Biggest issue is going to be when they expand to 32 teams are they also going to expand the playoffs?
I don't think adding two more teams to the playoffs makes any practical sense. But I definitely want the LDS to be seven games and I can go either way on the Wildcard being a three-game series or a one-game play-in.
Biggest issue is going to be when they expand to 32 teams are they also going to expand the playoffs?
I don't think adding two more teams to the playoffs makes any practical sense. But I definitely want the LDS to be seven games and I can go either way on the Wildcard being a three-game series or a one-game play-in.
With the long season and then a possible expanding playoffs you would see a lot more of the pitcher for 2 innings thing.
I'd like the Wild Card to be a 3 game series. It makes no sense to me that regular season series are 3 games but then a playoff series, which is more meaningful, is only 1 game. Team with the better record gets all 3 games at home, but bats first in game 2.
I'd like the Wild Card to be a 3 game series. It makes no sense to me that regular season series are 3 games but then a playoff series, which is more meaningful, is only 1 game. Team with the better record gets all 3 games at home, but bats first in game 2.
My thinking was the WC team with the better record can choose whether they want the first two or last two games at home.
I buy the argument, but I also wouldn't mind if it stays at one game. My view is that If you don't want to play in that game then win your division, and the other "plus" of it is I'm sure the league loves guaranteeing essentially two Game 7's every year.
My thing is I don't know how you can go to six teams in each league making the playoffs. I think they'd definitely go to eight divisions since it would keep more eyeballs interested in the league as a whole. Byes don't work in baseball and I don't know another format that would work. Unless they were to do away with divisions and just take the top-five teams in each league? That probably doesn't work either.
I'd like the Wild Card to be a 3 game series. It makes no sense to me that regular season series are 3 games but then a playoff series, which is more meaningful, is only 1 game. Team with the better record gets all 3 games at home, but bats first in game 2.
My thinking was the WC team with the better record can choose whether they want the first two or last two games at home.
I buy the argument, but I also wouldn't mind if it stays at one game. My view is that If you don't want to play in that game then win your division, and the other "plus" of it is I'm sure the league loves guaranteeing essentially two Game 7's every year.
My thing is I don't know how you can go to six teams in each league making the playoffs. I think they'd definitely go to eight divisions since it would keep more eyeballs interested in the league as a whole. Byes don't work in baseball and I don't know another format that would work. Unless they were to do away with divisions and just take the top-five teams in each league? That probably doesn't work either.
8 divisions might make teams try harder and actually compete.
I'd like the Wild Card to be a 3 game series. It makes no sense to me that regular season series are 3 games but then a playoff series, which is more meaningful, is only 1 game. Team with the better record gets all 3 games at home, but bats first in game 2.
My thinking was the WC team with the better record can choose whether they want the first two or last two games at home.
I buy the argument, but I also wouldn't mind if it stays at one game. My view is that If you don't want to play in that game then win your division, and the other "plus" of it is I'm sure the league loves guaranteeing essentially two Game 7's every year.
My thing is I don't know how you can go to six teams in each league making the playoffs. I think they'd definitely go to eight divisions since it would keep more eyeballs interested in the league as a whole. Byes don't work in baseball and I don't know another format that would work. Unless they were to do away with divisions and just take the top-five teams in each league? That probably doesn't work either.
8 divisions might make teams try harder and actually compete.
That would be interesting.
It would, or at least I think so, plus the league would love it. But again I don't know what the answer for playoff format would be. Does the division winner with the worst record play the wildcard team?
Biggest issue is going to be when they expand to 32 teams are they also going to expand the playoffs?
I don't think adding two more teams to the playoffs makes any practical sense. But I definitely want the LDS to be seven games and I can go either way on the Wildcard being a three-game series or a one-game play-in.
With the long season and then a possible expanding playoffs you would see a lot more of the pitcher for 2 innings thing.
They'd have to cut the season back to 154 games if they expanded playoffs. Otherwise we'd get into November every year.
Biggest issue is going to be when they expand to 32 teams are they also going to expand the playoffs?
I don't think adding two more teams to the playoffs makes any practical sense. But I definitely want the LDS to be seven games and I can go either way on the Wildcard being a three-game series or a one-game play-in.
With the long season and then a possible expanding playoffs you would see a lot more of the pitcher for 2 innings thing.
They'd have to cut the season back to 154 games if they expanded playoffs. Otherwise we'd get into November every year.
With the revenue sharing that goes on do you think all the owners would agree to that?
I'd like the Wild Card to be a 3 game series. It makes no sense to me that regular season series are 3 games but then a playoff series, which is more meaningful, is only 1 game. Team with the better record gets all 3 games at home, but bats first in game 2.
My thinking was the WC team with the better record can choose whether they want the first two or last two games at home.
I buy the argument, but I also wouldn't mind if it stays at one game. My view is that If you don't want to play in that game then win your division, and the other "plus" of it is I'm sure the league loves guaranteeing essentially two Game 7's every year.
My thing is I don't know how you can go to six teams in each league making the playoffs. I think they'd definitely go to eight divisions since it would keep more eyeballs interested in the league as a whole. Byes don't work in baseball and I don't know another format that would work. Unless they were to do away with divisions and just take the top-five teams in each league? That probably doesn't work either.
The problem (er, well, my problem) with a 1-2 or 2-1 format is that you are asking the better team to play one of the two most decisive games on the road. My thought process is the better team should have both games 1 & 3 at home. The only way to do that and give the lower team an actual home game is to go 1-1-1. With travel days, that stretches the WC to an almost week long affair. Give the road team a home at-bat in game 2 to make it semi-fair, but play all games at the home team's stadium. The series is over in at most 3 days
6 teams could work if you reduced divisions to 2 in each league. Division Champs get automatic trip to the Division Series. The 4 Wild Cards would face off as 3v6 and 4v5. You could also increase divisions to 4, but I don't like the idea of 2 Division Champs playing in WC games like the NFL does.
What I definitely don't want to see is 8 teams in the playoffs in each league. I think it diminishes the value of the playoffs when more than half the league gets in, like basketball and hockey. (Expanding the league to 32 doesn't solve this, as exactly half still goes to the playoffs). It does, on the other hand, address declining attendance. More teams in contention = more reason to go watch said teams instead of sitting at home in September when they'd usually be out of it.
I also think the regular season needs to be shortened to 154 (or - dare I even say it - 148).
We don’t need a best of 7 division round. Make it quick and painless to get down to the last four then stretch it out. Postseason already lasts a month.
5 game series are garbage when there is little reward for being a 100-game winner in your league. And it still wouldn't extend the playoffs beyond a month.
I'd rather add two games to the LDS than add two games to the wildcard series.
5 game series are garbage when there is little reward for being a 100-game winner in your league. And it still wouldn't extend the playoffs beyond a month.
I'd rather add two games to the LDS than add two games to the wildcard series.
No way. If the goal is to find out who the better team is in each round, then no, 3 games in the wildcard is much more valuable than an additional 2 in the LDS. Wildcard has to be 3.
5 game series are garbage when there is little reward for being a 100-game winner in your league. And it still wouldn't extend the playoffs beyond a month.
I'd rather add two games to the LDS than add two games to the wildcard series.
No way. If the goal is to find out who the better team is in each round, then no, 3 games in the wildcard is much more valuable than an additional 2 in the LDS. Wildcard has to be 3.
I wouldn't even call the wildcard portion a "round". You're playing to get in to the playoffs.
Again, there's basically no value/benefit for being the best team in your league. You get one extra home game, that's it. Inferior teams can win a five-game series easily. If your goal is to find out who is the better team then you play a seven game series each round. It bothers me when someone says "oh, Team X won 85 and has no shot in the playoffs", or some variation of that. Cause it's BS. If you can get into the playoffs in baseball you are by no means a longshot, especially within a five game series.
Whatever gimmicky, hokey shit they wanna do with the wildcard round to draw more fans I'm fine with.
Except the Wild Card IS the playoffs. Otherwise it would count in the regular season standings.
Blah. Gimmick.
Except it's not.
It is, but teams know it's their only shot into the playoffs so they throw everything but the kitchen sink to advance and throws off their rhythm for the the next round of playoffs when they get in.
I think the Royals are the only team with the current format to advance to the WS.
Except the Wild Card IS the playoffs. Otherwise it would count in the regular season standings.
Blah. Gimmick.
Except it's not.
Yeah I count these wildcard games like it's game 163...sorta like the Bucky Dent game in 1978. If you are a wildcard and lose that play-in game, can you really call yourself a playoff team?
You guys can "think of it" or "count it" as what you like. It doesn't change the fact that Wild Card teams are playoff teams. Win or lose, they made the postseason.
You guys can "think of it" or "count it" as what you like. It doesn't change the fact that Wild Card teams are playoff teams. Win or lose, they made the postseason.
And when 6 teams per league make the playoffs in the future, further devaluing what that means, you both will still be correct. My beef is reward the teams with the best record, in a game based solely around being a marathon, should be rewarded accordingly. Making teams use up their ace in a one-game playoff is a start.
A 3 game series would have to be 3 games with no break before the first ALDS game, for timing sake. It would be like every other series during the year. Also, a huuuge disadvantage. Maybe more so?
A 3 game series would have to be 3 games with no break before the first ALDS game, for timing sake. It would be like every other series during the year. Also, a huuuge disadvantage. Maybe more so?
For who? The wildcard team? And if so I'd go back to one of my original arguments - tough shit, win your division. Also, I don't know how much of a disadvantage that would be if you can rotate back to your #1 to start a LDS whereas a one game playoff takes your ace out of the equation and seems like a decent benefit for being the #1 team in the league. Almost makes up for a lack of a seven game series.
A 3 game series would have to be 3 games with no break before the first ALDS game, for timing sake. It would be like every other series during the year. Also, a huuuge disadvantage. Maybe more so?
For who? The wildcard team? And if so I'd go back to one of my original arguments - tough shit, win your division. Also, I don't know how much of a disadvantage that would be if you can rotate back to your #1 to start a LDS whereas a one game playoff takes your ace out of the equation and seems like a decent benefit for being the #1 team in the league. Almost makes up for a lack of a seven game series.
Yeah, having to play a 3 game series, then not have a day off to go into the DS, seems like a huge disadvantage. Can't imagine an ace would be available in the first couple games of the DS.
Nothing in baseball is done in 1 game. Do a 3 game series like almost every other series. Take a bit of the random factor out of it and still a huge advantage for the best team in the league
A 3 game series would have to be 3 games with no break before the first ALDS game, for timing sake. It would be like every other series during the year. Also, a huuuge disadvantage. Maybe more so?
For who? The wildcard team? And if so I'd go back to one of my original arguments - tough shit, win your division.
This is a very common argument but I don't agree with it. A lot of times, a wildcard from a great division can be way, way, way better than the champion of a crappy division. 2010 in the NFL is the best example. The Bucs were 10-6, and missed the playoffs because they were the third best team in their division (Falcons 13-3, Saints 11-5). The Seahawks won their division with a record of 7-9. Not only did the Bucs have a better record than Seattle, they swept Seattle's division in the regular season, and managed 10 wins playing a much tougher in-division schedule. meaning they were way better than Seattle that year. But, like you and many others feel, tough shit, win you division.
Same goes for this wildcard system in baseball. Last year, the Yankees won 100 games playing in a much tougher division, but Boston was better so they have to play the one-game playoff against Oakland, while the Indians cruise to the ALDS behind 91 wins in an inferior division.
For football, situations like in 2010 are kinda rare, though I'd love to see reseeding for the playoffs so we don't have, as we almost always do (not last year though, surprisingly) a #5 seed with a better record from a tougher division going on the road to play the #4 seed who won their crappy division with a record of 9-7. As for baseball, I would have preferred they kept it as it was with the three division champs and one wildcard....with the wildcard being treated pretty much like the division champions.
The funniest was when the NBA went to three divisions per conference and tried to guarantee the top three seeds for each. The only problem was that one of those three division champions would be so bad because the NBA East is such a joke. So they then changed it to all three are guaranteed playoff spots, but they'll be seeded by record. That worked for like a year before one of the Eastern Conference division champions had a losing record. Now, they've abolished that system and just seed the teams 1-8, rendering the divisions and division champions meaningless. Part of me would prefer they did that in MLB and NFL to avoid situations like 2010 in the NFL, but I like divisional rivalries and the like so I guess keep it how it is.
5 game series are garbage when there is little reward for being a 100-game winner in your league. And it still wouldn't extend the playoffs beyond a month.
I'd rather add two games to the LDS than add two games to the wildcard series.
You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think they’d schedule an extra week of rest into the playoffs when they add 2 games.
There won’t be any more 100 game winners advance just by adding 2 games. Some great teams just aren’t built for the playoffs.
5 game series are garbage when there is little reward for being a 100-game winner in your league. And it still wouldn't extend the playoffs beyond a month.
I'd rather add two games to the LDS than add two games to the wildcard series.
You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think they’d schedule an extra week of rest into the playoffs when they add 2 games.
There won’t be any more 100 game winners advance just by adding 2 games. Some great teams just aren’t built for the playoffs.
5 game series are garbage when there is little reward for being a 100-game winner in your league. And it still wouldn't extend the playoffs beyond a month.
I'd rather add two games to the LDS than add two games to the wildcard series.
You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think they’d schedule an extra week of rest into the playoffs when they add 2 games.
There won’t be any more 100 game winners advance just by adding 2 games. Some great teams just aren’t built for the playoffs.
Sounds like a bunch of basketball teams.
Exactly, and everybody says the real NBA season doesn’t start until the conference finals.
Comments
Again, no one is going to have a problem if Phillies games are 15 minutes longer this year, are they?
I don't think adding two more teams to the playoffs makes any practical sense. But I definitely want the LDS to be seven games and I can go either way on the Wildcard being a three-game series or a one-game play-in.
I buy the argument, but I also wouldn't mind if it stays at one game. My view is that If you don't want to play in that game then win your division, and the other "plus" of it is I'm sure the league loves guaranteeing essentially two Game 7's every year.
My thing is I don't know how you can go to six teams in each league making the playoffs. I think they'd definitely go to eight divisions since it would keep more eyeballs interested in the league as a whole. Byes don't work in baseball and I don't know another format that would work. Unless they were to do away with divisions and just take the top-five teams in each league? That probably doesn't work either.
That would be interesting.
6 teams could work if you reduced divisions to 2 in each league. Division Champs get automatic trip to the Division Series. The 4 Wild Cards would face off as 3v6 and 4v5. You could also increase divisions to 4, but I don't like the idea of 2 Division Champs playing in WC games like the NFL does.
What I definitely don't want to see is 8 teams in the playoffs in each league. I think it diminishes the value of the playoffs when more than half the league gets in, like basketball and hockey. (Expanding the league to 32 doesn't solve this, as exactly half still goes to the playoffs). It does, on the other hand, address declining attendance. More teams in contention = more reason to go watch said teams instead of sitting at home in September when they'd usually be out of it.
I also think the regular season needs to be shortened to 154 (or - dare I even say it - 148).
Right, but that 6-team format essentially involves a bye then, which I don't think should be involved. Baseball just doesn't work with byes.
I wouldn't rule out the season being shortened if it meant expanding, and extending, the playoffs.
I'd rather add two games to the LDS than add two games to the wildcard series.
Again, there's basically no value/benefit for being the best team in your league. You get one extra home game, that's it. Inferior teams can win a five-game series easily. If your goal is to find out who is the better team then you play a seven game series each round. It bothers me when someone says "oh, Team X won 85 and has no shot in the playoffs", or some variation of that. Cause it's BS. If you can get into the playoffs in baseball you are by no means a longshot, especially within a five game series.
Whatever gimmicky, hokey shit they wanna do with the wildcard round to draw more fans I'm fine with.
I think the Royals are the only team with the current format to advance to the WS.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
You guys can "think of it" or "count it" as what you like. It doesn't change the fact that Wild Card teams are playoff teams. Win or lose, they made the postseason.
Nothing in baseball is done in 1 game. Do a 3 game series like almost every other series. Take a bit of the random factor out of it and still a huge advantage for the best team in the league
Same goes for this wildcard system in baseball. Last year, the Yankees won 100 games playing in a much tougher division, but Boston was better so they have to play the one-game playoff against Oakland, while the Indians cruise to the ALDS behind 91 wins in an inferior division.
For football, situations like in 2010 are kinda rare, though I'd love to see reseeding for the playoffs so we don't have, as we almost always do (not last year though, surprisingly) a #5 seed with a better record from a tougher division going on the road to play the #4 seed who won their crappy division with a record of 9-7. As for baseball, I would have preferred they kept it as it was with the three division champs and one wildcard....with the wildcard being treated pretty much like the division champions.
The funniest was when the NBA went to three divisions per conference and tried to guarantee the top three seeds for each. The only problem was that one of those three division champions would be so bad because the NBA East is such a joke. So they then changed it to all three are guaranteed playoff spots, but they'll be seeded by record. That worked for like a year before one of the Eastern Conference division champions had a losing record. Now, they've abolished that system and just seed the teams 1-8, rendering the divisions and division champions meaningless. Part of me would prefer they did that in MLB and NFL to avoid situations like 2010 in the NFL, but I like divisional rivalries and the like so I guess keep it how it is.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
There won’t be any more 100 game winners advance just by adding 2 games. Some great teams just aren’t built for the playoffs.