PDA

View Full Version : Selig Ponders Post Season Changes


Hitmen77
10-15-2006, 10:18 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061013&content_id=1711736&vkey=ps2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Sounds like he's thinking about giving wild card teams fewer home playoff games.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-15-2006, 10:23 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061013&content_id=1711736&vkey=ps2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Sounds like he's thinking about giving wild card teams fewer home playoff games.

Sorry but beating three teams (AL West) is not an accomplishment worth awarding a playoff spot, at least in the baseball world.

Perhaps they can return to 7 - 8 team divisions and have the regular season mean something. They can also reward home field to the team with the best record and eliminate the All Star Game "this time is for real" nonsense. :cool:

chisoxmike
10-15-2006, 10:27 PM
Ugh. Not needed.

He wants to do this so big market teams (Yankees) have more of a chance to advance through the playoffs.

23Ventura
10-15-2006, 10:31 PM
I wouldn't want to change the system to make it tougher on the wild card, because often times the Wild Card team has a better record than a team that won the division, for example, the Marlins had more wins than the Cubs did in '03, but the Cubs won their division, so they got home field. The same would've happened this year if the Dodgers had defeated the Mets and played the Cardinals in the NLCS. If they change anything, that should be it. The team with the better record should get home field, regardless of whether or not they are the wild card or division champs.

Another problem I have with the current system is how the Phillies win 85 games in the NL East and the Cardinals win 83 in the NL Central (which isn't as good as the NL East) yet the Cards advance because they win their division. This basically rewards the team that plays in the easier division. The Phillies were easily more deserving of that final spot. I guess the only way to prevent this from happening would just be to have the top 4 records in each league advance to the playoffs, but that would eliminate the division rivalries, so I doubt it will happen.

rookie
10-15-2006, 10:44 PM
I wouldn't want to change the system to make it tougher on the wild card, because often times the Wild Card team has a better record than a team that won the division, for example, the Marlins had more wins than the Cubs did in '03, but the Cubs won their division, so they got home field. The same would've happened this year if the Dodgers had defeated the Mets and played the Cardinals in the NLCS. If they change anything, that should be it. The team with the better record should get home field, regardless of whether or not they are the wild card or division champs.


The same happened with Detriot/Oakland too, but I'm sure that Detriot didn't mind clinching at home. I think Wild Card or no - best record should get home field.

thomas35forever
10-15-2006, 10:48 PM
I think Wild Card or no - best record should get home field.
For sure. If that doesn't change, the AL is gonna have home-field advantage in the World Series for the next ten years.

MUsoxfan
10-15-2006, 10:50 PM
Ugh. Not needed.

He wants to do this so big market teams (Yankees) have more of a chance to advance through the playoffs.


Exactly. He wants ratings. Sox/Astros and Tigers/Cards don't cut it in his eyes

PKalltheway
10-15-2006, 11:07 PM
I think Wild Card or no - best record should get home field.
It's a great idea, but what about in the rare years in which both the best AL and NL teams finish with the same record?

Chips
10-15-2006, 11:10 PM
Another problem I have with the current system is how the Phillies win 85 games in the NL East and the Cardinals win 83 in the NL Central (which isn't as good as the NL East) yet the Cards advance because they win their division. This basically rewards the team that plays in the easier division. The Phillies were easily more deserving of that final spot. I guess the only way to prevent this from happening would just be to have the top 4 records in each league advance to the playoffs, but that would eliminate the division rivalries, so I doubt it will happen.

Sounds like you think division play should be eliminated altogether and it should go back to two leagues.

spiffie
10-15-2006, 11:34 PM
Sorry but beating three teams (AL West) is not an accomplishment worth awarding a playoff spot, at least in the baseball world.

Perhaps they can return to 7 - 8 team divisions and have the regular season mean something. They can also reward home field to the team with the best record and eliminate the All Star Game "this time is for real" nonsense. :cool:
Or you could get rid of this division stuff and just go AL and NL. Best team from each league goes to the World Series. It was good enough for baseball for over 60 years after all. You want a meaningful regular season, make it so only the BEST team in each league goes. Otherwise you still reward some team that might not deserve it.

MUsoxfan
10-15-2006, 11:52 PM
Or you could get rid of this division stuff and just go AL and NL. Best team from each league goes to the World Series. It was good enough for baseball for over 60 years after all. You want a meaningful regular season, make it so only the BEST team in each league goes. Otherwise you still reward some team that might not deserve it.


What teams can you think of that didn't deserve it?

FedEx227
10-16-2006, 12:01 AM
Or you could get rid of this division stuff and just go AL and NL. Best team from each league goes to the World Series. It was good enough for baseball for over 60 years after all. You want a meaningful regular season, make it so only the BEST team in each league goes. Otherwise you still reward some team that might not deserve it.

I love the wild-card race, maybe I'm the only one but I think Bud made a very good decision in extending the postseason to allow there to ben a playoff like atmosphere before the playoffs even begin.

HotelWhiteSox
10-16-2006, 12:30 AM
Sounds like you think division play should be eliminated altogether and it should go back to two leagues.

That would be sweet, 2 leagues, top 4 records make it, every team plays each time twice (series). I, personally, would also get rid of interleague.

Not now where they are trying to force rivalries and bastardize the hell out of them

SouthSide_HitMen
10-16-2006, 01:09 AM
Or you could get rid of this division stuff and just go AL and NL. Best team from each league goes to the World Series. It was good enough for baseball for over 60 years after all. You want a meaningful regular season, make it so only the BEST team in each league goes. Otherwise you still reward some team that might not deserve it.

As a fan I love the idea. As a realist, I think it is a billion -1 longshot to expect Bud Selig to reduce TV revenue by eliminating the Division Series. It would be a trillion-1 longshot for Bud Selig to eliminate two rounds of playoffs.

They could eliminate interleague and lose neglible revenue but then again with Bud Selig, it is never about the competition.

:tool

"Bonds, McGwire and Sosa have ushered in the Golden (http://www.goldensombrero.net/wp-content/themes/green/images/header1.jpg) Era of Baseball"

DSpivack
10-16-2006, 01:15 AM
As a fan I love the idea. As a realist, I think it is a billion -1 longshot to expect Bud Selig to reduce TV revenue by eliminating the Division Series. It would be a trillion-1 longshot for Bud Selig to eliminate two rounds of playoffs.

They could eliminate interleague and lose neglible revenue but then again with Bud Selig, it is never about the competition.

:tool

"Bonds, McGwire and Sosa have ushered in the Golden (http://www.goldensombrero.net/wp-content/themes/green/images/header1.jpg) Era of Baseball"

I think it'd be a very dumb idea.

This year's Series would be Tigers-Mets, 2005 White Sox-Cardinals, 2004 Yankees-Cardinals, 2003 Yankees-Braves, 2002 Yankees/A's-Braves, 2001 Seattle-Houston/St.Louis, 2000 Giants-White Sox.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-16-2006, 02:15 AM
I think it'd be a very dumb idea.

This year's Series would be Tigers-Mets, 2005 White Sox-Cardinals, 2004 Yankees-Cardinals, 2003 Yankees-Braves, 2002 Yankees/A's-Braves, 2001 Seattle-Houston/St.Louis, 2000 Giants-White Sox.

I disagree. Teams should be rewarded for what they did over the course of the regular season instead of some best of five crap shoot. Baseball was the most popular sport in America when interleague and postseason was one and the same - the World Series.

With expansion from 8 to 14 / 16 teams two divisions in each league is ok as well. Winning a four / five team division is not.

Those two slashes in your example (Yankees / A's in 2002 (103 wins) and Houston / St. Louis in 2001 (93 wins)) indicate a tie at the end of the 162 game season for the best record. The Giants / Dodgers 1951 and Yankees / Red Sox 1978 3 game playoffs are two of the most storied series in baseball history. A three game playoff rewarding the two teams who played best over 162 games is far superior to a cheap 5 game DS rewarding the NL West winner who managed to finish a couple games over .500 against a team beating out a few other teams in another division.

The wildcard also cheapens the division races. The Yankees / Red Sox final series in 2005 would have been a fight to the death. With the Wild Card, it became a series for seeding purposes. Teams with 83 wins go to the playoffs. With two 7 / 8 team divsions, the season and a division title would mean more.

RadioheadRocks
10-16-2006, 02:22 AM
Right now there's too much revenue involved for them to revert back to pre-divisional play, so for better or worse the wild card system and interleague play are here to stay. Let's just hope the playoff format never gets as convoluted as the NHL; THAT would suck out loud!!!

SouthSide_HitMen
10-16-2006, 02:27 AM
Right now there's too much revenue involved for them to revert back to pre-divisional play, so for better or worse the wild card system and interleague play are here to stay. Let's just hope the playoff format never gets as convoluted as the NHL; THAT would suck out loud!!!

The NBA has the same set up as well. Hockey used to have a good format (divisional playoffs within the division) but Wirtz and company hired an NBA lawyer and brought the NBA's debacle over to our sport. We also lost the cool division / conference names for bland geographical names and added eight additional teams south of the Mason-Dixon line. :rolleyes:

DoItForDanPasqua
10-16-2006, 03:15 AM
I disagree. Teams should be rewarded for what they did over the course of the regular season instead of some best of five crap shoot. Baseball was the most popular sport in America when interleague and postseason was one and the same - the World Series.

With expansion from 8 to 14 / 16 teams two divisions in each league is ok as well. Winning a four / five team division is not.

Those two slashes in your example (Yankees / A's in 2002 (103 wins) and Houston / St. Louis in 2001 (93 wins)) indicate a tie at the end of the 162 game season for the best record. The Giants / Dodgers 1951 and Yankees / Red Sox 1978 3 game playoffs are two of the most storied series in baseball history. A three game playoff rewarding the two teams who played best over 162 games is far superior to a cheap 5 game DS rewarding the NL West winner who managed to finish a couple games over .500 against a team beating out a few other teams in another division.

The wildcard also cheapens the division races. The Yankees / Red Sox final series in 2005 would have been a fight to the death. With the Wild Card, it became a series for seeding purposes. Teams with 83 wins go to the playoffs. With two 7 / 8 team divsions, the season and a division title would mean more.


Agreed, if a 162 game season cannot tell us who the best team is, how will best of five or best of seven be able to tell us that? The playoffs are exciting and a great revenue generator, but they are not fair.

DoItForDanPasqua
10-16-2006, 03:21 AM
An interesting piece of that article, this would cut the amount of weekend WS games in half:

"the upcoming television contract calls for Game 1 of the World Series to take place on a Tuesday, rather than Saturday as it is now."

So I guess it would be like this:

Tue: Game 1
Wed: Game 2
Fri: Game 3
Sat: Game 4
Sun: Game 5
Tue: Game 6
Wed: Game 7

Grzegorz
10-16-2006, 04:44 AM
Ugh. Not needed.

He wants to do this so big market teams (Yankees) have more of a chance to advance through the playoffs.

Chisoxmike is a classier guy than I, I'd have applied stronger language here than "Ugh".

You're correct sir, this is Selig pandering to the big fish...

Bud Selig ponders endlessly without producing any cogent ideas. It's high time MLB finds an insightful commissioner.

Oblong
10-16-2006, 07:46 AM
Would Bud be doing this if the Yankees were wild card team and made it to the world series?

Did he say this in 2004 after Boston made it?

MLB isn't even being coy anymore with their bias towards the east coast.

jenn2080
10-16-2006, 07:59 AM
They should just stop the race and say the Red Sox or Yanks are automatically going to the WS.

batmanZoSo
10-16-2006, 08:31 AM
Would Bud be doing this if the Yankees were wild card team and made it to the world series?

Did he say this in 2004 after Boston made it?

MLB isn't even being coy anymore with their bias towards the east coast.

Well, if St. Louis can pull it out, we're looking at a second consecutive year with no Boston or New York teams in the World Series--and even worse, all four pennant winners would be Central Division teams from the boring Midwest. So clearly something's wrong with the current formula.

Hitmen77
10-16-2006, 08:49 AM
Would Bud be doing this if the Yankees were wild card team and made it to the world series?

Did he say this in 2004 after Boston made it?

MLB isn't even being coy anymore with their bias towards the east coast.

I totally agree.

southside rocks
10-16-2006, 09:14 AM
It's a great idea, but what about in the rare years in which both the best AL and NL teams finish with the same record?

Then the Yankees get home-field advantage.

In fact, it'd be easier if the Yankees just got home-field every year. After all, they have the highest payroll in baseball, and that's more impressive than any won-lost record, right?

downstairs
10-16-2006, 09:19 AM
Agreed, if a 162 game season cannot tell us who the best team is, how will best of five or best of seven be able to tell us that? The playoffs are exciting and a great revenue generator, but they are not fair.

But I don't think a sport is as exciting when it is merely "fair".

I mean... if you want "fair"... have one 30-team division, the winner is the World Champion. How boring is that- especially for the 25-28 teams would would be eliminated well before the end of the season.


On the other hand, 6 divisions is just dumb. Go back to 4 divisions, give out two Wild Cards.

kevin57
10-16-2006, 09:36 AM
Uncle Bud, such a creative genius! (teal needed?)

Hangar18
10-16-2006, 09:40 AM
He wants to do this so big market teams (Yankees) have more of a chance to advance through the playoffs.


HAHAHHHAHAHAHA, I was just going to say that. As soon as I heard that, thats the first thing that crossed my mind. Mr. Selig my friend, your reputation precedes you ......

MarySwiss
10-16-2006, 10:42 AM
Well, if St. Louis can pull it out, we're looking at a second consecutive year with no Boston or New York teams in the World Series--and even worse, all four pennant winners would be Central Division teams from the boring Midwest. So clearly something's wrong with the current formula.
What the hell, why don't they just move Boston to the NL and declare that the World Series every year would be between Boston and the Yankees, with a "consolation" series to be played between the teams that actually WON the two leagues?
Should this even be teal? :?:

MadetoOrta
10-16-2006, 11:10 AM
Exactly. He wants ratings. Sox/Astros and Tigers/Cards don't cut it in his eyes

No doubt. Go Cards and congrats Tigers. Haven't heard the term "Comedy Central" lately, have you? Hey Bud and George, quit :whiner:

23Ventura
10-16-2006, 11:41 AM
What teams can you think of that didn't deserve it?
How about the Cardinals this year with 83 wins in the worst division in baseball.

23Ventura
10-16-2006, 11:48 AM
But I don't think a sport is as exciting when it is merely "fair".

I mean... if you want "fair"... have one 30-team division, the winner is the World Champion. How boring is that- especially for the 25-28 teams would would be eliminated well before the end of the season.


On the other hand, 6 divisions is just dumb. Go back to 4 divisions, give out two Wild Cards.
That's a good idea, it would certainly eliminate teams from the playoffs that have slightly over .500 records, like the Cardinals this year and the Padres last year. It could also make it more difficult for the 5th or 6th best team in a league to make it to a playoff that only 4 teams participate in. This happens farely often under the current system, with the Phillies being the most recent team to get screwed by the format they have now.

SoxFan78
10-16-2006, 11:56 AM
I heard Selig wants the World Series winner to play a round robin tournament with the Red Sox and Yankees. Since the Red Sox and Yankees are the best teams in the league, the World Series winner would have to win by more then 3 runs over the Sox/Yanks to get a win. Also, to be fair, the World Series winner would get one less home game.

Teal not necessary.

Myrtle72
10-16-2006, 12:02 PM
I heard Selig wants the World Series winner to play a round robin tournament with the Red Sox and Yankees. Since the Red Sox and Yankees are the best teams in the league, the World Series winner would have to win by more then 3 runs over the Sox/Yanks to get a win. Also, to be fair, the World Series winner would get one less home game.

Teal not necessary.

Well, to be fair, the Tigers DID crush the Yankees this year. Maybe in Selig's eyes, they're deserving now. :cool:

JohnTucker0814
10-16-2006, 12:22 PM
Here is my suggestion for the playoffs:

Two Division in each league:
Four Wildcard Winners in each league, making it 6 playoff teams in each league.
The four wildcard winners would play a 1 game playoff with seeding 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. How exciting are 1 game playoffs? They are great!
Each division winner gets home field advantage so the team with the best record would host games 1, 2 & 5 vs the 2/3 wild card winner. The other would host games 1, 2 & 5 vs the 1/4 winner.
Same format for LCS. The team with the best record hosts games 1, 2, 6, 7.

Here is what this does:

1. Gives the Wild Cards a tougher time to make it through the playoffs. You play a 1 game playoff the day after the season ends and then you start the Division Series the following day. Very tough on a team, look at what it's doing to the Cards and Mets for pitching.
2. Gives the fans of 2 additional teams a playoff spot... which if you look at this years standings how many teams where within a few games of the wild card at the end of the year?
3. Gives the fans 4 one game playoffs! How awesome would that be!!!

This years playoffs would have looked this way:

Angles at Detroit (1 game playoff) winner plays Twins AL West Winner
White Sox at Oakland (1 game playoff) winner plays Yankees AL East Winner

Astros at Dodgers (1 game playoff) winner plays Padres NL West Winner
Cardinals at Phillies (1 game playoff) winner plays Mets NL East Winner

What do you all think of that? It wouldn't extend the playoffs any later, would add 4 1 game playoffs (think of the money each team makes off of that 1 game?) Keeps a few more teams in the playoff hunt!

MUsoxfan
10-16-2006, 02:10 PM
How about the Cardinals this year with 83 wins in the worst division in baseball.


But they won their division. After winning that division they went on to beat another team that won their division. Now it looks like they have a good chance to beat the holiest team in the NL.

So after winning a division, beating another division winner, and then possibly going on to beat the team with the best record in the NL...they STILL don't deserve it?!:?::o:

sox1970
10-16-2006, 03:24 PM
No divisions, No interleague play, Top four make the playoffs.

American League: One weekday series, one weekend series per team, home and away. Play everyone in the league 12 games for a total of 156, or play 6 teams 13 games so 162 is maintained.

National League: Play 9 teams 10 games, and 6 teams 11 games for 156, or 3 teams 10 games, and 12 teams 11 games, for 162.

The NL would be trickier to schedule with 15 different opponents. To avoid a ton of 2-game series, they would have to play two 3-game series at home, and one 4-game series on the road, and vice versa. It's not perfect , but it's better than what they have now.

Standings would be printed in two ways: "Playoff Standings" would list the Top 4 teams and ties, showing how many games the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place teams are out of the best record in the league. "Wildcard Standings" would start with the 4th place team with the rest of the league behind, showing how many games back of 4th place each team is.

If two teams tie within the Playoff Standings, better head-to-head record gets the higher seed.

As a reward for the best record, the #1 seed gets four home games in the first round best-of-five. The league championship series would continue to be best-of-seven, with the 2-3-2 format.

World Series home field advantage goes back to alternating year-to-year. It's the only fair thing to do since comparing the competition level of one league to another year-to-year is impossible. It's possible a 99 win team from one league may not be as good as a 97 win team from another. They used to alternate it year-to-year, because they knew what they were doing.

batmanZoSo
10-16-2006, 04:00 PM
What the hell, why don't they just move Boston to the NL and declare that the World Series every year would be between Boston and the Yankees, with a "consolation" series to be played between the teams that actually WON the two leagues?
Should this even be teal? :?:

Seeing those two teams play is really what baseball is all about is it not?


But they won their division. After winning that division they went on to beat another team that won their division. Now it looks like they have a good chance to beat the holiest team in the NL.

So after winning a division, beating another division winner, and then possibly going on to beat the team with the best record in the NL...they STILL don't deserve it?!:?::o:

83 wins and they might get to go to the World Series. 90 wins for us and we finish third. Not to mention we swept them off the face of the Earth in biblical fashion. It's just not right. I mean they've certainly done what they've needed to to get where they are, but I really don't feel like patting them on the back...

MUsoxfan
10-16-2006, 04:09 PM
83 wins and they might get to go to the World Series. 90 wins for us and we finish third. Not to mention we swept them off the face of the Earth in biblical fashion. It's just not right. I mean they've certainly done what they've needed to to get where they are, but I really don't feel like patting them on the back...


If and when they get to the World Series, they will be blown out of the universe. The Tigers will make the '04 Red Sox look like pansies.

It sucks that the Sox won 90 and finished 3rd. The team that finished 2nd is making everyone else look like pretenders in the playoffs. To me, there's no shame in coming in 3rd in a division like that. Sometimes you just have to tip your hat to the other team

RKMeibalane
10-16-2006, 04:10 PM
Bud Selig, YOU IDIOT!

lpneck
10-16-2006, 04:25 PM
I have always liked this setup:

Move one team from the NL to the AL, so both leagues have 15 teams.

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Blue Jays, Devil Rays
AL Central: White Sox, Tigers, Brewers, Twins, Indians
AL West: Rangers, A's, Mariners, Angels, Royals

NL East: Mets, Braves, Marlins, Nationals, Phillies
NL Central: Cubs, Cardinals, Astros, Pirates, Reds
NL West: Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Padres, Giants

(Another option would be to switch the Astros to the AL West instead of the Brewers)

162 game schedule
6 3-game series vs. divisional opponents (18 games) 4 x 18 = 72
2 3-game series vs. league non-divisional opponents (6 games) 10 x 6 = 60
2 3-game series vs. one interleague division (6 games) 5 x 6 = 30

Some things this would change about interleague play:
There would be at least one interleague series at all times. (So what? Why does there have to be 3 weeks set aside in the middle of summer for interleague play?)
Interleague play would rotate every 3 years. (This means Sox vs. Cubs every 3 years, not every year.)

The good thing is that the division races would be COMPLETELY balanced.

Playoffs- 5 teams from each league- 3 division winners and 2 wild cards

Wild card round- 2 wild cards play in a 1-game playoff at team with best record.

Divisional series- Best record vs. wild card (regardless of division). The team with the best record in the league plays the ENTIRE SERIES at home.

Other 2 division winners play 2-2-1 with the extra game going to the team with the best record.

LCS- 2-3-2 with home field advantage with the team with the best record.

World Series- 2-3-2 with home field advantage with the league that wins the All-Star game. (I know a lot of people don't like this, but that's a totally different argument.)

Positives:
There is a SIGNIFICANT advantage for "winning your league" (something for the old-schoolers)
There is a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage for being a 2nd place team.
Extra playoff team gives more teams excitement down the stretch. (Sox would have been in this year with a 1-game playoff at Detroit.)
1-game playoffs are cool, and now there are 2 of them guaranteed.

spiffie
10-16-2006, 04:28 PM
83 wins and they might get to go to the World Series. 90 wins for us and we finish third. Not to mention we swept them off the face of the Earth in biblical fashion. It's just not right. I mean they've certainly done what they've needed to to get where they are, but I really don't feel like patting them on the back...
You know what the solution is don't you? End the NL and AL. That's right, get rid of it. Expand the season to 174 games, every team plays every other team one home and one away series of 3 games each. Top 4 teams advance into best of 7 series. By eliminating a playoff round and throwing a few doubleheaders (give something back to the fans!) in there you keep the season in the same time frame it is now. Then the regular season means something, no team ever gets screwed like the Sox did because they are in a weaker/stronger division/league, and the 4 playoff teams will have earned their way to the postseason.

sox1970
10-16-2006, 05:16 PM
I have always liked this setup:

Move one team from the NL to the AL, so both leagues have 15 teams.

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Blue Jays, Devil Rays
AL Central: White Sox, Tigers, Brewers, Twins, Indians
AL West: Rangers, A's, Mariners, Angels, Royals

NL East: Mets, Braves, Marlins, Nationals, Phillies
NL Central: Cubs, Cardinals, Astros, Pirates, Reds
NL West: Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Padres, Giants

(Another option would be to switch the Astros to the AL West instead of the Brewers)

162 game schedule
6 3-game series vs. divisional opponents (18 games) 4 x 18 = 72
2 3-game series vs. league non-divisional opponents (6 games) 10 x 6 = 60
2 3-game series vs. one interleague division (6 games) 5 x 6 = 30

Some things this would change about interleague play:
There would be at least one interleague series at all times. (So what? Why does there have to be 3 weeks set aside in the middle of summer for interleague play?)
Interleague play would rotate every 3 years. (This means Sox vs. Cubs every 3 years, not every year.)

The good thing is that the division races would be COMPLETELY balanced.

Playoffs- 5 teams from each league- 3 division winners and 2 wild cards

Wild card round- 2 wild cards play in a 1-game playoff at team with best record.

Divisional series- Best record vs. wild card (regardless of division). The team with the best record in the league plays the ENTIRE SERIES at home.

Other 2 division winners play 2-2-1 with the extra game going to the team with the best record.

LCS- 2-3-2 with home field advantage with the team with the best record.

World Series- 2-3-2 with home field advantage with the league that wins the All-Star game. (I know a lot of people don't like this, but that's a totally different argument.)

Positives:
There is a SIGNIFICANT advantage for "winning your league" (something for the old-schoolers)
There is a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage for being a 2nd place team.
Extra playoff team gives more teams excitement down the stretch. (Sox would have been in this year with a 1-game playoff at Detroit.)
1-game playoffs are cool, and now there are 2 of them guaranteed.

You can't have an even amount of teams in each league because there would have to be an interleague series going on all of the time. Besides, interleague play just sucks.

rookie
10-16-2006, 07:12 PM
Hey does anyone have the stats? Does home field make that big of a difference in the baseball playoffs anyways? It seems to me that either both teams are evenly matched or one team just seems to dominate and then where the games are played doesn't matter much anyways. I read somewhere that it has only happened a handful of times where teams only won their home games.

I guess I'm just confused why Selig thinks home-field advantage for the wild-card is such a big issue.

lpneck
10-16-2006, 07:57 PM
You can't have an even amount of teams in each league because there would have to be an interleague series going on all of the time. Besides, interleague play just sucks.

Yes, and as I said in the original post- so what? Why does there have to be a 3 week chunk taken out of the middle of the season so that everyone can play interleague baseball at the same time?

I think it would actually improve interleague play if it was spread throughout the season.

sox1970
10-16-2006, 09:07 PM
Yes, and as I said in the original post- so what? Why does there have to be a 3 week chunk taken out of the middle of the season so that everyone can play interleague baseball at the same time?

I think it would actually improve interleague play if it was spread throughout the season.

Yuck. Interleague has taken away from the World Series. The balanced schedule within your own league would be great--without divisions.

PKalltheway
10-16-2006, 09:13 PM
Yes, and as I said in the original post- so what? Why does there have to be a 3 week chunk taken out of the middle of the season so that everyone can play interleague baseball at the same time?

I think it would actually improve interleague play if it was spread throughout the season.
It may sound a little crazy, but here goes nothing. What about having interleague play every other season? Play the games at the same time of year, play the same number of interleague games that are usually played, and use the same rotation. That would keep fan interest up as far as interleague play goes, because once all of the teams have played each other at home and on the road (which still won't be accomplished by the end of next season), it will be stale for certain. This is coming from someone who likes interleague play.

sox1970
10-16-2006, 09:25 PM
It may sound a little crazy, but here goes nothing. What about having interleague play every other season? Play the games at the same time of year, play the same number of interleague games that are usually played, and use the same rotation. That would keep fan interest up as far as interleague play goes, because once all of the teams have played each other at home and on the road (which still won't be accomplished by the end of next season), it will be stale for certain. This is coming from someone who likes interleague play.

I don't know what's so great about interleague play. I'd rather see the other teams in the American League a little more. The Yankees are coming to town twice next year, but for the mostpart, you have many of the AL teams coming to town once. I'd like to see a balanaced schedule within the league, so you face every team in the league four series throughout the season. It would also be nice to get away from some of these AL Central teams a little bit. Even when the AL Central stunk, I didn't like the unbalanced schedule.

RKMeibalane
10-16-2006, 09:34 PM
I don't know what's so great about interleague play. I'd rather see the other teams in the American League a little more. The Yankees are coming to town twice next year, but for the mostpart, you have many of the AL teams coming to town once. I'd like to see a balanaced schedule within the league, so you face every team in the league four series throughout the season. It would also be nice to get away from some of these AL Central teams a little bit. Even when the AL Central stunk, I didn't like the unbalanced schedule.

That's largely because the Sox stunk right along with the rest of the division.

23Ventura
10-16-2006, 09:54 PM
I don't know what's so great about interleague play. I'd rather see the other teams in the American League a little more. The Yankees are coming to town twice next year, but for the mostpart, you have many of the AL teams coming to town once. I'd like to see a balanaced schedule within the league, so you face every team in the league four series throughout the season. It would also be nice to get away from some of these AL Central teams a little bit. Even when the AL Central stunk, I didn't like the unbalanced schedule.
I agree. Having a balanced schedule would also make the Wild Card races more fair because you wouldn't have two teams competing for that spot with one team playing much tougher competition.

PKalltheway
10-16-2006, 09:56 PM
I don't know what's so great about interleague play. I'd rather see the other teams in the American League a little more. The Yankees are coming to town twice next year, but for the mostpart, you have many of the AL teams coming to town once. I'd like to see a balanaced schedule within the league, so you face every team in the league four series throughout the season. It would also be nice to get away from some of these AL Central teams a little bit. Even when the AL Central stunk, I didn't like the unbalanced schedule.
You're fortunate enough to live in Chicago, where you can get the best of both worlds. I live in Cincinnati, which is strictly National League. Believe me, I WANT to see AL teams.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-16-2006, 09:59 PM
You're fortunate enough to live in Chicago, where you can get the best of both worlds. I live in Cincinnati, which is strictly National League. Believe me, I WANT to see AL teams.

The problem is they schedule the same ****ing teams / divisions each season. We never play Milwaukee or the Mets and seem to play the same NL Central teams each season on top of the played out Cubs series.

Cleveland and Detroit are 3-4 hours away. I rather save the interleague for the World Series.

PKalltheway
10-16-2006, 10:03 PM
The problem is they schedule the same ****ing teams / divisions each season. We never play Milwaukee or the Mets and seem to play the same NL Central teams each season on top of the played out Cubs series.

Cleveland and Detroit are 3-4 hours away. I rather save the interleague for the World Series.
Very true. I'm FINALLY going to get to see the Angels next year when they come to Cincy for the first time. Also, out of all the times the Reds have played the AL Central, why in the world haven't the Twins been to Cincinnati since 1998?! The Royals made their first trip to Cincy this year since 1998 as well.:?: I had to go to Chicago to see the Twins for the first time this summer.

Oblong
10-16-2006, 10:14 PM
I like the idea of interleague play. As a kid I never got to see Mike Schmidt play. I wish I could have.

But they could do a better job with it. We don't need to see Cubs/Sox and Yankees/Mets every year. Those series seem to mess up the consistency for other teams.
I like the idea of doing it every other year.

ode to veeck
10-18-2006, 09:33 AM
Just to throw sand in the used car dealer's face, the 83 win, small market Cards pushed the Mets to one game of elimination last night, stomping on ace Glavine's attempt at his 15th post season win, even after getting an extra day's rest due to the rainout. Even the stache's big stick (who had given Glavine the lead earlier in the game) couldn't save him.

:manos

"Give me a shot at Magglio and the Kittens!"