OT: MLB reform idea, shortened season
I was listening to Cowherd just now and he mentioned Darren Rovell's comments that the MLB season needs to be shortned to 140 games or less.
Part of the reasoning given is that individual fans can't afford or possibly attend season ticket packages for 81 home games.
I did a google search and apparently Rovell has been talking about this for at least 2 years now, but the current financial situation teams like the Doders and Mets, and previously the Rangers and others are facing has a lot to do with not drawing enough fans/player salaries too high.
Traditionalists would hate this, but I think it would be a great idea. Here are some of the treasons why:
1 - Too many early and late season weather problems. By starting the season in mid April and ending it in mid September you increase the likelihood that games are played without delays or postponement. Plus, with so many players from southern states and latin america, it really isn't fun watching them struggle early and in the post-season because it's so freaking cold.
2 - Injuries. A lot of players are rested often or (young pitchers especially) limited in number of games or innings because of the toll it would take on their body. This would reduce that significantly.
3 - Scarcity. Econ 101 talks about a scarce product having increased demand. I think average attendance figures would rise. Probably not to the point that a team would more than make-up for the loss of 12 home games at the gate, but likely enough that the loss would not be as substantial as simply subtracting 12 times their current average. Plus those colder weather games (aside from opening series and late series for teams in a pennant race) are generally the least attended anyhow.
4 - Less competition with late season hockey and basketball/early season football.
Reasons against it:
1 - Players union. Certainly owners would want to factor a salary decrease of some sort if the player was playing 14% fewer games. I don't see the union going for that without a fight, even if there were a number of factors in favor of it.
2 - Records. You could kiss 50 HR in a season goodbye, and probably 20 wins for a pitcher. 3,000 hits, 500 HR, 300 wins for careers would be far less likely to achieve, meaning Rafael Palmeiro's career (viagra and hgh aside) suddenly look that much better compared to however a Bryce Harper or someone finishes their career.
Having said all of this I, like those I've heard on the radio, doubt this change will ever happen, but that doesn't mean it's a horrible idea.
What's wrong with the way it is again?
I love baseball.
...why does everyone want to mess with it. Its worked for 100 years.
What is worse to me is the talk of adding another playoff team. Talk about devalueing the reg season at that point.
it worked with a 154 game schedule, not 162.
This would be a more realistic schedule change. Shaving eight games off the regular season would allow them to add that extra playoff team (and have a 4-5 matchup of wild cards before the division series) without pushing the World Series into November. The other option, of course, is to just schedule more doubleheaders.
There's nothing wrong with baseball. It's the NBA that needs to be shortened.
....
....to like 10 games. Seriously, does anyone really NEED to watch that garbage?
DEAL WITH IT. A lot more people like the NBA than the NHL as well.
Also, a lot more people like Jersey Shore than Archer. So obviously popular opinion is the best way to evaluate quality.
What is it about basketball (and soccer for that matter) that makes non-fans so obsessed with pointing out that they don't watch it? This phenomenon doesn't seem to occur for baseball or football.
1. The complaint was about the NBA, not the sport in general. This is because the NBA is not very interesting.
2. This phenomenon does occur for baseball and football.
on both sides of the argument. I don't think more attendance per game would generate more revenue, especially since the players union will never agree to an overall salary cut. Plus, having more games and less demand allows people to buy tickets at a more affordable cost from internet suppliers, etc. The injury argument sounds good but how many injuries occur early in the season and wouldn't be avoided anyway. I'm sure Cowherd will be pushing the idea to LENGTHEN the season in a few days anyway. He seems to change his mind all the time (see how his opinion of Dodger's ownership has changed in the last few days).
Shorten the season by days, not games.
I agree, more day night doubleheaders.
take a look at the number of games that are really affected by the weather. Avg score vs. Avg Temp, Number of Postponements by month....
Even through it's mismanagement. Baseball is the loyal girl next door you dump for the ideal smokin' babe you meet in the beginning of fall semester.
I love baseball as well, but loving something doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with it. I love UM's current recruiting class but that doesn't mean I would be opposed to adding 5 star players to it.
By the way, I think purists would be more likely to buy in if among the games eliminated were the 18 interleague games. Plus, in the early 1900's there were several years that baseball was played as a 140 games schedule.
As a fan, you can't truly enjoy watching a closer for your team struggle in April because his hand is too cold and he can't feel the ball right, can you? Or your shortstop having less range because his body is cold still? Or knowing that when your team plays in Florida there are only 12,000 fans watching? Or the fact that Phil Coke is a starting pitcher and Ryan Raburn plays as often as he does? There are changes that could help these issues, and liking those ideas doesn't mean you like the game less.
Plus, in the early 1900's there were several years that baseball was played as a 140 games schedule.
I don't know about this argument. Since 1904 the schedule has always been at least 154 games long, except for a few years when external circumstances forced it to be shorter: 1919, when it was shortened for WWI-related issues, and the labor-dispute years of 1981, 1994 and 1995.
I agree completely about Cowherd. Can't stand the guy. But he's the only sports radio I can get in Saginaw. Him, Mike and Mike, and the Huge show (dislike huge even more than Cowherd).
That's funny, we have the Big Show in Columbus. If it's such a "big show", why can't they keep the same guys on it for more than two weeks straight?
Too many early and late season weather problems.
There's a simple solution to this--bring back the scheduled doubleheader. This shortens the season without reducing the number of games.
And these should be real doubleheaders where one ticket gets you into both games and the games are played back to back--not those stupid day-night doubleheaders.
It's like saying we need grocery stores to sell less bread because no one can afford to buy a year's supply at one time. Playing more games helps to lower the price of tickets so that families who don't care which opponent they see can go fairly cheaply.
They sell partial-season ticket packages making them "full season" packages doesn't change what it is.
Cowherd said this? Then I disagree with it.
normalize the rules between the leagues. It's embarassing to see pitchers out there with their .017 averages swinging at the ball, how much better is it to have a beast whose sole job is to shell the stands? Much better I tell you.
Agree. I really don't mind interleague play. I'd love to see a team like the Phillies in town right now. Well not exactly love considering their staff but it'd still be fun to see. I can't watch many non-Tiger games. Hell even sometimes I can't watch some Tigers games. I've grown up with interleague play so maybe that's why I don't mind it but it makes me want to sit there and watch a random game I have no interest in, when I otherwise wouldn't.
season since the 60's. The only thing that has really changed in scheduling is fewer double-headers and that is MLB's fault.
Also the ridiculously long playoffs, and dear God they want to expand them.
I've been saying they need to shorten the season for years. There's so many things wrong with baseball that I'm not even sure if it can be fixed, but cutting a minimum of 20 games from the season would be a great place to start.
I wouldn't say there's that much wrong with baseball.
Instant replay, don't like the manager tirades during games, fewer timeouts/trips to the mound/stepping out of the box (ala Sean Casey), etc--essentially speed up the game, I guess the cap if that's your sort of thing? Normalize the league (my pet peeve). That's all I can think of.
I like the idea of 140 games instead of 162. The season is too long. The world series shouldn't be going into November now.
Actually the length of the schedule has varied throughout the years. It's only been 162 games since 1961. Before that, it was 154 games.
Do you really want to see 80 year old Jack Mckeon smoking a cigar in Bike shorts? I hope he's wearing his jock.
drop it back to 154, then make 25 home stands be d/n double headers and give those guys some extra days off while lossing the first 2 and last 2 weeks of the regular season.
And for the love of God can we then dump to all star game festivites. OOOOhhh , but we want a home run champ, fine: then have a open call compitition after the season, make them pay there own way and see who shows up.
I don't understand the concerns about attendance, or fans not being able to afford going to games. All available evidence argues otherwise. MLB attendance is significantly higher than it was 20-30 years ago, and much, much higher than it was in the so-called "glory days" of the '50s/'60s. Not that long ago, it was considered a tremendous feat to draw 2 million fans in a season. Last year, 20 franchises did so. The worst-supported franchise, Cleveland, averaged 17,435 fans per game, which was once considered a respectable average. And this was in a struggling economy.
Here are last year's final attendance numbers:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2010
The one plausible argument for shortening the season has to do with the weather. The World Series can't go into November. That should be avoided at all costs. But that doesn't require a 22-game reduction in the schedule.
While you're reducing it, just cut it in half. Seriously, the baseball season is way too long.
With 162 games, each individual game isn't that relevant to how a team's overall season goes. There's not much at stake in a single game (unless it's the end of a season for a team in the penant race) so I just have a hard time caring that much.
As it is, I don't even start paying attention to baseball much at all until after the All-Star breaak. Just cut the season in half, have 82 or 84 games like the NBA and NHL, and it'll be a lot better.
But I can say that if MLB was interested in ways to get people like me more involved in the sport, I would suggest (just ballparking it here) ~40 games in a season or less. Go beyond that and no particular game before the playoffs seems to matter much at all.
Do I expect any current baseball fan to support that? nope. Would any team to want to swing that financially? doubt it.
I'm just saying that reducing the number of games by ~10% isn't going to win anyone like me over, so it seems more like a fight between people who are already fans.