English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"THIS WAS JUST TALK" But should the World Series be played in warm climate such as Florida, Southern California, Arizona, etc?

Also should the All-Star be played at the end of the season? Sources was talking about these changes.

2006-12-15 05:43:44 · 34 answers · asked by julian192001 3 in Sports Baseball

34 answers

No and No.

Baseball of all sports has to have home games for the World Series as the fields can very greatly. Some are hitters parks and some are pitchers parks. To move to some neutral field would not be very neutral at all as it might greatly favor one team or the other.

Moving the All-Star game to the end of the season to make it completely irrelevant like the NFL Pro Bowl. The ones in season are always more interesting - Baseball - Football - Basketball even the Hockey one with the Skills comp is more interesting than the Pro Bowl.

2006-12-15 06:14:45 · answer #1 · answered by SoccerClipCincy 7 · 0 0

No, it should be played in the participating teams ballparks. The baseball season is too long. They need to push it back to 154 games. That way the playoffs can start earlier and weather will not play such a significant role. But, it's all about money and they will not reduce the number of games, so we will have to deal with a summer sport ending in NOVEMBER!
Who cares when the All Star Game is played. The one thing they should change is the home field advantage for the World Series. This is a game for the fans and is an exhibition! Home field advantage should not be determined by the winner of the game. Let inter-league play determine which league has home field advantage! Then interleague play would actually be more entertaining....not just for the regional matchups( Cubs/White Sox, Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/Angels, A's/Giants, etc.).......but for baseball fans everywhere!

2006-12-15 07:28:46 · answer #2 · answered by rgcanes 2 · 0 0

I don't think so. If there was a permanent location for the World Series it would penalize the local fans. It's hard enough now to get tickets when the games are at home. Imagine if a person had to travel. You know the hotels etc would demand paying and staying for a 7 game minimum, even if the series ended in 4. You know that only the rich and famous would be able to go. With the series being held in the winning cities, it gives the fans a chance to celebrate their teams. Professional football fans don't get to do that because its one game and how do ya pick the city to play in. So it works with the Super Bowl
I don't think the All-Star game should be at the end because having it where it is now gives everyone a break in the action for a few days. The non participants get a rest and the participants get a chance to have some fun playing the game.

2006-12-15 05:51:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I disagree on both points.

I think that the allstar game is a good break in the season for most of the players and coaches to get a few days rest (if they are not involved in the game). Also, the way it is set up now is the league that wins the AS game gets home field advantage for the W.S., which would obviously have to be changed if they put the all star game at the end of the season.

I herd talks about the other one also and I hate it. If it is played in Floridia, Cal, etc. then no team would get a home field advantage. Also, if a team does well their fans should be rewarded by having an opportunity to go see the game.

Go White Sox!!

2006-12-15 05:50:13 · answer #4 · answered by BriGuy 3 · 0 0

No to both.

It's not right to deprive hometown fans who supported a team for 81 regular season games plus all the post-season games to suddenly have the World Series ripped from their town.

If the All Star game were played after the season ends, it would generate less excitement than it does now. Does anyone even watch football's Pro Bowl (which happens after the Super Bowl)?

As an aside, awarding home field advantage in the World Series based on the All Star Game is ridiculous. It should be based on number of wins during the regular season and if that's a tie, interleague record.

2006-12-15 08:01:21 · answer #5 · answered by blueyeznj 6 · 0 0

The world series must stay the way it is so the home town fans get a chance to see their team in the big stage. Also the All Star Game is a good break for the players and is a lot better placed in the middle of the season.

2006-12-16 03:39:18 · answer #6 · answered by Edwin 2 · 0 0

The WS is fine the way it is...it should be played at the two teams home and whoever has home field advantage should get 4 games....why change it to warm weather? thats stupid.....and doesnt make a bit of sense...

The All-Star game shouldnt be at the end of the season b/c after a 162 game season (and then maybe playoffs) players will not want to participate in the event...those who make the playoffs will be tired from the possibility of playing 182 games in 1 season (maybe a playoff game and then every series going the distance) and then the players who dont make the playoffs wont wanna go b/c they will have been off from baseball for 27-32 days and they wont want to pick it up from there just for 1 game.....

Nothing is wrong with anything baseball is doing so why try and change it?

2006-12-15 10:37:22 · answer #7 · answered by wcbaseball4 4 · 0 0

I think the World Series is fine for the weather situation. But maybe playing in a neutral territory wouldnt be such a bad idea.

I dont think the all-star game should be played at the end of the season. This all-star game has been around for 70 years in the middle of the season. But something about the all-star game I think should be changed, I dont think that the all-star game should be optional, it should be madatory! We shouldn't have players pulling "Manny's" every year just because their knee feels a little hurt. (He should be ashamed of his actions, $20 million a year? Can't play with sore knee?)

2006-12-15 08:20:08 · answer #8 · answered by twinkieman93 2 · 0 0

First of all, I'd like to know why it is called "World" Series, if only US teams play. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Now, those last 7 games should be played the way it is, depending on where the teams are from.
And for ur second question, u don't want the US Series and the All Star game at the same time. We need some excitement between seasons.

2006-12-15 06:01:06 · answer #9 · answered by flying_high_tomcat 1 · 0 0

World Series should be played in the city where the two teams had won their respective divisions.

Allstar game during the middle of the season is probably done to give the players a break during the first 81 games and because the weather is normally warm during July when its held. That is when they can do their HR Derby, etc. If you do it at the end of the season, you have to wait for the World Series to finish and it would not be fair to the other players on teams who did not make the playoffs to wait and them come back to play one game.

2006-12-15 05:47:57 · answer #10 · answered by The Dark Knight 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers