Unpopular Sports Opinions

[SFGiants58]

53 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Baseball should go back to just two divisions per league. The playoffs consist of the two division winners and then the next six best teams. Division winners always have home field advantage, regardless of record. 

 

My proposal is simple. Two division winners, then the next four teams. The four and five seeds do a one-game playoff, then the rest proceeds as normal. I'd also say that record supplants division titles when it comes to seeding. No rewards for playing in a weaker division. 

[Quillz]

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

My proposal is simple. Two division winners, then the next four teams. The four and five seeds do a one-game playoff, then the rest proceeds as normal. I'd also say that record supplants division titles when it comes to seeding. No rewards for playing in a weaker division. 

That's where I disagree. I don't see the point in having divisions if there's no reward. I like your structure only if there are no divisions, period. Just a league of x number of teams and the six best teams get in seeded on record. I believe MLS did something similar to this for a while and I always liked it.

[PacoRamirez]

25 minutes ago, Quillz said:

That's where I disagree. I don't see the point in having divisions if there's no reward. I like your structure only if there are no divisions, period. Just a league of x number of teams and the six best teams get in seeded on record. I believe MLS did something similar to this for a while and I always liked it.

MLS basically still does that, but with 7 teams from each conference this season.

I really hope they stay away from divisions once they're done expanding around 32. If they absolutely must have divisions I really hope they go for 4 divisions of 8 rather than 8 of 4. Eight divisions is too many for one league. And the less influence geographic grouping has on playoff qualification and seeding the better.

[mjrbaseball]

24 minutes ago, PacoRamirez said:

MLS basically still does that, but with 7 teams from each conference this season.

I really hope they stay away from divisions once they're done expanding around 32. If they absolutely must have divisions I really hope they go for 4 divisions of 8 rather than 8 of 4. Eight divisions is too many for one league. And the less influence geographic grouping has on playoff qualification and seeding the better.

If they go eight divisions, they absolutely have to get rid of Wild Cards. (Even with four divisions, they should.)

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 hours ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

Expanding the playoffs is a good idea. It keeps teams from tanking earlier, and incentivizes teams to really shoot for the number one seed. Plus, it means more gate revenue for teams.

 

You are of course entitled to your preference for expanded playoffs.  But please be aware that expanded playoffs do the exact opposite of what you have claimed: they reduce the value of finishing first. When the Cardinals and Astros finished the 2001 season tied for the NL Central lead, they didn't bother to play a playoff, as had been done in every prior instance of teams finishing tied for first.  There was no reason for a playoff, because the loser of that playoff would have gone to the post-season anyway as the wild card.  This demonstrates that expanded playoffs devalue a first-place finish.

Instead of a playoff that year, the Astros were declared division champs based on head-to-head record, and the Cardinals were declared the wild card team.  Nevertheless, the Cardinals hung a banner declaring themselves division champions; and they evidently still claim this phantom title.

 

 

 

 

 

14 hours ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

I have no problem with interleague play, but it should be done like the NFL does it: limited to a single division a year. It makes cross-league rivalries more exciting, since they don't do it every year.

 

That is how interleague play is done.  This is supplemented by what are termed in the rules as "natural" rivalries. Some are obvious: Yankees-Mets, Cubs-Sox, Dodgers-Angels, A's-Giants.  Some stretch the concept a tad by going by state: Indians-Reds, Royals-Cardinals.  And some are very silly: Astros-Diamondbacks, Tigers-Pirates. (What is that, the Hank Greenberg Cup?) 

 

Interleague play skews the schedules of teams competing for the wild card spots to an even greater degree than divisionally-weighted schedules did.  And the "natural rivals" scheduling ensures that the teams in a given division competing for the same division title do not play the same schedule.  Also, it messes up the record books.  Truly the worst of all worlds.

 

 

 

There was chatter about various alignments and numbers of divisions. Let us realise that, in baseball more than any other sport, the tradition of coming in first has meant something special.  Only in baseball would a divisional championship team such as the 1985 Blue Jays or the 1983 White Sox be remembered so fondly.  The 1969 divisional split was easily accepted (after some initial grumbling) because it preserved the traditional practice of requiring a team to finish first in order to continue playing; as such, it did not change the rhythms of a season or the concept of the pennant race.  By contrast, the 1994 split to three divisions per league fundamentally altered the nature of the season by removing the requirement to finish first and ending the phenomenon of the pennant race.  And the introduction of the second wild card spot further devalued the regular season by allowing the second wild card team to make up however many games it trailed the first wild card team by, simply by means of winning one game.

 

So my unpopular opinion is for baseball to get rid of wild cards — and, of course, interleague play.  Each league should have two divisions currently and should move to four divisions after expansion by two teams; and the playoffs should include only the division champions. In order to get rid of interleague play, we'd need a 16-team league and a 14-team league, so the Brewers go back to the American League.  The AL schedule would call for 14 games against each divisional opponent (98 games) and 8 games against each extra-divisional opponent (64 games), while the NL schedule would be what it was in 1993: 13 games against each divisional opponent (78 games) and 12 against each extra-divisional opponent (84 games), Once the four-division-per-league alignment is established, every team would play 14 games against each divisional opponent (42 games) and 10 games against each extra-divisional opponent (120 games).  

[sky1324]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You are of course entitled to your preference for expanded playoffs.  But please be aware that expanded playoffs do the exact opposite of what you have claimed: they reduce the value of finishing first. When the Cardinals and Astros finished the 2001 season tied for the NL Central lead, they didn't bother to play a playoff, as had been done in every prior instance of teams finishing tied for first.  There was no reason for a playoff, because the loser of that playoff would have gone to the post-season anyway as the wild card.  This demonstrates that expanded playoffs devalue a first-place finish.

Instead of a playoff that year, the Astros were declared division champs based on head-to-head record, and the Cardinals were declared the wild card team.  Nevertheless, the Cardinals hung a banner declaring themselves division champions; and they evidently still claim this phantom title.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is how interleague play is done.  This is supplemented by what are termed in the rules as "natural" rivalries. Some are obvious: Yankees-Mets, Cubs-Sox, Dodgers-Angels, A's-Giants.  Some stretch the concept a tad by going by state: Indians-Reds, Royals-Cardinals.  And some are very silly: Astros-Diamondbacks, Tigers-Pirates. (What is that, the Hank Greenberg Cup?) 

 

Interleague play skews the schedules of teams competing for the wild card spots to an even greater degree than divisionally-weighted schedules did.  And the "natural rivals" scheduling ensures that the teams in a given division competing for the same division title do not play the same schedule.  Also, it messes up the record books.  Truly the worst of all worlds.

 

 

 

There was chatter about various alignments and numbers of divisions. Let us realise that, in baseball more than any other sport, the tradition of coming in first has meant something special.  Only in baseball would a divisional championship team such as the 1985 Blue Jays or the 1983 White Sox be remembered so fondly.  The 1969 divisional split was easily accepted (after some initial grumbling) because it preserved the traditional practice of requiring a team to finish first in order to continue playing; as such, it did not change the rhythms of a season or the concept of the pennant race.  By contrast, the 1994 split to three divisions per league fundamentally altered the nature of the season by removing the requirement to finish first and ending the phenomenon of the pennant race.  And the introduction of the second wild card spot further devalued the regular season by allowing the second wild card team to make up however many games it trailed the first wild card team by, simply by means of winning one game.

 

So my unpopular opinion is for baseball to get rid of wild cards — and, of course, interleague play.  Each league should have two divisions currently and should move to four divisions after expansion by two teams; and the playoffs should include only the division champions. In order to get rid of interleague play, we'd need a 16-team league and a 14-team league, so the Brewers go back to the American League.  The AL schedule would call for 14 games against each divisional opponent (98 games) and 8 games against each extra-divisional opponent (64 games), while the NL schedule would be what it was in 1993: 13 games against each divisional opponent (78 games) and 12 against each extra-divisional opponent (84 games), Once the four-division-per-league alignment is established, every team would play 14 games against each divisional opponent (42 games) and 10 games against each extra-divisional opponent (120 games).  

I feel like the way it was handled is poor: a "play-in" game was warranted in this case, as is the case of all divisional ties. I guess if the MLB is to do Wild Cards, they should go all or nothing, with either a ton of Wild Card teams or no Wild Card teams.

[Red Comet]

What bothers me the most about the Cardinals isn't some phantom title but this thing about the "best fans in baseball".

 

 

Number one, yeah, Denkinger got the call wrong in 1985 and Orta should've been out. Everyone knows that. Here's what you conveniently forgot. Orta never made it to the plate because he would be called out later. Two more runs scored after him. And, Game 6. If you, the St. Louis Cardinals, ye who have the "best fans in baseball", had responded like the mature group of people that they fancied themselves as and won Game 7, no one would talk about Don Denkinger. Instead, the Cardinals threw a tantrum and were blown the out 11-0. Joaquin Andulvar smashed up a toilet. Real mature. And how do the best fans in baseball respond? Some smoothbrain DJs in St Louis dox him. 1985 style, so it isn't just your Facebook accounts (yeah, I know the Internet is barely a thing at this time much less social media), it's your home phone number and address. You know, so a bunch of "best fans in baseball" can make you and your family's life a living hell through 1987. Best fans in baseball my ass. You've been a model franchise (I don't know how long this relative slump will last) since, have won 11 World Series and are the 2nd most prestigious franchise in baseball behind the New York Yankees and yet you can't stop bitching about 1985. Jesus f'ing Christ. Finally, the title of "best fans in baseball". Awarded by Sporting News, which was printed in St. Louis. Nuff said.

 

As for my unpopular opinion: MLS should stop trying to thoughtlessly ape European team names. I'd rather have the Kansas City Wiz and the Dallas Burn than try to wonder what connection the King of Spain has with Utah. One of the relative few times I've seen where cultural appropriation is an accurate accusation and I don't hear a lot of people making it.

[Dynasty]

I don't mind the Euro names, mainly because almost all of the American-styled names from the past were cheesy and sounded stupid. "Wiz" is 90's, and what the hell is a "MetroStar"?

 

That being said however, I fail to understand the reasoning for why we name teams "FC" over here if we call it soccer.

[Red Wolf]

1 hour ago, Red Comet said:

What bothers me the most about the Cardinals isn't some phantom title but this thing about the "best fans in baseball".

 

The self-proclaimed best fans in baseball. The effect of Cardinals fans constantly humble bragging about what great fans they are has had on sports media could make for a great study into human psychology. They just said it so many times to so many people that it somehow stuck in the weak-mindeds' brains like some sort of Jedi mind trick.

 

They just have this weird arrogance about their humility that defies logic.

[Quillz]

I think one thing baseball could do if they keep the playoffs the way it is is copy the NHL's old playoff format where the first few rounds are fixed between division rivals, then you have the division final and finally the conference final. I liked this for two reasons: first, division rivalries really meant something because you'd be playing one another in the playoffs. Second, it meant a division title actually meant something, that you were guaranteed a berth in the conference final. I think the NHL went back to this system a few years ago, but modified so that division rivals don't always meet in the first round.

 

I could see something like this working in MLB. Go back to two divisions per league, so you have two division leaders. Then you allow in the second best team in each division, then the two wild cards. Since there are only two divisions, the wild cards would either be East or West, and they could be slotted in to play another division rival. Something like this:

 

Wild card 1

Wild card 2

 

NL East leader

NL East second place team/Wild card 1 or 2

 

NL West leader

NL West second place team/Wild card 1 or 2

 

MLB doesn't lose out on the 10 teams (that are never being reduced because of money), yet the first round is always between division rivals. The winner is then the actual division champion, moving on to the LCS like always (and it would go back to always being East vs. West). I feel something like this could work, something of a hybrid approach between the old and new. It takes away some of the potential matchups, sure, but on the other hand, seeing classic division rivalries in the playoffs could be fun.

[SFGiants58]

I believe in the “Bob Hewitt Rule” for a Hall of Fame: if a player in a Hall of Fame is convicted/pleads guilty to child sexual abuse or statutory rape, they should be expelled from said HoF. Supposing an active player gets convicted/pleads guilty to crimes of this nature, they should be given a lifetime ban.

 

Context: one of the most thoroughly disgusting cases of an athlete sexually abusing underage victims.

[floydnimrod]

I think the Brewers home and away look right now is the best they've had. With navy. And gold. Not Navy and yellow, not blue and yellow. Not Ball in glove with updated colors. This exact thing.

[RyanMcD29]

Bumping this because everyone's clamoring for him with the NHL back on ESPN

 

Gary Thorne's overrated and shouldn't come back for the new deal.

 

 

[Red Comet]

I think the Washington Football Team is a great team name. It would be even better if Bezos buys the team and moves them to London. The London (American) Football Team just sounds so British.

[DEAD!]

7 hours ago, RyanMcD29 said:

Bumping this because everyone's clamoring for him with the NHL back on ESPN

 

Gary Thorne's overrated and shouldn't come back for the new deal.

 

 

I don't want him back either. Not because I don't like him, I feel ESPN needs a fresh set of voices.

[Matthew24]

1 hour ago, DEAD! said:

 

I don't want him back either. Not because I don't like him, I feel ESPN needs a fresh set of voices.

I kinda agree but I wouldn't mind having one last season with Throne as a commentator. 

 

Just one season though. I doubt he would do more the one season anyways.

[DEAD!]

6 hours ago, Matthew24 said:

I kinda agree but I wouldn't mind having one last season with Throne as a commentator. 

 

Just one season though. I doubt he would do more the one season anyways.

Thorne is 72. I can see him do it one more year if for no other reason than to appease those who want him back. 

I noticed a lot of clamouring about bringing back ESPN hockey personalities from the past. Um... it's been 17 years. We don't really want to see what Barry Melrose's mullet looks like NOW, do we?