Jump to content

Motor City Sonics

16 Team playoffs are here to stay.........

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, tiger337 said:

It will be 8 divisions of 4 teams each.  

I don’t like that idea.  I think it increases the chances of a 1st place team with a below .500 record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Casimir said:

I don’t like that idea.  I think it increases the chances of a 1st place team with a below .500 record.

I think being afraid of something that might happen once every 20 years isn't a compelling argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yoda said:

I think being afraid of something that might happen once every 20 years isn't a compelling argument. 

Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL isn’t a perfect comparison.  But they’ve had two division winners below .500 in the 18 seasons that they’ve had four team divisions.

Whatever future model MLB goes with, I think they should consider mandating teams finish the regular season with above .500 in order to be allowed into the playoffs.  It won’t happen because of TV contracts and the like.  And it won’t happen because no league would want to have a division winner held out of the playoffs.

I realize the playoffs are for entertainment and to generate revenue.  But I think there needs to be some sort of reward / penalty for regular season records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or because it's just a bad idea? 

I get where you're going, I just don't see it as that big of a concern. I think once you go this many teams, you're going to get some mediocre teams. A couple games above or blow .500 doesn't make that big a difference really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yoda said:

Or because it's just a bad idea? 

I get where you're going, I just don't see it as that big of a concern. I think once you go this many teams, you're going to get some mediocre teams. A couple games above or blow .500 doesn't make that big a difference really. 

So why go with this many teams?  Why reward mediocrity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Casimir said:

So why go with this many teams?  Why reward mediocrity?

To help generate interest in smaller markets. Same reason other leagues are doing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yoda said:

To help generate interest in smaller markets. Same reason other leagues are doing it. 

I don't think smaller markets have anything to do with it.  It has more to do with playoff revenue.

Even so, I don't see the need to copy what other leagues are doing just because that's what they are doing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Casimir said:

I don't think smaller markets have anything to do with it.  It has more to do with playoff revenue.

Even so, I don't see the need to copy what other leagues are doing just because that's what they are doing.

More interest in smaller markets will generate more revenue. That should be why they make decisions like this. They're a business. 

They're not copying other leagues just for the sake of copying them. They're copying them because they see that the positives outweigh the negatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Yoda said:

More interest in smaller markets will generate more revenue. That should be why they make decisions like this. They're a business. 

They're not copying other leagues just for the sake of copying them. They're copying them because they see that the positives outweigh the negatives. 

You're right, they're looking t it from the business aspect.

I prefer to look at it from the competitive side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Casimir said:

I don’t like that idea.  I think it increases the chances of a 1st place team with a below .500 record.

I don't either but Manfred already said that's the plan.  NFL did that, so MLB must copy them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Casimir said:

So why go with this many teams?  Why reward mediocrity?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Casimir said:

You're right, they're looking t it from the business aspect.

I prefer to look at it from the competitive side.

Everybody knows it's a business and everything the owners do is to make more money. Why is baseball the only form of entertainment where fans are supposed to care how much money owners make?   If I say a movie sucks, nobody ever tells me that they made the movie that way because it was more lucrative.  So, shut the **** up and enjoy it.  Same thing with music or almost any kind of entertainment.  Nobody every tells me I should like things based on how money they gross.  That only happens in baseball.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does kind of make 162 games about as meaningless as anything that has ever existed in sports history.  You are going to see pitchers make a lot less starts over the course of the year.  Players are going to be sitting a lot.  Why would you keep your regulars out there when it doesn't really matter?  Pennant races are going to be nonexistent.  In the future worrying which  bad teams creep into the #8 spot really won't be that interesting.  The Rangers at 78-84 would have made the playoffs and they were 5.5 games ahead of the #9 team.

I remember when hockey had 21 teams and 16 of them made the playoffs.  That was about as stupid as anything ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Everybody knows it's a business and everything the owners do is to make more money. Why is baseball the only form of entertainment where fans are supposed to care how much money owners make?   If I say a movie sucks, nobody ever tells me that they made the movie that way because it was more lucrative.  So, shut the **** up and enjoy it.  Same thing with music or almost any kind of entertainment.  Nobody every tells me I should like things based on how money they gross.  That only happens in baseball.     

Yeah, is there some sort of profit sharing plan with the fans that I missed out on?

When Appalachian State upset Michigan in Ann Arbor many moons ago, it was still good for Michigan because it was a home date that made money for the athletic department, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL fans of a certain age will remember a 6 team league in which 4 made the playoffs (translation:  Boston and New York didn't make the playoffs).  The regular season was still interesting and exciting, but for different reasons.  In a league that small with about 108 players in total, you knew every player, his home town, and you recognized him facially because they played without helmets.  The 4 teams that were good every year all had rivalries with all the other good teams.  Every team had good players (even the Bruins and the Rangers had a couple) and every game was meaningful.

That is hard to duplicate with 32 teams, but I don't think that adding more play-off teams will make the regular season less interesting.  To me, it is not that interesting even now, because there are so many teams.  There aren't enough good players.  I can name every player on the team that I follow, but not too many others.  I'm happier if it is a good team, but I won't stop following if it is a bad team.  If a couple of additional teams make the playoffs, I guess that will increase fan interest in the marginal teams that get in under the new format.  It won't do anything to diminish my interest, but my interest has already been diminished by other factors - the number of teams, and the juiced ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Casimir said:

I don't think smaller markets have anything to do with it.  It has more to do with playoff revenue.

Even so, I don't see the need to copy what other leagues are doing just because that's what they are doing.

"You are making more money than we are, but I don't see any need to copy you."

Yeah, that makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Everybody knows it's a business and everything the owners do is to make more money. Why is baseball the only form of entertainment where fans are supposed to care how much money owners make?   If I say a movie sucks, nobody ever tells me that they made the movie that way because it was more lucrative.  So, shut the **** up and enjoy it.  Same thing with music or almost any kind of entertainment.  Nobody every tells me I should like things based on how money they gross.  That only happens in baseball.     

Actually, I see that argument a lot, especially with the new Star Wars trilogy.  They made a ton of money, therefore we should like it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Charles Liston said:

NHL fans of a certain age will remember a 6 team league in which 4 made the playoffs (translation:  Boston and New York didn't make the playoffs).  The regular season was still interesting and exciting, but for different reasons.  In a league that small with about 108 players in total, you knew every player, his home town, and you recognized him facially because they played without helmets.  The 4 teams that were good every year all had rivalries with all the other good teams.  Every team had good players (even the Bruins and the Rangers had a couple) and every game was meaningful.

That is hard to duplicate with 32 teams, but I don't think that adding more play-off teams will make the regular season less interesting.  To me, it is not that interesting even now, because there are so many teams.  There aren't enough good players.  I can name every player on the team that I follow, but not too many others.  I'm happier if it is a good team, but I won't stop following if it is a bad team.  If a couple of additional teams make the playoffs, I guess that will increase fan interest in the marginal teams that get in under the new format.  It won't do anything to diminish my interest, but my interest has already been diminished by other factors - the number of teams, and the juiced ball.

Strangest thing about the 6-team NHL was not only that they’d play 68 games to eliminate just 2 teams, but that that playoff matchups would usually be #1 vs #3 and #2 vs #4. Incidentally: in magazines from the ‘40s and ‘50s you’ll often see the team atop the standings after the regular season referred to as “the NHL champion”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Strangest thing about the 6-team NHL was not only that they’d play 68 games to eliminate just 2 teams, but that that playoff matchups would usually be #1 vs #3 and #2 vs #4. Incidentally: in magazines from the ‘40s and ‘50s you’ll often see the team atop the standings after the regular season referred to as “the NHL champion”

You're right, I'd forgotten the 1 vs. 3.  That always seemed odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

Actually, I see that argument a lot, especially with the new Star Wars trilogy.  They made a ton of money, therefore we should like it.  

Oh, boo hoo. Someone said you should like the movies. You should like them because they're entertaining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

"You are making more money than we are, but I don't see any need to copy you."

Yeah, that makes sense. 

Call me crazy, but I follow sports for the sports, not the financial statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lordstanley said:

Strangest thing about the 6-team NHL was not only that they’d play 68 games to eliminate just 2 teams, but that that playoff matchups would usually be #1 vs #3 and #2 vs #4. Incidentally: in magazines from the ‘40s and ‘50s you’ll often see the team atop the standings after the regular season referred to as “the NHL champion”

I've noticed that in the NHL and NBA histories on their sports reference pages, but never did figure out why those match ups were made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Casimir said:

Call me crazy, but I follow sports for the sports, not the financial statements.

But you're just a customer. You have no authority. 

That's like saying, "I shop at Wal-Mart because I like the products, not because of the financials."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

But you're just a customer. You have no authority. 

That's like saying, "I shop at Wal-Mart because I like the products, not because of the financials."  

So I should have no opinion about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...