It looks like a virtual done deal according to this story. If you can't do anything about the salary disparity between the haves and the have-nots then I suppose this is the next best alternative.
A play in round with two additional teams in each league seems to be the developing consensus. The sticking point may be deciding on whether they play a one game winner advances versus a best of three series to advance.
The one gamer seems to be the best although from MLB's point of view, the more playoff games they can market to the network, the better. MORE PLAYOFF GAMES = MORE MONEY.
A three-game series may disadvantage the other teams in the playoffs. The "rest vs. rust" dilemma. My guess would be a three-game set wins the day.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-gmmeetings
“I think the more teams you have in it, the month of September will obviously be more meaningful,” said Toronto Blue Jays president Paul Beeston, Selig’s onetime No. 2. “The minuses - two of them obviously are the integrity of the schedule and the history of the game, where you know the best teams always moved forward. But we really crossed that bridge, didn’t we, when we went from two teams to four teams, and then four teams to eight teams? So that bridge has been crossed. I’ve changed. I could add more teams.”
As for the expanded playoffs, there appears to be more discussion of how to do it rather than whether to do it.
Many thought a winner-take-all one-game meeting of wild cards in each league wouldn’t be fair.
“It doesn’t seem right,” Atlanta Braves chairman emeritus Bill Bartholomay said. “But people will have to take a look at it.”
Best-of-three could be a middle ground for the wild-card round. Selig and team officials worry about the World Series ending even later than it current does - it went into November for the second straight year, even though the San Francisco Giants beat Texas in five games.
No comments:
Post a Comment