MLB to add 2nd Wild Card Team per league?

[Little Slide Rooter]

MLB Likely To Add Wild Card Team, One-Game Playoff

By Mike Axisa [september 24 at 8:12am CST]

Negotiations between the players' union and the owners are moving at a fast pace according to Joel Sherman of The New York Post, and he reports that the two sides have all but agreed to adding one wild card team per league. A one-game playoff would then determine which wild card team advances. The system could be installed as soon as next season, but no later than 2013.

 

One of Sherman's sources said it was a done deal, another said it was likely to play out that way. Nothing will become official until the next Collective Bargaining Agreement is signed, however. The current CBA expires in December, but the intensity of the talks gives both sides hope that a new deal will be announced during the World Series. The owners are interested in expanding the playoffs to increase the number of contenders, as well as add inventory to sell a TV network. The one-game playoff would create additional incentive to winning the division.

 

A major hurdle that remains in the CBA negotiations is the draft, particularly whether or not to include a slotting system. Sherman says there is also a lot of work to be done creating two 15-team leagues, which in part hinges on the sale of the Astros since they are the club most likely to move from the NL to the AL. Six five-team divisions would help create a more balanced schedule.

 

 

Interesting concept, but not a fan of a 1 game playoff.

[erik316wttn]

It was inevitable. I'll have to see how it works out, I guess... this is pretty much just to guarantee 3 AL East teams in the playoffs each year.

[Little Slide Rooter]

It was inevitable. I'll have to see how it works out, I guess... this is pretty much just to guarantee 3 AL East teams in the playoffs each year.

 

That's not a bad thing though. The Rays and The Blue Jays are both very good teams and are usually on the outside looking in because they happen to share a time zone with Boston and New York.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

At first I hated it, but now I've really warmed to the idea. I like the thought that winning the division will mean a little more again.

[rocket]

the one game playoffs are going to be awesome

[bcl412]

I think this was brought up last time discussion about playoff expansion happened but I like this because more playoff teams means the Cubs have a greater chance to make the playoffs.

[mul21]

At first I hated it, but now I've really warmed to the idea. I like the thought that winning the division will mean a little more again.

 

That was my exact thought. This makes winning a division a lot more advantageous since the WC teams will have to burn their best pitcher available just to get to the 5 game series. I like it a lot.

[erik316wttn]

I guess if they were going to go with a Wild Card round you may as well make it best of 3 so it's not quite as random. It still will be, just not as much.

[treebird]

the one game playoffs are going to be awesome

 

between this and the sudden import that comes with actually winning your division, i really like these plans a lot.

[NewUserName]

At first I hated it, but now I've really warmed to the idea. I like the thought that winning the division will mean a little more again.

 

I think I like the idea of having the WC teams have to burn their top pitcher, giving the division winner they would have to play an advantage. I am also glad it is just one game, I would be against a 3 game series while the other 3 teams sat around waiting.

[Irrelevant Dude]

I still prefer the idea of a 3 game series, but I guess the 1 game playoff works much better logistically without disrupting the entire playoff schedule. I don't hate the idea, which is more than I can say for a lot of the things that Selig comes up with.

[CincyCubsFan]

What's the point of adding another playoff team if they're only going to be in the playoffs for one day? 3/5 was enough of a crapshoot as it was. I don't like this idea at all.

[rocket]

What's the point of adding another playoff team if they're only going to be in the playoffs for one day? 3/5 was enough of a crapshoot as it was. I don't like this idea at all.

 

so winning a division means more. so more fans are interested late in the season. because a 1 game playoff will be a crazy atmosphere and will lead to many classic games in the future.

 

chalk one up for bud for a change.

[17 Seconds]

one game playoffs are awesome.

 

we'd essentially be getting 2 game 7's before the real playoffs even start.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess if they were going to go with a Wild Card round you may as well make it best of 3 so it's not quite as random. It still will be, just not as much.

 

No, you might as well not go to 3, because that screws up everybody else who has to wait around for the series. Plus there would be all sorts of travel questions if you had the teams each get a chance to play in their home stadium.

 

 

You open up the playoffs to more fan bases, which increases interest. There is automatically going to be 2 must-see games at the beginning of every playoffs. Everybody loves win or go home games and they don't happen enough. That increases interest. You add a huge incentive to winning your division, and subsequently a huge incentive to having the best record in your league. As things stand now there is virtually no difference between winning 105 games as a division winner or sneaking into the playoffs with an 85 win wild card season (or division winning season for that matter).

 

The only "downside" is it punishes the best wild card winner, but that's too bad. Win your division next time.

[bcl412]

Plus a best of three isn't much less random than a 1 game playoff, if it's less random at all.

[UMFan83]

I love this idea. I can't stand when Wild Card winners all jump on each other and celebrate when they clinch their wild card spot. I bet they won't be going crazy and celebrating now.

 

I remember one year the Yankees and Red Sox had a 3 game series at the end of the season and they had both clinched playoff spots and were 'competing' for the division, and the series was halfhearted at best because both teams were more concerned with setting up their playoff rotations than winning an extra home game. Can you imagine the drama of that series where the team that loses the series has to go into a winner take all game while the winner rests for their 1st round series.

 

I think this adds so much more drama and just about completely fixes the issue of the Wild Card team not getting penalized for not winning their division. Look at how this would work out this year:

 

Red Sox vs. Rays from Fenway Park

Teams still alive in last week: Angels (2 gb)

 

Braves vs. Cardinals from Turner Field

Teams still alive in last week: Giants (4 gb)

 

I can see how a little drama could be lost in these final 3 games because in the NL the Cardinals and Braves would have both clinched WC spots and would only be playing for HFA for the wild card game, but fighting for 1 home game in a 1 game series has a ton more drama than teams fighting for 1 home game in a 5 game playoff series

 

2010:

Yankees vs. Red Sox from Yankee Stadium

Teams still alive in last week: White Sox (1 gb), Blue Jays (4 gb)

 

Braves vs. Padres from Turner Field

Teams still alive in last week: Cardinals (4 gb)

 

2009:

Red Sox vs. Rangers from Fenway Park

Teams still alive in last week: Tigers (1.5 gb), Mariners (2 gb), Rays (3 gb)

 

Rockies vs. Giants from Coors Field

Teams still alive in last week: Marlins (1 gb), Braves (2 gb), Cubs (4.5 gb)

 

Look at 2009, 16 out of 30 teams are still alive for the playoffs going into the last week of the season. This year, if the Red Sox and Braves didn't completely choke there would have been maybe 9-10 teams alive.

[erik316wttn]

I guess if they were going to go with a Wild Card round you may as well make it best of 3 so it's not quite as random. It still will be, just not as much.

 

No, you might as well not go to 3, because that screws up everybody else who has to wait around for the series. Plus there would be all sorts of travel questions if you had the teams each get a chance to play in their home stadium.

 

 

You open up the playoffs to more fan bases, which increases interest. There is automatically going to be 2 must-see games at the beginning of every playoffs. Everybody loves win or go home games and they don't happen enough. That increases interest. You add a huge incentive to winning your division, and subsequently a huge incentive to having the best record in your league. As things stand now there is virtually no difference between winning 105 games as a division winner or sneaking into the playoffs with an 85 win wild card season (or division winning season for that matter).

 

The only "downside" is it punishes the best wild card winner, but that's too bad. Win your division next time.

 

I would assume the WC team with the best record would have the home game, correct? It's common sense, but this is Selig we're talking about so you can't be too sure.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess if they were going to go with a Wild Card round you may as well make it best of 3 so it's not quite as random. It still will be, just not as much.

 

No, you might as well not go to 3, because that screws up everybody else who has to wait around for the series. Plus there would be all sorts of travel questions if you had the teams each get a chance to play in their home stadium.

 

 

You open up the playoffs to more fan bases, which increases interest. There is automatically going to be 2 must-see games at the beginning of every playoffs. Everybody loves win or go home games and they don't happen enough. That increases interest. You add a huge incentive to winning your division, and subsequently a huge incentive to having the best record in your league. As things stand now there is virtually no difference between winning 105 games as a division winner or sneaking into the playoffs with an 85 win wild card season (or division winning season for that matter).

 

The only "downside" is it punishes the best wild card winner, but that's too bad. Win your division next time.

 

I would assume the WC team with the best record would have the home game, correct? It's common sense, but this is Selig we're talking about so you can't be too sure.

 

Selig has been a lot better at his job than people give him credit for. He took over an old stodgy game that was losing ground fast in the fan department and it has thrived under his watch.

[SouthSideRyan]

Surprised at the near-unanimous support here.

 

You're giving the 5th best team in a league a chance to win the world series, and punishing teams for happening to be in really good divisions.

[jersey cubs fan]

Surprised at the near-unanimous support here.

 

You're giving the 5th best team in a league a chance to win the world series, and punishing teams for happening to be in really good divisions.

 

Not necessarily true. The 2nd wild card team could be the 3rd best team in a league. And it is still easily the most exclusive playoff opportunity in North American sports. You are punishing teams for not winning their divisions. Winning a title is not about guaranteeing the best team on paper gets it. But at the same time, the best regular season team in each league gets rewarded for that performance. Teams from the best divisions that get excluded from playoff opportunities now have a better chance of at least showing up and building up hometown support for their team.

[SouthSideRyan]

If the 2nd wild card team isn't the 5th best team, then you're giving the 5th (or potentially worse) best team in the league a bye ahead of 2 teams that were better. I'm not advocating scrapping divisions, but it seems odd to reward a team for happening to be better than 4 (or 5 or 3) teams that happen to be located near them.

[jiml60]

the one game playoffs are going to be awesome

 

Agree. It will be a lot more exciting than a 2 of 3 series.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the 2nd wild card team isn't the 5th best team, then you're giving the 5th (or potentially worse) best team in the league a bye ahead of 2 teams that were better. I'm not advocating scrapping divisions, but it seems odd to reward a team for happening to be better than 4 (or 5 or 3) teams that happen to be located near them.

 

It seems like you just want to nitpick for no good reason. You aren't getting a bye. You are in the same boat as you would be before the expansion, playing the other division winner in a 5 game series.

 

 

 

I really don't get the obsession with eliminating the non-best team from having a chance. If an 89 win team wins the World Series, so be it.

 

This system works on both ends of the spectrum. It gives more teams chances (which means more fan bases have a reason to be interested in September), while it gives the best team a big reward. In the meantime you also create 2 guaranteed big event games right at the outset of the playoffs.

[erik316wttn]

I guess if they were going to go with a Wild Card round you may as well make it best of 3 so it's not quite as random. It still will be, just not as much.

 

No, you might as well not go to 3, because that screws up everybody else who has to wait around for the series. Plus there would be all sorts of travel questions if you had the teams each get a chance to play in their home stadium.

 

 

You open up the playoffs to more fan bases, which increases interest. There is automatically going to be 2 must-see games at the beginning of every playoffs. Everybody loves win or go home games and they don't happen enough. That increases interest. You add a huge incentive to winning your division, and subsequently a huge incentive to having the best record in your league. As things stand now there is virtually no difference between winning 105 games as a division winner or sneaking into the playoffs with an 85 win wild card season (or division winning season for that matter).

 

The only "downside" is it punishes the best wild card winner, but that's too bad. Win your division next time.

 

I would assume the WC team with the best record would have the home game, correct? It's common sense, but this is Selig we're talking about so you can't be too sure.

 

Selig has been a lot better at his job than people give him credit for. He took over an old stodgy game that was losing ground fast in the fan department and it has thrived under his watch.

 

He also turned a blind eye to steroids tainting the game, and gave away something huge like HFA in the World Series to the league that wins the All-Star game simply because he was embarrassed in his home park. And he canceled the World Series in 1994.

 

But he did expand the playoffs, so there's that.

 

And I'm not opposed to a 5th WC team, but I never understood the outrage over a Wild Card team winning the World Series. It has happened in every other sport and I haven't seen the outrage about it there, but in baseball it's some sort of travesty? I just don't get it.