Sammys Boombox

If you do so you should in turn insist that he take down his Aaron Rodgers avatar. :twisted: Actually his sig does make my pages load slowly when using wifi. Although I have to admit, it would be more enjoyable if it was something like Ted Lilly plowing Yadier Molina. Or, of course, if it was a montage of Jay Cutler throwing to Packer defenders, or Greg Jennings... Oh, you get the picture.

If the Cubs lose tonight we don't have to see a Cardinals celebration in the clubhouse. If the Cubs win tonight, that's cool. It's a win-win!

I was wondering when somebody would suggest this. UMFan causes all kinds of problems for me.

I don't think I could switch teams even if I wanted to. I've started enjoying the Royals since going to school in Columbia. I could see myself getting into a Royals pennant race :rotfl: . I'm even pretty sure I'll buy season tickets if I move there after graduation (they're just SO cheap). But lets say the Cubs were playing a September makeup game against KC and the Cubs had already wrapped up the division, but the Royals were tied in their race. I'm pulling for the Cubs all the way. I just can't imagine a scenario where I would want the Cubs to lose a game. Well, unless it somehow puts the Cardinals in the playoffs...

Then we need to shut down NSBB if we're only commenting on things we can control.

No, never. In the last decade it's been Cubs and Cardinals only.

So, who convinced you that was real? There's absolutely no chance. Upon further review... that's... real?! Wikipedia:

Of course, the night I decide to watch again...

So if the Cubs are 4 games back in the WC at the end of tomorrow, who here is going to start hoping again?

It absolutely does not make a mockery of a the 162, it emphasizes the importance of the 162 by rewarding you for winning your division. Right now, September is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you win the wild card or your division. The 1 game playoff is part of the playoffs. Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division. The point of the one-game wildcard playoff is to throw off those teams' rotations and make it more difficult for a wildcard team to make the World Series. Their rotation would be in shambles coming off a two- or three-game set while the other team had four days off.

It accomplishes that as well. 1) More teams/fans involved late in the season. 2) Rewards the team with best record by getting to face a team that has not been able to reset it's rotation. 3) Gives motivation to wild card teams to fight for division crowns. Just curious, say the Red Sox win the division and the Yankees win the WC, would you rather see the Yankees play 1 game to get into the playoffs or would you rather see the Yankees have to play at Boston all five games of the DS? This would reward the league winner, the other two division winners and "punish" the WC. Answer with September AND October in mind. Answer with October only in mind.

It absolutely does not make a mockery of a the 162, it emphasizes the importance of the 162 by rewarding you for winning your division. Right now, September is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you win the wild card or your division. The 1 game playoff is part of the playoffs. Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division. Weren't you the one who was complaing about pushing back the schedule of the playoffs? The 1 game playoff rewards the #1 seed and "punishes" the teams that have to settle for the WC. It puts the emphasis on winning the regular season and not just cruising in on the WC which right now is essentially the same thing as winning your division. No, I wouldn't like pushing them back, but I dislike even more the idea that a team could have a 5-15 game advantage during the regular season but wipe that away with one win with some random starters on the hill for both teams. I'm choosing the lesser of two evils. Don't you think a 3-game set right before the playoffs (win or lose) would "punish" the WC team? That rotation will definitely not be ready for the playoffs.

It absolutely does not make a mockery of a the 162, it emphasizes the importance of the 162 by rewarding you for winning your division. Right now, September is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you win the wild card or your division. The 1 game playoff is part of the playoffs. Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division. The point of the one-game wildcard playoff is to throw off those teams' rotations and make it more difficult for a wildcard team to make the World Series. I thought it was to keep more teams in the race in September.

I like the football better. Texas Baseball: http://images.chron.com/blogs/longhorns/russ.jpg http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/02/10/59/image_6659102.jpg Texas Football: http://i.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0706/campus.bestuniforms/images/OKLAHOMA-ST-TEXAS-FOOTBALL.jpg

probably white I meant with a uniform, logo, etc. I can't envision it working with the Cubs current unis. I think you don't see it because it wouldn't really match most away unis and most home unis would be pretty much solid white. Probably wouldn't look good.

It absolutely does not make a mockery of a the 162, it emphasizes the importance of the 162 by rewarding you for winning your division. Right now, September is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you win the wild card or your division. The 1 game playoff is part of the playoffs. Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division.

I don't mean to keep bumping this, but I was wondering, why do we never see white batting helmets? White football helmets are awesome, but I've never seen anybody attempt a white batting helmet. I wonder what it would look like.

This brings up whole new topics. Expansion and contraction. What if they went back to 28 teams with two leagues and two divisions in each league? Do you have two WC or just scrap them? I say you have two WC. Not sure who to contract, but I would pick Washington (never should have built that stadium) and Marlins (hurry up before they build that stadium). Won't happen, but I personally wouldn't miss the two teams. Schedule: 16 games against the 6 other teams in the division = 96 9 games against 7 teams from the other division = 63 3 games against 1 interleague rival = 3 Total: 162 DS: Best of 5 played entirely at the division winners stadium. CS: Current format, even if it's a division winner vs. a WC winner. WS: Current format with home-field decided by best overall record.

There wouldn't be a likely possibility of moving the start of the playoffs. As it stands today, they don't start until Wednesday after the final Sunday, and one series starts on Thursday. Monday is currently for ties, you can schedule the 1 game play-in for Tuesday. I'm not sure how likely your scenario is, I doubt it's very high. But the point is rewarding the division win while at the same time maximizing interest from fan bases because more of them have a chance to be in it. If 1 out of 10 years some 100 win wild card team loses to a 85 win wild card team in a one game playoff (in the 100 win teams stadium) that's still 10 years where more teams had a chance to make the playoffs, more meaningful games are being played in September, more eyeballs are watching and more exciting games are being played. And I doubt it would happen every 10 years anyway. You may not get disparities as big as 100 wins to 85 wins very often, but I think 90 wins to 85 wins or 95 wins to 90 wins is very possible. The possibility of a team tying for the league lead in wins in the regular season and not going to the playoffs in a system where four teams go to the playoffs should not be considered. Also, you now force the two best teams in the league to play VERY meaningful extra games between the regular season and the playoffs. I understand the reasoning, but I think it makes a mockery of the 162-game season. Just my opinion though.

1. Putting Texas and Houston in the same division as the Mariners would actually help the Mariners travel plans because they could do 2 or 3 trips each season to Texas where they hit both teams. The Rangers already have to go to Seattle so I'm sure the Astros can. 2. I think I like this plan a lot because it cuts down on the number on interleague games, keeps the "rivalries," and is just about as balanced as you can get. 3. I don't like the two WC in a 1-game playoff for this reason alone. It creates the likely possibility of having to push back the start of the playoffs because two teams tie for the division and WC (like the Cards and Astros did a few years ago) would have to play a one-game playoff for a tie-breaker and then the loser would have to play another one-game playoff against a team that they had a better record. Assume Yankees and Red Sox have the two best records in the AL with 100 wins each and the next best WC team has 88 wins. They shouldn't get a 1-game shot at the loser of a 1-game playoff for the division between New York and Boston.

1. Putting Texas and Houston in the same division as the Mariners would actually help the Mariners travel plans because they could do 2 or 3 trips each season to Texas where they hit both teams. The Rangers already have to go to Seattle so I'm sure the Astros can. 2. I think I like this plan a lot because it cuts down on the number on interleague games, keeps the "rivalries," and is just about as balanced as you can get. 3. I don't like the two WC in a 1-game playoff for this reason alone. It creates the likely possibility of having to push back the start of the playoffs because two teams tie for the division and WC (like the Cards and Astros did a few years ago) would have to play a one-game playoff for a tie-breaker and then the loser would have to play another one-game playoff against a team that they had a better record. Assume Yankees and Red Sox have the two best records in the AL with 100 wins each and the next best WC team has 88 wins. They shouldn't get a 1-game shot at the loser of a 1-game playoff for the division between New York and Boston.

I think we're all in agreement about the WC. I don't like the 1-game play-in though. One tweak to #3 could be keeping the rivalry series and replacing one of the other teams you play in interleague. This could be based on previous finish, much like the NFL does with games 15 and 16. i.e. NL Central is scheduled to play AL West in year B. NL Central finishes in year A: 1. Cubs 2. Cardinals 3. Reds 4. Brewers 5. Pirates AL West finishes in year A: 1. Angels 2. Astros 3. A's 4. Mariners 5. Rangers In year B the Cubs would play home and away series with 1. Angels 2. Astros 3. A's 4. Mariners 5. White Sox In year B the Cardinals would play home and away series with 1. Angels 2. Astros 3. A's 4. Royals 5. Rangers Reds 1. Angels 2. Astros 3. Indians 4. Mariners 5. Rangers etc.

There would be 8 teams to play from the other division (#2) Good call. so it would be 8*6 for 48 games, leading to 160 games. Probably have to come up with 2 extra games somewhere. So it should read: 2. 6 games against everyone in the other division (8*6)=48 games

I like this one. It's like #4 except you keep the two-league system, which I definitely support. Do you have any general ideas on scheduling? For or against interleague?

I know. That was one of the first things I looked for. I was hoping for 12+ games in MO next year (selfish reasons), but it's only 6. If I am correct, the Cubs have not played the Royals since 2001 and not in KC since 2000. What gives? It's like Bud knows I moved here. In all honesty I'm not sure anyone will ever figure out the schedules. One of the main reasons for interleague was for dream matchups. We are what, 11 years in and still haven't played in Boston. The Cubs at Fenway is probably the biggest dream matchup there is. 2010 will be the 14th season of interleague. Since the Cubs hadn't been to KC since 2000, I thought that I would get to see a Cubs series in KC before I graduated college. I came to Mizzou in the fall 2006 and will graduate in December 2010. So, of course, they never came to KC. It should be noted that I often see more Cubs memorabilia at the Royals games than the opposing team and/or the Cardinals.