable than flipping a coin.

Giving the home field to the league that wins the All-Star Game like the aforementioned coin flip or alternating the advantage are both more fair. Even awarding homefield to the league that won the World Series the previous year would be more fair.

Brian26
11-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Winner.

I'd agree with this with one exception. I'd eliminate all interleague play except one three-game series each year between teams that have a natural geographic or historical rivalry (so, teams like Seattle, Arizona and Colorado wouldn't play). It could be a bragging-rights type of cup between Cubs/Sox, Yankees/Mets, LA vs. LA, maybe Washington/Baltimore, etc.

I think interleague play would have been a phenomenal concept if it was instituted in the 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, it didn't come to fruition until the late 90s, long after the horse had left the barn in terms of national television exposure for basically all MLB teams. Since any fan can see any team or any player on television any night of the season, the idea of interleague play in 2010 already seems antiquated, imho.

LoveYourSuit
11-27-2009, 10:10 PM
As evidence has shown lately, teams crying poor are full of ****.

Therefore, implement a minimum salary floor on the next CBA for all teams and this way sucky teams can make an attempt to not steal money from their fans every season and compete for a wild card spot.

Noneck
11-27-2009, 11:58 PM
If you have no divisions, you have no reason for a playoff, unless two teams tie for first. No second place team should be allowed in the playoffs.

Tell that to all the other major pro sports, including MLB which allow wild cards.

TDog
11-28-2009, 12:16 AM
Tell that to all the other major pro sports, including MLB which allow wild cards.

I would, but baseball is the only sport that matters. The fact that so many teams make the playoffs in other sports makes those sports a collective joke.

Noneck
11-28-2009, 12:39 AM
I would, but baseball is the only sport that matters. The fact that so many teams make the playoffs in other sports makes those sports a collective joke.

4 out of 14 is the same amount currently. Just drop the divisions , have a balanced schedule and move ahead to playoffs. Division champs really don't mean much now anyways, mostly with an unbalanced schedule. Look at the number of recent champs that did not win their division.

TDog
11-28-2009, 02:02 AM
4 out of 14 is the same amount currently. Just drop the divisions , have a balanced schedule and move ahead to playoffs. Division champs really don't mean much now anyways, mostly with an unbalanced schedule. Look at the number of recent champs that did not win their division.

If you don't have divisions, there is no reason to have a playoff. You already have determined who has the rightful claim to advance to the World Series.

downstairs
11-28-2009, 04:16 PM
I don't understand what the "Boston/NY" problem is? They're the better teams year in year out.

If that is really a problem the only way to address is, is to have some sort of salary cap.

Re-working the playoffs would just be silly, IMHO.

Daver
11-28-2009, 04:40 PM
I don't understand what the "Boston/NY" problem is? They're the better teams year in year out.

If that is really a problem the only way to address is, is to have some sort of salary cap.

Re-working the playoffs would just be silly, IMHO.

A salary cap only serves one purpose, and competitive balance isn't it.

doublem23
11-28-2009, 05:15 PM
A salary cap only serves one purpose, and competitive balance isn't it.

Obviously a salary cap serves to help the owners reap even greater benefits but how can you outright say it doesn't serve competitive balance at all? Here's $100 million everyone, build the best team you can... Yeah, how could that be fair?

fox23
11-28-2009, 05:26 PM
A salary cap only serves one purpose, and competitive balance isn't it.


Yeah, the NFL has it all wrong.

Daver
11-28-2009, 05:36 PM
Yeah, the NFL has it all wrong.

You're comparing apples to kumquats.

Daver
11-28-2009, 08:04 PM
Obviously a salary cap serves to help the owners reap even greater benefits but how can you outright say it doesn't serve competitive balance at all? Here's $100 million everyone, build the best team you can... Yeah, how could that be fair?

Because MLB does not have control all revenue streams that a team has. Teams could get around any kind of league imposed cap by signing a player to a contract number that fits below the cap and then signing the same player to do commercials through their TV network to any amount they choose, and bypass the cap completely, and the cap would still exist only to insure the owners profit margin.

TDog
11-28-2009, 08:36 PM
Yeah, the NFL has it all wrong.

If you believe the idea behind the NFL salary cap is competitive balance, you have it all wrong.

doublem23
11-28-2009, 09:00 PM
Yeah, the NFL has it all wrong.

The NFL does, FWIW. There's what, 1-2 consistenly good teams and 30 **** teams every year. The NFL (and its fans) are desperately convincing themselves mediocrity is the same as parity.

Frater Perdurabo
11-28-2009, 09:35 PM
The NFL does, FWIW. There's what, 1-2 consistenly good teams and 30 **** teams every year. The NFL (and its fans) are desperately convincing themselves mediocrity is the same as parity.

Mediocrity, parity, whatever you want to call it, it keeps things interesting in most of the 32 markets every year, and thus has helped vault the NFL to the #1 spectator sport in the U.S.

Every year, almost every NFL team has a chance to go on a run and make the playoffs, and half the teams are still alive going into the last month of the season. In the MLB, half the teams know they have no chance on April 1, and it's merely proven to be the case by the All-Star break. No wonder fans lose interest, especially in the markets that have teams that perpetually can't/won't/don't compete.

Daver
11-28-2009, 09:44 PM
Mediocrity, parity, whatever you want to call it, it keeps things interesting in most of the 32 markets every year, and thus has helped vault the NFL to the #1 spectator sport in the U.S.

Every year, almost every NFL team has a chance to go on a run and make the playoffs, and half the teams are still alive going into the last month of the season. In the MLB, half the teams know they have no chance on April 1, and it's merely proven to be the case by the All-Star break. No wonder fans lose interest, especially in the markets that have teams that perpetually can't/won't/don't compete.

The fans of the Detroit Lions will agree to disagree.

How many different MLB teams have won it all this decade?

fox23
11-28-2009, 11:03 PM
The NFL does, FWIW. There's what, 1-2 consistenly good teams and 30 **** teams every year. The NFL (and its fans) are desperately convincing themselves mediocrity is the same as parity.

Seriously? Please let me know which of the following 3-4 teams between New England, Indy, San Diego, New Orleans, and Minnesota are ****ty? And I assume that Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Denver, Dallas, Philly, and Atlanta are all horse crap too?

As a lifelong Bengals fan, this year shows me that even a blind squirrel can find a nut in the NFL. Even if they get bounced in the first round I will still follow them for years to come because I know that even they have a chance. Look at the Cardinals last year...or the Ravens...or the Dolphins...

When was the last time the Royals, Pirates, or Orioles fans felt that way going into a season?

Noneck
11-29-2009, 11:42 AM
If you don't have divisions, there is no reason to have a playoff. You already have determined who has the rightful claim to advance to the World Series.

Having division champs advance in an unbalanced schedule is less fair to me than the top 4 teams with the best records playing a balanced schedule. At least there would be assurance that the 4 best teams would actually go to the playoffs, currently it is not like that.

Ideally I agree with you, in that the A.L. champ should be the only team to advance to the WS but I know that will never happen again.

TDog
11-29-2009, 01:18 PM
Having division champs advance in an unbalanced schedule is less fair to me than the top 4 teams with the best records playing a balanced schedule. At least there would be assurance that the 4 best teams would actually go to the playoffs, currently it is not like that.

Ideally I agree with you, in that the A.L. champ should be the only team to advance to the WS but I know that will never happen again.

You are speaking in ideal that will never happen anyway because baseball will never give a fourth-place team a chance to win a championship. The pennant race, even if that is only a division race now, is too iconic. Baseball can only have a playoff system that incorporates division champions and only works in a wild card to make the brackets practically work. Jon Miller, the Giants announcer, has come to referring to the "wild card division," which I believe is silly. You hang a division championship banner in your ballpark. I can't imagine a team would even have a wild card banner.

Baseball's wild card doesn't need to be tweaked by disallowing a team to be a wild card in successive years (the way Big Ten football used to do with its Rose Bowl representative, which resulted in Indiana being destroyed many New Year's Days ago against a slashing O.J. Simpson). Baseball doesn't need to celebrate mediocrity by putting a fourth-place team into the hunt for the purported championship of the world.

The World Series isn't just the end of a tournament. It represents a season championship.

doublem23
11-29-2009, 01:44 PM
Seriously? Please let me know which of the following 3-4 teams between New England, Indy, San Diego, New Orleans, and Minnesota are ****ty? And I assume that Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Denver, Dallas, Philly, and Atlanta are all horse crap too?

As a lifelong Bengals fan, this year shows me that even a blind squirrel can find a nut in the NFL. Even if they get bounced in the first round I will still follow them for years to come because I know that even they have a chance. Look at the Cardinals last year...or the Ravens...or the Dolphins...

When was the last time the Royals, Pirates, or Orioles fans felt that way going into a season?

Yes, all those teams suck. They only look good relative to the current NFL which celebrates mediocrity, and thus, everyone else is ****ty, too. Any of those teams going up against the dynasties of the 80s (Bears, 49ers, Giants) or 90s (Cowboys, Bills, 49ers) would be absolutely destroyed. Even the 10-0 Colts would get blown out of the water against any of the premier teams of yesteryear. They're just not that good.

The Pirates, Royals, and Orioles are run by morons. That's why they fail. The Marlins, Rays, and Twins have shown that teams don't need to break the bank to compete.

Noneck
11-29-2009, 02:45 PM
You are speaking in ideal that will never happen anyway because baseball will never give a fourth-place team a chance to win a championship. The pennant race, even if that is only a division race now, is too iconic. Baseball can only have a playoff system that incorporates division champions and only works in a wild card to make the brackets practically work. Jon Miller, the Giants announcer, has come to referring to the "wild card division," which I believe is silly. You hang a division championship banner in your ballpark. I can't imagine a team would even have a wild card banner.

Baseball's wild card doesn't need to be tweaked by disallowing a team to be a wild card in successive years (the way Big Ten football used to do with its Rose Bowl representative, which resulted in Indiana being destroyed many New Year's Days ago against a slashing O.J. Simpson). Baseball doesn't need to celebrate mediocrity by putting a fourth-place team into the hunt for the purported championship of the world.

The World Series isn't just the end of a tournament. It represents a season championship.

Baseball already celebrates mediocrity by awarding certain division champs to advance to the playoffs with an unbalanced schedule.

For me, the only banner worth hanging is the league championship or world series championship.

TDog
11-29-2009, 03:53 PM
Baseball already celebrates mediocrity by awarding certain division champs to advance to the playoffs with an unbalanced schedule.

For me, the only banner worth hanging is the league championship or world series championship.

Divisions and unbalanced schedules provide penant races, which is what baseball is all about. For fans, seasons hold degrees of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Few fans get to experience the thrill of the World Series, even fewer get to celebrate the thrill of a World Series win.

Unbalanced schedules and divisions of varying strength provide the pretext of excellence. And, really, to win even a weak division is no small thing. (Baseball isn't a caste system. Many baseball people believed in 2005 and 2006 that the AL Central was the strongest division in baseball. Many now believe it is the weakest, at least in the league.) Baseball divisions, now at least, also provide a semblance of geographic inclusion.

Baseball had to go to divisions to have a playoff system. The current system is flawed because you should never have a second place team playing for a championship, but if you eliminate the divisions and give a team finishing fourth a chance to win a championship, you diminish the thrill of the season exponentially.

Thu current system doesn't need tweaking. The current system is flawed, but not as much as every other proposal to determine opponents from a 14-team league and a 16-team league in the World Series.

Noneck
11-29-2009, 05:18 PM
Divisions and unbalanced schedules provide penant races, which is what baseball is all about. For fans, seasons hold degrees of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Few fans get to experience the thrill of the World Series, even fewer get to celebrate the thrill of a World Series win.

Unbalanced schedules and divisions of varying strength provide the pretext of excellence. And, really, to win even a weak division is no small thing. (Baseball isn't a caste system. Many baseball people believed in 2005 and 2006 that the AL Central was the strongest division in baseball. Many now believe it is the weakest, at least in the league.) Baseball divisions, now at least, also provide a semblance of geographic inclusion.

Baseball had to go to divisions to have a playoff system. The current system is flawed because you should never have a second place team playing for a championship, but if you eliminate the divisions and give a team finishing fourth a chance to win a championship, you diminish the thrill of the season exponentially.

Thu current system doesn't need tweaking. The current system is flawed, but not as much as every other proposal to determine opponents from a 14-team league and a 16-team league in the World Series.

If you don't want any team that does not win a division to make the playoffs, then you probably wouldn't mind making a 4th division. Even though it would have only 3 teams and the other 3 divisions would have only 4. As I have said winning a division means nothing to me with an unbalanced schedule.

Yes divisional play can produce more fan interest but it does not assure one that the best teams are in the playoffs.

Finally I do understand that coming in 1st should mean something more than just a trip to the playoffs. But as in all the other major sports having the best record only gives a team a better seed in the playoffs and fans accept it.

I am now repeating how I feel and also understand how you feel. I enjoyed the back and forth with you.

TDog
11-29-2009, 05:35 PM
If you don't want any team that does not win a division to make the playoffs, then you probably wouldn't mind making a 4th division. Even though it would have only 3 teams and the other 3 divisions would have only 4. As I have said winning a division means nothing to me with an unbalanced schedule.

Yes divisional play can produce more fan interest but it does not assure one that the best teams are in the playoffs.

Finally I do understand that coming in 1st should mean something more than just a trip to the playoffs. But as in all the other major sports having the best record only gives a team a better seed in the playoffs and fans accept it.

I am now repeating how I feel and also understand how you feel. I enjoyed the back and forth with you.

But, of course, if you have a balanced schedule with games nearly every day for six months and you don't have divisions, there is no reason to have playoffs. NHL and NBA playoffs are laughable in their inclusion. (If the Bulls won 72 games in the regular season, what was the point of having a tournament to decide who is the best team in their conference?) I have no idea how many wild card teams there are in the NFL, but the fact that fans are content with watching mediocre teams in the name of competitive balance and will even turn out to watch replacement players when the union goes out on strike is evidence shows that it doesn't take much to make football fans happy.

Other sports aren't baseball.

DSpivack
11-29-2009, 05:44 PM
But, of course, if you have a balanced schedule with games nearly every day for six months and you don't have divisions, there is no reason to have playoffs. NHL and NBA playoffs are laughable in their inclusion. (If the Bulls won 72 games in the regular season, what was the point of having a tournament to decide who is the best team in their conference?) I have no idea how many wild card teams there are in the NFL, but the fact that fans are content with watching mediocre teams in the name of competitive balance and will even turn out to watch replacement players when the union goes out on strike is evidence shows that it doesn't take much to make football fans happy.

Other sports aren't baseball.

Soccer, except in this country and a few others [Mexico, for one], doesn't have playoffs. Every team plays every other team at home and on the road, and the team with the best record at the end of the season wins. That's an idea you'd support?

fox23
11-29-2009, 06:53 PM
Yes, all those teams suck. They only look good relative to the current NFL which celebrates mediocrity, and thus, everyone else is ****ty, too. Any of those teams going up against the dynasties of the 80s (Bears, 49ers, Giants) or 90s (Cowboys, Bills, 49ers) would be absolutely destroyed. Even the 10-0 Colts would get blown out of the water against any of the premier teams of yesteryear. They're just not that good.



Yeah yeah yeah, and back in my day we used to walk 5 miles each way to school in the snow...uphill both ways.

TDog
11-29-2009, 09:42 PM
Soccer, except in this country and a few others [Mexico, for one], doesn't have playoffs. Every team plays every other team at home and on the road, and the team with the best record at the end of the season wins. That's an idea you'd support?

That's the way baseball used to be before 1969. The best team in each league went to the World Series. (Before 1903 and in 1904, there wasn't even a World Series, but that was long before I was born.) I have no problem with that. I don't believe that the 1964 White Sox were cheated out of postseason appearance because they finished a game behind the Yankees and had some right to a playoff after losing to them.

But with the number of major league teams nearly doubling in my lifetime, geographic divisions with unbalanced schedules with the winners playing off to determine who goes to the World Series. The problem is that there are three divisions in each league, creating the need to cheapen the postseason with wild card teams. It would be better if there were only two divisions in each league.

Balfanman
12-01-2009, 08:53 AM
I'd agree with this with one exception. I'd eliminate all interleague play except one three-game series each year between teams that have a natural geographic or historical rivalry (so, teams like Seattle, Arizona and Colorado wouldn't play). It could be a bragging-rights type of cup between Cubs/Sox, Yankees/Mets, LA vs. LA, maybe Washington/Baltimore, etc.

I agree with eliminating interleague play and would much rather see the Sox play American League teams more often. The one interleague series a year with geographical rivals I think is a good idea and this should probably take place right after the season ends, while the divisional series are going on. I would think that this would also serve as an additional revenue source for the clubs that didn't make the playoffs. It could be sort of like a consolation prize.

For example, if niether the Sox or Cubs made the playoffs then they could have their own 5 or 7 game series for "bragging rights". The winner could say that even though we didn't make the playoffs at least we're better than you. Obviously, if one team did make the playoffs in a given year then you wouldn't need the series because you would already have a team with bragging rights. JMHO.