Re: How should home field advantage be determined?

[Mizzou]

Pretty straightforward poll...

[apete6]

Why would you pick team with best overall record? It seems obvious, but when you factor in the unbalanced schedule and league makeup, then doesn't it get to be garbage? Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

League with best interleague record is better because it rewards 1 league for being overall better than the other. Just because, say, the Cubs would have gone 12-0 in interleague and have the best overall record, you could say that they beat a bunch of scrub NL teams for their other 88 or so victories.

[Derwood]

Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

25-5

[Mizzou]

Why would you pick team with best overall record? It seems obvious, but when you factor in the unbalanced schedule and league makeup, then doesn't it get to be garbage? Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

League with best interleague record is better because it rewards 1 league for being overall better than the other. Just because, say, the Cubs would have gone 12-0 in interleague and have the best overall record, you could say that they beat a bunch of scrub NL teams for their other 88 or so victories.

The biggest problem with giving it to the team with the better record is timing. You can't just announce where Game 1 of the World Series is going to be two days before the game is played. And that could be a very likely scenario.

[apete6]

Why would you pick team with best overall record? It seems obvious, but when you factor in the unbalanced schedule and league makeup, then doesn't it get to be garbage? Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

League with best interleague record is better because it rewards 1 league for being overall better than the other. Just because, say, the Cubs would have gone 12-0 in interleague and have the best overall record, you could say that they beat a bunch of scrub NL teams for their other 88 or so victories.

The biggest problem with giving it to the team with the better record is timing. You can't just announce where Game 1 of the World Series is going to be two days before the game is played. And that could be a very likely scenario.

 

Um, actually, you are already doing that. For example, last year, no one knew if it would be Boston or Cleveland until after the ALCS was over. They do it for every other round of the playoffs, and in every other sport.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why would you pick team with best overall record? It seems obvious, but when you factor in the unbalanced schedule and league makeup, then doesn't it get to be garbage? Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

League with best interleague record is better because it rewards 1 league for being overall better than the other. Just because, say, the Cubs would have gone 12-0 in interleague and have the best overall record, you could say that they beat a bunch of scrub NL teams for their other 88 or so victories.

The biggest problem with giving it to the team with the better record is timing. You can't just announce where Game 1 of the World Series is going to be two days before the game is played. And that could be a very likely scenario.

 

Um, actually, you are already doing that. For example, last year, no one knew if it would be Boston or Cleveland until after the ALCS was over. They do it for every other round of the playoffs, and in every other sport.

 

Yeah, that timing and logistics issue is just nonsense MLB uses to defend their methods.

[apete6]

Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

25-5

 

OK then, how about the Bears who got through a weak NFC 2 years ago. Would it have been OK with you if the Super Bowl would have been in Chicago rather than Indianapolis? The Bears were, what, 2-2 against the AFC that year? (obviously its a neutral site game, but you get the point)

Edited July 16, 2008 by apete6

[jersey cubs fan]

Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

25-5

 

OK then, how about the Bears who got through a weak NFC 2 years ago. Would it have been OK with you if the Super Bowl would have been in Chicago rather than Indianapolis? The Bears were, what, 2-2 against the AFC that year?

 

I definitely think that Super Bowl should have been in Chicago.

[apete6]

Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

25-5

 

OK then, how about the Bears who got through a weak NFC 2 years ago. Would it have been OK with you if the Super Bowl would have been in Chicago rather than Indianapolis? The Bears were, what, 2-2 against the AFC that year?

 

I definitely think that Super Bowl should have been in Chicago.

 

See clarified/edited post. Obviously its a neutral site game, but that might just be the answer then. Just play all 7 games in an empty Pro Player stadium or something. :D

[jersey cubs fan]

Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

25-5

 

OK then, how about the Bears who got through a weak NFC 2 years ago. Would it have been OK with you if the Super Bowl would have been in Chicago rather than Indianapolis? The Bears were, what, 2-2 against the AFC that year?

 

I definitely think that Super Bowl should have been in Chicago.

 

See clarified/edited post. Obviously its a neutral site game, but that might just be the answer then. Just play all 7 games in an empty Pro Player stadium or something. :D

 

1-off games are a different beast than 7 game series. I just don't think it's possible or all that rational to take away a minimum 2 games from every WS participants home crowd.

[NCCubFan]

I voted for the league with the better record because of the unbalanced schedule issue. There's an unbalanced schedule within the league too, but at least everybody plays the same teams, even if the number of games against teams differs.

[Mizzou]

Why would you pick team with best overall record? It seems obvious, but when you factor in the unbalanced schedule and league makeup, then doesn't it get to be garbage? Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

League with best interleague record is better because it rewards 1 league for being overall better than the other. Just because, say, the Cubs would have gone 12-0 in interleague and have the best overall record, you could say that they beat a bunch of scrub NL teams for their other 88 or so victories.

The biggest problem with giving it to the team with the better record is timing. You can't just announce where Game 1 of the World Series is going to be two days before the game is played. And that could be a very likely scenario.

 

Um, actually, you are already doing that. For example, last year, no one knew if it would be Boston or Cleveland until after the ALCS was over. They do it for every other round of the playoffs, and in every other sport.

That's not the same thing. Cleveland and Boston could both sell tickets to Games 1 and 2 of the World Series last year. Colorado and Arizona could both sell tickets to Games 3 through 5. If they did it based on record, then Boston could've had home field advantage against Colorado and not against Arizona (hypothetical, I don't know what their records were). Which makes it tough on people who buy tickets to Home Game 1. They can't exactly book a flight and hotel for game one, only to find out that they're actually going to game three.

[apete6]

Why would you pick team with best overall record? It seems obvious, but when you factor in the unbalanced schedule and league makeup, then doesn't it get to be garbage? Look at the Celtics this year, no way they would have won 65 games (or whatever they won) in the West.

 

League with best interleague record is better because it rewards 1 league for being overall better than the other. Just because, say, the Cubs would have gone 12-0 in interleague and have the best overall record, you could say that they beat a bunch of scrub NL teams for their other 88 or so victories.

The biggest problem with giving it to the team with the better record is timing. You can't just announce where Game 1 of the World Series is going to be two days before the game is played. And that could be a very likely scenario.

 

Um, actually, you are already doing that. For example, last year, no one knew if it would be Boston or Cleveland until after the ALCS was over. They do it for every other round of the playoffs, and in every other sport.

 

That's not the same thing. Cleveland and Boston could both sell tickets to Games 1 and 2 of the World Series last year. Colorado and Arizona could both sell tickets to Games 3 through 5. If they did it based on record, then Boston could've had home field advantage against Colorado and not against Arizona (hypothetical, I don't know what their records were). Which makes it tough on people who buy tickets to Home Game 1. They can't exactly book a flight and hotel for game one, only to find out that they're actually going to game three.

 

What about the NLCS when the Cubs hosted the Marlins, but would have been going to San Fran, those people would have only had 2 days to plan or whatever. Why does the World Series have to be so different.

 

Also, most fans in attendance at a playoff game are likely residents of the metro area of the team involved, or can at least drive less than 5 or 6 hours. For every great Cub fan in Pennsylvania or Florida, there are about 50,000 in Chicago.