MLB Considering Playoff Expansion

[erik316wttn]

I don't want more playoff teams. We already have too many instances of the World Series not matching the best team in each league.

 

So do you want some sort of baseball BCS system and do away with the playoffs entirely? Because that would be a horrible idea.

[erik316wttn]

Reposting this here because I'm curious about the response:

 

It would never, ever, ever happen, but I wonder if a detachment of the regular season and the playoffs/tournament wouldn't be awesome for baseball. Something like the soccer model where you get so much credit for regular season success but there's still tournament trophies on the line kept separate. I'm just spitballing at this point, but what if finishing in the Top 8 of each league qualified you for next year's "tournament", and then the best record in each league played a 5 game series before that tourney. So if the season ended today, Colorado and Cleveland play a best of 5 after the regular season, and the next week you start a 16 team tournament(Best of 3, best of 3, best of 5, best of 5?) with a bracket like this:

 

TB/FLA

TEX/SD

 

CIN/CHW

SF/TOR

 

PHI/OAK

ATL/BOS

 

MIN/STL

NYY/COL

 

 

In that type of model you have 20-25 teams with something to play for all the way through September, but you satisfy the traditionalists who want to see the teams who proved they were the best over 162 games have a shot at the hardware. This type of setup would underscore the need for a more balanced schedule, though. Which is fine with me since I've been an advocate of that for a while.

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

If you expand the playoffs, you have to shorten the season to 154 games unless you want Game 7 of the WS to be on November 15th. And do away with the stupid "All-Star game determines WS home field advantage" and just let that be determined by regular season record.

[Guest]

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

That wouldn't resonate with fans(and therefore the owners) nearly as much as having regular season champ World Series. Especially if there were a less selective Champions League-esque tournament afterwards. It gives incentive to be the very best(just like people like to reminisce about), while still keeping the interest of the other 25 teams who know before Memorial Day that their team can't reach that standard.

 

And "relegate the worst teams to AAA" is an impossibility. AAA teams are the same franchises at a different level of play, not completely different entities that can be swapped.

[Sammys Boombox]

This is all because of the AL East problem and it's making the rest of baseball suffer.

 

The season is 162 games long. We don't need any more games to decide who should get a chance at the WS. Here are some scenarios that are not far-fetched and will likely happen at least once in the next five years:

 

1. WC #1 beats WC#2 by at least 4 games in the 162 game season, but loses a 1 (or 3) game playoff and misses the playoffs. Therefore, September was basically meaningless for WC#1.

 

2. The two best teams in one league are in the same division. They have to play a tie-breaker game because there is no way that you can just give the division to one team and force the other to go to the play-in game. So, the two teams with 95+ wins are playing each other before the playoffs start. Then, the loser has to go and play a do-or-die game (or games) before being allowed to go on the road (if they win) in a best-of-5 series against a team that has a worse record than them and was able to rest for at least two extra days to line up their rotation. Meanwhile, the winner of the divisional tie-breaker had to use one of their starters (possibly their ace) to get to the playoffs against a team that had a worse record and did not have to use their ace pitcher. We all know how important pitching matchups are in a best-of-5.

 

In general tie-breaking scenarios become ridiculous. What happens when three teams tie for the wild card or the division? In 2007, the Padres, DBacks, and Rockies came within one game of tying for the best record in MLB. The Phillies, Mets, Padres, DBacks, and Rockies were all within 2 games of each other, with 3 of those teams at 89 wins, one at 88, and one at 90. If the Mets had just beat the DBacks one more time, they would have all been tied. What would MLB do if they all tied? The 5 best teams in the league get to slug it out for a week while the Cubs sit on the sideline and watch?

 

I'm sure there are more scenarios out there. These are off the top of my head.

 

There are way too many issues to be ironed out here, and almost all of the solutions involve the best teams getting screwed. Most likely we will see automatic tie-breakers at the end of a 162-game season. No thank you.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Sammy's Boombox

[davearm2]

Reposting this here because I'm curious about the response:

 

It would never, ever, ever happen, but I wonder if a detachment of the regular season and the playoffs/tournament wouldn't be awesome for baseball. Something like the soccer model where you get so much credit for regular season success but there's still tournament trophies on the line kept separate. I'm just spitballing at this point, but what if finishing in the Top 8 of each league qualified you for next year's "tournament", and then the best record in each league played a 5 game series before that tourney. So if the season ended today, Colorado and Cleveland play a best of 5 after the regular season, and the next week you start a 16 team tournament(Best of 3, best of 3, best of 5, best of 5?) with a bracket like this:

 

TB/FLA

TEX/SD

 

CIN/CHW

SF/TOR

 

PHI/OAK

ATL/BOS

 

MIN/STL

NYY/COL

 

 

In that type of model you have 20-25 teams with something to play for all the way through September, but you satisfy the traditionalists who want to see the teams who proved they were the best over 162 games have a shot at the hardware. This type of setup would underscore the need for a more balanced schedule, though. Which is fine with me since I've been an advocate of that for a while.

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

If you expand the playoffs, you have to shorten the season to 154 games unless you want Game 7 of the WS to be on November 15th. And do away with the stupid "All-Star game determines WS home field advantage" and just let that be determined by regular season record.

Nah just take out all of the off-days in the postseason and you'd be fine.

 

These guys are used to playing 162 games in 182 days. So let them play a 7-game series in 7 days, with an off day after the series concludes (or more than one, if you finish in less than 7 games).

 

In 2011, the regular season ends Wednesday Sept 28.

 

First round: October 1-5 (best of 5, 2-2-1 format)

Second round: October 7-13 (best of 7, 2-3-2 format)

League Championships: October 15-21

World Series: October 23-29.

[Sammys Boombox]

Reposting this here because I'm curious about the response:

 

It would never, ever, ever happen, but I wonder if a detachment of the regular season and the playoffs/tournament wouldn't be awesome for baseball. Something like the soccer model where you get so much credit for regular season success but there's still tournament trophies on the line kept separate. I'm just spitballing at this point, but what if finishing in the Top 8 of each league qualified you for next year's "tournament", and then the best record in each league played a 5 game series before that tourney. So if the season ended today, Colorado and Cleveland play a best of 5 after the regular season, and the next week you start a 16 team tournament(Best of 3, best of 3, best of 5, best of 5?) with a bracket like this:

 

TB/FLA

TEX/SD

 

CIN/CHW

SF/TOR

 

PHI/OAK

ATL/BOS

 

MIN/STL

NYY/COL

 

 

In that type of model you have 20-25 teams with something to play for all the way through September, but you satisfy the traditionalists who want to see the teams who proved they were the best over 162 games have a shot at the hardware. This type of setup would underscore the need for a more balanced schedule, though. Which is fine with me since I've been an advocate of that for a while.

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

If you expand the playoffs, you have to shorten the season to 154 games unless you want Game 7 of the WS to be on November 15th. And do away with the stupid "All-Star game determines WS home field advantage" and just let that be determined by regular season record.

Nah just take out all of the off-days in the postseason and you'd be fine.

 

These guys are used to playing 162 games in 182 days. So let them play a 7-game series in 7 days, with an off day after the series concludes (or more than one, if you finish in less than 7 games).

 

In 2011, the regular season ends Wednesday Sept 28.

 

First round: October 1-5 (best of 5, 2-2-1 format)

Second round: October 7-13 (best of 7, 2-3-2 format)

League Championships: October 15-21

World Series: October 23-29.

 

TBS and Fox would have a fit.

[davearm2]

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

That wouldn't resonate with fans(and therefore the owners) nearly as much as having regular season champ World Series. Especially if there were a less selective Champions League-esque tournament afterwards. It gives incentive to be the very best(just like people like to reminisce about), while still keeping the interest of the other 25 teams who know before Memorial Day that their team can't reach that standard.

 

And "relegate the worst teams to AAA" is an impossibility. AAA teams are the same franchises at a different level of play, not completely different entities that can be swapped.

You can't crown two champions every year. That's completely unworkable. And if you say one playoff is for the championship and the other is just for fun, nobody will pay attention to the just-for-fun one.

[davearm2]

Reposting this here because I'm curious about the response:

 

It would never, ever, ever happen, but I wonder if a detachment of the regular season and the playoffs/tournament wouldn't be awesome for baseball. Something like the soccer model where you get so much credit for regular season success but there's still tournament trophies on the line kept separate. I'm just spitballing at this point, but what if finishing in the Top 8 of each league qualified you for next year's "tournament", and then the best record in each league played a 5 game series before that tourney. So if the season ended today, Colorado and Cleveland play a best of 5 after the regular season, and the next week you start a 16 team tournament(Best of 3, best of 3, best of 5, best of 5?) with a bracket like this:

 

TB/FLA

TEX/SD

 

CIN/CHW

SF/TOR

 

PHI/OAK

ATL/BOS

 

MIN/STL

NYY/COL

 

 

In that type of model you have 20-25 teams with something to play for all the way through September, but you satisfy the traditionalists who want to see the teams who proved they were the best over 162 games have a shot at the hardware. This type of setup would underscore the need for a more balanced schedule, though. Which is fine with me since I've been an advocate of that for a while.

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

If you expand the playoffs, you have to shorten the season to 154 games unless you want Game 7 of the WS to be on November 15th. And do away with the stupid "All-Star game determines WS home field advantage" and just let that be determined by regular season record.

Nah just take out all of the off-days in the postseason and you'd be fine.

 

These guys are used to playing 162 games in 182 days. So let them play a 7-game series in 7 days, with an off day after the series concludes (or more than one, if you finish in less than 7 games).

 

In 2011, the regular season ends Wednesday Sept 28.

 

First round: October 1-5 (best of 5, 2-2-1 format)

Second round: October 7-13 (best of 7, 2-3-2 format)

League Championships: October 15-21

World Series: October 23-29.

 

TBS and Fox would have a fit.

Great then give it to CBS. They seem to know how to handle the situation with their March Madness coverage.

[erik316wttn]

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

That wouldn't resonate with fans(and therefore the owners) nearly as much as having regular season champ World Series. Especially if there were a less selective Champions League-esque tournament afterwards. It gives incentive to be the very best(just like people like to reminisce about), while still keeping the interest of the other 25 teams who know before Memorial Day that their team can't reach that standard.

 

And "relegate the worst teams to AAA" is an impossibility. AAA teams are the same franchises at a different level of play, not completely different entities that can be swapped.

 

I know. I was joking about the relegation part. I should have used green font.

[Sammys Boombox]

TBS and Fox would have a fit.

Great then give it to CBS. They seem to know how to handle the situation with their March Madness coverage.

 

Fox and TBS are under contract for 2012 and 2013.

[Guest]

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

That wouldn't resonate with fans(and therefore the owners) nearly as much as having regular season champ World Series. Especially if there were a less selective Champions League-esque tournament afterwards. It gives incentive to be the very best(just like people like to reminisce about), while still keeping the interest of the other 25 teams who know before Memorial Day that their team can't reach that standard.

 

And "relegate the worst teams to AAA" is an impossibility. AAA teams are the same franchises at a different level of play, not completely different entities that can be swapped.

You can't crown two champions every year. That's completely unworkable. And if you say one playoff is for the championship and the other is just for fun, nobody will pay attention to the just-for-fun one.

 

You see multiple champions in soccer with attention being paid to all of them. Part of that is because it combines leagues, but part of that is that people like rooting for their teams in tournaments. Offsetting the selected teams a year helps keep it from being considered just a consolation bracket, and if they wanted to incorporate NPB teams into it that'd be pretty cool as far as I'm concerned. You see it happen in college athletics too. People go nuts over championship week and bowl games even though the real tournament/title game happens afterward. If you wanted to give incentive to win that 16 team tourney with an auto-bid in the following year, that's a decent idea too.

 

The point of the exercise is to solve conflicting desires. In baseball especially, people want to see deserved winners, and not make the 6 month season moot because of a poor game or two. Likewise, no one wants(or shouldn't want) to be so exclusive that we go back to having a 2 team playoff and world series in one, because 80% of baseball fans would lose interest by May. What I outlined is an attempt to satisfy both of those desires, and far from the only potential idea.

[davearm2]

TBS and Fox would have a fit.

Great then give it to CBS. They seem to know how to handle the situation with their March Madness coverage.

 

Fox and TBS are under contract for 2012 and 2013.

So your thinking is that Fox and TBS would have a problem with having more games available to broadcast throughout October?

 

Why would that be?

[Sammys Boombox]

TBS and Fox would have a fit.

Great then give it to CBS. They seem to know how to handle the situation with their March Madness coverage.

 

Fox and TBS are under contract for 2012 and 2013.

So your thinking is that Fox and TBS would have a problem with having more games available to broadcast throughout October?

 

Why would that be?

 

The reason why the schedule is so spread out right now is because of TV. The networks are paying a ton of money for the rights to the games and want certain games on at certain times and do not want them to overlap each other.

 

It was cut off, but originally this discussion was about stacking the series more tightly so they don't go into mid-November. The networks will not go for that just to add a couple of games at the beginning of the postseason. Putting the LCS games on at times where they don't overlap are going to be more important than the play-in games.

[davearm2]

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

That wouldn't resonate with fans(and therefore the owners) nearly as much as having regular season champ World Series. Especially if there were a less selective Champions League-esque tournament afterwards. It gives incentive to be the very best(just like people like to reminisce about), while still keeping the interest of the other 25 teams who know before Memorial Day that their team can't reach that standard.

 

And "relegate the worst teams to AAA" is an impossibility. AAA teams are the same franchises at a different level of play, not completely different entities that can be swapped.

You can't crown two champions every year. That's completely unworkable. And if you say one playoff is for the championship and the other is just for fun, nobody will pay attention to the just-for-fun one.

 

You see multiple champions in soccer with attention being paid to all of them. Part of that is because it combines leagues, but part of that is that people like rooting for their teams in tournaments. Offsetting the selected teams a year helps keep it from being considered just a consolation bracket, and if they wanted to incorporate NPB teams into it that'd be pretty cool as far as I'm concerned. You see it happen in college athletics too. People go nuts over championship week and bowl games even though the real tournament/title game happens afterward. If you wanted to give incentive to win that 16 team tourney with an auto-bid in the following year, that's a decent idea too.

 

The point of the exercise is to solve conflicting desires. In baseball especially, people want to see deserved winners, and not make the 6 month season moot because of a poor game or two. Likewise, no one wants(or shouldn't want) to be so exclusive that we go back to having a 2 team playoff and world series in one, because 80% of baseball fans would lose interest by May. What I outlined is an attempt to satisfy both of those desires, and far from the only potential idea.

Sorry, not seeing it, especially the part where you expect fans to embrace multiple champions every season. I can't think of an American team sport that uses that model, on any level.

 

Your solution creates more problems than it solves. JMHO of course.

[Guest]

Sorry, not seeing it, especially the part where you expect fans to embrace multiple champions every season. I can't think of an American team sport that uses that model, on any level.

 

There are multiple examples in the post you quoted.

[Sammys Boombox]

Or, skip all that, keep things as-is with the postseason, and simply add a trophy that commemorates the regular-season champion in each league.

 

Or you could give the Giles and Harridge Trophies to the regular season winners, rather than the LCS winners.

 

If winning the regular season is deserving of a trophy, then give a trophy.

 

That wouldn't resonate with fans(and therefore the owners) nearly as much as having regular season champ World Series. Especially if there were a less selective Champions League-esque tournament afterwards. It gives incentive to be the very best(just like people like to reminisce about), while still keeping the interest of the other 25 teams who know before Memorial Day that their team can't reach that standard.

 

And "relegate the worst teams to AAA" is an impossibility. AAA teams are the same franchises at a different level of play, not completely different entities that can be swapped.

You can't crown two champions every year. That's completely unworkable. And if you say one playoff is for the championship and the other is just for fun, nobody will pay attention to the just-for-fun one.

 

You see multiple champions in soccer with attention being paid to all of them. Part of that is because it combines leagues, but part of that is that people like rooting for their teams in tournaments. Offsetting the selected teams a year helps keep it from being considered just a consolation bracket, and if they wanted to incorporate NPB teams into it that'd be pretty cool as far as I'm concerned. You see it happen in college athletics too. People go nuts over championship week and bowl games even though the real tournament/title game happens afterward. If you wanted to give incentive to win that 16 team tourney with an auto-bid in the following year, that's a decent idea too.

 

The point of the exercise is to solve conflicting desires. In baseball especially, people want to see deserved winners, and not make the 6 month season moot because of a poor game or two. Likewise, no one wants(or shouldn't want) to be so exclusive that we go back to having a 2 team playoff and world series in one, because 80% of baseball fans would lose interest by May. What I outlined is an attempt to satisfy both of those desires, and far from the only potential idea.

Sorry, not seeing it, especially the part where you expect fans to embrace multiple champions every season. I can't think of an American team sport that uses that model, on any level.

 

Your solution creates more problems than it solves. JMHO of course.

 

This would only work if there were 4 or 5 leagues that never interacted with each other except for this tournament. And, fans would still watch it with passive interest.

[davearm2]

TBS and Fox would have a fit.

Great then give it to CBS. They seem to know how to handle the situation with their March Madness coverage.

 

Fox and TBS are under contract for 2012 and 2013.

So your thinking is that Fox and TBS would have a problem with having more games available to broadcast throughout October?

 

Why would that be?

 

The reason why the schedule is so spread out right now is because of TV. The networks are paying a ton of money for the rights to the games and want certain games on at certain times and do not want them to overlap each other.

 

It was cut off, but originally this discussion was about stacking the series more tightly so they don't go into mid-November. The networks will not go for that just to add a couple of games at the beginning of the postseason. Putting the LCS games on at times where they don't overlap are going to be more important than the play-in games.

I'm still not grasping the dynamic that has more games = fewer viewers.

 

In my model a typical slice of LCS week would look like this:

Monday: PHI @ CHC, 5pm; NYY @ BOS 8pm

Tuesday: NYY @ BOS, 5pm; PHI @ CHC 8pm

 

As it is now, we have:

Monday: NYY @ BOS 8pm

Tuesday: PHI @ CHC 8pm

 

So how is the current setup going to generate more viewers for the networks?

[davearm2]

Sorry, not seeing it, especially the part where you expect fans to embrace multiple champions every season. I can't think of an American team sport that uses that model, on any level.

 

There are multiple examples in the post you quoted.

You didn't give one example of an American sport that crowns multiple champions.

 

The NCAA men's basketball champion is Connecticut. Period.

The BCS champion is Auburn. Period.

And on and on for every sport.

[Sammys Boombox]

The reason why the schedule is so spread out right now is because of TV. The networks are paying a ton of money for the rights to the games and want certain games on at certain times and do not want them to overlap each other.

 

It was cut off, but originally this discussion was about stacking the series more tightly so they don't go into mid-November. The networks will not go for that just to add a couple of games at the beginning of the postseason. Putting the LCS games on at times where they don't overlap are going to be more important than the play-in games.

I'm still not grasping the dynamic that has more games = fewer viewers.

 

In my model a typical slice of LCS week would look like this:

Monday: PHI @ CHC, 5pm; NYY @ BOS 8pm

Tuesday: NYY @ BOS, 5pm; PHI @ CHC 8pm

 

As it is now, we have:

Monday: NYY @ BOS 8pm

Tuesday: PHI @ CHC 8pm

 

So how is the current setup going to generate more viewers for the networks?

With the current format every weekday game is in primetime. With your format, half the weekday games are in primetime. I'm not saying I agree with the networks, but it has been shown that the networks would much rather spread the games out than bunch them up. Again, adding two play-in games will not be worth it to them to bunch up the rest of their postseason schedule. If you have to sort out tie-breakers before the post-season starts, then it gets even crazier. The bunched up schedule will not work because of the networks.

[Guest]

Sorry, not seeing it, especially the part where you expect fans to embrace multiple champions every season. I can't think of an American team sport that uses that model, on any level.

 

There are multiple examples in the post you quoted.

You didn't give one example of an American sport that crowns multiple champions.

 

The NCAA men's basketball champion is Connecticut. Period.

The BCS champion is Auburn. Period.

And on and on for every sport.

 

I never said that both winners were intended to be on an equal plane. It's obvious that it's more prestigious to have the best record in the NL and beat the AL champion than it is to come in 3rd in the NL East and win your way through a 16 team bracket. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any interest in the latter though, and the aforementioned conference tournaments, conference title games/bowl season, and european soccer are all examples that support that notion. Auburn won the BCS title, but OSU is the Big Ten Champion, Oklahoma is the Big 12 Champion, Mississippi State is the Gator Bowl champion, and on and on.

[jersey cubs fan]

Auburn won the BCS title, but OSU is the Big Ten Champion, Oklahoma is the Big 12 Champion, Mississippi State is the Gator Bowl champion, and on and on.

 

apples and oranges. Very bad example to support the idea.

 

I like the idea of promoting regular season winners, ala NHL's president's trophy. But you can't manufacture pride such accomplishments. We only care about who holds the trophy at the end.

 

You do that by handing out the 1 seed to best record and allow them play a one off wild card winner that was forced to play at least one win or go home game with likely their best pitchers. Don't bother with a 3 game series that allows them to reset their rotation. Winning the regular season would then mean something again. It gives the 1 seed a theoretically easier route to the series, gives the WC a definitely tougher route. Play-in games will be must-see TV as well, like going straight to a game 7.

[Sammys Boombox]

Auburn won the BCS title, but OSU is the Big Ten Champion, Oklahoma is the Big 12 Champion, Mississippi State is the Gator Bowl champion, and on and on.

 

apples and oranges. Very bad example to support the idea.

 

I like the idea of promoting regular season winners, ala NHL's president's trophy. But you can't manufacture pride such accomplishments. We only care about who holds the trophy at the end.

 

You do that by handing out the 1 seed to best record and allow them play a one off wild card winner that was forced to play at least one win or go home game with likely their best pitchers. Don't bother with a 3 game series that allows them to reset their rotation. Winning the regular season would then mean something again. It gives the 1 seed a theoretically easier route to the series, gives the WC a definitely tougher route. Play-in games will be must-see TV as well, like going straight to a game 7.

 

What about the situations where the best team(s) get screwed by the 5-team system, which is not too far-fetched, especially in the AL East?

[davearm2]

Sorry, not seeing it, especially the part where you expect fans to embrace multiple champions every season. I can't think of an American team sport that uses that model, on any level.

 

There are multiple examples in the post you quoted.

You didn't give one example of an American sport that crowns multiple champions.

 

The NCAA men's basketball champion is Connecticut. Period.

The BCS champion is Auburn. Period.

And on and on for every sport.

 

I never said that both winners were intended to be on an equal plane. It's obvious that it's more prestigious to have the best record in the NL and beat the AL champion than it is to come in 3rd in the NL East and win your way through a 16 team bracket. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any interest in the latter though, and the aforementioned conference tournaments, conference title games/bowl season, and european soccer are all examples that support that notion. Auburn won the BCS title, but OSU is the Big Ten Champion, Oklahoma is the Big 12 Champion, Mississippi State is the Gator Bowl champion, and on and on.

The conference tournaments and title games feed into the national championship race, and that's what makes them interesting to fans. They're clearly not independent the way you're laying it out.

 

You said NL reg season champ vs. AL reg season champ would be the more prestigious playoff, and I don't disagree. So we call that winner the World Series winner.

 

Your also-ran bracket tournament that follows would be about as interesting as the NIT, and the "champion" that it produced would be essentially meaningless.

[NonProfitCow]

Add the extra team and make the wildcards play a 3 game series with no off days starting the day after the regular season ends. The Division Series games would start on schedule and the WC teams would already be at a disadvantage with with having to choose pitchers with short rest, depleted bullpens, etc. MLB gets 4-6 more sellouts and national TV coverage and the WC actually goes in at a disadvantage like they should.

[davearm2]

Add the extra team and make the wildcards play a 3 game series with no off days starting the day after the regular season ends. The Division Series games would start on schedule and the WC teams would already be at a disadvantage with with having to choose pitchers with short rest, depleted bullpens, etc. MLB gets 4-6 more sellouts and national TV coverage and the WC actually goes in at a disadvantage like they should.

The bolded is is highly debatable, in light of the fact that the WC winner quite often has more wins than the worst division winner.