Expanded playoffs, shortened reg season starting in 2012?

[Cubswin11]

I wonder how soon this could realistically happen? As early as next season?

 

The only thing I won't like is that it may push the WS into November again. There has to be a way to shorten the gap between playoff series if say both of them end in a sweep. Fix that somehow and I'm all on board.

Maybe move the start of spring training back a week to the end of February? I know that will mean the season will start earlier and their is still a good chance that about 1/4-1/3 of the games could still be played in cold weather but better in March/April than November, IMO.

[SpongeWorthy]

I love when sports leagues change their stripes and they need years to phase it in. The end of the European theatre of WWII was 11 months after D-Day but adding Nebraska to the Big Ten and adding two more wildcard teams in a similar time frame is just a bridge too far.

[chuckywang]

If it gives the Cubs a better chance of making the playoffs, I'm in favor.

 

The thing is ... with more teams making the playoffs, the championship is cheapened somewhat. I want the moment when the Cubs win the World Series to be difficult, effortful, and therefore tremendously rewarding.

[jersey cubs fan]

I love when sports leagues change their stripes and they need years to phase it in. The end of the European theatre of WWII was 11 months after D-Day but adding Nebraska to the Big Ten and adding two more wildcard teams in a similar time frame is just a bridge too far.

 

Contracts have to be honored and deals in place already can't be up and changed that easily.

 

The end of the European theatre was also six years after it began. And the Marshall plan lasted another four.

[SpongeWorthy]

I love when sports leagues change their stripes and they need years to phase it in. The end of the European theatre of WWII was 11 months after D-Day but adding Nebraska to the Big Ten and adding two more wildcard teams in a similar time frame is just a bridge too far.

 

Contracts have to be honored and deals in place already can't be up and changed that easily.

 

The end of the European theatre was also six years after it began. And the Marshall plan lasted another four.

 

It's a matter of motivation. As we have seen large mergers can be shotgunned in a weekend when people are motivated to do it. Look how fast the GM bankruptcy went through.

 

I don't believe for one second that we couldn't have two more wildcard teams starting in 2011 if that's what they really wanted. They just want to market it.

[jersey cubs fan]

I love when sports leagues change their stripes and they need years to phase it in. The end of the European theatre of WWII was 11 months after D-Day but adding Nebraska to the Big Ten and adding two more wildcard teams in a similar time frame is just a bridge too far.

 

Contracts have to be honored and deals in place already can't be up and changed that easily.

 

The end of the European theatre was also six years after it began. And the Marshall plan lasted another four.

 

It's a matter of motivation. As we have seen large mergers can be shotgunned in a weekend when people are motivated to do it. Look how fast the GM bankruptcy went through.

 

I don't believe for one second that we couldn't have two more wildcard teams starting in 2011 if that's what they really wanted. They just want to market it.

 

Mergers aren't shotgunned in a weekend. They are discussed over a long period of time and announced over a weekend, then take a year or more to be approved and another couple years to be fully implemented.

[tfarks]

nope, weekend.

 

Agree with the Sponge here, this could be done quicker than what it will be.

[jersey cubs fan]

nope, weekend.

 

nope.

[rocket]

If it gives the Cubs a better chance of making the playoffs, I'm in favor.

 

The thing is ... with more teams making the playoffs, the championship is cheapened somewhat. I want the moment when the Cubs win the World Series to be difficult, effortful, and therefore tremendously rewarding.

 

i don't think we're in a position to be picky about how the cubs win a championship.

[KingCubsFan]

I love when sports leagues change their stripes and they need years to phase it in. The end of the European theatre of WWII was 11 months after D-Day but adding Nebraska to the Big Ten and adding two more wildcard teams in a similar time frame is just a bridge too far.

 

Contracts have to be honored and deals in place already can't be up and changed that easily.

 

The end of the European theatre was also six years after it began. And the Marshall plan lasted another four.

 

It's a matter of motivation. As we have seen large mergers can be shotgunned in a weekend when people are motivated to do it. Look how fast the GM bankruptcy went through.

 

I don't believe for one second that we couldn't have two more wildcard teams starting in 2011 if that's what they really wanted. They just want to market it.

I can guarantee you the GM bankruptcy was not done over a weekend

[erik316wttn]

So has there been any discussion of shortening the regular season yet?

[cl smooth]

So has there been any discussion of shortening the regular season yet?

 

there was an article with selig on thursday stating that there is no interest in shortening the season:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5821797

 

The regular-season schedule will almost certainly not be reduced from 162 games.

 

"There's not much interest in that," he said.

[mcgoobs]

the answer is more baseball. lots more.

 

This. Owners of professional sports have in recent years only moved to more regular and playoff games, not less. My guess is the 162 game season remains, but they change the LDS to best of seven games.

 

MLB could simply reduce the number of off days in between playoff games and keep the same calendar.

[ZipDog]

So while I'm thinking about it.

 

- Move one team to the AL, drop the DH

- Shorten the season to 130 games, two series against each team in your league, one series against each team in the other

- Add another wild card, 3 or 5 game play-in series followed by 7 games Division, League, and World championship series

- Hard salary cap and floor phased in over a half decade

 

Not sure if taking 16 home games from everybody would make it through, but it'd be one of the most equitable ways possible to construct the season.

 

You are taking 16 home games away from everybody. You are taking numerous "high value games" away from many teams. Boston/NYY go from playing 18 games to 6, Tampa hosts the Yankees 3 times instead of 9.

 

This is all just incredibly unrealistic and impossible to make work. You can't force San Fran to play Washington as often as they play the Dodgers. Baseball is a business built on getting butts in seats for 6 months. This plan would kill the business model.

 

Well, as much as I admire your thoughts and postings, jersey (and, your great knowledge), I think Buck Showalter's plan for realignment makes more sense than anything I have read or heard. See it at:

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4418385

 

This is basically what these people are saying. And, your assertion that butts won't fill the seats unless the Red Sox and Yanks play 18 times is just wrong, I think.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4418385

[ScrubMD]

So has there been any discussion of shortening the regular season yet?

 

TT is trying to take away our games but there's just a lot of postulating on how many. Theories abound but there's no answer in sight.

[questionmarkgrace]

heres my two cents:

 

Selig wants to put more teams in the playoffs to create more interest in the game in those border line cities and create the possibility or illusion that milwaukee, and maybe the royals in a good year can make the playoffs. But if he was remotely interested in creating parity he would support a legitimate salary cap instead of a luxury tax which he doesn't. All this assures is that the yankees and red sox remain the darlings of the baseball world while throwing the small market teams a bone; so they can say that they've made the playoffs. THe NFL model works because different teams make the playoffs every year,for the most part, and the salary cap assures that teams go through a natural ebb and flow of good bad and rebuild. Look at the raiders or rams as prime examples.

[jiml60]

I hate salary caps, the NFL may get different teams in the playoffs each year but the quality of play is down from the pre-salary cap era, in my opinion. Also look at what the salary cap did to the

Blackhawks, half the team gone and in serious jeopardy of not repeating.

 

I like dynasties, even thought he only one we had in Chicago is the Bulls, it makes for a better sport when you're trying to knock off the top dog. If some of these owners can't compete without a cap or luxury tax, sell the team to someone who can.

[erik316wttn]

heres my two cents:

 

Selig wants to put more teams in the playoffs to create more interest in the game in those border line cities and create the possibility or illusion that milwaukee, and maybe the royals in a good year can make the playoffs. But if he was remotely interested in creating parity he would support a legitimate salary cap instead of a luxury tax which he doesn't. All this assures is that the yankees and red sox remain the darlings of the baseball world while throwing the small market teams a bone; so they can say that they've made the playoffs. THe NFL model works because different teams make the playoffs every year,for the most part, and the salary cap assures that teams go through a natural ebb and flow of good bad and rebuild. Look at the raiders or rams as prime examples.

 

That's all well and good, and I'd love to see a salary cap as much as anyone, but you'd have to make some serious, serious concessions in order to get a hard cap. The Player's Union doesn't want one either. I doubt Cliff Lee would have gotten 5/120 if there was some sort of hard cap in place. I'm no fan of Selig, but I'm sure he'd instill a cap if it was strictly up to him, but it's not.

[questionmarkgrace]

heres my two cents:

 

Selig wants to put more teams in the playoffs to create more interest in the game in those border line cities and create the possibility or illusion that milwaukee, and maybe the royals in a good year can make the playoffs. But if he was remotely interested in creating parity he would support a legitimate salary cap instead of a luxury tax which he doesn't. All this assures is that the yankees and red sox remain the darlings of the baseball world while throwing the small market teams a bone; so they can say that they've made the playoffs. THe NFL model works because different teams make the playoffs every year,for the most part, and the salary cap assures that teams go through a natural ebb and flow of good bad and rebuild. Look at the raiders or rams as prime examples.

 

That's all well and good, and I'd love to see a salary cap as much as anyone, but you'd have to make some serious, serious concessions in order to get a hard cap. The Player's Union doesn't want one either. I doubt Cliff Lee would have gotten 5/120 if there was some sort of hard cap in place. I'm no fan of Selig, but I'm sure he'd instill a cap if it was strictly up to him, but it's not.

 

Oh I know it would be difficult but he hasn't even addressed it. In the long run it would be best for preserving the integrity of the game. you hit the nail on the head though, the MLBPA is far too strong this is why unions suck they always go to far.

[Guest]

heres my two cents:

 

Selig wants to put more teams in the playoffs to create more interest in the game in those border line cities and create the possibility or illusion that milwaukee, and maybe the royals in a good year can make the playoffs. But if he was remotely interested in creating parity he would support a legitimate salary cap instead of a luxury tax which he doesn't. All this assures is that the yankees and red sox remain the darlings of the baseball world while throwing the small market teams a bone; so they can say that they've made the playoffs. THe NFL model works because different teams make the playoffs every year,for the most part, and the salary cap assures that teams go through a natural ebb and flow of good bad and rebuild. Look at the raiders or rams as prime examples.

 

I don't know. By adding more teams to the playoff picture, I think it reduces the chances of teams like the Yankees or Boston winning the World Series. More teams in the playoffs, means a lower percentage of winning. Not only that, but short series aren't always going to favor the better teams, thus more of a parity will exist among the playoff teams.

 

The Yankees have had the highest payroll every year and arguably the best team in the league during this decade, and how many World Series rings have they collected? Add more teams to the mix, and it probably hurts their chances rather than improves it.

 

Because adding more teams will only further muddy the waters of the playoffs, it's rather nonsensical to continue playing 162 games per year, since it really doesn't mean as much to be the best team in your division or league anymore.

 

Of course they won't shorten the season, however, because everything is about revenue instead of what's best for the game.

[jersey cubs fan]

Because adding more teams will only further muddy the waters of the playoffs, it's rather nonsensical to continue playing 162 games per year, since it really doesn't mean as much to be the best team in your division or league anymore.

 

Of course they won't shorten the season, however, because everything is about revenue instead of what's best for the game.

 

But I don't see how playing fewer games is better for the game?

[Guest]

Because adding more teams will only further muddy the waters of the playoffs, it's rather nonsensical to continue playing 162 games per year, since it really doesn't mean as much to be the best team in your division or league anymore.

 

Of course they won't shorten the season, however, because everything is about revenue instead of what's best for the game.

 

But I don't see how playing fewer games is better for the game?

 

I think it would be better for the game if the season concluded before snow was falling on the field, but that's just me. There is no reason to play 160 some odd games to decide division winners when winning the division doesn't mean much anymore. Shorten the season to be the summer game it was originally designed to be, rather than forcing fans to sit in the stands freezing their butts off watching playoff teams switch out relievers 6 times each.

[jersey cubs fan]

Because adding more teams will only further muddy the waters of the playoffs, it's rather nonsensical to continue playing 162 games per year, since it really doesn't mean as much to be the best team in your division or league anymore.

 

Of course they won't shorten the season, however, because everything is about revenue instead of what's best for the game.

 

But I don't see how playing fewer games is better for the game?

 

I think it would be better for the game if the season concluded before snow was falling on the field, but that's just me. There is no reason to play 160 some odd games to decide division winners when winning the division doesn't mean much anymore. Shorten the season to be the summer game it was originally designed to be, rather than forcing fans to sit in the stands freezing their butts off watching playoff teams switch out relievers 6 times each.

 

It does end before it snows in the vast majority of cities where it is played. Winning the division does, and should, matter.

 

I think the reason you play 162 games is because people want to and are willing to watch 162 games of baseball. What is "best" for the game is not playing the fewest amount of games possible to satisfy the statistical likelihood of the best teams making the playoffs.