From: wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Matthew Wall)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expand the Play-offs
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:27:58 GMT
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: Swarthmore College Computing Center

In article <Bx8wEp.AG2@zoo.toronto.edu>, rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim
Rising) wrote:
> 
> As the number of ML teams increases via expansion, it seems to me
> that it would make sense to expand to three or four leagues, which
> logically would expand the playoffs.  With the present number of
> teams I would prefer to see the playoffs unchanged, although I
> wouldn't be unhappy with a best of 9 series with no days off
> in the midst.

Jim, you're deliberately trying to jump start the hot stove league,
right?!? 8-)

I'm opposed to expanding the playoffs:
(1) it would cheapen the pennant races
(2) the schemes the actual MLBB people are talking about use 2nd place
finishers or wild cards, which would really be heinous. Who'd bother about
first place?
(3) I honestly don't think the non-fanatical public is going to be *more*
interested in more playoff games, given the gigantic yawn which the TV
viewing public has given baseball the last few seasons. What's really
needed is a more competitive, interesting season.
  (a) more baseball coverage on national broadcast TV, more hype on a 'game
of the week'. Scrap the Saturday afternoon slot and add a weeknight slot
like football. Cf. the six or so games broadcast on CBS! I didn't even
bother checking the listings most weeks, and *I'm* a complete diehard.
  (b) fewer games during the regular season to make it more interesting.
Let's face it, the expansion to 154 and later to 162 was to increase the
number of dates of paid attendance in an era when that was the only way to
make money, and the public had an insatiable appetite for baseball in
person. Decreasing the schedule to, say, 140 dates with more double headers
would make the ticketed seat a rarer commodity and probably not hurt paid
attendance (given the empties in most MLB ballparks) and would make each
game that much more interesting and important for the TV audience.
  (c) better divisional scheduling to emphasize divisional rivalries. The
"balanced" schedule now in use in both leagues is a really stupid marketing
maneuver, and as a fan, I'm not sure that I care so much about, say, the
Red Sox - Angels games as I do Red Sox - Yankees and Red Sox - Blue Jays.
But the Red Sox play each team the same number of times.

One proposal I did sort of like in BBW was to scrap the American and
National Leagues, and reorganize into 4 or 6 regional divisions. You could
then use one Wild Card (ugh) to round out 8-team playoffs, or have 6-team
playoffs with the team with the best record being given a first round bye
in a two-tier championship system. You could get really good regional
rivalries, like an all-Southern division and an all-Western division, and
spice it up with rare visits from every team as in the NBA or NFL. 

But I still think more playoffs would bore most people and cheapen the
regular season. So...

I will trot out my (tm) Personal Playoff Plan, or, How I'll Save Baseball:

(a) put a payroll tax on all player salaries of 10%. Put the money in a
pool and add it to the normal World Series receipts.
(b) Let the two DIVISIONAL losers from the Championship series play a
5-game playoff for "3rd place" - a mini World Series before the regular
World Series. 
(c) take the $$ pool and divide it among the winners as follows:

Winner of the World Series: 50% of pool divided among the players
Loser of the World Series: 35% " " " 
Winner of the Little World Series: 15% of the pool
Loser of the Little World Series: Nothing. Yep. nothing.

The World Series pool ought to be around $80 million. Each player on the
winning World Series team would make over $1 million.

If you wanted to make it really interesting, charge each team's ownership
$1 million a year to play (or take 10% of all local TV contracts to be fair
to small market teams); take the $28 million or so and divide it up between
the winning owners using the above formula.

Of course, the players and owners would never go for this, but think how
much fan interest there'd be! Money speaks loudly in the US, and I think a
great deal of the hostility the general public has for professional
baseball has to do with two groups of greedheads, the players and owners,
bellyaching about not making enough money. Making a Win equal with Making
Money would help the desire of both teams and players to win and would
ignite the fans. Incentives, shall we say.

As I said, I'm still waiting for that call from Jerry Reinsdorf to become
Commissioner.

- Matt
 
---------------------------------------------------------
This space left intentionally blank until spring training.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball