Cubs v. Pirates Wednesday. Oh boy!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Cubs v. Pirates Wednesday. Oh boy!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The dude abides.
I hate the 1-game Wildcard format. In the NL you have 2 teams with nearly 100 wins and one will go home after 1 fucking playoff game. That's not right.Originally Posted by JBHuskers
I've said this for months now. Doubleheader, and if there is a split, game 3 the next day.
The dude abides.
All in the same city? If not, the deciding game is played at WC2? Not sure about that.
Yeah, give the advantage to the top wild card.
The dude abides.
So, you're saying all 3 games in the same city?
It's better than no wild card. Time is the problem. The regular season is too long.
One day, there will be a WC1 with 100 wins and a WC2 with 85. I don't think that a 1-game playoff should separate them.
The old "the season is too long" makes you sound Canadian.
I definitely agree about wild card length. Just make it a 3 game series. Give both teams a real chance other than this one game playoff. They would never make the divisional series a one game series, so why does the wild card have to be?
WC2-Game 1
WC1- Games 2 & 3
I'd just like to know who thought baseball was too short at 154 games and lengthened it to 162. If they went back to 154 you could have longer post season series before it starts snowing up here. It's great the Jays have a dome but Minnesota would be brutal.
When you're at 154, 8 more seems irrelevant. 100 games should be the number. The NBA should go to 60.
58 would be perfect. Play every other team in the NBA twice, one home and one away.
I say you just seed them based off of record and the bottom two teams play the one game wildcard. Why should winning a crappy division seed a team higher than a team with more wins
That's a good argument for every sport. But if you do that you might as well get rid of divisions (I'm not that opposed to the idea) . Look at how the NFL has allowed some crappy teams in the playoffs and gave them home field.
I'm fine with divisions for the sake of rivalries, but definitely not when it comes to the playoffs. The NBA has thankfully discovered logic when it comes to playoff seeding. Now the NFL, NHL and MLB just need to follow suit.
I like the NBA seeding arrangement as well.
The only problem with it is that if you're still using divisions, then the schedule is lopsided and you can't trust that the best team is the #1 seed.
I'm sure Golden State would have had way more wins if they played in the East last season.
If the real reason for divisions is to cut down on travel costs, then maybe all the leagues need to look at creating a revenue sharing travel fund so that every team pays the exact same amount for travel costs.
In hockey, I used to hate that Detroit played in the Western Conference and traveled 50,000 miles a season while New Jersey had only slept outside their own beds 6x in an entire season.
If baseball were to iron out the DH league, I'd love to see a 30-team league with no divisions, conferences, etc.
The seasons are getting too long as it is (in all sports) so for MLB, if every team played 5x, that would be 145 games. If you still wanted to get to 162, sprinkle in roaming 'rivalry' games so Boston and NY could still go at it.
It might not work for MLB because of the tradition, but for a sport like hockey, I'd be all for it.
After they expand to 32 teams, shorten the season to 62 games and have everyone play a home-and-home series.
Just do it like the NFL.
6 teams make it from the NL and AL. Top two get a bye. Wild Card Round, Best of 3. Divisional Round, Best of 5. ALCS, NLCS, WS Best of 7.
The dude abides.
I'd like that system too.
The only problem is the season is already so dang long that they'd be playing till US Thanksgiving.
They need to drop back to 154 games so the WS is finished well before Halloween. The colder it gets, the less offense. The season should really be wrapping up by mid October at the latest.
You can still keep the divisions. The division winner gets an automatic bid into the playoffs so it still keeps the division rivalry and those teams fighting for the top spot because it's the only way to get in. They just might have to play in the one game Wild Card game. Maybe you don't call it a Wild Card game, but just the 1st round where it's one game winner take all.
I agree that other sports could have this argument too. I don't have too much of an issue with the NFL other than the fact that the division winner gets home field advantage. Go 6 teams, top two get a bye and the others are seeded based on record. Once again you still have the divisions mean something because it is the only way some of those teams get in.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks