View Full Version : A thought on a new format for the WC team that enters the playoffs
I think it is completely unfair that each Wild Card team in each league gets to host two games. I feel this is what the format should be.
Game 1: Division winner
Game 2: Division winner
Game 3: Wild Card winner
Game 4: Division winner
Game 5: Division winner
A lot of people may disagree but teams like the Padres who are barely over .500 don't deserve to host 2 games in the ALDS or NLDS.
I am not the only one that feels that way as well.
I think it is completely unfair that each Wild Card team in each league gets to host two games. I feel this is what the format should be.
Game 1: Division winner
Game 2: Division winner
Game 3: Wild Card winner
Game 4: Division winner
Game 5: Division winner
A lot of people may disagree but teams like the Padres who are barely over .500 don't deserve to host 2 games in the ALDS or NLDS.
I am not the only one that feels that way as well.
lol.. good luck with that..
hellonewman
09-02-06, 10:15 PM
I think it is completely unfair that each Wild Card team in each league gets to host two games. I feel this is what the format should be.
Game 1: Division winner
Game 2: Division winner
Game 3: Wild Card winner
Game 4: Division winner
Game 5: Division winner
A lot of people may disagree but teams like the Padres who are barely over .500 don't deserve to host 2 games in the ALDS or NLDS.
I am not the only one that feels that way as well.That's been proposed before, and I like the idea, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of momentum for it.
I think it is completely unfair that each Wild Card team in each league gets to host two games. I feel this is what the format should be.
Game 1: Division winner
Game 2: Division winner
Game 3: Wild Card winner
Game 4: Division winner
Game 5: Division winner
A lot of people may disagree but teams like the Padres who are barely over .500 don't deserve to host 2 games in the ALDS or NLDS.
I am not the only one that feels that way as well.
What if the Wild Card Team wins 100 games (tough division) and a Division Winner finishes barely over .500?
buckyjacobson
09-02-06, 10:20 PM
What if the Wild Card Team wins 100 games (tough division) and a Division Winner finishes barely over .500?
Then the WC team gets to host 1 1/2 games.
VFBundy
09-03-06, 06:50 AM
I think it is completely unfair that each Wild Card team in each league gets to host two games. I feel this is what the format should be.
Game 1: Division winner
Game 2: Division winner
Game 3: Wild Card winner
Game 4: Division winner
Game 5: Division winner
A lot of people may disagree but teams like the Padres who are barely over .500 don't deserve to host 2 games in the ALDS or NLDS.
I am not the only one that feels that way as well.Awhile ago, I had suggested something similar, except in a 7-game format for the first round:
Game 1: Division winner
Game 2: Division winner
Game 3: Wild Card winner
Game 4: Wild Card winner
Game 5: Division winner
Game 6: Division winner
Game 7: Division winner
I hate the Best of 5 series in baseball...too much of a crap shoot. To be honest, I can see baseball changing the first round to a Best of 7 series...that's the more likely change...as opposed to what you suggest above. If they'd change it to a Best of 7 series, I could live with the Wild Card team hosting three games.
Also...and I just thought of this...here's why baseball will never go for either your Best of 5 suggestion or my Best of 7 suggestion. Let's say, in a certain year, the AL stacks up like this:
1. Yankees (best record)
2. White Sox
3. A's
4. Red Sox (WC)
Because the new format would reward the team with the best record with an extra home game (also penalizing the Wild Card team), that would force baseball into a first round matchup of Yankees vs. Red Sox...they couldn't do the ol' flip flop thing of not matching up divisional opponents in the first round.
Baseball doesn't want Yankees vs. Red Sox in the first round, especially in only a Best of 5 series. Even in a Best of 7 series, baseball wouldn't want Yankees vs. Red Sox in the first round; it would only overshadow the upcoming ALCS.
So, now that I've thought about it, I see neither happening.
I hate the Best of 5 series in baseball...too much of a crap shoot. To be honest, I can see baseball changing the first round to a Best of 7 series...that's the more likely change.... That's likely to happen someday. Best of 5 has always been a bad idea, and it'll happen as soon as they figure out how to get 2 more games in the schedule without dealing with the entire first week in November. As for home field advantage, too much emphasis is placed on the "wildcard" and not enough on other stats, like head-to-head, pct. against common opponents etc. I don't think a wildcard team should be treated differently than the other 3 - they make the playoffs and can never have home field for the LCS...that's penalty enough.
YankeePride1967
09-03-06, 08:31 AM
I would love for MLB to make the division winner really meaningful over the WC, but I'm not holding my breath.
I also like the 7 game series, the 5 games scare the hell out of me...
NYYRules#1
09-03-06, 08:40 PM
There's way too much on the line for the ALDS to be a 5-game series. They scare the crap out of me every time.
I say ditch the ALDS and go back to a 4 team playoff system, but that will never happen. Make it go 7, they really need to.
RhodeyYankee2638
09-03-06, 10:46 PM
im partial to the 1 and 3 game playoff format
penguin4
09-04-06, 01:02 AM
On the other hand, there have been several seasons where the Red Sox and Yankees are the best and second-best teams in the league. I really don't find it fair giving the WC team that much of a disadvantage when only geography separates them from being a division leader. Taking away home-field advantage is enough.
Furthermore, the WC team and the team with the best record will not face each other in the LDS if they are from the same division. So, in essence, working from said scenario, you could be giving the team with the third-best (or worse) record in the league four games at home and penalizing the team with the best record by giving them only three. Which makes little sense.
If you ask me, teams that finish under .500 atop their division should have to have a one-game playoff with the best team not to win the WC (provided they finished over .500). One hot streak at the right time and a team that lost more games than they won will be calling themselves "World Champions". Now that seems less fair.
In Mo I Trust
09-04-06, 10:41 AM
I'm in favor of giving the WC team no breaks, and having a seven game series in round one. I don't get why the second one doesn't happen, who loses if there are more playoff games?
jlw1980
09-04-06, 10:52 AM
There shouldn't even be a Wild Card. Period. If you don't win your freaking division, you can never be a legitimate World Champion. Wild Card = Bullsh*t. :barf:
penguin4
09-04-06, 12:28 PM
There shouldn't even be a Wild Card. Period. If you don't win your freaking division, you can never be a legitimate World Champion. Wild Card = Bullsh*t. :barf:See, I really like the Wild Card, because it gives teams a chance to feel like they're playing for something longer. You think about a year like 2001, when Oakland won 102 games and still finished 14 back. You're going to say they're mathematically eliminated a month before the end of the season because the Mariners were breaking all kinds of records that year? Or what about the NL Central-- is it really fair that six teams have to fight for one playoff spot each year while the AL West it's one in four?
It's not like back in the day when the best team from each league made the World Series and that was it. There is the opportunity now for multiple teams to make the postseason, and increasing likelyhood that the team with the best record won't be crowned World Champions. I could be a purist and say, return to that format, but with expansion it's just not so. Baseball's always been for the fans anyway, so keeping as many teams in it as long as possible is the way to go... but it's not excessively so, either ( :: cough :: NBA, NHL ::cough:: ). However, I feel like a seven-game first round might prolong the season too much; we're already close to November each year now anyway. I'm a big fan of everything just the way it is.
fredgmuggs
09-04-06, 01:08 PM
I hate the wild card and wish it would go away (I know, there's a fat chance of that happening - $$$$). Seeing how it exists and isn't going away anytime soon, my wish is the wild card winner does not get to play in even one home game.
Bring back two divisions with the winner playing in the World Series. The 5 game league division series they play now are somebody's idea of a joke.
fredgmuggs
09-04-06, 01:20 PM
On the other hand, there have been several seasons where the Red Sox and Yankees are the best and second-best teams in the league. I really don't find it fair giving the WC team that much of a disadvantage when only geography separates them from being a division leader. Taking away home-field advantage is enough.
Furthermore, the WC team and the team with the best record will not face each other in the LDS if they are from the same division. So, in essence, working from said scenario, you could be giving the team with the third-best (or worse) record in the league four games at home and penalizing the team with the best record by giving them only three. Which makes little sense.
If you ask me, teams that finish under .500 atop their division should have to have a one-game playoff with the best team not to win the WC (provided they finished over .500). One hot streak at the right time and a team that lost more games than they won will be calling themselves "World Champions". Now that seems less fair.
I understand the argument for a wild card team, especially when the wild card winner has a better record than the other division winners... but my thinking is that they play a 162 game season and if you can't beat the team in front of you in your division, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Tough break, but you had a 162 games to overcome your division rival.
Honestly, I think it's a contrivance for the owners to make more money. When was the last time they did anything for the fan that didn't benefit their own pocketbook? If they really cared about the game it wouldn't be a 5 game series to begin with.
5OClockLighting
09-04-06, 01:25 PM
A lot of people may disagree but teams like the Padres who are barely over .500 don't deserve to host 2 games in the ALDS or NLDS.
I am not the only one that feels that way as well.SD won their division.
SheffRocks11
09-04-06, 01:27 PM
I like the wild card...:dunno:
keithf1
09-04-06, 05:32 PM
I hate the 5 game series but I don't think this is very fair. I know it's not supposed to be fair but that's TOO much of advantage. You might as well let more teams in the playoffs and give the top 2 records a BYE or something.
jlw1980
09-04-06, 05:43 PM
I've always thought that only division winners should go to the playoffs. Best record in each league gets a first-round bye.
penguin4
09-04-06, 05:58 PM
Honestly, I think it's a contrivance for the owners to make more money. When was the last time they did anything for the fan that didn't benefit their own pocketbook? If they really cared about the game it wouldn't be a 5 game series to begin with.
Oh it definitely is, because you're getting an extra playoff round out of it and more fans spilling into the ballpark in September for teams that are double digits back in their respective division races. But I still think it's good for the fans. It keeps people talking and it mixes things up a bit, and it's usually right down to the wire, so it's exciting to follow. Before this year, do you think anyone would've given a damn about any of the NL East teams with the Braves pretty much penciled in as the winner in April the past 12 years? Meanwhile, you have the Marlins winning the World Series twice (regardless of how they got there and the aftermath being up for debate), the Mets winning the pennant, and Phillie fans on the edge of their seats last year with their postseason fate decided on the final day of the season. It's definitely made the game more interesting.
YankeePride1967
09-04-06, 06:38 PM
the idea I've heard that I like best is add a wild card team. Have the two wild card teams play a one game playoff and the winner of that advances to the
ALDS. That gives the division winner real importance.
I've always thought that only division winners should go to the playoffs. Best record in each league gets a first-round bye.
A Bye is great in football. But I can't imagine a SP or Closer going a week after the season ends w/o pitching in a game. Your #4 starter could go almost two weeks w/o pitching. No thanks.
keithf1
09-04-06, 07:42 PM
A Bye is great in football. But I can't imagine a SP or Closer going a week after the season ends w/o pitching in a game. Your #4 starter could go almost two weeks w/o pitching. No thanks.
Never thought of it that way, good point.
jlw1980
09-05-06, 03:07 AM
A Bye is great in football. But I can't imagine a SP or Closer going a week after the season ends w/o pitching in a game. Your #4 starter could go almost two weeks w/o pitching. No thanks.
It could work. They could be throwing practice games with the team during their time off. I know it's not the same thing as a real game, but I think it would be all right. I don't know; I just hate the wild card. :dunno:
Another alternative would be to split each league into four divisions. Then you still have the two LDS's in each league, then the LCS, then the WS.
It's also unfair that one division has 6 teams, and another one only has four. The teams in the 6-team division have an unfair disadvantage (harder to get to playoffs), and the teams in the 4-team division have an unfair advantage (easier to get to playoffs). That's just wrong.
Some contraction needs to occur anyway, but that'll never happen under that dumbass, Bud Selig. 30 teams are too many.
4bronxbombers
09-05-06, 08:20 AM
I'm not in favor of the Wild Card either but I completely understand why they did it. I'm in favor of 2 best division teams playing each other and the best going on to the WS.
5OClockLighting
09-05-06, 09:06 AM
It could work. They could be throwing practice games with the team during their time off. I know it's not the same thing as a real game, but I think it would be all right. I don't know; I just hate the wild card. :dunno:
Another alternative would be to split each league into four divisions. Then you still have the two LDS's in each league, then the LCS, then the WS.
It's also unfair that one division has 6 teams, and another one only has four. The teams in the 6-team division have an unfair disadvantage (harder to get to playoffs), and the teams in the 4-team division have an unfair advantage (easier to get to playoffs). That's just wrong.
Some contraction needs to occur anyway, but that'll never happen under that dumbass, Bud Selig. 30 teams are too many.You need the wild card to insure that second best record makes the playoffs.
If you want even divisions you would need year round intreleague play.
Contraction won't happen no matter who is the Commish, the Players Union won't allow it. It would take at least a year long strike to accomplish that. You would still have uneven divisions if Bud got his wish of a two team contraction.
5OClockLighting
09-05-06, 09:09 AM
I say ditch the ALDS and go back to a 4 team playoff system, but that will never happen. Make it go 7, they really need to.Without the ALDS the Yankees don't win the 1996 or 2000 World Series. The WC does more good than bad.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0