WJMorris3 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Just curious... wouldn't it work if we can't do rotating between each league, can we give home field advantage (all 7 games) to the younger of the two teams (going by founding year of the team)? It's completely fair, as any team can host the World Series for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 How about the team with the better record like the NBA and NHL does. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 How about the team with the better record like the NBA and NHL does. theres the best answer.. Right on Tank! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 As an American League fan I like this format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I hate this format and as a fan of the Mets who will be in the World Series I hate it. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProvidenceRI Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 How about the team with the better record like the NBA and NHL does. theres the best answer.. Right on Tank! Yes but that is mathematically unfair. If you play in the worst league, you have better chances of having a better record.The All-Star game idea isn't good, either.They should keep a tally on AL vs. NL teams in interleague play, the winning league gets home field advantage. In case of tie, the All Star game decides.The again, I have been a big fan of this proposal:Game 7 should be played a a neutral site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 How about the team with the better record like the NBA and NHL does. theres the best answer.. Right on Tank! Yes but that is mathematically unfair. If you play in the worst league, you have better chances of having a better record.The All-Star game idea isn't good, either.They should keep a tally on AL vs. NL teams in interleague play, the winning league gets home field advantage. In case of tie, the All Star game decides.The again, I have been a big fan of this proposal:Game 7 should be played a a neutral site. That's true about record and I've never really thought about that. Take the Mets for example they have the best record in the National League but if they were in the American League they would probably be a .500 team.I don't like Interleague record though. Just go back to the way it was. If you are a good enough team home field won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Just curious... wouldn't it work if we can't do rotating between each league, can we give home field advantage (all 7 games) to the younger of the two teams (going by founding year of the team)? It's completely fair, as any team can host the World Series for a year. So the Reds, Phillies, and other 120+ year-old teams will never play a home WS game??? (not that the Phillies will play one under any format, but still...) "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winghaz Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I used to hate the idea of the All-Star game winner getting the home-field advantage, but it's grown on me.More importantly, I think it's grown on the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I hate this format and as a fan of the Mets who will be in the World Series I hate it. That's a good one.I hate this format too. It's silly, and it takes all the pick-up game feel out of the All-Star Game. Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBoyer Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I don't like Interleague record though. Just go back to the way it was. If you are a good enough team home field won't matter. I 100% agree. If a team is destined to win the championship and is that good, where they play shouldn't matter at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazz013 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 It's completely fair, as any team can host the World Series for a year. The Braves, Cardinals, Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Phillies, Pirates and Reds would never get a chance to host a World Series.There are only two good ways to determine home field advantage; give it to the team with the better record, or give it to the league with the better inter-league record. Save the slugalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Maybe if ASG managers would treat the game more seriously unlike Garner who admitted to telling his players to do whatever the heck they wanted, we wouldn't have to have this discussion. It just seems like the AL has had better managed squads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HatManTC Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 It's completely fair, as any team can host the World Series for a year. The Braves, Cardinals, Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Phillies, Pirates and Reds would never get a chance to host a World Series.There are only two good ways to determine home field advantage; give it to the team with the better record, or give it to the league with the better inter-league record. they get atleast 2 games at the most 3. i like how it is now. by RoscoeUA by gingerbreadman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 My two cents is that the all-star game is a bad idea unless you get rid of fan voting and having a representative from each team. I like the game as an exhibition. I wasn't really upset that the game in Milwaukee was a tie.There is no perfect way to do it. I would go by overall league record in interleague games. This year, the AL would get homefield.However, I would put in the stipulation that if one of the two World Series teams was a wild card, the division champ gets homefield regardless. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." Â BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I love the All-Star Game idea, it makes the game that much more interesting and you have players actually wanting to win.As Ozzie Guillen said to his players pre-game "at least one of you guys will be effected in the World Series by the outcome of this game". --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net  "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 How about the team with the better record like the NBA and NHL does. theres the best answer.. Right on Tank! Yes but that is mathematically unfair. If you play in the worst league, you have better chances of having a better record.The All-Star game idea isn't good, either.They should keep a tally on AL vs. NL teams in interleague play, the winning league gets home field advantage. In case of tie, the All Star game decides.The again, I have been a big fan of this proposal:Game 7 should be played a a neutral site. I think that CC97 has reason. Since that awful drawn ASG, the following ASG were gaining in attraction and the players played them with professionalism.I like the idea of the team with the best record must be awarded with one more home game but it will kill the ASG. Also will kill it the idea of a 7th Game in neutral playgrounds. It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 How about the team with the better record like the NBA and NHL does. theres the best answer.. Right on Tank! Yes but that is mathematically unfair. If you play in the worst league, you have better chances of having a better record.The All-Star game idea isn't good, either.They should keep a tally on AL vs. NL teams in interleague play, the winning league gets home field advantage. In case of tie, the All Star game decides.The again, I have been a big fan of this proposal:Game 7 should be played a a neutral site. I think that CC97 has reason. Since that awful drawn ASG, the following ASG were gaining in attraction and the players played them with professionalism.I like the idea of the team with the best record must be awarded with one more home game but it will kill the ASG. Also will kill it the idea of a 7th Game in neutral playgrounds. Why would it kill the All-Star Game? The All-Star Game existed for 60 some thing years with out it counting for anything. It would still exist and still be the same with out it counting for home field. What was so bad about the tie in 02 besides the way it was handled? It's an exhibition game that's what happens when exhibition games go that long. I've seen it happen in prior exhibition games before. It's not like the fans going to the game got ripped off they got everything they expected. They got to see the best players at the time play in a game and they got extra innings out of it. I doubt anyone went because for the sole reason of seeing a winner. If before the 11th inning they had the discussion and announced that do to player availability the 11th would be the final inning of play there isn't as big as controversy. Instead they let the AL bat and then announced if the National didn't score the game would end in a tie without giving any reason to the fans there. That lead to the unknowledgeable fans there chanting. Selig mishandled it but it was the right decision and shouldn't have been a controversy. Again it's an exhibition game it shouldn't count for anything. If anything the fun has been taken out of the game since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Squish Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 How about the team with the better record like the NBA and NHL does. theres the best answer.. Right on Tank! Yes but that is mathematically unfair. If you play in the worst league, you have better chances of having a better record.The again, I have been a big fan of this proposal:Game 7 should be played a a neutral site. Oh please.It may be mathematically unfair for the National League this year, but who's to say what will happen next year.And so what if it's unfair.Guess what, life is unfair.As for having Game 7 at a neutral site, that's just great. Now you want to inconvienience over 55,000 people by making them make hotel and plane reservations andt ake off work.Really smart. NJTank is spot on. Best overall record gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your Name Here Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Obsurd. In the NBA you play every league opponent at least twice. Awarding home field advantage on the basis of record is thus sensible. It makes no sense in baseball and the NHL, where you don't play remotely similar schedules. Do you honestly think that the Cardinals were better than the Red Sox in '04? Which reminds me, what the was the NHL thinking when they approved that scheduling format? Here's this kid, Sydney Crosby. He's the Next Great One. He's a phenom. He's going to break all of Gretzky's records. He's got the potential to be a transcendent superstar whom fans of all stripes will know and admire. He's a shot in the arm just when the NHL needed it. And in his rookie season, he visited Los Angeles... never? In his rookie season, he didn't visit a third of all of the cities in the NHL? That's great. The Flyers don't need a drawing card to sell out games against the Penguins. They'll sell out those games anyway. But Anaheim could've used a visit from Crosby. And try this on for size. His Penguins had to make one trip out of the Eastern Time Zone. Meanwhile, the Blue Jackets, who actually play closer to Pittsburgh than the Flyers, have to make two trips to the west coast. How did they convince the Western Conference owners to go along with this? And though they got to see sixteen games against the Blues and Blackhawks, how do Detroit fans really feel about sixteen games against the Jackets and Predators? I can tell you that sixteen games against the Leafs and Habs are awesome, but I'm indifferent about that many games against the Sens and Sabres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.