I agree completely with this post

[msgkings322]

Why a second wild card is bad idea - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

Is he right that the 2nd WC is basically a done deal, soon?

 

[tzill]

Yep, good stuff. Additionally, having a one game playoff round to advance after 162 games is pretty silly. I realize this happens when teams finish tied, but to deliberately schedule it is just lame.

 

[gp956]

Got to agree. A one game playoff is a bad idea from a purists perspective. Showalters point that an extra wildcard makes the unbalanced schedule even more "unfair" is a good one. From an owner's perspective though, an extra playoff-off team would likely increase revenue, and, by lowering the "wins" bar to a playoff birth, player costs would likely be reduced somewhat - as there would be no requirement to build a ~95 win team, hense less pressure to bid up prices to assemble a team of the best free agents (thinking yankees and redsox here).

An interesting possible consequense might be reduced revenue sharing going to small market teams, which might result in some of those teams actually trying to field a marketable team.

 

[Giantsmojo]

I don't see the comparison between baseball which uses a best of 5 for WC series and the Final 4 which is a single elimination game. Any team can beat any team once it becomes much harder when you have to face them in a series. Also the argument about watering down the playoff race in the regular season is the same argument that was made about adding a playoff, and the WC when they were introduced. Adding a WC would keep teams in it longer and they would be playing harder down the stretch so there would still be a good playoff race. The issue that I have is that if you add 1 WC team then that would mean there are 5 teams in the playoffs and how would that work.

 

[msgkings322]

I don't see the comparison between baseball which uses a best of 5 for WC series and the Final 4 which is a single elimination game. Any team can beat any team once it becomes much harder when you have to face them in a series. Also the argument about watering down the playoff race in the regular season is the same argument that was made about adding a playoff, and the WC when they were introduced. Adding a WC would keep teams in it longer and they would be playing harder down the stretch so there would still be a good playoff race. The issue that I have is that if you add 1 WC team then that would mean there are 5 teams in the playoffs and how would that work.

Actually, that brings up a reasonable point in favor of adding a WC. Some of the ideas I've seen floated are having the 2 WCs play a 1 game playoff (best record = home team) as a 'play in game' to then face the top seed division winner. This would actually make teams strive that much harder to win their divisions, as winning the right to play 1 crazy game is much less valuable than guaranteeing a playoff series. So more teams get a shot, but winning your division is that much more important.

I could maybe support that kind of system. You'll of course still have cases where the 85 win 2nd WC beats the 92 win 1st WC in that game, and gets hot and wins the WS, but I doubt that happens often.

 

[calsnowskier]

[/B]

Actually, that brings up a reasonable point in favor of adding a WC. Some of the ideas I've seen floated are having the 2 WCs play a 1 game playoff (best record = home team) as a 'play in game' to then face the top seed division winner. This would actually make teams strive that much harder to win their divisions, as winning the right to play 1 crazy game is much less valuable than guaranteeing a playoff series. So more teams get a shot, but winning your division is that much more important.

I could maybe support that kind of system. You'll of course still have cases where the 85 win 2nd WC beats the 92 win 1st WC in that game, and gets hot and wins the WS, but I doubt that happens often.

This was the idea I heard a few months back that sold me on the idea of adding a 5th team. I also want to go one further and give the #1 seed a 4-1 home field advantage against the winner of the play-in game, giving a larger incentive to finish the season with the best record.

Tiered rewards will REALLY add importance to the regular season.

 

[Giantsmojo]

[/B]

Actually, that brings up a reasonable point in favor of adding a WC. Some of the ideas I've seen floated are having the 2 WCs play a 1 game playoff (best record = home team) as a 'play in game' to then face the top seed division winner. This would actually make teams strive that much harder to win their divisions, as winning the right to play 1 crazy game is much less valuable than guaranteeing a playoff series. So more teams get a shot, but winning your division is that much more important.

I could maybe support that kind of system. You'll of course still have cases where the 85 win 2nd WC beats the 92 win 1st WC in that game, and gets hot and wins the WS, but I doubt that happens often.

Now I see where he is getting the Basketball finals comparison, and I don't like single elimination, even a best of 3 would be better.

Though there is a possibility that a WC team has a better record then a division winner, like the Yankees over Texas this year or Rockies over St Louis last year. If the regular season standings are to mean something then the seeding in the playoffs should reflect their records not just whether they are division winners or not.

 

[tzill]

I'd be OK with the extra round of playoffs if two things happend:

1. the doubleheader (not "day/night" verison, but the old "second game 45 mins after the first game" version) was brought back; and
2. Interleague play was eliminated.

The first would keep the length of the season at six months (I'm thinking 6 DH a year) and the second would insure equal schedules for teams competing for the division and WC.