World Series v. Super Bowl

[Young Drachma]

I guess this is something I always wonder about this time and it actually came up today with a friend saying something like "baseball needs two more wild cards" and I said that baseball and byes don't mix.

I realize that parity and the difference in the financial models make comparing football and baseball (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1362) a bad idea to attempt to do.

But...for the sake of discussion:

Would making the two leagues single-table again and having a best-of-seven (or even nine) World Series give the World Series the sort of interestingness it had in the past?

Or would a sixteen-team playoff for baseball give us what hockey often does? Which I think are frankly, the best playoffs of any of the four major sports?

[Vince]

It all depends upon who you cater to. Football is so successful because the average person these days has the attention span of a severely psychotic 3 year old. Having a single game championship caters to that mindset perfectly -- people can get in, get out, and get on with their lives.

Personally, the World Series always has, and probably always will keep me incredibly intrigued (that's my word of the day). Regardless of the craziness that surrounds the sport, I will always love it.

[Young Drachma]

I guess I forgot to include a "keep it the way it is option in the poll." But I was mostly being hypothetical to begin with and just wanted to see what folks thought, without it breaking out into a OMG steroids discussion.

Well that and some people say that with 16 teams, you'd never view the winner of the World Series as legitimate. But in football, we don't care. If an 8-8 team wins it all, we still think of them as the champ. And it'd be the same for an 8th seed in hockey, while in basketball it's not as common I guess.

But maybe "traditionalists" are just louder and care almost too much to the point where rational discussion ceases to make sense.

[ISiddiqui]

I think the non-Wild Card or just WS would be preferable. I voted for non-Wild Card, because I think people would want the extra playoff, but in that case, I'd make the schedule even more unbalanced, so you'd have to play much more in your own division.

[Izulde]

I say expand by two seeds and let the top 8 in. You've still got few enough teams that the integrity of the postseason is preserved, but by the same token you have more teams in and so more people with a vested interest in both the regular season and the playoffs.

[Jas_lov]

I'd leave the wild card as it adds a lot of excitement to the race when there are dominant division leaders. But I would cut the regular season to 154 games, make the 1st round 7 games, and leave the rest the way it is. 5 games for a playoff series is a crapshoot. I don't think they should ever expand the number of teams that make the playoffs though. Don't turn it into the NBA or NHL where half the league makes it.

[Atocep]

Just the way it is.

Given the 162 game schedule I don't see how you could keep fans interested if you eliminated the wild cards completely, while at the same time I don't want to see it become the NBA or the NHL and see bad teams (not mediocre, bad) make the playoffs.

[oykib]

Just the way it is.

Given the 162 game schedule I don't see how you could keep fans interested if you eliminated the wild cards completely, while at the same time I don't want to see it become the NBA or the NHL and see bad teams (not mediocre, bad) make the playoffs.

I feel the opposite is true. Think Yankees/Red Sox pennant races over the past few years. Last year would have been epic-- maybe as good as '78. The wildcard rendered it moot.

I'd rather have four divisions and no wildcards rather than the way it is now.

basically the wildcard changes your race from between 1 and two to between 2 and three. That's not a good thing.

[Young Drachma]

I feel the opposite is true. Think Yankees/Red Sox pennant races over the past few years. Last year would have been epic-- maybe as good as '78. The wildcard rendered it moot.

I'd rather have four divisions and no wildcards rather than the way it is now.

basically the wildcard changes your race from between 1 and two to between 2 and three. That's not a good thing.

What if a second (or third) place team in a four teams per division (presuming you expanded to 32 to get 8 divisions of four) had a better record than a division champion, though?

[Pumpy Tudors]

I voted trout, as I think it's just fine the way it is.

[SteveMax58]

I voted who cares. I dont think it's the playoff structure in baseball that has caused a decline in interest...I think it's the free agency explosion.

As a Mets fan, I dont even have to worry about this, but I still dont like teams like the Marlins, Twins, Royals, Pirates, etc. having to trade away their homegrown studs after they establish themselves as MLB stars. I really dislike today's mass "player-swapping" and I think it makes it more difficult to grow attached to your team's players when many of them were stars before they came to your team. Or for the opposite end of that spectrum...I imagine Twins & Marlins fans find it discouraging to get a great prospect and see him just leave because they cant afford him...or at least not without fielding a AA team around him.

I dont know...maybe I'm just old fashioned. I just think whatever MLB can do to reduce the incentives of player swapping half of a teams' roster every other year would make for a more vested fan-interest. I'm not against free agency, I just wish player movement looked a little closer to the NFL...which is much closer to the 80's & early 90's for MLB.

Would a salary cap help reduce this? I'm not sure...but I do think something should be done as I enjoy rooting for the players on my fav team...not just a jersey with different players every year.

EDIT: Sorry for the threadjack.

[ISiddiqui]

What if a second (or third) place team in a four teams per division (presuming you expanded to 32 to get 8 divisions of four) had a better record than a division champion, though?

Then tough... should have won your division. That's also why I advocate a MUCH more unbalanced schedule if the WC is eliminated.

On the other hand, if we keep the WC, I'd advocate a much more balanced schedule... because some teams going for the WC play in a much easier division than some others.

[oykib]

Then tough... should have won your division. That's also why I advocate a MUCH more unbalanced schedule if the WC is eliminated.

On the other hand, if we keep the WC, I'd advocate a much more balanced schedule... because some teams going for the WC play in a much easier division than some others.

Word

[molson]

I'd leave the wild card as it adds a lot of excitement to the race when there are dominant division leaders. But I would cut the regular season to 154 games, make the 1st round 7 games, and leave the rest the way it is. 5 games for a playoff series is a crapshoot. I don't think they should ever expand the number of teams that make the playoffs though. Don't turn it into the NBA or NHL where half the league makes it.

Playoff baseball is great, but 162 games to a 5 game series is ridiculous, especially for a game like baseball. I like your suggestion to go to 154 and 7 instead. I'd also cut the days off during the series - play every day except for travel days.

[TRO]

Then tough... should have won your division. That's also why I advocate a MUCH more unbalanced schedule if the WC is eliminated.

On the other hand, if we keep the WC, I'd advocate a much more balanced schedule... because some teams going for the WC play in a much easier division than some others.

Amen

[Buccaneer]

+3 for my friend Imran.

I voted for eliminating WC and having the LCS, going back to two divisions ( with an unbalanced schedule). If that means eliminating a couple teams, so be it.