From: mlbruce@husc9.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Inevitable changes
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:20:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc9.mlbruce.717798015

eiswirth@vixvax.mgi.com (Steve Eiswirth) writes:

>Local (St. Paul-Minneapolis) columnist Pat Reusse has a very interesting piece
>in the paper today.  The gist of it was the following:

>Now that the owner's have their lackey installed as pseudo commish, and the
>TV contract is coming up for renewal, you can count on the following three
>network-influenced changes to baseball:

>	1.  Interleague play
>	2.  The return of the 156 game schedule
>	3.  Wildcard playoff system

>My reaction is this: I'm for a very limited (1 series vs. teams from the other
>league) form of interleague play using home DH-related rules.  There's no
>denying that this will be interesting to see from a fan's perspective.

No doubt it would be "interesting"; whether it would be in the best interests
of baseball is another question. The problem with interleague play is that the
schedule must have one of two evils: either not every team plays every
other team, which would not be fair to those involved. (Imagine the outcry if
the Braves took the pennant by one game in a season in which the Braves swept
the Mariners, while the Reds, instead of getting to play Seattle, had to
struggle against Oakland. Or, every team can play every other team the same
number of games. Assuming one three-game-series at each ballpark and 14 teams
in a league, that's already 84 games-- not much time to face your own division
opponents! Or each team could play but one series; but then who is to decide
which teams are at home and on the road, and how equitable can that system be?
Besides which, playing only one series all year against a given team can
be misleading: teams go hot and cold over the course of the year, and as long
as you face them 4 times a year you're bound to face their best and their
worst.

>I also have no problem with the 156 game schedule; over the long haul it will
>probably put more tension into the pennant races.  Which brings me to my third
>reaction: I don't want to see baseball lose the integrity of the current
>playoff system.  Football's playoff system got worse when they went with
>3 wildcard teams instead of just 1.  Basketball and hockey are a joke, allowing
>teams with LOSING records into the playoffs.  Baseball is the one sport with
>a true champion: if your team can be on top after the grueling regular season,
>your team has truly accomplished something that it can be proud of.  Sure,
>allowing only the two other best teams into the playoffs is not that awful.

Are you sure it isn't? Granted, I'd love to see Felipe Alou's Expos get a
chance to show what they're made of in post-season, but the Pirates beat them
fair and square over the course of a long pennant race.

>But I feel that once you allow two wildcard teams, pretty soon the 3rd place
>teams will be whining that they should be included, and before long you end
>up with a bogus basketball or hockey style playoff system.

AMEN!!! Also, a pet peeve of mine, previously unique to the AL although
that is about to change: September is when the races are at their best, which
is why in the NL teams get a final look at each of their intra-division rivals
guaranteeing a head-to-head showdown. Not so in the American League, where it
is possible for two contenders not to face each other after early August! This
was especially important a year ago, when, instead of facing Boston and
Milwaukee themselves, Toronto spend the entire month as a pseudo-AL West team.
	For all the complaints of TV people (who overpaid for their contracts
and in the case of CBS are giving us crappy coverage anyway) and bad publicity
from owners' coups, the fact remains that America's game is enjoying record
attendance and interest. I realize the coming of expansion teams will make
people call for change (especially that insidious 5-5-4 division system.
Yuk.) if it ain't broke, don't fix it!!! ---MATT 

>Any reactions?
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball