Did anyone here about this idea?
I saw it on ESPN, do you think that a 9 game world series is a good idea, or just too long?
2007-07-01 07:12:22 · 8 answers · asked by Brendan 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
7 games is plenty to decide who the better team is. The reason why they want 9 games is to play 2 on a neutral site and make some more money. I think its a dumb idea the 2 extra games are going to be meaningless cause its the start of the series. I bet more people tune in to game 7 (when the series goes that far) than any other game in the series. They want to rival the Super Bowl hype but the reason why the Super Bowl is so big is because its 1 game winner take all. I think baseball's championship is just fine the way it is without money hungry entrepenuers looking to make yet another extra buck.
2007-07-01 07:36:33 · answer #1 · answered by BluLizard 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I actually really like the idea because it gives the underdog team a better chance of winning the world series. It's proven over the past few years that the AL has dominated the all-star game so it seems like every year, the AL team has the home field advantage. The NL world series team shouldn't be punished for losing home field because their fellow NL players couldn't win the all-star game. Adding these 2 games gives them a better chance of winning since no one has home field. It will also attract more fans to these neutral sites. I think it's a great idea. I'm a big fan of baseball, so the more the better.
2007-07-01 07:22:43 · answer #2 · answered by ishi93 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Going to a longer series would benefit the "better" team, because it reduces, at least slightly, the chances of a lesser team pulling an upset. Even at nine games, however, it's still a relatively short series given that they play a 162-game schedule to determine the playoff teams.
I'm not sure how the average fan would feel about it, but I'd be in favor of it. Again, it gives the better team a chance to assert itself, and I think that's always a good thing.
2007-07-01 07:17:17 · answer #3 · answered by Craig S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was once 9 video games and that i think of it particularly is greater honest. (regardless of each and every little thing, baseball is in accordance with stamina and having pitching intensity, fairly than 2 or 3 good starters mandatory to stay on the playoffs.) although, 9 video games could be too long. The playoffs are long adequate and 9 video games could shrink the cost in step with interest. to illustrate, in soccer, the championship is one interest, so it has a great importance. In baseball, each and each series incorporates countless video games, so triumphing a interest is far less significant.
2016-11-07 21:01:33 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well...for the business of baseball...it certainly would generate more revenue. what business doesn't like more money?
Other than that...i think it'd be too long. It'd be giving the losing team more chances to come back. Who does that? If they didn't bring it on w/ the 1st few games...why do they get more chances? it is the world series...
2007-07-01 07:20:33 · answer #5 · answered by gibby 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It will never happen because there is no reason nor need to extend it to nine names.
It's a cheesy way/idea to exploit fans for more money.
MLB officials need to nip this idea in the bud before it continues.
2007-07-01 07:50:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a dumb idea. I like it now as it is.
2007-07-01 08:45:33 · answer #7 · answered by Scooter_loves_his_dad 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
dweeb, maybe look at the other 50 people asking this same question.
2007-07-01 07:51:45 · answer #8 · answered by dlkjla 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋