Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Late fall is a problem because baseball is a pastime - and that label fits very well. I go to a game because it can be exciting - but only between the long stretches of relative inactivity. During those stretches, you sit and yack (hmmm, this site doesn't allow y-a-k for some reason) with your friends, eat popcorn and dogs, keep score, or just sit and soak in the sun - passing time. Nobody I know wants to do that wearing gloves, a parka, and a warm hat while your buns freeze on a cold hard plastic seat with a chilly wind blowing. That my way of ing.
World Series and playoff games seem to be pretty well attended.
I don't think a lot of people are staying home because of the weather.
So, I'm not sure this solution has a problem.
There’s no reason for 162 games but unfortunately they can’t change it cuz of the record books. But if we could restart history baseball would only be about 100-120 games
This is actually fairly interesting.
And you bring up some good points.
If baseball were started now, how many games would there be?
I have no idea.
Instead of less baseball, I'd rather see larger rosters.
Something like a taxi squad to give players more off days or allow DHs for other positions so guys can have a day off from playing the field (I don't really need to see Matt Kemp playing left field anyway).
There is no correct number of games, only our preferences.
I'm inclined to think that the owners would resist a reduction in the number of games because that would mean a hit to the wallet. Further, it would be a real mess trying to implement a uniform reduction in games since the existing TV contracts are compartmentalized among 30 clubs with various lengths left on the assorted deals. A reduction would have to be agreed upon first, but then could not be fully implemented until the expiration of the longest existing contract. If you have already been paid for the rights to telecast 162 of your games, the TV interest isn't going to accept fewer games than that. And the next contract will be for less money because there are fewer games.
The MLBPA is likely to take the view that fewer games means less revenues which down the road might mean lower salaries. I can't see the owners offering to guarantee that this will not happen.
The pattern in the last 25 years has been to expand revenue opportunities. They have added four teams, added a third tier to the playoffs and added a one and done wild card playoff game in each league.
So, irrespective of anyone's ideal season length, I would be surprised to see any change any time soon.
I would like to see a 156 game season, which would play out this way:
Six fewer games, with every team playing a doubleheader one Sunday a month. This shaves twelve days off the season, which would begin between, say, April 8th-14th (fewer rainouts, no conflict with the Final Four) and end between the 22nd and 28th of September. A 168-day season with 18 days off (proportionately more rest than players get now), and no World Series games played in November.
156 games would be achieved the following way:
Four divisions of eight teams each. 84 divisional games (12 games vs. each team in the division); 48 intraleague games (a home and away series against each team in the league's other division); 24 interleague games (one three-game series against each team in the division, with divisional matchups alternating each year). This proposal privileges intra-divisional play and rewards each division winner with a bye, as the third through sixth place teams in each league play WC elimination games against each other.
12 of 32 teams make the postseason, which is generous, but only four of them (those with well-earned division titles) will have "secured" their positions at season's end.
As they say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And I don’t think the system’s broken on that issue.
You don't think the popularity of the game is decreasing? Is the younger generation watching the game - in 2-3 decades will the game still have the same following?
They better speed up the game as well as make the games worth watching....with a 162 game schedule, each game means less than if the season were shorter.
You don't think the popularity of the game is decreasing? Is the younger generation watching the game - in 2-3 decades will the game still have the same following?
They better speed up the game as well as make the games worth watching....with a 162 game schedule, each game means less than if the season were shorter.
People have been saying this since, at least, '68 when it was clear the NFL was a juggernaut in the making. Baseball is still around.
How do you suggest to game be sped up. Some are marveling at limiting visits to the mound and celebrating seconds being shaved off the game time. Baseball is a game of strategy. It takes time. Also, it's the television ratings people are most amped up about. People are still going to the park. I'd prefer changes to the commercial time before changes to the game itself.
Exactly, the games in all the sports aren't the problem, commercials are. Those slow the game to a crawl. Take that out of the sports and the games are fairly quick. It won't happen but that is the actual problem.
Yes and no. The number of games is fine, the lack of double-headers is the problem. At one time there was a DH almost every Sunday, that would easily cut 15-25 days out of the schedule.
I was going to say start a week later and end a week sooner, so yes but also make it up with DHs love it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.