Baseball and the postseason

statfreak · 10-26-2004, 01:59 PM

I'd like to see Baseball use neutral stadiums for the World Series (kind of like what football does for the Superbowl).

Baseball was not meant to be played in sub 50 degree weather and in the rain.

All WS games should be held out west (California, Arizona, etc...), in Texas, or in Florida. Anywhere the temp is 60 degrees (fahrenheit <--- spelling?!?)or above and relatively dry. Domes would be good, except that I'd want them to have retractable roofs and natural grass.

I think about a quarter of the fans that attend the games would take vacations and fly to wherever the series was being held. That might be a very optimistic estimate.

Well, I'd love to hear your thoughts...

Gastric ReFlux · 10-26-2004, 02:02 PM

I think we need to have a month, say August, that's nothing but doubleheaders. That way the postseason could be played in September. Thankxss peace out!

ctorg · 10-26-2004, 02:12 PM

Baseball just isn't like football, I think. People go to the Superbowl to see the Superbowl. People go to the World Series to watch their favorite team play. That's how I see it anyway. And I don't mind baseball in cold climates.

Skipaway · 10-26-2004, 02:20 PM

I think this is just a new scam to force every city into building new stadiums with roof and warming system for their team.

Erik W. · 10-26-2004, 03:00 PM

No. Hell no. Hell ****ing no.

WORST. IDEA. EVER.

A big part of baseball is the unique parks. Fenway. Wrigley. Even that horrific eyesore designed by a deranged lunatic Minutemaid. Don't kill baseball tradition any further, thanks.

congobeast · 10-26-2004, 03:15 PM

Agree with all the responses thus far.
Baseball is a very different game than football. While cold weather ball may not be ideal, it is a matter of fact. The fact that the weather's colder at the end of October than at the beginning may be a good argument to end the season earlier, as it did before the Wild Card; and even before Division Series.

That said, I'd be much, much more in favor of a compressed season (say, +14 doubleheaders during the year) than neutral site baseball. Frankly, that's just silly.

Not that I'd vote for either option if given a "No to Both" vote.

CMH · 10-26-2004, 03:17 PM

The thing is, I wouldn't put it past Bud Selig to have considered this (considered isn't necessarily a bad thing. He should be considering every possibility to increase attendance and revenue).

But, I think the World Series suffers from being 4-7 games. If it were 1-3 then it would be much more realistic.

THe idea overall isn't terrible though. It would give fans from across the country to experience the World Series in their homestate. If it did push for new stadiums with domes and such, then every city would have an opportunity to host the World Series (at least two cities a year, maybe?) In addition, we already know that a majority of the fans watch one game at the stadium and then go home to watch the rest. Very rare for a fan to be at every single World Series game. So it wouldn't affect a vast majority of the attendance. It would encourage tourism and even more spending for the surrounding cities. I see revenue $ all over the place with an idea like this.

It just won't happen.

Joshv02 · 10-26-2004, 04:33 PM

i like the passion that comes with the lack of neutrality. The SB lacks that passion, imho. The who's your papi chant, silly as it is, wouldn't happen in Tampa Bay.

CBL-Commish · 10-26-2004, 04:34 PM

Answer this: If you were, say, a Dodgers fan and your team just was eliminated and went home for the season would you then shell out $100 or $1000 a ticket to go see the Red Sox and the Cards play in the Dodgers' park? I know I wouldn't.

Or, from another angle: I'm a big Virginia Tech football fan. I go to most every bowl game, including the National Championship game in 1999. Would I have gone to more than one game if the Championship had been a best-of-seven series? Not bloody likely unless each ticket was a lot cheaper since I was already shelling out over $1000 for the trip, not including tickets.

Strike three: Which would you rather have, stadiums packed to the rafters with rabid Sox/Cards fans in their own parks, or a randomly selected stadium 2000 miles away filled one-third with fans, one-third full of people who just wanted to be part of the World Series, and one-third full of locals who won tickets from some contest?

JDOldSchool · 10-26-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azamien

No. Hell no. Hell ****ing no.

WORST. IDEA. EVER.

A big part of baseball is the unique parks. Fenway. Wrigley. Even that horrific eyesore designed by a deranged lunatic Minutemaid. Don't kill baseball tradition any further, thanks.

Wrigley is the true horrific eyesore. It's old, crumbling, has absolutely horrible sightlines. The food is bad, the seats are uncomfortable, the "fans" are moronic and the baseball is usually not very good.

I'm sick of the Wrigley love. The place is a dump.

Hondo · 10-26-2004, 04:55 PM

No way. A neutral site is a bad, bad idea.

Cardinal Rule · 10-26-2004, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Strike three: Which would you rather have, stadiums packed to the rafters with rabid Sox/Cards fans in their own parks, or a randomly selected stadium 2000 miles away filled one-third with fans, one-third full of people who just wanted to be part of the World Series, and one-third full of locals who won tickets from some contest?

Yeah - just look at many of the lower-tier college bowl games to see what might happen. Not as dramatically, but to some degree. Who wants to see a game between Louisville and BYU in the Metrodome? Who wants to see a World Series between the Cards and Sox in Safeco? Great place to watch a ballgame, but with a neutral city, the fans are, well, neutral. I know many people from around the midwest that are Cardinals fans who will drive 6 hours or so to get to St. Louis for one of the games this week. But I know almost none of those would fly to LA or Seattle or Tampa.

Neutral site is fine for a one-game championship setting, although even then, how much would you give to see the Pats or Eagles hosting the Super Bowl on a snow-covered field? Duke winning a national title in front of the Cameron Crazies? Home-field/court advantage is one of those things that can really be phenomenal for the fans and help them identify with the team.

My opinion is that baseball is just different. Quirky stadiums with different dimensions is part of that. I embrace the cold, or outfield hill, or green monster, or short porch, or minimal foul territory, or swirling winds.

ctorg · 10-27-2004, 08:29 AM

The single game nature of the Super Bowl probably has a lot to do with it, too. It's much easier to get people to come see a do or die kind of game than part of a series.

Elendil · 10-27-2004, 10:24 AM

Let's also not forget that early April is colder and rainier than late October, at least in New England, but you don't hear many complaints about April baseball.

AnotherAlias · 10-27-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by statfreak

I'd like to see Baseball use neutral stadiums for the World Series (kind of like what football does for the Superbowl).

Baseball was not meant to be played in sub 50 degree weather and in the rain.

All WS games should be held out west (California, Arizona, etc...), in Texas, or in Florida. Anywhere the temp is 60 degrees (fahrenheit <--- spelling?!?)or above and relatively dry. Domes would be good, except that I'd want them to have retractable roofs and natural grass.

I think about a quarter of the fans that attend the games would take vacations and fly to wherever the series was being held. That might be a very optimistic estimate.

Well, I'd love to hear your thoughts...

worst.idea.ever.

rudel.dietrich · 10-27-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by statfreak

I'd like to see Baseball use neutral stadiums for the World Series (kind of like what football does for the Superbowl).

Baseball was not meant to be played in sub 50 degree weather and in the rain.

All WS games should be held out west (California, Arizona, etc...), in Texas, or in Florida. Anywhere the temp is 60 degrees (fahrenheit <--- spelling?!?)or above and relatively dry. Domes would be good, except that I'd want them to have retractable roofs and natural grass.

I think about a quarter of the fans that attend the games would take vacations and fly to wherever the series was being held. That might be a very optimistic estimate.

Well, I'd love to hear your thoughts...

I have not found a single post that disagree with more.
You should be ashamed

BaseballMan · 10-27-2004, 06:42 PM

Id rather football switch to the way baseball does it.
Maybe alternate between the AFC and the NFC but have the super bowl in city the representative for that conference.
I know it will never happen but id like to see football like it use to be in the cold adn rain and snow etc. If it goes to somewhere warm like california fine but i think the green bay fans chicago fans should have a chance for the super bowl in their town too. Im sick of seeing the game in new orleans or miami for what the 16th or 20th time.
I know its a money issue.

10-26-2004, 01:59 PM	#1
statfreak Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 2,434	Baseball and the postseason I'd like to see Baseball use neutral stadiums for the World Series (kind of like what football does for the Superbowl). Baseball was not meant to be played in sub 50 degree weather and in the rain. All WS games should be held out west (California, Arizona, etc...), in Texas, or in Florida. Anywhere the temp is 60 degrees (fahrenheit <--- spelling?!?)or above and relatively dry. Domes would be good, except that I'd want them to have retractable roofs and natural grass. I think about a quarter of the fans that attend the games would take vacations and fly to wherever the series was being held. That might be a very optimistic estimate. Well, I'd love to hear your thoughts... __________________ Roll out the barrel!

10-26-2004, 02:12 PM	#3
ctorg Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 9,848	Baseball just isn't like football, I think. People go to the Superbowl to see the Superbowl. People go to the World Series to watch their favorite team play. That's how I see it anyway. And I don't mind baseball in cold climates. __________________ My music "When the trees blow back and forth, that's what makes the wind." - Steven Wright Fjord emena pancreas thorax fornicate marmalade morpheme proteolysis smaxa cabana offal srue vitriol grope hallelujah lentils

10-26-2004, 02:20 PM	#4
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	I think this is just a new scam to force every city into building new stadiums with roof and warming system for their team. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

10-26-2004, 03:15 PM	#6
congobeast Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Western Massachusetts Posts: 469	Agree with all the responses thus far. Baseball is a very different game than football. While cold weather ball may not be ideal, it is a matter of fact. The fact that the weather's colder at the end of October than at the beginning may be a good argument to end the season earlier, as it did before the Wild Card; and even before Division Series. That said, I'd be much, much more in favor of a compressed season (say, +14 doubleheaders during the year) than neutral site baseball. Frankly, that's just silly. Not that I'd vote for either option if given a "No to Both" vote. __________________ (The Boys of Summer) Cleveland Indians 1929-?? (All-Forum Baseball Dynasty) Pittsfield Hillies 2000-?? "I would walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball." Pete Rose

10-26-2004, 04:33 PM	#8
Joshv02 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: , " Posts: 3,082	i like the passion that comes with the lack of neutrality. The SB lacks that passion, imho. The who's your papi chant, silly as it is, wouldn't happen in Tampa Bay. __________________ Brookline Maccabees. RIP

10-26-2004, 02:02 PM	#2
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	I think we need to have a month, say August, that's nothing but doubleheaders. That way the postseason could be played in September. Thankxss peace out!

10-26-2004, 03:00 PM	#5
Erik W. Global Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Rivière-du-Loup, Qc Posts: 4,615	No. Hell no. Hell ****ing no. WORST. IDEA. EVER. A big part of baseball is the unique parks. Fenway. Wrigley. Even that horrific eyesore designed by a deranged lunatic Minutemaid. Don't kill baseball tradition any further, thanks.

10-26-2004, 03:17 PM	#7
CMH Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,057	The thing is, I wouldn't put it past Bud Selig to have considered this (considered isn't necessarily a bad thing. He should be considering every possibility to increase attendance and revenue). But, I think the World Series suffers from being 4-7 games. If it were 1-3 then it would be much more realistic. THe idea overall isn't terrible though. It would give fans from across the country to experience the World Series in their homestate. If it did push for new stadiums with domes and such, then every city would have an opportunity to host the World Series (at least two cities a year, maybe?) In addition, we already know that a majority of the fans watch one game at the stadium and then go home to watch the rest. Very rare for a fan to be at every single World Series game. So it wouldn't affect a vast majority of the attendance. It would encourage tourism and even more spending for the surrounding cities. I see revenue $ all over the place with an idea like this. It just won't happen.

10-26-2004, 04:34 PM	#9
CBL-Commish All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,999	Answer this: If you were, say, a Dodgers fan and your team just was eliminated and went home for the season would you then shell out $100 or $1000 a ticket to go see the Red Sox and the Cards play in the Dodgers' park? I know I wouldn't. Or, from another angle: I'm a big Virginia Tech football fan. I go to most every bowl game, including the National Championship game in 1999. Would I have gone to more than one game if the Championship had been a best-of-seven series? Not bloody likely unless each ticket was a lot cheaper since I was already shelling out over $1000 for the trip, not including tickets. Strike three: Which would you rather have, stadiums packed to the rafters with rabid Sox/Cards fans in their own parks, or a randomly selected stadium 2000 miles away filled one-third with fans, one-third full of people who just wanted to be part of the World Series, and one-third full of locals who won tickets from some contest? __________________ For the best in O's news: Orioles' Hangout.com

10-26-2004, 04:55 PM	#11
Hondo Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 42	No way. A neutral site is a bad, bad idea. __________________ Washington Nationals NL East Champs 2008 Touchdown! Washington Redskins! March to Super Bowl XLIV

10-27-2004, 08:29 AM	#13
ctorg Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 9,848	The single game nature of the Super Bowl probably has a lot to do with it, too. It's much easier to get people to come see a do or die kind of game than part of a series. __________________ My music "When the trees blow back and forth, that's what makes the wind." - Steven Wright Fjord emena pancreas thorax fornicate marmalade morpheme proteolysis smaxa cabana offal srue vitriol grope hallelujah lentils

10-27-2004, 10:24 AM	#14
Elendil Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the dynasty forum Posts: 2,318	Let's also not forget that early April is colder and rainier than late October, at least in New England, but you don't hear many complaints about April baseball. __________________ Heaven is kicking back with a double Talisker and a churchwarden stuffed with latakia.

10-27-2004, 06:42 PM	#17
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,646	Id rather football switch to the way baseball does it. Maybe alternate between the AFC and the NFC but have the super bowl in city the representative for that conference. I know it will never happen but id like to see football like it use to be in the cold adn rain and snow etc. If it goes to somewhere warm like california fine but i think the green bay fans chicago fans should have a chance for the super bowl in their town too. Im sick of seeing the game in new orleans or miami for what the 16th or 20th time. I know its a money issue.