Scott Boras Idea

[bosshogg23]

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10242032

So the World Series would be 2 at a neutral site, then 2-3-2. I don't particularly like the 2-2-3-2 idea but I haven't seen a good alternative idea either.

In my opinion baseball needs to have a neutral site to give a Baseball Week type idea. I would prefer a 2-3-2. With the team that would normally have home field getting the CHOICE of the first two or last two games. The middle three games going to the neutral site. Owners of the 2 WS teams split the profits on the 2 neutral site games.

Any better ideas anyone?

*edit* Owners of the 2 WS teams split the profits on the THREE(not two as stated) neutral site games. *edit*

[molson]

I like it, though I'd rather see them start by making the divisional playoff round 7 games. A 5 game playoff series in baseball is ridiculous, they might as well just flip a coin.

[bosshogg23]

I like it, though I'd rather see them start by making the divisional playoff round 7 games. A 5 game playoff series in baseball is ridiculous, they might as well just flip a coin.

I agree but I can't see adding 2 more potential playoff games.

Cut the schedule to 154 and we will talk ;)

[st.cronin]

Cut the schedule to 154. Add one wild card team, for a one game wild card playoff. Make all playoff series 7 games.

[Young Drachma]

I heard it earlier in the week. Not really a fan, mostly because of the logistics, though in an era where the NFL is playing regular season games worldwide all of the time..I don't see why not.

[Young Drachma]

Also, I think a neutral site World Series might not draw like it does currently. And would it be better for TV this way? And why would this be better for say, baseball rather than a sport like basketball which has routinely had terrible title series in recent years due to mismatches or whatever.

[EagleFan]

Why neutral sight? For a little extra money for the owners? It would add nothing to the series, and actually take away from it. It's the home field that gives it the extra energy.

[clintl]

I agree, it would take more away than it would add. Leave things alone. The World Series does not need fixing.

[bosshogg23]

Why neutral sight? For a little extra money for the owners? It would add nothing to the series, and actually take away from it. It's the home field that gives it the extra energy.

I think a neutral site takes the event to a minor Super Bowl idea. The neutral week, Baseball week, minor baseball figures/HOFers signing autos all week/minor sporting events, TONS of city hype, cities awarded, like the AS game.

[bosshogg23]

Dola, I guess I don't see how it hurts. It's not like the World Series has always been 7 games.

[TroyF]

Have the WS been good enough in recent years that we really need to see a 9 game series?

[bosshogg23]

Have the WS been good enough in recent years that we really need to see a 9 game series?

I think that is irrelevant. Is it enough of an event is the question.

The NBA Finals have blown recently. One time since 94-95 have they gone 7 games. Games that are events are popular and are able to be sold.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hypothetically, something like Red Sox-Cubs, you'll get neutral site enthusiasm.

But the first time you get something like Marlins-Twins, MLB might not ever recover from the embarassment of a potential non-sellout or at best a stadium that's quieter than a Neil Sedaka concert.

[rowech]

As has been shown over and over, home ballparks are huge advantages of a team is designed to fit them. To not be allowed to play games where you've designed your team to play half your games just doesn't fly.

[bosshogg23]

To argue Jon & rowech at once, FL & TB in the neutral park of PHX for 2 games.

That game would be sold for 3 years......regardless of teams. It has been known that PHX would hold those 2 games for 3 years, tickets were available and gone on that day. It's not terribly different than the NCAA Tourney tix. They generally are gone really early.

Am I missing something obvious?

[clintl]

Yes, you are. Seven games is a very good length for the series, and the games should be played in front of the pennant winning teams' fans. Plus, all the crap that Boras is proposing regarding season awards, Hall of Fame results, etc. is just going to divert attention away from the teams and the games for no good reason. I like having the Hall of Fame voting in January - it gives something for baseball fans to look forward to in the offseason. I think it would be distraction to have the season awards announced during the World Series - it could really do some harm if there was controversy over an award involving one of the World Series players.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Am I missing something obvious?

Well, just for starters, there's been quite a few WS games that didn't sell out on the first day in the home stadium, so I'm having a tough time believing that a neutral site is guaranteed a sellout ... unless the tickets are 90% sold to local corporations. In that scenario, especially if X number of tickets are required purchases for advertisers looking to be the official whatever of the WS, then maybe you're right.

[TroyF]

I think that is irrelevant. Is it enough of an event is the question.

The NBA Finals have blown recently. One time since 94-95 have they gone 7 games. Games that are events are popular and are able to be sold.

I'd say the same thing about the NBA Finals.

As of now, I think only hockey leaves you really wanting more and that doesn't even happen consistently.

That's what I use to judge. When is the last time I watched a World Series and thought: "Gee, I'd really like to see two more games of this"

Maybe 3 times in my lifetime. I don't have a huge problem if they do it. I don't think the public is clamoring for it though. As for me, I'm not only unenthused to see a nine game series, I'm not at all thrilled with the idea of watching a Yankees/Cubs WS in Milwaukee. The only time you really need a neutral site for sports is when it is a one game championship type of setting. In baseball, basketball and hockey everyone gets home games and multiple chances to win.

To each their own

[bosshogg23]

To argue no one in paticular, would the WS for 2 games, pre-arranged, 3 years in advance, not sell out?

[bosshogg23]

To argue no one in paticular, would the WS for 2 games, pre-arranged, 3 years in advance, not sell out?

It would sell out in 20 minutes....

[clintl]

The games sell out now. What's selling out in a neutral site going to add to the World Series experience? Nothing.

[WVUFAN]

If they want to make it like a Super Bowl, more exciting, more impactful, eliminate the Series aspect and make it a single game, and on a neutral site.

But, I'm not a baseball fan and I don't understand why the game needs to be drawn out more. It's long enough (too long) as it is.

[Atocep]

To me, the 2 neutral site games would seem more like an exhibition.

I'm not a baseball traditionalist, but I still have no problem with the current world series format.

Now about the All-Star game determining home field advantage....

[molson]

So two votes so far for "I personally don't like baseball, so the series should be shorter".

[WVUFAN]

So two votes so far for "I personally don't like baseball, so the series should be shorter".

It just seems to me that if you want to have a Super Bowl-ish atmosphere, then make it like the Super Bowl. The problem with the 2 neutral games is because neither determines the final outcome of the game.

On of the reasons the Super Bowl is the way it is (aside from football being more popular than baseball at this time) is the fact that it's a single game determining the championship.

[Young Drachma]

Exactly. If you don't like baseball and don't have any significant concept of the history behind the World Series, then you're answering your own question.

The purpose of home-field advantage is to do just that, give teams home-field advantage. To put the World Series on the road like a freakin' dog and pony road show, is really ridiculous.

I don't mind All-Star games being in cities that don't host the sport. That's fine by me, though in baseball that'd make almost ZERO sense.

The World Series ISN'T the Super Bowl, it's never gonna be and it shouldn't be. Furthermore, I don't care about end-of-season awards until AFTER the winning team has been decided and people can truly celebrate and such alike.

You want the two World Series winning teams to get together for dinner BEFORE they're supposed to play? Uh, no. Not a good plan.

Baseball's season isn't like any other regular season in sports. Boras is simply thinking of this from a money grabbing perspective. And you have to remember, this is the sport that wouldn't let ads be on the bases on a limited basis.

This would never fly and besides, who wants their team to have to win one MORE game to capture an elusive World Series title, in an era where they already have to navigate two other series just to get there?

No thanks.

[Young Drachma]

But hey, you could do this for MLS. MLS should have a playoff weekend. Do all of the games over a three weekend in a particular city and try to get people into it. Go through all of the rounds rather than dragging it out and have a week-long build up to it (plus to give the team's rest. Because I know it'll kill them physically. But hey..no pain, no gain.)

No one will care, but...at least it'd be a way to create buzz for a league that could really use the shot in the arm once a year.

[molson]

It just seems to me that if you want to have a Super Bowl-ish atmosphere, then make it like the Super Bowl. The problem with the 2 neutral games is because neither determines the final outcome of the game.

On of the reasons the Super Bowl is the way it is (aside from football being more popular than baseball at this time) is the fact that it's a single game determining the championship.

I know you said you're not a baseball fan, but baseball and football can't be compared in terms of what one game tells you about anything. Baseball is a game where teams and players are meant to be evaluated over the long haul - baseball didn't have any kind of playoff outside of the World Series for the first 90 years or so of its existence. Baseball's a sport where if a bad team beats a good team it's not considered an "upset", because any single game is largely a crapshoot. 5 games, IMO, is still largely a coin flip (I wonder if there's a stat out there about how often the team with a better record wins a 5 game series in baseball). 7 games is better, 9 is even better than that.

I don't have as strong an opinion about the neutral sites, but I'm sure those games wouldn't be played in Milwaukee, as someone suggested. They'd be in Vegas, Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, etc, and they'd sell out easily.

[Young Drachma]

I'd be happy with a 154-game schedule in MLB in exchange for two more Wild Cards, though. But I wouldn't have them play a one-game set..I'd make them play a best-of-three set at the stadium of the team with the better record. That way, it gives the division champs a break and it makes them mean something again.

I know that in some years, that won't mean much when a team like the Cardinals slip into the playoffs. But I feel like winning at least half of your games in baseball is so much harder to do than to go .500 in other sports, just because of the sheer volume of games.

[clintl]

They'd be in Vegas.

They wouldn't be in Vegas.

[WVUFAN]

Exactly. If you don't like baseball and don't have any significant concept of the history behind the World Series, then you're answering your own question.

Again, I come at this as an outsider in terms of baseball history, but I can completely understand how fans of the sport would want to continue a tradition that goes back 100+ years. It's one of the things that makes baseball a great sport.

But ...

There's maintaining tradition, and then there's maintaining tradition at the expense of the game. Like it or not, modern day fans, at least many of them like a definitive finale to a championship. Look at arguably two of the more popular sporting events in the world, the World Cup and the Super Bowl, and you'll see a striking simularity -- both championship games are a single solitary game, not a series.

Having one game is much like guaranteeing a 7th game in a Series game every year. It focuses attention on a single event, and makes that single event all the more important. I think the reason why championship series like the NBA and NHL championships are losing viewers is BECAUSE they're a series, and it doesn't hold the interest of casual fans, the same ones who will watch a Super Bowl or a World Cup, and the one you want watching a championship.

So, is this a case where tradition might actually hurt the game more than it helps?

[clintl]

I'd be happy with a 154-game schedule in MLB in exchange for two more Wild Cards, though.

This would require teams having a bye for a series, and a long lay off like really isn't feasible in baseball.

Also, the volume of games have nothing to do with how hard it is to finish .500. The average winning percentage is always going to be .500, no matter how many games are played.

And actually, in baseball, the spread in winning percentage between the best and worst teams is the smallest of any sport.

[molson]

And actually, in baseball, the spread in winning percentage between the best and worst teams is the smallest of any sport.

By far, and that's exactly why a 5-game (or 1-game) playoff series makes no sense. It isn't an issue of tradition.

[Young Drachma]

Again, I come at this as an outsider in terms of baseball history, but I can completely understand how fans of the sport would want to continue a tradition that goes back 100+ years. It's one of the things that makes baseball a great sport.

But ...

There's maintaining tradition, and then there's maintaining tradition at the expense of the game. Like it or not, modern day fans, at least many of them like a definitive finale to a championship. Look at arguably two of the more popular sporting events in the world, the World Cup and the Super Bowl, and you'll see a striking simularity -- both championship games are a single solitary game, not a series.

Having one game is much like guaranteeing a 7th game in a Series game every year. It focuses attention on a single event, and makes that single event all the more important. I think the reason why championship series like the NBA and NHL championships are losing viewers is BECAUSE they're series, and it doesn't hold the interest of casual fans, the same ones who will watch a Super Bowl or a World Cup, and the one you want watching a championship.

So, is this a case where tradition might actually hurt the game more than it helps?

After playing over 150 games, I'd be darned if I'd want all of the marbles to come down to one game. Not when even regular season games are setup in a 'Series' format where teams play each other 2,3 or 4 times at a time.

[clintl]

Having one game is much like guaranteeing a 7th game in a Series game every year. It focuses attention on a single event, and makes that single event all the more important. I think the reason why championship series like the NBA and NHL championships are losing viewers is BECAUSE they're series, and it doesn't hold the interest of casual fans, the same ones who will watch a Super Bowl or a World Cup, and the one you want watching a championship.

So, is this a case where tradition might actually hurt the game more than it helps?

Why this doesn't work for baseball is that in those other games, the best players on a team play every day. In baseball, starting pitchers can only pitch every fourth or fifth day - thus, if you have a one-game series, you are not really having a championship that truly reflects the quality of the teams. You need to have a series long enough to go through the starting rotation at least once.

Plus, I disagree with your premise that one game is more suspenseful than a series. I can remember more details about the great World Series I've seen, because of the drama that lasted over several days, than I can about most of the Super Bowls I've seen. (Of course, maybe that's partly because there have been a lot more good World Series over the years than there have been good Super Bowls - but again, maybe that's also the big weakness of the single game championship format.)

[Atocep]

Having one game is much like guaranteeing a 7th game in a Series game every year. It focuses attention on a single event, and makes that single event all the more important.

Outside of the massive amount of marketing, how many Super Bowls have lived up to the hype? Putting everything into one game may make for lots of commercial money and more viewers, but it doesn't necessarily make for a better championship.

I understand it from a money standpoint, but for the way baseball works, a one game series simply isn't realistic. 40 games in baseball can be considered small sample size. It completely eliminates things like bullpen and starting rotation depth. None of the other sports really compare.

You wouldn't be crowning a true champion any more than a coin flip would.

[WVUFAN]

Why this doesn't work for baseball is that in those other games, the best players on a team play every day. In baseball, starting pitchers can only pitch every fourth or fifth day - thus, if you have a one-game series, you are not really having a championship that truly reflects the quality of the teams. You need to have a series long enough to go through the starting rotation at least once.

Fair point. You could say "have a X amount of delay between the last divisional championship and the World Series, then put in the best pitcher, since all of them are rested", but I see your point.


Plus, I disagree with your premise that one game is more suspenseful than a series. I can remember more details about the great World Series I've seen, because of the drama that lasted over several days, than I can about most of the Super Bowls I've seen. (Of course, maybe that's partly because there have been a lot more good World Series over the years than there have been good Super Bowls - but again, maybe that's also the big weakness of the single game championship format.)

Yeah, I think we're gonna have to disagree, but that's probably because we're looking at it from two different angles. I've tried to watch World Series/NBA/NHL championship series, then figured I'd just watch the games when they really mattered, when one of the teams were up 3 games. I love the fact that the Super Bowl is a single game, and the championship is determined in that format.

To each his own, though. :)

[WVUFAN]

Outside of the massive amount of marketing, how many Super Bowls have lived up to the hype? Putting everything into one game may make for lots of commercial money and more viewers, but it doesn't necessarily make for a better championship.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. To me, a single game works as well or more than any series format. From a financial standpoint, a single game makes quite a bit of sense.

With a few exceptions, I've enjoyed every Super Bowl I've watched. There's been blowouts in World Series/NHL/NBA games before (look at the last NBA championship series) just as frequent as Super Bowls, only the blowouts just last over a week.

But I'm not trying to say football is better than any other sport, because it's all up to personal preference. I'm just saying that if you want to attract that casual fan base, and if you want, as Boras' says, a "Super Bowl-like atmosphere", you're not gonna get that in any other way than a single game championship. Expanding the series will make it worse.


I understand it from a money standpoint, but for the way baseball works, a one game series simply isn't realistic. 40 games in baseball can be considered small sample size. It completely eliminates things like bullpen and starting rotation depth. None of the other sports really compare.
I'm just looking at this from a financial, "let's make it like a Super Bowl" stance. I don't know enough about baseball to look at it any other way.


You wouldn't be crowning a true champion any more than a coin flip would.
I'll take your word on that. :) However, they should switch to a single-game format for Basketball. One look at March Madness and you can see that in that sport, a single game format works.

[clintl]

Fair point. You could say "have a X amount of delay between the last divisional championship and the World Series, then put in the best pitcher, since all of them are rested", but I see your point.


That still doesn't work for baseball, because a key component of team quality is starting rotation depth.

[TroyF]

I think, whenever possible, it's better to have a series format. Soccer and football don't lend themselves well to a series format. You could only play one game a week and even if you attempted more, a three game series would last well over two weeks with only a few games.

In basebal, basketball and hockey you can play multiple games in a week. It also comes down to the amount of games played. 82 games + playoffs and you are out if you have an off night? 162 games + playoffs and you run into a hot pitcher and it's over?

No thanks.

March Madness is special, but I think it's the exception to the norm. I'd much rather follow a series when the sport supports it.

[Neuqua]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of Scott Boras trying to fix baseball?

[EagleFan]

To argue no one in paticular, would the WS for 2 games, pre-arranged, 3 years in advance, not sell out?

Why would they sell out? It's not a one game winner take all event like the Super Bowl. It's going to be two games with no winner crowned. Your asking people who are not even fans of the teams involved to give a crap enough to go watch it.

If it's not broken there is no reason to try to fix it.

[BYU 14]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of Scott Boras trying to fix baseball?

No

[Desnudo]

I don't see any need to add more games. If anything, they should cut the divisional series back to best-of-five.

[MalcPow]

That still doesn't work for baseball, because a key component of team quality is starting rotation depth.

Exactly, not to mention the bullpen. To draw at least some kind of metaphor, making the Series one game would be like making the Super Bowl teams play 7 on 7 or something.

[Logan]

I don't see any need to add more games. If anything, they should cut the divisional series back to best-of-five.

Are you on an LSD trip back to 1994?

[stevew]

I don't see the point of a 9 game series with 2 games at a neutral site. I do think, however that the "World Series" could benefit from an All Star type atmosphere if they awarded the entire series to a neutral location and rotated it yearly.

But the current situation is also perfectly acceptable, and it does reward teams fans that have supported their team all year.