"Scott Boras loves the World Series so much, he wants to make it best-of-nine -- and open with two games at a neutral site" boras proposed to selig for a 9 game series. is this man a complete and utter moron? how about we just make a 20 game series next? the players already play 162 games in the regular season alone, why in the world add more?
2007-07-01 04:40:46 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
It's a terrible idea and a cheesy way to exploit fans for money.
There is no need to change a tradition that has been in place for so long.
2007-07-05 04:26:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, 9 games is way to long for a 162 game season with already two series being played before that. I think the two series before the world series should be best of 5, that way when the World Series actually plays, people might be more interested in watching. I know they lengthened the playoff series so more money can be made, but if the attendance for TV audiences keep going down, are they really making a profit, and who would watch a best of 9 game series? If the game went to a nine game series that would go into November, and that is when Basketball and Hockey are playing, and people will be more apt to watch that instead.
2007-07-01 04:48:42 · answer #2 · answered by bigredpitcher 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
7 games is enough. This year they have rescheduled the WS so that games 6 & 7 will be played in November. This spring should be an indication of what kind of weather can occur at that time. If we add 2 more games, the WS would end in mid-Nov. Should we have the game 9 or 13 on Thanksgiving to compete with football?
2007-07-01 05:00:39 · answer #3 · answered by GeckoBoy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seven is plenty. It's not a new concept, though. The very first modern series (1903) was a best-of-nine, and a few in the 10s and 20s were also nine-game series.
2007-07-01 05:00:32 · answer #4 · answered by llk51 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's next? 16 team playoff system like basketball and hockey. Then we could play the World Series in December. That should make for some nice weather in places like Boston and New York.
2007-07-01 05:04:13 · answer #5 · answered by rjb669 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah , I believe 7 is enough . They have to play over 150 games , and with the rain delays , it would trail off way too long , but they would make a lot more money .
2007-07-01 04:49:36 · answer #6 · answered by Street Knowledge 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he's not a moron. Just another blood sucker out for the almighty dollar. Two more games equal more advertising, more butts in the seats, and more concession sales. Before you know it, the world series will end just before Christmas.
2007-07-01 04:45:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
he makes more money if his players are playing in important games like the world series, so in a sense he is an utter moron b/c all he cares about is making more money for himself
2007-07-01 04:52:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you!! Seven games is plenty to determine a winner. Short enough to enjoy but long enough to give both teams a chance to make a comeback if they have a poor start in the series. Let's keep it at SEVEN!!
Chow!!
2007-07-01 04:47:21 · answer #9 · answered by No one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah ! 7 games have been around for ever !
Leave it like that.
More would be boring.
2007-07-01 04:47:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋