By bigger, a second wild-card in each league? A best-of-7, rather than best-of-5, divisional series? Both?

More games = more revenue = more money for salaries

This doesn't seem like an especially important concession on the part of the players.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

"Sure, we'd listen if television money called."

I hate everything about expanding the playoffs. The only upside would be that the season would HAVE to be shortened to, at least, 154 games.

I favor any scheme that gets Detroit into the playoffs!

2010 AL Seeding
1 – Tampa Bay 96-66
2 – Minnesota 94-68
3 – Texas 90-72
4 – New York 95-67
5 – Boston 89-73
6 – Chicago 88-74
7 – Toronto 85-77
8 – Detroit/Oakland 81-81

2010 NL Seeding
1 – Philadelphia 97-65
2 – San Francisco 92-70
3 – Cincinnati 91-71
4 – Atlanta 91-71
5 – San Diego 90-72
6 – St. Louis 86-76
7 – Colorado 83-79
8 – Florida/Los Angeles 80-82

By bigger, a second wild-card in each league? A best-of-7, rather than best-of-5, divisional series? Both?

I think they meant the games would be played in a giant field, with giant baseballs and giant bats.

So shortening the regular season in return for more playoffs in practical terms as players wouldn't be thrilled with mid-November baseball

Pros for players:
- More off days
- Bigger share for playoffs

Cons for players:
- Not all the players would see the bigger share of playoff money.

Anyone care to add?

This time it would count.

The only upside would be that the season would HAVE to be shortened to, at least, 154 games.

Ugh. That would suck. That's less baseball for a lot of fans, plus you have the messiness of records for a 154 vs. 162 game season (I know we've dealt with that before, but why do it again?)

The only upside is that doing so many post-season games leaves Tim McCarver and Joe Buck hoarse for the World Series and they are unable to work.

They should shorten the regular season one week to 156 games and play more day/night separate-admission doubleheaders.

One of the things I like about baseball is that making the postseason is a real accomplishment, and you don't have teams with losing records in the postseason (barely, 2005 Padres). Combine that with the fact that baseball is by far the least decisive of the major sports, and the playoffs are big enough as it is. The only expansion I could support would be some sort of wildcard play-in, but even that is questionable due to the timing issue, and I wouldn't want those stats to count for either the regular or postseason records.

I don't see shortening the regular season happening. This isn't the NBA, or the NHL - the owners make their money off those regular-season games. The playoffs are just gravy.

I can't wait for that race between the 6th and 7th best teams for the final playoff spot in the AL, while seeds 1-5 take the final three weeks off to get rested and healthy for the playoffs. All for the privilege of seeing mediocre weak team suddenly get hot and make a run to the World Series. That will be some undeniably compelling stuff.

So who will be the first to be annoited Mr. December?

This is ridiculous. Goodbye pennant races, nice knowing ya. Why is the NBA regular season irrelevant? Who the hell cares about whether the 8th and 9th best teams can make the playoffs? Of all the things broke w/ baseball, this aint it. This is $$$$, nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, and union would never go for more doubleheaders, believe they've come out strongly against that on numerous occasions. Players hate them (for good reason).

How bout a 162 game playoff with the best two teams playing for all the marbles in a championship round?
Ya know, kinda like what we used to have.
Just saying...

How bout a 162 game playoff with the best two teams playing for all the marbles in a championship round?
Ya know, kinda like what we used to have.
Just saying...

Someone once said that baseball from 1903-68 had the greatest playoff system known to man: The regular season.

This is what you all get for whining about the 5-game opening DS's.

As recently as 2006, Boston finished with the 8th best record in the AL so that's how far Bud is going to have to dilute the playoffs to reasonably guarantee FOX gets the only two teams they care about into the playoffs every year.

I have found the current addition of playoff teams to be more laborious to follow if I don't have a team I am emotionally attached to involved. Under the old system of LCS and WS was an event and something I looked forward to no matter who the opponents were. I do get excited over the first round and the LCS but by the World Series and the extended breaks involved I find it difficult to get excited for the World Series.

In addition any more extension of playoffs will cheapen the September races. Granted more teams will be involved in the hunt for the post season but it will be teams closer to .500 than teams with 95 to 105 wins.

I would be in favor of #17. It always seems MLB makes radical change close to the conclusion of great races. After the 1967 AL Pennant Race they go to two divisions. After the great NL West race between the Giants and Braves they go to the Wild Card.

I would also add to my views on #21 that the overwhelming amount of interleague has cheapened my interest in the World Series. Prior to interleague at the least the perception of the World Series opponents were from different baseball worlds existed.

How bout a 162 game playoff with the best two teams playing for all the marbles in a championship round?
Ya know, kinda like what we used to have.

Giant disadvantage to all western teams. They'd spend a third of their season on far-flung road trips, while eastern teams would spend two (AL) or four (NL) weeks. Unless you propose an everyone-west-of-the-Rockies-is-now-a-National-League-fan realignment scheme.

This is without even getting into purely aesthetic issues like the outrage of rivals facing off just three times per season.

I have found the current addition of playoff teams to be more laborious to follow if I don't have a team I am emotionally attached to involved. Under the old system of LCS and WS was an event and something I looked forward to no matter who the opponents were. I do get excited over the first round and the LCS but by the World Series and the extended breaks involved I find it difficult to get excited for the World Series.

This is true for both avid and casual fans. I agre this even happens in the three round MLB setup today. Even worse in the NBA & NHL playoffs when people stop paying attention if they have no attachment to the teams left in it. Its tough to get excited, thinking THIS ONE MATTERS, for three straight months.

"How bout a 162 game playoff with the best two teams playing for all the marbles in a championship round?
Ya know, kinda like what we used to have."

for 8 years, but ok, got it

obvious prob is all the frikking teams. kinda impossible to regress to 20, or 16

Only change I would make is change the Division series to seven games.

Weiner proves to be more of a money-grubbing sleaze than Seligula. That's an accomplishment, although pretty dubious.

#22 the concern with the 1969 expansion was "you can't sell an 11th place team". I'm sure some old coot like Ford rick remembered the 1890s and pushed that line. Not sure if you can sell a fifth place team a whole lot better.

Looking on the bright side. You could watch a World Series in Mid November when the snow lets up) without having to suffer through those horrible commercials both political parties feel it is necessary to elect their thieves to office.

Ugh. That would suck. That's less baseball for a lot of fans,

For Royals, Pirates and Orioles fans, it'd be a positive mercy.

It's been mentioned before, but I'd enjoy a mandatory 1-game play-in for the Wild Card.

I would argue the way they have it right now is as close to "perfect" (some ambiguous thing anyways in this case) as it can get. The addition of the Wild Card adds intrigue and keeps roughly half the teams contending into September. The playoffs are fairly random but not completely a crapshoot. The regular season is important but not so damning so that 90% of the teams have no rooting interest (other than draft position and other relative minutiae) past the ASB.

The one problem I have with the system as is is the five game division series, which is a bit too random for my liking and rewards the WC team too heavily. Make them seven games so the division winner gets to prove their superiority over a longer sample.

the concern with the 1969 expansion was "you can't sell an 11th place team". I'm sure some old coot like Ford rick remembered the 1890s and pushed that line. Not sure if you can sell a fifth place team a whole lot better.

I think the idea of being unable to sell an 11th place team wasn't so much the position in the standings as it was the number of games back. It's hard to sell a 2nd place team if they're 30 games out of first place. I think the competition is fairly tight at the top in most cases. Tight enough that you always have at least a couple interesting races to watch. The theory behind expanding the playoffs is that you'd then get even more teams into the mix so you could make more money off the potential playoff spot. It's really not surprising at all, and as long as you keep the pool of teams who've locked up postseason slots early fairly small, I think you've hit the sweet spot.

I'd much rather see expanded playoffs if they were to do something truly revolutionary and do away with the traditional bracket style of postseason and move to a combintation of pool competition and bracket. In my world, with 6 or 8 playoff teams, you'd have all the playoff teams in a league play each other twice, with the top two advancing to a 7-game LCS and then a 7 game WS. In the pool round, higher seeds would get more home games and more consistent travel schedules. Heck, you could even add the pool wins/losses to a regular season W/L score to have the regular season record still count some in the pool standings. Yes, I play way too much OOTP.

Goodbye pennant races, nice knowing ya.

That's what we said in 1969.

Only change I would make is change the Division series to seven games.

Is that even on the table as an option? It's my first (and only thought) on how to "fix" the current system. Does anyone in charge see it that way? If not -- why?

I'd much rather see expanded playoffs if they were to do something truly revolutionary and do away with the traditional bracket style of postseason and move to a combintation of pool competition and bracket. In my world, with 6 or 8 playoff teams, you'd have all the playoff teams in a league play each other twice, with the top two advancing to a 7-game LCS and then a 7 game WS.

In other words, the baseball equivalent of the Chase for the Cup. Hey, it might gain MLB a few more fans in NASCAR country.

I'd much rather see expanded playoffs if they were to do something truly revolutionary and do away with the traditional bracket style of postseason and move to a combintation of pool competition and bracket. In my world, with 6 or 8 playoff teams, you'd have all the playoff teams in a league play each other twice, with the top two advancing to a 7-game LCS and then a 7 game WS. In the pool round, higher seeds would get more home games and more consistent travel schedules. Heck, you could even add the pool wins/losses to a regular season W/L score to have the regular season record still count some in the pool standings. Yes, I play way too much OOTP.

I like the concept, but there are a few drawbacks. First, in the case where you add regular season W/L to the standings, in the case where you have a 103 game winner and an 87 game winner in the post-season, the 87 game winner would be eliminated right off the bat. From 1995 on, this may have happened in at least one of those years if this were in place. Which bring up the second drawback -- once a team is eliminated there is no incentive for them to play well, or for the fans to show up, in a fixed-length period. Injury concerns would cause teams to shut down their best starters. Basically, it'll be the end of September all over again.

I think the way to rectify these concerns is the following -- have a floating target rather than a fixed set of games (i.e. first team to win 7 games wins the pennant), have extreme power-pairing and extreme home-field advantage. Personally, I would love a situation where we just eliminate the division series and LCS altogether and replace it with a 4-team tournament, where the tournament ends once a team reaches 7 wins. Seed 1 would host Seed 4 for four games while Seed 2 hosts Seed 3, day off, then Seed 1 would host Seed 3 for 4 games and Seed 2 hosts Seed 4, day off, then Seed 1 would host Seed 2 for four games while Seed 3 hosts Seed 4. One game playoff if two teams hit 7 wins on same day. Highest seed always has home field, which is a major reward for winning in the regular season. And if Seed 4 manages to win, they'll get home games in the World Series.

This type of solution seems equitable as a team will likely play all its league's playoff teams but rewards the highest seed, has a setup comparable to the regular season, and it eliminates the monotony of being caught up in endless progression of playoff series like in the NBA and NHL. The World Series would be special again as it's the only direct best-of-seven against one opponent.

"How bout a 162 game playoff with the best two teams playing for all the marbles in a championship round?
Ya know, kinda like what we used to have."

Great! That way, all of us non-Yankee fans can get on to more important things by Labor Day. Since the inception of the wild card, the Yankees have had the best record in the AL 6 times (and tied with Oakland once); the Braves have had the best record in the NL 7 times.

No thanks. I rather enjoy the fact my team doesn't have to beat the teams on the coasts (who have extraordinary financial advantages) to make the playoffs.

In other words, the baseball equivalent of the Chase for the Cup. Hey, it might gain MLB a few more fans in NASCAR country.

I am blissfully unaware of most things NASCAR.

I like the concept, but there are a few drawbacks. First, in the case where you add regular season W/L to the standings, in the case where you have a 103 game winner and an 87 game winner in the post-season, the 87 game winner would be eliminated right off the bat.

Well, I was actually thinking more along the lines of dividing by 10 and rounding down... so the 103 win team would only be 2 games ahead of the 87 win team.

That said, I like the rest of your idea slightly better than mine. The big concern is that I don't think MLB teams will go for a postseason schedule with no guaranteed home games.

Anyway, I'm just brainstorming as I think an additional round of postseason games, under a bracket structure like we currently have, just isn't that enticing.

This proposals seems like an inevitability. One of the characteristics that makes baseball unique is that you get so many opportunities to get to know the players, teams, managers and coaches' personalities and tendencies. You follow your team a lot more than you do the rest of the league (like the NFL, and increasingly, the NBA). Other sports in which fans follow individual teams over the league as a whole (like NCAA fb and bb) bring way more teams into the postseason to keep more fans engaged longer. I watch about 100 Twins games a year and probably 30-40 games that do not involve the Twins at all. Once they are out of the playoffs, my investment goes way down. If more teams are involved longer, I think it will make more fan bases care about the regular season, even if the pennant races are less interesting. Still, having six teams with two getting a first round bye would give some incentive not to rest for the last couple of weeks and would still invite only teams with good records. I think the three division winners and the three next best records would be a fine system.

Why, so they can be playing on xmas day? Stupid.

So who will be the first to be annoited Mr. December?

This guy.

7 game divisional series, 1-3 game playoff for the wild card teams.

And the postseason RBI and K leaders get to wear "Tour De France" style yellow jerseys denoting their status. If they lose the lead in the middle of an at bat they have to get the jersey off before the next pitch.

And I'm not just saying this as a disgruntled 2010 Phillies fan, but perhaps the MLB team with the best regular-season record could receive an honor (like the NHL Presidents' Trophy) before the playoffs start...

OK, if we're really just blue-sking ideas here...

Two 16 team leagues where all teams play all others 6 times (90 games). Then stop for the All-Star break in mid-July, and create a top division and a bottom division. The top half plays only each other the rest of the way (42 games). Reshuffle, the top four play only each other the rest of the way (18 games). 150 total game season, then a 7 game NLCS and a best of 9 World Series, with seedings for the home field advantage decided by prior head-to-head play in that season.

Now that we're out of the dual-use stadium era, and most teams don't even share parking lots, there's no conflict with the NFL. It buys you an extra week in April and two extra weeks in October to avoid weather issues.

Yes, there are downsides, notably revenue. Let me be naive and hope that owners and players could find a way to share the pain.

"How bout a 162 game playoff with the best two teams playing for all the marbles in a championship round?
Ya know, kinda like what we used to have."

Or, to put my objection another way:

In each league, 20 teams have had the best record (including ties) since the start of the wild card. In the NL, 10 of those teams were in the top-3 in payroll in the league and 13 in the top 5; in the NL, 11 were in the top 3 and 14 in the top 5.

Again, as a fan of a team that cannot compete with the coastal and Chicago teams in payroll, no thanks.

And the postseason RBI and K leaders get to wear "Tour De France" style yellow jerseys denoting their status.

That would actually be really cool during the regular season. You'd probably have to choose something besides polka dots, though.

And I'm not just saying this as a disgruntled 2010 Phillies fan, but perhaps the MLB team with the best regular-season record could receive an honor (like the NHL Presidents' Trophy) before the playoffs start...

I'm kinda amazed we don't have something like this. Baseball is really bad about establishing traditions for their trophies. What is the World Series trophy called again?

I would be in favor of #17. It always seems MLB makes radical change close to the conclusion of great races. After the 1967 AL Pennant Race they go to two divisions. After the great NL West race between the Giants and Braves they go to the Wild Card.

Baseball needs to stop trying to follow the other sports and instead really establish its own niche. If anything they need less playoffs, not more. You don't want people losing interest in the WS because the playoff season takes two months. Be the innovator, stop trying to be like the NBA.

What is the World Series trophy called again?

Working from memory, the Commissioner's Trophy .