From: hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Bruce M Hasch)
Subject: Re: Inevitable changes
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:03:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.112633.2251@vixvax.mgi.com>, 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

	There was a brief discussion of the interleague play issue a few weeks
ago--I put in my solid NO vote with respect to this, as I believe that inter-
league play would almost necessarily take away from the number of inter-
divisional games, and I think this would be bad for the game.  

>	2.  The return of the 156 game schedule

	I'll show my ignorance.  Is this supposed to happen purely in order
to account for the expanded playoff system?  That's the only reason I could
see for the owners wanting to shorten the regular season.  (Gee, they don't
want to have playoff games played in Mid-November in Milwaukee or Detroit or
[insert big, big smilie] Cleveland)

>	3.  Wildcard playoff system

> [Good reasons why the NFL, NHL, and NBA playoff systems suck toads deleted]

>Any reactions?

	Yuck.  But let's assume that this is inevitable, so I'll make an 
argument as to how I would like to see the playoffs expanded, if, in fact, it
HAS to be done.  

	Let's say you let in ONE wild card team per league.  The wild card 
team plays the winner of the division with the lower regular-season record in a
five-game series.  After a winner is obtained from this series, the Championship
series would start TWO DAYS after the end of the last "wild card" game.  In this
scenario, the team which finishes with the best record in the league would 
receive what amounts to a "bye" in the "wild card" series, and have an 
opportunity to rest up, heal nagging injuries, etc.; while the winner of the
"wild card" series would NOT be rested, and would be unable to reset their
starting rotation in time for the ALCS.  This would give a decided advantage
to the team which finishes with the best record in the league, and I think that
this would be a good thing; as the "Home-Field Advantage" doesn't even exist
with baseball's alternating Home-Field Advantage system in the playoffs.  There
should be some reward for finishing with the league's top record, and this
system would reward such an achievement.  

	Unfortunately, I've got the feeling that the owners will want to add
TWO teams from each league into the playoffs, and create WS matchups between
two teams which finished second in their respective divisions, and I think this
is wrong.  I think such a system would be highly disliked by "true" fans, and
that there would be a tremendous number of upsets, as, IMHO, the talent spread
between competitive baseball teams is smaller than between comparable, say, 
basketball teams.  (It seems that the two "best" teams in the NBA during the
regular season are almost always playing in the NBA finals, even with 16 teams
in the playoffs; on the other hand, even with baseball's current 4-team playoff
system, the team with the best record in baseball tends to get bumped out of the
playoffs frequently...)

	But, again, I'm opposed to any expansion of baseball's playoff system. 
If such an expansion has to occur, I certainly hope that no more than one team
per league is added.   Just my $0.02...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce 'President of the Bill Ripken Fan Club--NOT!!' Hasch
hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu                                   Go O's in '93!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------