|
|
Post by scottscudder on Oct 19, 2014 22:02:47 GMT -5
So, I have this radical idea to increase fan interest. It will never happen, and I'm not sure that even I like it, but I'm interested in people's thoughts.
What if the regular season was split into two 81-game half seasons?
Each division would have a 1st half winner and a 2nd half winner. At the end of the regular season, the two champs play each other to determine who really is the champion of the division. If the same team wins both halves, they get a bye into the next round of the postseason.
Each league could have anywhere from 3-6 postseason teams. There would be 6 teams if there are different winners in each of the three divisions in the two half seasons. There would be 3 teams if the same teams in each of the three divisions won in both halves.
You'd have to figure out different playoff formats depending on whether 3, 4, 5, or 6 teams make it. I'm not going to do that here, but I figure that it could be worked out.
It would be like having two seasons in one! Maybe there could be two trade deadlines, one for each half season. Two opening days. Two MVPs. And fan interest and energy could be renewed across all markets, right in the middle of the summer as the 2nd season begins.
A crazy idea, I know. Thoughts? What are the pros and cons, other than a complete departure from the traditional, marathon-like regular season that we have today?
|
|
|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Oct 20, 2014 11:37:45 GMT -5
You obviously don't remember 1981... That one still burns me up...  |
|
|
|
Post by scottscudder on Oct 20, 2014 18:38:18 GMT -5
You obviously don't remember 1981... That one still burns me up... Ha! Yeah, I had thought of 1981. Just have to hope that it wouldn't happen again.  |
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Oct 20, 2014 23:25:19 GMT -5
With the way schedules are drawn up I see no chance of this happening.
The extra wildcards have been a boom for mlb (it keeps more fans watching games later into the year), I don't see any changes as far as that goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Oct 21, 2014 1:15:00 GMT -5
I haven't yet chimed in with thoughts on this because I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. It's interesting and a variation of it did happen in 1981. I wonder what the incentive would be for teams who win the first half to stay focused in the second half. Sweeping both halves and earning a bye into the second round of the playoffs is nice, but is it enough to keep the team and its fans invested? Or, would all the drama be sucked out of the second half of the season? The closest comparable I have is the NHL, where the sheer number of teams that qualify for the playoffs changes the dynamic because if you're a top team then it becomes rather clear with 2-3 months remaining in the season that you are sailing into the playoffs. So, to some extent, it's just playing out the string and trying to stay healthy, which can make for a lackluster final couple of months.
There would be some benefit to starting over from scratch at midseason, but I tend to think the loss of tension and drama resulting from teams locking up a postseason slot halfway through the season would outweigh any benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Oct 21, 2014 8:03:58 GMT -5
Personally I think there is plenty of fan interest. Splitting a season isn't likely to increase anything since 81 games would still be a long season, and it wouldn't be like the teams that were bad would suddenly become outstanding most years.
So the minimal gains of a team that played the opposite of the Reds this year (horrible first half, very good second half) would be countered with something similar to 1981 happening fairly regularly. The best team over 162 games left out because they didn't win either half.
I think if you want to increase attendance you only need to make the product better for every team. Find ways to evenly spread the money to all teams, and then make sure the players end up with at least half of it.
If you regularly have a quality product the fans will come. I also think you need to find a way to boost offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by crashdavissports on Oct 21, 2014 8:35:10 GMT -5
Personally I think there is plenty of fan interest. Splitting a season isn't likely to increase anything since 81 games would still be a long season, and it wouldn't be like the teams that were bad would suddenly become outstanding most years. So the minimal gains of a team that played the opposite of the Reds this year (horrible first half, very good second half) would be countered with something similar to 1981 happening fairly regularly. The best team over 162 games left out because they didn't win either half. I think if you want to increase attendance you only need to make the product better for every team. Find ways to evenly spread the money to all teams, and then make sure the players end up with at least half of it. If you regularly have a quality product the fans will come. I also think you need to find a way to boost offense. Maybe you can tell pitchers they are not allowed to throw faster than 90 mph and at least one of the 1st 3 pitches has to be a fastball. You can also make the strike zone the size of a grapefruit to ensure a player like Votto will actually swing at a borderline strike. Okay, let me have it guys. I am ready for it! HAHAHA |
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Oct 21, 2014 8:40:56 GMT -5
I was thinking a more lively ball and make some defenses illegal. I would also limit time between pitches, the number of pick off attempts that could be made, and limit trips to the mound.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottscudder on Oct 21, 2014 14:49:48 GMT -5
I haven't yet chimed in with thoughts on this because I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. It's interesting and a variation of it did happen in 1981. I wonder what the incentive would be for teams who win the first half to stay focused in the second half. Sweeping both halves and earning a bye into the second round of the playoffs is nice, but is it enough to keep the team and its fans invested? Or, would all the drama be sucked out of the second half of the season? The closest comparable I have is the NHL, where the sheer number of teams that qualify for the playoffs changes the dynamic because if you're a top team then it becomes rather clear with 2-3 months remaining in the season that you are sailing into the playoffs. So, to some extent, it's just playing out the string and trying to stay healthy, which can make for a lackluster final couple of months. There would be some benefit to starting over from scratch at midseason, but I tend to think the loss of tension and drama resulting from teams locking up a postseason slot halfway through the season would outweigh any benefit. There would actually be two byes on the table: 1) Win both halves and you have a bye into the 2nd round 2) Have the best record overall across the two halves (of the eligible playoff teams) and you have a bye into the LCS. |
|
|
|
Post by scottscudder on Oct 21, 2014 14:55:00 GMT -5
With the way schedules are drawn up I see no chance of this happening. The extra wildcards have been a boom for mlb (it keeps more fans watching games later into the year), I don't see any changes as far as that goes. I think the wildcards have done a lot for fan interest, and it's one of the primary arguments against the split season. However: 1) Even with the wildcards, by mid-August, you have a large chunk of teams that are realistically out of it with a month and a half left to play. 2) With the shorter half seasons, it's harder to build large divisional leads 3) With the smaller sample size of 81 games, there's opportunity for more randomness. Large payroll teams have less of an advantage than they do over the course of a 162 game season. 4) There may be some instances where injuries really hurt a team during part of a season. The split season perhaps gives them a better chance during at least one of the halves? I'm speculating here. |
|
|
|
Post by scottscudder on Oct 21, 2014 14:59:23 GMT -5
Personally I think there is plenty of fan interest. Splitting a season isn't likely to increase anything since 81 games would still be a long season, and it wouldn't be like the teams that were bad would suddenly become outstanding most years. So the minimal gains of a team that played the opposite of the Reds this year (horrible first half, very good second half) would be countered with something similar to 1981 happening fairly regularly. The best team over 162 games left out because they didn't win either half. I think if you want to increase attendance you only need to make the product better for every team. Find ways to evenly spread the money to all teams, and then make sure the players end up with at least half of it. If you regularly have a quality product the fans will come. I also think you need to find a way to boost offense. Totally agree on evenly spreading the money. I think that's a huge contributor to fan interest issues. In the absence of payroll equality, however, answers such as wildcards or a split season to increase odds for small markets are needed. One additional split season advantage. Something I always hear is that because there are 162 games, each game is less meaningful than games in other sports (e.g., football only has 16 regular season games). With an 81 game season, you double the meaningfulness of each game. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 22, 2014 11:06:32 GMT -5
like it or not there was a boost in fan interest and offense. It was call the steroid era.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Oct 22, 2014 12:14:49 GMT -5
like it or not there was a boost in fan interest and offense. It was call the steroid era. Yeah, but MLB can only cash in all the equity they've built up in the record book so many times before people stop caring. They already cashed in on a century's worth of HR record integrity and since it was done artificially the equity will never bounce back to what it was. Interest won't spike over fraudulent hitters chasing a fraudulent record. |
|
|
|
Post by kramer1 on Oct 23, 2014 7:21:58 GMT -5
They better do something. I'd rather watch paint dry right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottscudder on Oct 23, 2014 14:41:55 GMT -5
I think getting people to go to the games is part of issue as well. Baseball is so much more engaging when you are actually at the ballpark.
Because the MLB season has ten times more games per season than the NFL, any individual game is only 10% as meaningful.
However, the average MLB ticket is one-third the price of an NFL ticket ($28 vs. $85).
So the ratio of price vs. how meaningful the games are seems to be out of whack.
What would happen to MLB attendance if tickets averaged just $8.50 per game?
|
|
