Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
Play it in Wrigley Field each year.
That would always be a World Series neutral site.
That would always be a World Series neutral site.
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Neutral Site for the World Series? https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=26027 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Hot topic in sports news: should there be a neutral site chosen for the World Series week in a warmer city in order to prevent further weather issues? Discuss.... |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
No. Terrible idea. Have less scheduled off days in October. Plain and simple |
|
| Author: | Krazy Ivan [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Play the games in Cuba. Next question... |
|
| Author: | man of few opinions [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
very stupid idea. the answer is to tighten things up in october like frank said. throw in some weekend doubleheaders throughout the year too. |
|
| Author: | Krazy Ivan [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Dominican Republic? |
|
| Author: | Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
I think they should just shorten the season. is 162 games really needed? |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Play it in Wrigley Field each year. That would always be a World Series neutral site. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
No |
|
| Author: | Colonel Angus [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Play it in Wrigley Field each year. That would always be a World Series neutral site.
|
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Ugueth Will Shiv You wrote: I think they should just shorten the season. is 162 games really needed? Because of the extended round of playoffs, absolutely not! In a perfect world, Major League Baseball should shorten the schedule by at least 20 to maybe 30 games, but Don Fehr, Gene Orza and the powerful MLBPA probably won't agree to cutting the schedule. If they did, maybe MLB wouldn't take this long to determine a World Champion! If my math is correct, MLB plays as many as 181 games if we include 5 games in the Divisional Playoffs & 14 total games in the League Championship Series & World Series apiece if a series goes all 7 games. What makes it even more bizarre is that MLB starts the regular season in the last day or two of March to help accommodate ESPN. Talk about a marathon! |
|
| Author: | Colonel Angus [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
SHARK wrote: Ugueth Will Shiv You wrote: I think they should just shorten the season. is 162 games really needed? Because of the extended round of playoffs, absolutely not! In a perfect world, Major League Baseball should shorten the schedule by at least 20 to maybe 30 games, but Don Fehr, Gene Orza and the powerful MLBPA probably won't agree to cutting the schedule. If they did, maybe MLB wouldn't take this long to determine a World Champion! If my math is correct, MLB plays as many as 181 games if we include 5 games in the Divisional Playoffs & 14 total games in the League Championship Series & World Series apiece if a series goes all 7 games. What makes it even more bizarre is that MLB starts the regular season in the last day or two of March to help accommodate ESPN. Talk about a marathon! I have to disagree, Shark. I don't think it's the union that'll have the problem with a shorter schedule, but the owners, who won't get a minimum of 81 games worth of income. The more games = the more money made. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
If they play it at a neutral site, I promise you there will be empty seats on a yearly basis. |
|
| Author: | buryman [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Stupid idea - cut off some dates or bring back the double header throughout the season and end early October and not end of October. |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
good dolphin wrote: If they play it at a neutral site, I promise you there will be empty seats on a yearly basis. thats a ridiculous promise. |
|
| Author: | Elmhurst Steve [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
good dolphin wrote: If they play it at a neutral site, I promise you there will be empty seats on a yearly basis. Are there empty seats at the Super Bowl? Thats just stupid...The games would most certainly sell out. But baseball is a game steeped in tradition. No way do I see this happening. The idea of shortening the season makes sense to me. But try telling the players and agents that their salaries will be going down a bit, since the owners will be scheduling fewer games, which translates into less revenue. I like the idea of a handful of scheduled double headers. but that would make it tough on a pitching staff, as they would have to be pitching guys on short rest more often. Maybe if they increased the roster size, to allow for an extra pitcher or two. In the end, I doubt anything changes, except that more teams that build ballparks in the future, may do as Milwaukee has, and include a retractable roof in the structure. |
|
| Author: | walkrman5 [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Stupid Idea...but let me try and play devils advocate Imagine this..(think super bowl) 1) designated new site every year 2) One week of solid baseball World Series games 3) Host cities would rollout the red carpet 4) World Series parties surround the event 5) ticket sales to season ticket holders of both teams first...then open to public. Those who may never have an opportunity to otherwise get ticktes...now could. I realize there are timing aspects...and super bowl is one game compared to potentially 7...but its not beyond the realm of possibility. I agree with previous posters though...tighten up the season and play the world series games earlier in october. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Elmhurst Steve wrote: good dolphin wrote: If they play it at a neutral site, I promise you there will be empty seats on a yearly basis. Are there empty seats at the Super Bowl? Thats just stupid...The games would most certainly sell out. . 7 games versus 1. Weekday versus weekend. Less casual fan interest. Other sports that hold fan interest running concurrent. I stand by my statement. |
|
| Author: | doug - evergreen park [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
worst idea ever. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
I'd prefer if they started every game in the 6th inning. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Yeah, the Cubs might have had a chance then! |
|
| Author: | newper [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
SHARK wrote: Talk about a marathon! Ok, I will. A marathon is a is a long-distance foot race with an official distance of 42.195 kilometers (26 miles 385 yards) that is usually run as a road race. The event is named after the fabled run of the Greek soldier Pheidippides, a messenger from the Battle of Marathon to Athens. The historical accuracy of this legend is in doubt, however. Some of the more famous races include the Boston Marathon, the Chicago Marathon, the New York Marathon, the Berlin Marathon and the London Marathon (combined, these make up the biannual World Marathon Majors.) Marathon may also refer to a video game, a chain of gas stations, one of several towns/cities, a Snickers bar in the U.K., an album by Carlos Santana, or many other meanings. |
|
| Author: | newper [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Ugueth Will Shiv You wrote: Hot topic in sports news: should there be a neutral site chosen for the World Series week in a warmer city in order to prevent further weather issues? It would destroy the All-Star Game. No longer could they say, "This One Counts." |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
That's Un-American. Major League Baseball is NOT the NBA, the NFL, or NHL. A Neutral-site World Series? NEVER! |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
good dolphin wrote: If they play it in Atlanta, I promise you there will be empty seats on a yearly basis. Fixed |
|
| Author: | Joe Morgan [ Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Well, one thing you have to realize is, in the context of playing a ball game at home or away, you're given a certain advantage. That is, there are a certain amount of tickets that will go to the home crowd because most of them have season tickets. If the team is away, there is a more hostile environment that the road team has to face because it goes the other way in that regard. Now the idea of the neutral site completely takes the crowd out of it because if you have two teams such as the Reds and the Yankees, but they're playing in Arizona, you would have to figure by demographics that most fans in Arizona are fans of the Diamondbacks. But that would also mean they are most likely fans of the National League, so you would still get a somewhat home-field advantage in that way, since they would be rooting for the National League over the American League. Now if you played the game in an American League town, such as St. Petersburg, you would most likely get similar results. When the Machine played, we didn't have it in our minds whether we were at home or away because we were only concerned with winning. We knew that we could win anywhere we had to play. If there was a game that would be played, say, in Israel, which was propositioned by a few baseball writers in the 1970's, we would have won even if the Palestinians were more of an American League fan than a National League fan, because we had the desire to win in any condition or any facet of a situation. It was that drive that made us win. Anyone who claims homefield advantage is essential is mistaken. Winning is the only advantage. |
|
| Author: | 24_Guy [ Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Neutral Site for the World Series? |
Joe Morgan wrote: Well, one thing you have to realize is, in the context of playing a ball game at home or away, you're given a certain advantage. That is, there are a certain amount of tickets that will go to the home crowd because most of them have season tickets. If the team is away, there is a more hostile environment that the road team has to face because it goes the other way in that regard. Now the idea of the neutral site completely takes the crowd out of it because if you have two teams such as the Reds and the Yankees, but they're playing in Arizona, you would have to figure by demographics that most fans in Arizona are fans of the Diamondbacks. But that would also mean they are most likely fans of the National League, so you would still get a somewhat home-field advantage in that way, since they would be rooting for the National League over the American League. Now if you played the game in an American League town, such as St. Petersburg, you would most likely get similar results. When the Machine played, we didn't have it in our minds whether we were at home or away because we were only concerned with winning. We knew that we could win anywhere we had to play. If there was a game that would be played, say, in Israel, which was propositioned by a few baseball writers in the 1970's, we would have won even if the Palestinians were more of an American League fan than a National League fan, because we had the desire to win in any condition or any facet of a situation. It was that drive that made us win. Anyone who claims homefield advantage is essential is mistaken. Winning is the only advantage.  Joe, it's November, shut the fuck up! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|