Posted on 11/17/2011 4:42:02 PM PST by SMGFan
It’s because of prime time TV money.
I suppose if you’re on the West Coast it’s not so bad because they could be celebrating that last out around 9 or 9:30 pm PT.
When teams like Red Sox, Blue Jays, etc. won their titles it was past midnight I believe. Too late for kids.
They may have made a small concession by having the Sun
night World Series game start at 7:30 at least, but games
can stretch 3, 4 hours or more
Some interleague play may be fine and could boost attendance in some stadia, but this may be way too much.
We have small divisions, simply to maximize the number of Yankees/RedSox matchups for television purposes. Personally I’d prefer a two division format or even the elimination of divisions altogether. As a Braves fan I have no interest at all in seeing the Marlins and Nationals 36 times a year. It’s just tedious. Additionally, I think the pennant races were more interesting with the old two division, no wildcard, format.
I’d rather miss the beginning of the game than the end.
It is not my idea to get rid of the designated hitter.
Although I do enjoy National League games...more strategy.
Sorry about that. Will rectify.
Although it’s all in vain since I’m dealing with “purists” who think they know better.
Well, how many situations like that come up? A 15-inning game and no one available in the bullpen. Really now.
In any event, I want a player in the batters box who has a prayer of getting a hit in any tight situation. That is more interesting than watching a pitcher strike out.
And be sure to confine your baseball watching to the National League. Wouldn’t want to offend your fine sensitibilies.
“And be sure to confine your baseball watching to the National League. Wouldn’t want to offend your fine sensitibilies.”
Aw,come on-—I’m an American League lady and very little offends me——I’m extremely adaptable.
Sorry, ma’am. If I knew that I was writing to a lady I would not have been no unpleasant. The OldPossum prides himself on being polite to the fair sex.
No problem sir,no problem.
It was ust a thought. There’s really no need for the attitude.
Make that “just” a thought.
That would make sense if the pool from which professional ballplayers was drawn was “available males”. However, the fact that there are more males than there were 50 years ago is meaningless unless there are also more males who grew up playing baseball. That number has certainly been in decline for at least the last 15 years.
The second question is: Where do you put the new teams? The only viable markets I can think of that don’t already have teams are Las Vegas and Portland. Pretty much every other city large enough to support a team is already in another team’s territory.
We already have teams in markets that cannot or do not support them. As good as the Rays have been on the field, they average at barely more than 50% attendance. The Marlins as a franchise are an absolute joke, and exist solely so that their owner can pocket the revenue sharing money. The A’s are done in Oakland and, unless the Selig and the Giants let them move to San Jose, they’ll be looking for a new market. The Royals have been a nonentity since George Brett retired, and have become another perennial MLB welfare parasite like the Marlins. The Blue Jays are starting to look more and more like the Expos.
I’d put the Pirates and the Orioles in this list as well, but there is too much history in those franchises to move them or get rid of them. Plus, I think their problems are really just the result of bad ownership.
With all that going on, should MLB really be adding new teams? Will that really improve the game? Should they put an expansion team in one of the few remaining viable markets when they could kill two birds with one stone and move a team from a market that clearly isn’t working?
I don’t think so. I think they ought to get rid of the Marlins as soon as they can (might be legal problems with that stemming from the new stadium) and probably the Blue Jays. The Rays ought to be moved to Las Vegas or Portland, and the A’s as well unless they can move to San Jose.
With internalization, among other factors, the talent pool is bigger. And plenty of kids play ball; there are lots of them getting signed every day.
Portland would be one city; the AL needs a fourth Western city. I wouldn’t touch Vegas. I’d LOVE a third New York area team. (Before moving the Expos to DC, according to the Washington Post, MLB was also negotiating with the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority.) And I know of a city up north that has a metro population of about 3.5 million and has a big ballpark just sitting there. Those are a few possibilities.
New teams mean a lot of money in entry fees. That would be good for MLB’s economy.
The Carolinas might be a good market also.
My son just met Barry Bonds...he said Bonds was a big jerk.
I’m thinking about the near-term future, the ‘Stros are bad. Then again so are the Cubs.
I never much cared for the NL cent having 6 teams and the AL west 4.
I’ve sometimes thought maybe they should ditch the divisions and just seed teams league-wide. I don’t like it when weak division winners get in if there’s a team with a better record that doesn’t. It’s happened a couple times.
Maybe I’m wrong about the playoff thing. I’m firm in my love of interleauge play though. More variety. See the AL pichers bat. I may be the only one but I like that 1 league uses the DH and the other doesn’t.
Yours has been noted.....
: )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.