Possible Playoff Expansion

[Señor Rojo]

Per Selig, there is talk of expanding the playoffs to 5 teams in each league. There will be two wild card teams, which will play each other in the first round. The winner of this series will play the division leader with the best record. However, the first round games will not be expanding to 7 games. There also isn't a definitive plan on implementing this, so who knows if and when it will happen.

My one thought is: Where was this format in 1999? :laugh: Thoughts?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6404094

[krm1580]

When I first heard they thinking of adding teams to the playoffs I was adamantly opposed. If however the extra team creates a one game - winner goes to the playoffs as the wild card, loser goes home scenario I would be all for it for 2 reasons.

1.) There should be an advantage to winning your division. If you are forced into a winner takes all 1 game playoff to get in, odds are you will be burning your top starter in that game. If you won, you would realistically be able to use your ace again until game 3 of the playoffs. That would be a pretty big disadvantage for the wild card team.

2.) Playing the wild card team would be a significant advantage and the only way you could fairly administer that advantage is by letting the team with the best record play the wild card. That would mean the elimination of that non-sense where teams can't play each other if they are in the same division in the first round. I have always despised that rule because it was put in for the sole purpose of creating a Yankees and Red Sox ALCS every year. Without it one of those teams would almost always be knocked out in the first round.

[Reds]

I like the idea, but like a friend of mine pointed out do we really want a week of rest before 6 of 10 teams hit the field?

[Señor Rojo]

From the article:


baseball players and owners are considering having the new wild-card round be best-of-three or winner-take-all.

It'll be interesting to see what series format they choose to go with. A think a winner-take-all makes the most sense for the sake of limiting the length of the playoffs.

[Krawhitham]

If it is a one game winner take all playoff I'm all for it

[tkemmerer14]

I'm all for expansion. Let the wild card teams duke it out to play the division winners. I've always thought baseball's playoffs didn't reward division winners enough compared to wild card teams.

[Vottomatic]

Because of the unequalness of the divisions, I wish they'd do away with the divisions and just take the top 5 teams in each league. Have everyone play the same schedule and there won't be any arguments about who is deserving. The playoffs will determine that.

[mroby85]

I'm all for expasion in the playoffs, howeverI don't think a division winner should necessarily get rewarded over a wild card team. Sometimes a wild card team will have a better record than a division team. I think adding another wild card team will make the setup more fair for teams who are in a loaded division, as opposed to ones who might get in with less wins in a weaker one.

[Red Rover]

So, in theory, this will allow the Yankees, Red Soxs & Rays a chance to all three making the playoffs. Isn't this really why there is discussion of a change to the playoff system, so the Yankees & Red Soxs aren't left out?

[Señor Rojo]

Tim Kurkjian claims that a 5 team playoff in each league will happen in 2012. Apparently, the players want a 3 game series and the owners want a 1 game series. Should be interesting how this shakes out.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6410295&categoryid=2378529

[Reds]

1 game opening series, are you kidding me? I'm playing 162 or 163 games only to play ONE playoff game, which will have to be played on the field of the team with a better record. One game playoffs don't gauge total team talent like a true series will, I prefer 5 but would see why 3 would make it quicker for the teams not playing.

[gilpdawg]

1 game opening series, are you kidding me? I'm playing 162 or 163 games only to play ONE playoff game, which will have to be played on the field of the team with a better record. One game playoffs don't gauge total team talent like a true series will, I prefer 5 but would see why 3 would make it quicker for the teams not playing.
A 3 game series would also make it very advantageous for the teams that don't play in it because they could get their rotations set and the other teams would have to use their best guys to move on, and I don't have a problem with that at all. There needs to be some incentive to win the division.

[Reds]

So basically it makes winning the division the best if you play a quick 3 game set. Anyone arguing for a 1 game playoff between two wild card teams doesn't know jack about baseball, period.

[getfoul]

I posted this here on March 1st. I still think my plan is better than anything else proposed:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2329393&postcount=30

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2329408&postcount=32

[BluegrassRedleg]

A one-game scenario is ridiculous, IMO, if you have two teams with clearly different records playing. Let's say Team A finishes 4-5 games better than Team B. But Team B has a hammer ready to start a one-game playoff. How is that fair to Team A?

I'm against expanded playoffs in general. I think they've got a great set-up right now. But it's inevitable. More $ $ $ $ $. Nothing is about the health of the game anymore. It's just about making more $.

[Phoenix2]

I love this idea. I never liked the fact that the wildcard was on equal footing with the Division Champions. This way, the wildcards have an extra hurdle to overcome to get on that equal footing. Good change.

[BluegrassRedleg]

So are they suggesting a 1-game deal so it forces the wild card teams to use their ace, then the top division winner gets the advantage of missing that guy?