Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Bud Selig Wants Expanded Playoffs In 2012. What's The Rush?

The new wild-card round is a great idea. But doing it now? When schedules are already set? Think again, Mr. Commissioner.

Jan 29, 2012 - Commissioner Bud Selig appeared this weekend at SoxFest in Chicago. Normally, that's a photo-op, with no big news made. The commissioner, though, did make some news by announcing that that he expects the expanded wild card system to take effect this fall:

"I really believe we'll have the wild card for 2012, this year," Selig said Friday night in Chicago at a White Sox fan festival. "Clubs really want it. I don't think I've ever seen an issue that the clubs want more than to have the extra wild card this year."

"We're working on dates right now. That'll all take place. It looks to me like we'll have it because I've told everybody we have to have it. It'll be exciting. One-game playoff, it will start the playoffs in a very exciting manner," he said.

Just a moment, Bud, if I may? This is not a good idea, and here's why. First of all, let me say I'm not against the new wild card at all -- in fact, I like it, and I also like the idea of a play-in game. That assures you of at least one winner-take-all postseason game every year.

I'm just a little leery about the idea of doing it this year, because the schedule is already set for 2012.

This is important for two reasons; first, perceived inequities in the schedule are supposed to be addressed for 2013, when the Astros move to the AL. For now, wild-card teams from different divisions play wildly different interdivisional and interleague schedules. Your "second wild card" team might have quite an easier schedule than its opponent in the play-in game.

But even more importantly, even though Bud says they "have to have it", is how this is going to work out logistically. The article linked above says:

Since 1995, head-to-head record has been used to determine first place if both teams are going to the postseason. But with the start of a one-game, winner-take-all wild-card round, the sides agreed that the difference between first place and a wild-card berth is too important to decide with a formula and a tiebreaker game would be played.

So let's say, to give one concrete example that could actually happen, that the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays are in a tight race for the AL East title. Meanwhile, the Angels and Rangers are fighting for the AL West title. The AL Central was long ago decided; the Tigers clinched and await the postseason.

That means four of the five teams in tight races would get in. But which four? This season, the Red Sox and Yankees finish the season playing each other; the Rays are home to the Orioles. The Angels are at the Mariners and the Rangers finish at the Athletics.

Without going through all the convolutions of various matchups, what happens if all five of these teams wind up with the same record? OK, you're saying that's unlikely. But what if there's a tie at the top of the AL East and either the Rangers or Angels ties the third-place AL East team? How do you decide who plays off what? The article suggests that first-place ties would be played off and wild-card ties would be broken by a tiebreaker formula.

Fair enough, but then let's say the Angels and Rangers have to play off a first-place tie in Texas (because the Rangers had the better regular-season record and would host a tiebreaker). That would force the winner of that game to play on the West Coast one day, in Texas the next, and then after one day off go to Detroit or New York or Boston or Tampa to start the division series round.

That doesn't seem right, and someone's going to wind up complaining and have a point. This change is significant enough that it shouldn't be squeezed into an already-existing schedule. Once the leagues are realigned, MLB can figure out a fair way for ties like this to be broken and allow enough time for any tiebreakers, to make it fair to everyone.

As the saying of many fans goes, "wait till next year", Bud. What's the rush?

And remember, too, Bud: that would give you plenty of time to make sure you have all the hotel rooms reserved.

Do you like this post?

22359_1256997499464_1065394778_30839957_2068120_n_medium

Al Yellon

Editor

Al Yellon is a Cubs fan. For that, he hopes you will indulge him. He's seen Cubs failures since 1969, including the agonizingly close playoff misses in 1984 and 2003. For that, at least a bit of... Read full bio


Comments

Display:

I always thought that...

MLB, of all the major sports, had the simplest and to the point playoff structure. That all goes down the drain now. Thanks Selig.

by PaulXL7 on Jan 29, 2012 3:30 PM EST reply actions  

It was perfect before we had three divisions in each league and the wild card.

by Galley on Jan 29, 2012 4:19 PM EST reply actions  

It's all about the $$$$

Every extra penny he can squeeze out he will

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Jan 29, 2012 4:26 PM EST reply actions  

A good idea? Really?

Sorry Al. Your convoluted example and explanation illustrates precisely why the additional wild card is a bad idea. In fact, even the existing wild card system is a bad idea – otherwise why does it need to be fixed?

The problem is mainly with this idiotic three-division setup which almost guarantees at least one weak-sister division winner per league every year thus providing the “justification” for the wild-card system.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the pre-1994 system of two-divisions per league with ONLY division winners advancing to the post-season. And no, the addition of more teams does not change that fact.

Give me the authentic winner-take all pennant races of the past and a right-sized post-season (not the bloated month-long monstrosity we have now) instead of the convoluted BCS-style system you think would be a “good idea”.

by roadrider on Jan 29, 2012 6:20 PM EST reply actions  

Sure, there was nothing wrong with them... as long as you were okay with two-thirds of the teams having no chance to compete from Day One

I dunno, maybe you’re a fan of the English Premier League or something. To me, that kind of league structure is dull.

"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2012 7:48 PM EST up reply actions  

ridiculous

An absurd statement apparently meant to justify Bud’s ridiculous scheme that’s even worse than his current ridiculous scheme. Between 1969 and 1994, by my count, 17 out of 26 teams won at least one pennant.

Keep making baseball more and more like football, guys…

by Vidor1 on Jan 29, 2012 8:33 PM EST up reply actions  

A pox on the house of Selig

I definitely agree that this should not be instituted this year. I also don’t like the idea in the first place, because watered down postseasons mean the best regular season teams have an even worse chance of being rewarded in the postseason.

by thedozen on Jan 29, 2012 7:44 PM EST reply actions  

You do realize that the new system offers greater rewards for doing well in the regular season than the existing system, right?

"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2012 7:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly.

It makes winning your division more important, since you avoid the play-in game by doing so.

My point isn’t about whether this system is good or not. It’s about trying to cram it into a season where schedules for both the regular season and postseason have already been set, and there is perceived unfairness between divisions because of the different sizes of the divisions and differing interdivisional and interleague schedules.

The unfairness will (presumably) be addressed in 2013 with the move to the AL by the Astros and the resulting schedule changes. So why not wait one more year?

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Jan 30, 2012 7:54 AM EST up reply actions  

Certainly not

Now you don’t even have to finish second in your division to make the postseason. You can finish THIRD and make the postseason. Yay.

by Vidor1 on Jan 30, 2012 4:49 PM EST up reply actions  

But doing so puts you at a disadvantage in the postseason tourney

You have to burn your #1 starter in the “play-in” game and therefore be at a disadvantage through the Division Series. If you win the Division Series, it’ll probably take you 5 games (what with the pitching matchups favoring the opponent) and then you’ll be tired and again matched up poorly for the LCS. Get through all that intact, and arguably you deserve to make the World Series.

Do you think less of VCU for how they made the NCAA basketball Final Four last year?

by Aly Edge on Feb 3, 2012 11:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Won’t this also add an extra few days to the post season? I’m not sure I want the WS ending in November.

by RossingtonCollins on Jan 30, 2012 10:11 AM EST reply actions  

It's not so unheard of

Even disregarding 2001 for obvious reasons, the 2009 Series ended in November, both of the Series the Red Sox won would have if they had gone seven games, and the ridonkulous weather delay in the 2008 Series also would have had that one extending into November if it went seven.

by Aly Edge on Jan 30, 2012 9:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Bud will do what

a. television, and
b. the owners
tell him to do.
End of story.

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2012 11:03 AM EST reply actions  

I mean that seriously, Al.

I think you and most commenters fail to appreciate the extent to which TV and money and TV money drive everything in sports. And that extent is this: TV and money and TV money drive EVERYTHING in sports. TV has a giant maw to fill with programming and literally tons of money to use to fill it with. TV and money and TV money are why games and seasons and playoffs will only ever get longer. And sports programming is cheap, certainly compared with scripted dramas, so there will always be a demand for more, and sports is the ultimate reality show, so there will always be an audience with a demand for more.

TV isn’t just the 800-pound gorilla in the room. TV is the two-ton gorilla in the room full of 800-pound gorillas.

The answers to just about every question you can ask about sports are:

1. TV
2. money
3. TV money

I know it would make for a very dull blog to write every column that way, to answer every rhetorical question you can think of with those three answers, except that you would have the benefit of being correct 99% of the time.

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2012 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

22 updates with 296 comments

Like to see major updates on this story in Facebook.
Yahoo_full_count Yahoo_fantasy_baseball

Photo

The Busch Stadium Streaker, Or, A Man Who Made Good On A Promise

NEW YORK, NY: Ike Davis of the New York Mets strikes out in the seventh inning against the Arizona Diamondbacks at Citi Field in the Flushing neighborhood of the Queens borough of New York City. (Photo by Jim McIsaac/Getty Images)

What's Wrong With Ike Davis?

OAKLAND, CA:  Albert Pujols of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is congatulated by Mark Trumbo after hitting a solo home run in the third inning against the Oakland Athletics at O.co Coliseum in Oakland, California.  (Photo by Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images)

Albert Pujols Finally Driving In Runs, Still Not Walking