MLB new playoffs idea

[Hornsstampede2.0]

1969- Having two divisions instead of just winning the pennant? It will never work.

1985- A best of 7 Championship series instead of 5 game. It will never work.

1995- Adding a wildcard is the dumbest idea. It will never work.

2011- A single elimination Wildcard game? That is silly. It will never work.

2013- An unfair unbalanced division schedule affecting playoff races? It will never work.

2020- 7 playoff teams. It will never work.

2029- Wildly successful future playoff format change. It will never work......

 

[Robotech]

1969- Having two divisions instead of just winning the pennant? It will never work.

1985- A best of 7 Championship series instead of 5 game. It will never work.

1995- Adding a wildcard is the dumbest idea. It will never work.

2011- A single elimination Wildcard game? That is silly. It will never work.

2013- An unfair unbalanced division schedule affecting playoff races? It will never work.

2020- 7 playoff teams. It will never work.

2029- Wildly successful future playoff format change. It will never work......

What's being discussed is 14 teams making the playoffs. Fans will accept expanding the number of playoff teams like they always have before, and like they have for football, basketball, and hockey, but having so many playoff teams cheapens how a champion is determined. At some point in the future, let's have 24 teams make the playoffs.

 

[Cedrique]

1969- Having two divisions instead of just winning the pennant? It will never work.

1985- A best of 7 Championship series instead of 5 game. It will never work.

1995- Adding a wildcard is the dumbest idea. It will never work.

2011- A single elimination Wildcard game? That is silly. It will never work.

2013- An unfair unbalanced division schedule affecting playoff races? It will never work.

2020- 7 playoff teams. It will never work.

2029- Wildly successful future playoff format change. It will never work......

You have a point. But I do see some potential issues with this particular plan. Like if you have one of those years where it looks like that 7th spot is going to be a sub .500 team. I could see a team that normally would have no business thinking about the playoffs try to buy their way in by taking on a bunch of rentals before the trade deadline. Especially if 2 of them are starting pitchers. Then if they squeak in at 5 games under .500 and they just have to win a 3 game series to advance. Even better, if they win the 3 game series they may not even have to play the best team in the next round. The best team may see that their recent additions makes them a tougher out than some other team that had a better record and choose not to play them.

I know rental players have been a thing for years but I think this could tempt teams into doing things that may hurt them long term.

 

[Cedrique]

What's being discussed is 14 teams making the playoffs. Fans will accept expanding the number of playoff teams like they always have before, and like they have for football, basketball, and hockey, but having so many playoff teams cheapens how a champion is determined. At some point in the future, let's have 24 teams make the playoffs.

That's a great point. The way it has been up to now the way to boost your teams popularity and build your fan base, increase attendance, etc. is to win your division and then win the world series. Then the attendance usually stays up for a couple years after. Even a relatively small market team like the Royals increased their attendance by about a million between like 2013 and 2015. I'm assuming their tv ratings and everything else increased too.

But if you dilute the playoffs with too many teams and you see the 4th best wild card team with the world series a couple times I don't think a team like that generates as much excitement winning the division knowing they have to win a bunch of playoff series. Also if a marginal wild card team does win the world series and part of it is from loading up on deadline players that they dump the next year I don't think they benefit nearly as much the next year as a team who wins the world series the way it is now.

 

[Robotech]

That's a great point. The way it has been up to now the way to boost your teams popularity and build your fan base, increase attendance, etc. is to win your division and then win the world series. Then the attendance usually stays up for a couple years after. Even a relatively small market team like the Royals increased their attendance by about a million between like 2013 and 2015. I'm assuming their tv ratings and everything else increased too.

But if you dilute the playoffs with too many teams and you see the 4th best wild card team with the world series a couple times I don't think a team like that generates as much excitement winning the division knowing they have to win a bunch of playoff series. Also if a marginal wild card team does win the world series and part of it is from loading up on deadline players that they dump the next year I don't think they benefit nearly as much the next year as a team who wins the world series the way it is now.

Good points. I'm not even looking at it from a money standpoint. Sure, if the survival of the league depends on it, then you make whatever changes are needed in order for the league to survive. I'm just looking at this from an integrity standpoint. I want the World Series winner to actually be a good team. It's already possible now for a mediocre team to win World Series, but the more you open up the playoffs to more teams, then the greater the chances of some mediocre (and in my mind, undeserving) team to win the World Series.

 

[PhilSimms11]

AL
(1)HOU (107-55)*
(2)NYY (103-59)*
(3)MIN (101-61)*
(4)OAK (97-65)
(5)TB (96-66)
(6)CLE (93-69)

NL
(1)LAD (106-56)*
(2)ATL (97-65)*
(3)WAS (93-69)
(4)STL (91-71)*
(5)MIL (89-73)
(6)NYM (86-76)
*division winner

I think this model would be better....if they were to expand. Going from 10 to 12 is fine, but 10 to 14 seems a bit extreme. This format would replicate the NFL model. (1) and (2)--byes; (3) vs (6) and (4) vs (5).