PDA

View Full Version : Scott Boras Wants Best-Of-Nine World Series?


viagracat
07-01-2007, 11:20 AM
The agent everyone loves to hate, Scott Boras, just floated this idea to Bud Selig...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070630/ap_on_sp_au_ra_ne/bbo_nine_game_series_1)

Can't blame the guy for trying, I guess.

Any thoughts?

DoItForDanPasqua
07-01-2007, 11:25 AM
Maybe Joe Crede will fire him for this.

Lip Man 1
07-01-2007, 12:24 PM
If you are going to do something like this either the regular season will have to be shortened...or previous playoff series will have to be shortened or the World Series will have to be moved to a warm weather or domed site.

You simply can't play baseball in Chicago or Cleveland or Detroit or Boston in November.

Lip

Gavin
07-01-2007, 12:56 PM
Yeah, I'd be fine with this if they also removed interleague play to shore up the season a little earlier.

Scott Boras, though, needs to stick to being an agent.

TDog
07-01-2007, 01:04 PM
If you are going to do something like this either the regular season will have to be shortened...or previous playoff series will have to be shortened or the World Series will have to be moved to a warm weather or domed site.

You simply can't play baseball in Chicago or Cleveland or Detroit or Boston in November.

Lip

You also can't play the World Series at a neutral site. Imagine the first two games of the 2005 World Series not being played in Chicago. Imagine if after the 2004 season, baseball had decided to anchor the 2005 World Series in a warm weather series with retractable-roofed stadium -- and the site was designated as Houston. Baseball may do things that show their fans disrespect, but it still has too much respect for its fans than to anchor the World Series.

Increasing the World Series to best-of-nine decreases the importance of each game and diminishes the chances of a series that goes the limit.

eastchicagosoxfan
07-01-2007, 01:10 PM
With 81 home games, teams are built to suit their homefield. A neatral site greatly diminishes those 81 games.

StepsInSC
07-01-2007, 01:21 PM
I remember reading about this in an SI article about Boras several months back. I don't have an opinion on the idea. But BEFORE the thought of a 9 game world series is even entertained, the divisional series should be changed to 7 games. Honestly, changing the WS to 9 games seems pointless if the first series is still best of a measly 5.

The Dude
07-01-2007, 01:40 PM
I remember reading about this in an SI article about Boras several months back. I don't have an opinion on the idea. But BEFORE the thought of a 9 game world series is even entertained, the divisional series should be changed to 7 games. Honestly, changing the WS to 9 games seems pointless if the first series is still best of a measly 5.

I guess the only way they could manage the best of 9 for the WS is to make the CS best of 5 too which wouldn't sit well with myself or many others. I don't mine a best of 9 series but having the first 2 games on the road for both teams is very tough to swallow. Especially if the home team wins those two games, and then has 2 games at their actual home which leaves the road team with a possible 1 game at their actual home before the series could be up. However, this is a huge money maker for everyone involved and why am I not surprised that Mr. $$$ is the one with this idea. :rolleyes:

California Sox
07-01-2007, 02:04 PM
World Series (like the Super Bowl) started out as an exhibition just to make money. There have been W.S. of varying length. I believe 1919 Black Sox series was a best-of-nine. That said, it's still a dumb idea.

Vernam
07-01-2007, 02:19 PM
Let's assume the 2005 World Series had been best-of-9, with the first two at a neutral site. Sox win the first two, then take the next two at home for a 4-0 series lead. The Astros fans face the prospect of seeing just one utterly meaningless World Series game in their park. Way to make the season-ticket holders happy.

If it ever got instituted, how'd you like to be a fan of the first team that wins four games of a series but ends up losing in nine? That'd be a pisser.

Vernam

Railsplitter
07-01-2007, 04:55 PM
We need FEWER chances to see the lousy Fox pre-game, not more.

chisoxmike
07-01-2007, 08:24 PM
Really dumb idea. Best of 9, neutral sites? Come on...

The Racehorse
07-01-2007, 08:38 PM
This guy has built himself a house of cards by taking money grubbing mercenary practices to insane levels... why should we ever believe he has the best interests of the game in mind?

:borass:
"I know what is best for baseball"

^BS^

viagracat
07-01-2007, 08:40 PM
This sounds like something Vince McMahon of the old XFL would've done. :o:

tebman
07-01-2007, 08:57 PM
Roger Angell wrote about this years ago. He wasn't advocating it, but warning that the World Series might come to this if MLB kept ceding control to television. I can't put my hands on his essay, but it was one of his New Yorker pieces. It might have been after the WS games were all scheduled to be played at night when it was too cold and too late for a lot of kids to see it, which led Angell to write about what might happen if that trend continued.

I hope we never see it, but you know what happens when the owners imagine bags of money at their feet. :rolleyes:

Oblong
07-01-2007, 08:59 PM
If you are going to do something like this either the regular season will have to be shortened...or previous playoff series will have to be shortened or the World Series will have to be moved to a warm weather or domed site.

You simply can't play baseball in Chicago or Cleveland or Detroit or Boston in November.

Lip

And can you imagine if Minnesota makes it with their new outdoor stadium?

hose
07-01-2007, 09:06 PM
9 game WS........more money for Boras.:mad:

Dick Allen
07-01-2007, 11:01 PM
**** Scott Borass.

DumpJerry
07-01-2007, 11:12 PM
I hope Boarass chokes on his own vomit.

RadioheadRocks
07-01-2007, 11:49 PM
9 game WS........more money for Boras.:mad:

That pretty much sums it up right there.

StillMissOzzie
07-02-2007, 02:34 AM
I agree that Bora$ should stick to being an agent.
I think that the season is too long already, so baseball in November would really suck.
And WS games on neutral turf? NO ****ING WAY!!!

SMO
:gulp:

PKalltheway
07-02-2007, 07:04 AM
What the hell, a best of nine World Series?! It has only been done 4 times in baseball history (1903, 1919-1921), and it really wouldn't work today unless the season was shortened to 154 games. I say no dice.

SpartanSoxFan
07-02-2007, 09:41 AM
:borass:

"Of course I know what is good for baseball."

voodoochile
07-02-2007, 09:55 AM
9 game WS........more money for Boras.:mad:

And more money for MLB. I wouldn't be surprised if Selig is actually considering it. He's all about increasing revenues. After all, he is the one who made the All Star Game "count"...

spiffie
07-02-2007, 10:36 AM
But just remember, while Boras is evil and trying to destroy baseball and all good things so he can make more money, nothing at all about Joe Crede's decision to postpone back surgery was at all related to Boras or trying to make extra cash. Joe is the one man in baseball who is not able to be tricked by Boras.

TDog
07-02-2007, 01:08 PM
And more money for MLB. I wouldn't be surprised if Selig is actually considering it. He's all about increasing revenues. After all, he is the one who made the All Star Game "count"...

I would be surprised.

Making the All-Star Game "count" changes little. Instead of alternating between leagues to decide which will open the World Series, the results of the All-Star Game determines it. Alternating the starting site takes the case of a coin flip. Home-field advantage usually is not a big issue in the World Series, and when it has been, it has always been an arbitrary advantage. The All-Star Game is just a different way to determine that arbitrary advantage. The way the NFL determines home-field advantage is appreciably worse, which is a major point of my problem with this proposal.

World Series ratings have been down the last couple of years for a number of reasons that could be debated. The ratings wouldn't increase by the increasing the number of World Series games by at least one. Adding more games decreases the interest in individual games. I don't see baseball getting more for the rights to a nine-game series.

Years ago, a friend told me the World Series should be one game at a neutral site, like the Super Bowl. I don't care about the Super Bowl and wouldn't bother to watch it in my backyard, but if I had an NFL team playing in my backyard and they made the Super Bowl, as a fan I would be disappointed that it has to be played around some big corporate party that could be a thousand miles or more away. In the early 1970s, I read in The Sporting News about an idea floated to make the Super Bowl a best-of-three contest. I never cared enough about football to learn if it proposed a home-home-neutral scenario or three neutral settings. It didn't go far. I'm sure the loss of the dramatic value of guaranteeing one game for the championship had something to do with the idea being ignored.

Nine-game series proved too long when they were tried after World War I. Attendance wasn't record-setting low (the record for the least attended World Series game was for the deciding game in 1908 -- the last one that ended in a Cubs championship celebration). But the games were reduced in meaning enough to diminish the individual importance of each.

Hosting a World Series means more than hosting a Super Bowl because a city has to earn it on the field. When I went to the first World Series game played in San Diego, the pride was in that the city had to fight for it, winning three incredible back-to-the-wall games. If all it takes to get a couple of World Series games is a favorable climate, it means little. If I lived in a city hosting the Super Bowl, even if I were a football fan, I wouldn't want tickets unless I cared about at least one of the teams playing. And the point would be moot because there would be no tickets to be had. If I were in Chicago in 2005, I would have been part of the multitude scrambling for tickets.

Don't ruin baseball's World Series just because America has turned the Super Bowl into a pagan ritual and a piece of the same action seems attractive.

thomas35forever
07-02-2007, 05:19 PM
Boras is out of his mind. It's just another excuse for him to make even more money than he already needs, just like his clients.

Fenway
07-06-2007, 10:53 AM
What scares me is the moron up in Milwaukee might like this idea

NEW YORK - Scott Boras loves the World Series so much, he wants to make it best-of-nine and open with two games at a neutral site.

Agent sends letter to Selig, wants two games played at neutral site (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19524231/)


I suppose that is one way to have a World Series game at Wrigley

itsnotrequired
07-06-2007, 11:03 AM
Silly fenway...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=89760

Fenway
07-06-2007, 11:06 AM
:rolleyes: oops I did a search too please delete or merge

Brian26
07-06-2007, 11:55 AM
:searchfirst: