Expanding baseball playoffs?

[crashcarson15]

2)Figure out a different way to decide home field advantage for the World Series, whether it be alternating years, a coin toss, or whoever has the better record. I don't like the idea of the All-Star game having any other real significance other than enjoyment.

Agree with you 100%, I don't know a single person who thinks turning an exhibition game into a rather important decision maker was a good idea. And you know what sucks? Baseball had it right before, by just having it rotate every year: NL got home-field in odd years (post-1994) and AL in even years. Why Selig felt this needed to be changed is beyond me.

There are two very simple ways to determine home-field advantage: Have it alternate liked it used to (this is how the NFL does it), or just give it to the team with the better regular season record (like in the NBA and NHL). However, I do like the idea of the wild card team, regardless of regular season record, not having home-field advantage in any postseason round and this should be carried over into the World Series, too. Should two wild card teams meet in the World Series, like they did in 2002, then the wild card with the better record gets home-field.

Because it's stupid. The 100-44 Indians didn't have home field against a team with 10 less regular season wins than them in 1995, and in 1997, the Marlins (a Wild Card, although a team with a better record), got home-field and thus the advantage of hosting Game 7, which decided the series.

[TheOldRoman]

2)Figure out a different way to decide home field advantage for the World Series, whether it be alternating years, a coin toss, or whoever has the better record. I don't like the idea of the All-Star game having any other real significance other than enjoyment.

Agree with you 100%, I don't know a single person who thinks turning an exhibition game into a rather important decision maker was a good idea. And you know what sucks? Baseball had it right before, by just having it rotate every year: NL got home-field in odd years (post-1994) and AL in even years. Why Selig felt this needed to be changed is beyond me.

There are two very simple ways to determine home-field advantage: Have it alternate liked it used to (this is how the NFL does it), or just give it to the team with the better regular season record (like in the NBA and NHL). However, I do like the idea of the wild card team, regardless of regular season record, not having home-field advantage in any postseason round and this should be carried over into the World Series, too. Should two wild card teams meet in the World Series, like they did in 2002, then the wild card with the better record gets home-field.

Because it's stupid. The 100-44 Indians didn't have home field against a team with 10 less regular season wins than them in 1995, and in 1997, the Marlins (a Wild Card, although a team with a better record), got home-field and thus the advantage of hosting Game 7, which decided the series.

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

[Bronxmet]

2)Figure out a different way to decide home field advantage for the World Series, whether it be alternating years, a coin toss, or whoever has the better record. I don't like the idea of the All-Star game having any other real significance other than enjoyment.

Agree with you 100%, I don't know a single person who thinks turning an exhibition game into a rather important decision maker was a good idea. And you know what sucks? Baseball had it right before, by just having it rotate every year: NL got home-field in odd years (post-1994) and AL in even years. Why Selig felt this needed to be changed is beyond me.

There are two very simple ways to determine home-field advantage: Have it alternate liked it used to (this is how the NFL does it), or just give it to the team with the better regular season record (like in the NBA and NHL). However, I do like the idea of the wild card team, regardless of regular season record, not having home-field advantage in any postseason round and this should be carried over into the World Series, too. Should two wild card teams meet in the World Series, like they did in 2002, then the wild card with the better record gets home-field.

Because it's stupid. The 100-44 Indians didn't have home field against a team with 10 less regular season wins than them in 1995, and in 1997, the Marlins (a Wild Card, although a team with a better record), got home-field and thus the advantage of hosting Game 7, which decided the series.

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

And not to mention if the American League teams get the best records for let's say 3-4 years in a row, it won't be fair for the National League teams to have a chance to host an extra World Series game.

[crashcarson15]

2)Figure out a different way to decide home field advantage for the World Series, whether it be alternating years, a coin toss, or whoever has the better record. I don't like the idea of the All-Star game having any other real significance other than enjoyment.

Agree with you 100%, I don't know a single person who thinks turning an exhibition game into a rather important decision maker was a good idea. And you know what sucks? Baseball had it right before, by just having it rotate every year: NL got home-field in odd years (post-1994) and AL in even years. Why Selig felt this needed to be changed is beyond me.

There are two very simple ways to determine home-field advantage: Have it alternate liked it used to (this is how the NFL does it), or just give it to the team with the better regular season record (like in the NBA and NHL). However, I do like the idea of the wild card team, regardless of regular season record, not having home-field advantage in any postseason round and this should be carried over into the World Series, too. Should two wild card teams meet in the World Series, like they did in 2002, then the wild card with the better record gets home-field.

Because it's stupid. The 100-44 Indians didn't have home field against a team with 10 less regular season wins than them in 1995, and in 1997, the Marlins (a Wild Card, although a team with a better record), got home-field and thus the advantage of hosting Game 7, which decided the series.

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

And not to mention if the American League teams get the best records for let's say 3-4 years in a row, it won't be fair for the National League teams to have a chance to host an extra World Series game.

It would be fair. They've just gotta win more games then their counterparts in the American League. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp...

Anyways, if the NL is so inferior, then why is there even a World Series each year? Shouldn't we just award it to the winner of the ALCS right then and there? I mean since a 90-win AL team is apparently better than a 100-win NL team...

The real reason why the AL wins more World Series' and more interleague games is not because the AL teams are better, but because they have a distinct advantage in home games by having a DH on their roster.

[BBTV]

Wins and losses just don't really matter if you're not playing against the same competition. It's not really about a league being stronger or weaker. It's all about relevancy. Just rotate it, or after the LCSs, have the opposing managers play rock-paper-scissors for it.

[DustDevil61]

I'm actually in favor of expanding the MLB playoffs. While I don't think the playoffs need to expand to 16 teams, I think that at least 6 teams from each league should get into the postseason; there's usually 2 or so teams from each league that deserves to be in the playoffs but doesn't make it in. While they're at it, cut down the total number of games to either 154, and double the amount of Inter-league games so every team in MLB plays every other team at least once or twice each year.

That would also help to put 15 teams in each league, right? A team would just play a certain non-divisional team a set number of times less than divisional rivals, similar to the NBA.

[pianoknight]

I'm actually in favor of expanding the MLB playoffs. While I don't think the playoffs need to expand to 16 teams, I think that at least 6 teams from each league should get into the postseason; there's usually 2 or so teams from each league that deserves to be in the playoffs but doesn't make it in. While they're at it, cut down the total number of games to either 154, and double the amount of Inter-league games so every team in MLB plays every other team at least once or twice each year.

That would also help to put 15 teams in each league, right? A team would just play a certain non-divisional team a set number of times less than divisional rivals, similar to the NBA.

Agreed. They severely need to rectify the whole 14-16 imbalance between the AL and the NL.

Actually, MLB should just expand to 32 teams like the NFL and have 4 divisions of 4. No wild cards, since unlike the NFL they can't really have a first-round BYE "series." Just take the top 8 divisional winners.

Here's how I'd break it down. Colorado and Tampa Bay have switched divisions and teams are grouped geographically. Consequently, the AL has become more Western slanted while the NL has more Eastern teams.

AL

======

NORTH

NY Yankees

Boston

Toronto

Baltimore

MOUNTAIN

Colorado

Kansas City

**Expansion Team Salt Lake City

**Expansion Team Las Vegas

CENTRAL

Minnesota

Chicago White Sox

Detroit

Cleveland

WEST

Texas

Oakland

LA Angels

Seattle

NL

NORTH

Philadelphia

NY Mets

Washington

Pittsburgh

SOUTH

Atlanta

Florida

Houston

Tampa Bay

CENTRAL

ST Louis

Chicago Cubs

Milwaukee

Cincinnati

WEST

San Francisco

San Diego

LA Dodgers

Arizona

[BaltimoreFan]

IMO it would suck to have an interleague series in the last month of the year when teams are fighting against teams in their own division/league for a playoff spot. I think you want as many intra division and intraleague games as possible down the stretch.

I've heard this argument before and I think its pretty weak. How is it any different then the Rays final 9 games this season being against the Mariners, Orioles, and Royals, all last place teams? If it's really a concern, just schedule September interleague games between last place teams from last season. They likely won't be in the playoff hunt the next season anyway.

I think the risk of "meaningless" September games is worth taking to balance out the schedules among division rivals. Teams in the same division should face the same opponents, the same amount of games throughout the season. The current divisions give some teams "hidden" advantages during the season that could mean the difference between playoffs and going home.

[rams80]

IMO it would suck to have an interleague series in the last month of the year when teams are fighting against teams in their own division/league for a playoff spot. I think you want as many intra division and intraleague games as possible down the stretch.

I've heard this argument before and I think its pretty weak. How is it any different then the Rays final 9 games this season being against the Mariners, Orioles, and Royals, all last place teams? If it's really a concern, just schedule September interleague games between last place teams from last season. They likely won't be in the playoff hunt the next season anyway.

I think the risk of "meaningless" September games is worth taking to balance out the schedules among division rivals. Teams in the same division should face the same opponents, the same amount of games throughout the season. The current divisions give some teams "hidden" advantages during the season that could mean the difference between playoffs and going home.

Except I'm pretty sure baseball's had some "worst to first" or "worst to near first" runs recently.

[The Six]

MOUNTAIN

Colorado

Kansas City

**Expansion Team Salt Lake City

**Expansion Team Las Vegas

WEST

Texas

Oakland

LA Angels

Seattle

You gotta get Texas out of the West, especially since Vegas is in the Pacific Time Zone.

[PurpleRush]

I'm against the playoff expansion too.

However, MLB (and the NBA and NHL) should reduce the number of regular season games.

I suppose if they add one more wild card, they could do a 3 day - best of 3 series between the 2 wild card teams in each league.

So it would go like this:

Season ends on a Sunday.

Tuesday: Game 1 wild card series each league

Wednesday: Game 2 each league

Thursday: Game 3 each league

Saturday: all 4 LDS game ones.

So the 6 division winners would all have 5 complete days off.

If one or both WC series end in a 2 game sweep, they could start the LDS in either/both leagues on Friday if they choose to not go with a cemented schedule.

They could also play the WC series Mon, Tues and Wed, and start the LDS on Friday, making only 4 days off for the division winners.

Then if one or both are sweeps, the LDS could begin on Thursday, making only 3 days off for the division winners.

[HedleyLamarr]

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

Wins and losses just don't really matter if you're not playing against the same competition. It's not really about a league being stronger or weaker. It's all about relevancy. Just rotate it, or after the LCSs, have the opposing managers play rock-paper-scissors for it.

The NBA and NHL give home-advantage to the team with the better record, and their Eastern Conference teams aren't playing the same schedules as the Western Conference teams.....

[BaltimoreFan]

IMO it would suck to have an interleague series in the last month of the year when teams are fighting against teams in their own division/league for a playoff spot. I think you want as many intra division and intraleague games as possible down the stretch.

I've heard this argument before and I think its pretty weak. How is it any different then the Rays final 9 games this season being against the Mariners, Orioles, and Royals, all last place teams? If it's really a concern, just schedule September interleague games between last place teams from last season. They likely won't be in the playoff hunt the next season anyway.

I think the risk of "meaningless" September games is worth taking to balance out the schedules among division rivals. Teams in the same division should face the same opponents, the same amount of games throughout the season. The current divisions give some teams "hidden" advantages during the season that could mean the difference between playoffs and going home.

Except I'm pretty sure baseball's had some "worst to first" or "worst to near first" runs recently.

Yes, but it happens alot less often than in other sports. And again how is it any different than the Rays finishing the season against 3 last place teams? Do you really think the current uneven divisions are fair? Division rivals can have very different schedules, which could give one team the extra couple wins it needs for the playoffs.

[JayJaxon]

I'll give you guys four reasons why playoffs should not be expanded:

The imbalance of the leagues. The Brewers need to go back to the American league because it was always stupid to have a 16/14 split. There are not going to be any expansion teams in the near future and when there are Portland and Charlotte are going to get serious looks before places like Vegas. If the professional sports powers that be thought it would be a good idea to put a team in Vegas it might have happened already. 30 MLB teams work. They just need to have 15 per league.

It was posted earlier but the DH is an issue as well. The AL teams are not really better, they just have a DH and that gives them an unfair advantage. In the World Series the AL team gets to use the 30-40 homer DH at home while the NL team has to use their best utility player. In NL park the usual DH may sit but even if he does you have a 30-40 homer guy on the bench that you can call in to pinch hit. NL teams don't have that. The only solution is to make the DH universal because the union will never agree to abolish it.

Expanded replay (or lack thereof) is another problem that needs to be addressed. The mistakes umpires make are enhanced in the postseason so everyone sees it but this sort of thing happens all the time. Some of these calls are painfully obvious and the guy is sitting right there looking at it and they still blow it. I commend Jim Joyce for sitting there and taking that tongue lashing from Leyland and Cabrera then going in to see if he was right. After realizing he was wrong, he immediately recognized what he had done and apologized. Everyone forgave him. But the fact of the matter is he blew that call and although it was close it is one he had made 1000 before. Human beings are not right 100% of the time but video replay will help get a heck of a lot more calls right. That and the umpires need to be more accountable for the mistakes they make. They are there to call a fair game and it's not fair when calls are getting blown all the time.

Last but not least is the All-Star Game determining home field advantage in the World Series. Selig was embarrassed about 2002 so he comes up with this plan to make the All-Star game count. But what really counts when it comes to the All-Star Game is the fans. The rotation of a different league every season worked just fine. Bring it back to that and let the All-Star Game be what is always was: an exhibition game.

The reason I posted all this is because these are the top four reasons NOT to expand the playoffs. There are more pressing issues. Selig needs to worry about fixing this first instead of F-ing with what many think is the best playoff format in sports. I know it's a wall of text but I figured if I posted it all not I won't have to later.

[pianoknight]

MOUNTAIN

Colorado

Kansas City

**Expansion Team Salt Lake City

**Expansion Team Las Vegas

WEST

Texas

Oakland

LA Angels

Seattle

You gotta get Texas out of the West, especially since Vegas is in the Pacific Time Zone.

Oops! I meant to do that actually. I was typing too fast.

[Maz]

I think its a great idea. 16 teams doesn't feel watered down at all to me in the NHL. 12 in the MLB seems fine. Just cut a few weeks off the regular season and make the first series less than seven games or something. And if we're worried about leagues and divisons being uneven, that's simple. Everyone's favorite word. Reel-line-mint. If there was a league that needed it, it is the MLB.

And as a fan of a simply horrendous team, I like the idea of someone other than the same few teams having a chance each year, which I find really unappealing about baseball. I always root for the underdogs.

Baseball, in my unpopular opinion, is broken. You can't have the "best playoff format there is" when the league is so flawed. Boston, New York, Philadelphia fans will disagree. But most of the league experiences it every year. Going through 160+ games a year, all in vain. There are too many teams, and too many games, just to have a handful of big-market teams win it all the time. Make all of this worth it.

You're a sports fan because you believe your favorite team has a chance at being champions someday. In baseball, that's usually only true of a few teams (save for this year's world series, yes. There are odd cases).

I feel this diminishes the charm of the game, and takes away the whole meaning of sports.

Competition. Not domination.

[twi]

There absolutely needs to be more teams making the MLB playoffs. The way it's set up now too many teams have no chance after about 40-50 games and just are left to play out the tedious, boring schedule.

Maz stated it perfectly just above this post, "baseball... is broken".

[The_Admiral]

If the Cubs have no chance after 50 games, why do I want to see them in the playoffs? They're bad!

For all the "baseball is broken" talk here, I've never seen anyone offer a comprehensive plan to fix it. "Put the Brewers in the AL and have 16 playoff teams" doesn't count; I'm talking the real systemic stuff that makes the Yankees the best team in baseball every year.

[Saintsfan]

The whole AL win more world series because of the DH is nonsense. They won more often before the DH as well.

I am not saying the DH isn't an advantage but it's not THE reason the AL does best. A lot of it is to do with history and money and prestige and tradition.

[BBTV]

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

Wins and losses just don't really matter if you're not playing against the same competition. It's not really about a league being stronger or weaker. It's all about relevancy. Just rotate it, or after the LCSs, have the opposing managers play rock-paper-scissors for it.

The NBA and NHL give home-advantage to the team with the better record, and their Eastern Conference teams aren't playing the same schedules as the Western Conference teams.....

Not sure how that's relevant - I never said that the NBA and NHL aren't flawed in this way as well. Though, while the schedules are certainly different, at least all of the teams play one another in those leagues.