MLB Considering Playoff Expansion

[SouthSideRyan]

It's too extreme an overhaul TT. People like what they know and aren't going to embrace something so drastic.

[Soul]

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.

 

Yeah, it's an incremental change though. I can't see it really blowing things up too much.

 

Plus, I wonder sometimes if the teams that play through are really at a disadvantage. Kind of like in the NFL playoffs -- it's debatable whether a Wild Card team is at a disadvantage because the top team had the week off, or if they actually have an advantage because they're primed and ready to play from the previous week.

 

I suppose it depends on the team and the situation.

[USSoccer]

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.

 

MLS has the US Open Cup, Supporters Shield (best overall record), and MLS Cup champion, and sends each winner plus one other team into the CONCACAF Champions League.

 

One is an open tourney with all divisions of USSF represented, one represents the best team over the course of the season, and one is the playoff tournament.

 

College basketball has regular season conference championships, tournament championships, and the NIT and NCAA tournaments.

[davearm2]

I don't think you folks realize that bringing up soccer and all of its leagues and championships just proves my point.

 

Whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying. That has been proven over and over again.

[USSoccer]

I don't think you folks realize that bringing up soccer and all of its leagues and championships just proves my point.

 

Whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying. That has been proven over and over again.

 

Wow, that's just flat out wrong.

 

Stunning coming from you.

 

MLS' median attendance right now is over 18k per night, and that;s 6 weeks into a season which has had nothing but crap weather, AND with a built in drag on the numbers in the form of San Jose's "stadium" only seating around 8k. The average is over 17k, and Kansas City hasn't opened their new park yet. Last year MLS averaged over 17k per night. It's grown steadily over the past 4 years. And that's just our little domestic league. The national team moves the needle both in friendlies, WCQ's and the World Cup itself. The US is becoming more Hispanic every year, and there are a crapton of soccer fans in this country that *only* follow the Euro leagues.

 

If you want to hitch your argument to the whole "American sports fans hate soccer" bandwagon, knock yourself out, and have fun getting dragged down with it. It's a losing argument and will do nothing except become even more of an embarrassing argument as time goes on.

[davearm2]

I don't think you folks realize that bringing up soccer and all of its leagues and championships just proves my point.

 

Whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying. That has been proven over and over again.

 

Wow, that's just flat out wrong.

 

Stunning coming from you.

LOL OK.

 

According to the Nielson TV ratings, average ranks are as follows:

 

NFL (National Football League)

NBA (National Basketball Association)

MLB (Major League Baseball)

NCAA football (college football)

NCAA basketball (college basketball)

NASCAR (stock car racing)

WWE (professional wrestling)

NHL (National Hockey League)

AFL (Arena Football League)

WNBA (Women's National Basketball Association)

MLS (Major League Soccer)

 

According to the most recent Harris poll:

Pro football

Baseball

College football

Auto racing

Men’s pro basketball

Hockey

Men’s college basketball

Men’s golf

Men’s soccer

Boxing

 

Yep Americans just can't get enough soccer. :lol:

[TruffleShuffle]

auto racing isn't a sport and rasslin definitely is not a sport.

[davearm2]

auto racing isn't a sport and rasslin definitely is not a sport.

Apparently Americans would rather watch sports that really aren't sports than soccer.

[TruffleShuffle]

sports that aren't really sports? that makes no sense. if you're going to compare soccer ratings to rasslin you mineaswell compare them to american idol or jersey shore.

[davearm2]

Makes no sense how? It's exactly what you said yourself.

 

If you don't like the survey design, take it up with with the Nielsen and Harris folks.

Edited April 23, 2011 by davearm2

[USSoccer]

auto racing isn't a sport and rasslin definitely is not a sport.

Apparently Americans would rather watch sports that really aren't sports than soccer.

 

Yes, let's compare the TV contracts of sports that have all been around for years and years to a league that's been around for 16 years, which makes even more since if you consider that MLS doesn't really have a national TV contract that's comparable, and this you have to look market by market.

 

Ooooo, wait, I can cherrypick stats too:

 

Seattle Sounders attendance, week 4: 36,223

Seattle Mariners attendance, same day: 13,056

 

Vancouver Whitecaps attendance, week 5: 20,809

Vancouver Canucks attendance, Game 2 Stanley Cup Playoffs: 18,660

 

MLS: More popular than hockey in Canada and baseball in the PacNW.

[davearm2]

auto racing isn't a sport and rasslin definitely is not a sport.

Apparently Americans would rather watch sports that really aren't sports than soccer.

 

Yes, let's compare the TV contracts of sports that have all been around for years and years to a league that's been around for 16 years.

 

Ooooo, wait, I can cherrypick stats too:

 

Seattle Sounders attendance, week 4: 36,223

Seattle Mariners attendance, same day: 13,056

 

Vancouver Whitecaps attendance, week 5: 20,809

Vancouver Canucks attendance, Game 2 Stanley Cup Playoffs: 18,660

 

MLS: More popular than hockey in Canada and baseball in the PacNW.

LOL yes I cherrypicked stats by listing off the two most reasonable measures of the most popular sports in America.

 

Who broadcasts the MLS?

[Soul]

Yeah, I missed my chance to see a Benfica game a couple weeks ago in Lisbon and have been kicking myself for it.

 

 

Not that I'm a huge fan of the sport, but I always wanted to catch a game.

[USSoccer]

LOL yes I cherrypicked stats by listing off the two most reasonable measures of the most popular sports in America.

 

Who broadcasts the MLS?

 

You cherrypicked one metric.

 

MLS has a "national" TV contract with Fox Soccer Channel, which is a pay channel in a bonus tier on most cable systems, for 31 matches over the course of the entire season. ESPN will show usually 1 game a week as well. Nationally, that's basically it unless you live in Canada, where TSN or Radgers carries Toronto FC and Vancouver FC games. Essentially you get like 15 ESPN games and that's your national coverage unless you pay for FSN.

 

MLS clubs have deals with local carriers-for example, Philly usually gets a 2.8 on the local Comcast Sports Net affiliate, Seattle have a deal with KING & KONG to broadcast locally there (they pull a decent number locally as well), the Fire have a deal with CSN and WCIU, etc.

 

There's been a lot of talk about MLS partnering with whatever Versus turns into post merger which would be a really big deal. That would instantly get MLS in a ton more homes on basic cable tiers and improve the exposure of the league.

 

Anyway, this is getting way off topic-my point was that American sports fans wouldn't necessarily be clueless when it came to an arrangement like TT's. Plenty of people follow UEFA Champions league as well as the various Euro domestic leagues as welll, FWIW.

[bcl412]

I think the major reason that TT's hypothetical wouldn't work is because there would be because that tournament has no tradition and the winner gets nothing except a trophy. In college basketball and I'm pretty sure soccer, teams get to play for something better.

 

In college football, teams get excited to win a bowl because teams have gotten excited for bowl games for years.

 

I also don't want too many playoff teams (although I could live with an extra one) or a huge tournament because baseball isn't as fun in that type of setting to honestly. I like baseball more as a long season sport than a playoff sport if that makes sense.

[Exile on Waveland]

i dont even recognize super bowl winners anymore, i just look at whoever won the patriots-colts game and roll with it

 

Me too!

[Exile on Waveland]

I don't think you folks realize that bringing up soccer and all of its leagues and championships just proves my point.

 

Whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying. That has been proven over and over again.

 

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed. Especially since we all know soccer isn't popular in the US because Americans hate sports played with a white and black spotted ball.

[davearm2]

I don't think you folks realize that bringing up soccer and all of its leagues and championships just proves my point.

 

Whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying. That has been proven over and over again.

 

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed.

I did nothing of the sort.

 

Soccer is unpopular as a spectator sport here, because Americans find it boring to watch. It's a fringe, niche sport in the U.S. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or whatever, but the numbers are what they are, and the absence of any meaningful national TV deal proves the point.

 

So to make the argument, as others have, that Americans would embrace a multiple-champion setup in baseball because it works in soccer is inherently flawed, because soccer itself hasn't worked in America (at least not as a spectator/fan sport).

 

Tons of kids play soccer, and it's growing like crazy in terms of participation. I get that. But that's not pertinent to this issue.

[Exile on Waveland]

I don't think you folks realize that bringing up soccer and all of its leagues and championships just proves my point.

 

Whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying. That has been proven over and over again.

 

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed.

I did nothing of the sort.

 

Soccer is unpopular as a spectator sport here, because Americans find it boring to watch. It's a fringe, niche sport in the U.S. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or whatever, but the numbers are what they are, and the absence of any meaningful national TV deal proves the point.

 

So to make the argument, as others have, that Americans would embrace a multiple-champion setup in baseball because it works in soccer is inherently flawed, because soccer itself hasn't worked in America (at least not as a spectator/fan sport).

 

Tons of kids play soccer, and it's growing like crazy in terms of participation. I get that. But that's not pertinent to this issue.

 

No. Again, you have a serious correlation-causation problem. Because soccer isn't popular here doesn't mean the league/cup system would be unpopular here (though I would not even remotely be in favor of importing it). There are many reasons soccer may not be popular here, and you have shown no nexus between soccer's unpopularity in the US and the league/cup system (I'd posit such nexus would be impossible to prove, as I don't believe most Americans are even aware of the simultaneous domestic cups and leagues). When you say "whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying" and use that for a reason the league/cup system would not work in the US, you are ostensibly saying that "soccer is played with 11 players a side, and soccer hasn't worked in America, so no sport with 11 players a side would work in America."

 

Further, you can focus on MLS's TV deal, but that is really a red herring. The MLS is a middling league (minor league baseball has no major TV deal, does that mean baseball is unpopular?). The MLS's lack of a major TV deal simply proves that the MLS is unpopular on TV, not that soccer is unpopular on TV. The World Cup and Euros are featured on ESPN and ABC, and the EPL is now featured weekly on ESPN/2. The TV deal for the 2010 World Cup was worth $425 million in the United States. So much for the absence of a meaningful TV deal for soccer, huh?

[davearm2]

I don't think you folks realize that bringing up soccer and all of its leagues and championships just proves my point.

 

Whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying. That has been proven over and over again.

 

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed.

I did nothing of the sort.

 

Soccer is unpopular as a spectator sport here, because Americans find it boring to watch. It's a fringe, niche sport in the U.S. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or whatever, but the numbers are what they are, and the absence of any meaningful national TV deal proves the point.

 

So to make the argument, as others have, that Americans would embrace a multiple-champion setup in baseball because it works in soccer is inherently flawed, because soccer itself hasn't worked in America (at least not as a spectator/fan sport).

 

Tons of kids play soccer, and it's growing like crazy in terms of participation. I get that. But that's not pertinent to this issue.

 

No. Again, you have a serious correlation-causation problem. Because soccer isn't popular here doesn't mean the league/cup system would be unpopular here (though I would not even remotely be in favor of importing it). There are many reasons soccer may not be popular here, and you have shown no nexus between soccer's unpopularity in the US and the league/cup system (I'd posit such nexus would be impossible to prove, as I don't believe most Americans are even aware of the simultaneous domestic cups and leagues). When you say "whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying" and use that for a reason the league/cup system would not work in the US, you are ostensibly saying that "soccer is played with 11 players a side, and soccer hasn't worked in America, so no sport with 11 players a side would work in America."

The problem here is not mine.

 

Look someone else pointed to soccer as evidence that a multiple-champion format for baseball would work here. I showed that's flawed logic, and why.

 

In order to establish that premise, you'd want to show an example of a sport that uses that forma and is popular here. Not only is soccer not such an example (because it's not popular), but it's arguably a counter-example (its unpopularity may be due at least in part to the format).

 

Hope this helps.

[davearm2]

Further, you can focus on MLS's TV deal, but that is really a red herring. The MLS is a middling league (minor league baseball has no major TV deal, does that mean baseball is unpopular?). The MLS's lack of a major TV deal simply proves that the MLS is unpopular on TV, not that soccer is unpopular on TV. The World Cup and Euros are featured on ESPN and ABC, and the EPL is now featured weekly on ESPN/2. The TV deal for the 2010 World Cup was worth $425 million in the United States. So much for the absence of a meaningful TV deal for soccer, huh?

I would strongly dispute the term "featured". I would hazard a guess that ESPN/2 airs about the same number of Euro soccer games as WNBA and Arena Football games, and probably in very similar timeslots (i.e., undesirable ones). Feel free to correct me if that's a misconception.

 

A red herring would be to focus on the performance of a once-every-four-years event such as the World Cup. Americans love gymnastics and bobsledding for a few weeks every four years too.

[Exile on Waveland]

Further, you can focus on MLS's TV deal, but that is really a red herring. The MLS is a middling league (minor league baseball has no major TV deal, does that mean baseball is unpopular?). The MLS's lack of a major TV deal simply proves that the MLS is unpopular on TV, not that soccer is unpopular on TV. The World Cup and Euros are featured on ESPN and ABC, and the EPL is now featured weekly on ESPN/2. The TV deal for the 2010 World Cup was worth $425 million in the United States. So much for the absence of a meaningful TV deal for soccer, huh?

I would strongly dispute the term "featured". I would hazard a guess that ESPN/2 airs about the same number of Euro soccer games as WNBA and Arena Football games, and probably in very similar timeslots (i.e., undesirable ones). Feel free to correct me if that's a misconception.

 

A red herring would be to focus on the performance of a once-every-four-years event such as the World Cup. Americans love gymnastics and bobsledding for a few weeks every four years too.

 

As to your first post, I agree. Saying "x works in soccer, it will work here" is logically specious. You were guilty of saying the exact opposite though (i.e., "soccer isn't popular here, therefore x won't work here").

 

As to your second post, the EPL games are in the morning because they're aired live. It's not like ESPN banishes the games to an undesirable time slot. Due to the time difference, they're never going to be both (1) in a desirable time slot and (2) live. That just never going to change, no matter how popular the EPL may become here.

 

Americans love the Olympics, there is no doubt about that. That, however, is quite different than saying they love gymnastics and bobsledding. The World Cup is only soccer, and Americans love it. You first said "whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying." The American sporting public is, in fact, buying -- to the tune of $425 million TV deals, more tickets sold to the World Cup than any other nation, and equal attendance for a middling league (MLS) as to two of the four major US sports (NBA, NHL).

[davearm2]

As to your first post, I agree. Saying "x works in soccer, it will work here" is logically specious. You were guilty of saying the exact opposite though (i.e., "soccer isn't popular here, therefore x won't work here").

 

Not true. All I said was, Americans aren't buying what soccer is selling, and I stand by that. I never said, nor implied, that this means they wouldn't buy the same thing if it was applied to another sport. Heck I'm convinced Americans would still watch the NFL regardless of how badly they tried to screw up their product.

 

 

Americans love the Olympics, there is no doubt about that. That, however, is quite different than saying they love gymnastics and bobsledding. The World Cup is only soccer, and Americans love it. You first said "whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying." The American sporting public is, in fact, buying -- to the tune of $425 million TV deals, more tickets sold to the World Cup than any other nation, and equal attendance for a middling league (MLS) as to two of the four major US sports (NBA, NHL).

It's not that different. Many of the same factors that make the Olympics popular, also apply to the World Cup. The spectacle of the event, elite athletes performing on the world's stage, the patriotism of rooting for the home team, and yes, the uniqueness that comes from paying attention to it once every four years. The soccer itself isn't the only draw. As you said yourself, Americans can get that on ESPN at other times.

 

And let's not compare attendance figures for a stadium sport to that of arena sports. That's silly.

[series65cubsfan]

I don't think you folks realize that bringing up soccer and all of its leagues and championships just proves my point.

 

Whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying. That has been proven over and over again.

 

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed.

I did nothing of the sort.

 

Soccer is unpopular as a spectator sport here, because Americans find it boring to watch. It's a fringe, niche sport in the U.S. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or whatever, but the numbers are what they are, and the absence of any meaningful national TV deal proves the point.

 

So to make the argument, as others have, that Americans would embrace a multiple-champion setup in baseball because it works in soccer is inherently flawed, because soccer itself hasn't worked in America (at least not as a spectator/fan sport).

 

Tons of kids play soccer, and it's growing like crazy in terms of participation. I get that. But that's not pertinent to this issue.

 

No. Again, you have a serious correlation-causation problem. Because soccer isn't popular here doesn't mean the league/cup system would be unpopular here (though I would not even remotely be in favor of importing it). There are many reasons soccer may not be popular here, and you have shown no nexus between soccer's unpopularity in the US and the league/cup system (I'd posit such nexus would be impossible to prove, as I don't believe most Americans are even aware of the simultaneous domestic cups and leagues). When you say "whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying" and use that for a reason the league/cup system would not work in the US, you are ostensibly saying that "soccer is played with 11 players a side, and soccer hasn't worked in America, so no sport with 11 players a side would work in America."

 

Further, you can focus on MLS's TV deal, but that is really a red herring. The MLS is a middling league (minor league baseball has no major TV deal, does that mean baseball is unpopular?). The MLS's lack of a major TV deal simply proves that the MLS is unpopular on TV, not that soccer is unpopular on TV. The World Cup and Euros are featured on ESPN and ABC, and the EPL is now featured weekly on ESPN/2. The TV deal for the 2010 World Cup was worth $425 million in the United States. So much for the absence of a meaningful TV deal for soccer, huh?

[erik316wttn]

I don't agree with TT's proposal, but within recent memory the NCAA had co-national champions with USC and LSU, so there's one example of a "multiple champion" sport.

 

But again, I'm against TT's proposal. Just too drastic, I think.