The World Series and neutral locations

SackAttack · 10-28-2008, 03:25 PM

With all of the talk about last night's game and whether or not the game should have been ended after five innings with the Phillies declared champions, the question springs to mind: should the World Series continue to be held in the cities of the participants, or would it be better to follow the NFL template and hold the Series in cities with warmer/drier weather or roofs to minimize the impact of weather?

DeToxRox · 10-28-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

With all of the talk about last night's game and whether or not the game should have been ended after five innings with the Phillies declared champions, the question springs to mind: should the World Series continue to be held in the cities of the participants, or would it be better to follow the NFL template and hold the Series in cities with warmer/drier weather or roofs to minimize the impact of weather?

Has to be held in the participants cities. The Superbowl is able to be held anywhere because it's a two week event. Would the Phillies/Rays really garner a few, if any, sellouts if it was being played in Arizona?

cartman · 10-28-2008, 03:27 PM

If it were one game, then neutral location would work. But no way would it work in a series.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-28-2008, 03:28 PM

Why would anyone in their right mind want to move the WS to a neutral site? It's not a one-off event like the SB and it's not as though the scenario from last night occurs on a regular basis.

The whole topic borders on the absurd AFAIC.

DeToxRox · 10-28-2008, 03:29 PM

Dola - Owners would veto the crap out of it. Why cut in another owner on revenue? If the Phillies can sellout three games in Philly, it's all their money. Now they'd have to split money with the Rays, who maybe can't sellout if it's in Tampa, plus the park the game is being held in, whoever the owner is, is getting a slice.

It just has too much working against it.

Karlifornia · 10-28-2008, 03:29 PM

This would not work, in my eyes. The World Series is 7 games, not one. It's not the spectacle the Super Bowl is. The Super Bowl is just the culmination of a weeks worth of entertainment.

You put a Phillies/Rays WS at Petco Park for 7 games, you're alienating two fan bases, the only two fan bases that really care at all about who wins.

stevew · 10-28-2008, 03:29 PM

I also wear affliction clothing.

DeToxRox · 10-28-2008, 03:30 PM

I'd be all for starting the season like two weeks earlier and holding some neutral site games for Northern teams to avoid potential snowstorms. That's about it.

DeToxRox · 10-28-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

I also wear affliction clothing.

I'm the style guru of FOFC. Thanks for playing.

MikeVic · 10-28-2008, 03:31 PM

No way. I don't see how this makes sense.

DeToxRox · 10-28-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

This would not work, in my eyes. The World Series is 7 games, not one. It's not the spectacle the Super Bowl is. The Super Bowl is just the culmination of a weeks worth of entertainment.

You put a Phillies/Rays WS at Petco Park for 7 games, you're alienating two fan bases, the only two fan bases that really care at all about who wins.

It wouldn't work .. like your Xbox controller.

Karlifornia · 10-28-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

It wouldn't work .. like your Xbox controller.

I hope you have some excuses ready on a laminated sheet or something after we come into the Big House and annihilate you

lordscarlet · 10-28-2008, 03:36 PM

I would argue that the Super Bowl should not be at a neutral site, if it weren't for the fact that it is one game. That is the only reason it works for the Super Bowl. The idea that it is always played in a dome or warm climate is absurd.

Kodos · 10-28-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I hope you have some excuses ready on a laminated sheet or something after we come into the Big House and annihilate you

Set phasers on Annihilate!

stevew · 10-28-2008, 03:50 PM

They could generate so much more cash by playing this Sunday-Saturday on a neutral field. With all the rediculous jacked up prices on StubHub, I highly doubt the common fan can even attend anymore. And I'd much rather the league make more money on tickets than scalper fans.

RedKingGold · 10-28-2008, 03:51 PM

Dream Scenario: Start the season on May 1st and end it on October 1st; using as many regularly scheduled double-headers as needed.

Will never happen, but this would be nice to see.

Mustang · 10-28-2008, 03:52 PM

Any way we could make polls pop ups?

lordscarlet · 10-28-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

They could generate so much more cash by playing this Sunday-Saturday on a neutral field. With all the rediculous jacked up prices on StubHub, I highly doubt the common fan can even attend anymore. And I'd much rather the league make more money on tickets than scalper fans.

And who exactly is going to pay those prices to go see the Rays and the Phillies duke it out in San Diego?

molson · 10-28-2008, 03:56 PM

Way too dramatic a change in response to something that hasn't happened in baseball history until now.

digamma · 10-28-2008, 04:31 PM

As others have said, it's not about tradition, it's about being able to fill a stadium seven times over 10 days.

molson · 10-28-2008, 04:34 PM

I'm sure you fill any baseball stadium in America for a World Series. Sox/Yankee/Philly/Cub/etc fans would fly to wherever it was to be played. And most Sox fans (and probably fans of other teams) have learned that its cheaper, even with the cost of airfare/hotel, to see your team on the road in some instances.

But to move games away from these places because of potential weather issues is ridiculous.

JediKooter · 10-28-2008, 04:42 PM

No reason at all to have the World Series played at a neutral site. Like others have said, it's not a 1 game event. It's at least 4 games with the potential for 7 games, so having a neutral site doesn't make much sense, plus, I like the tradition of it being played in the NL and AL champs cities.

rowech · 10-28-2008, 05:57 PM

Here's the bottom line...

Football fields are universal dimensions...ballparks aren't. Teams are often designed because of the way their ballpark plays. To take away that advantage to play at a neutral park is a terrible idea.

samifan24 · 10-28-2008, 06:07 PM

It's a tradition for a reason.

Galaxy · 10-28-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I hope you have some excuses ready on a laminated sheet or something after we come into the Big House and annihilate you

He'll be too depressed after we take them down in the Big House.

astrosfan64 · 10-28-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I would argue that the Super Bowl should not be at a neutral site, if it weren't for the fact that it is one game. That is the only reason it works for the Super Bowl. The idea that it is always played in a dome or warm climate is absurd.

AGREED 100%

Lathum · 10-28-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech

Here's the bottom line...

Football fields are universal dimensions...ballparks aren't. Teams are often designed because of the way their ballpark plays. To take away that advantage to play at a neutral park is a terrible idea.

I made this point n the MLB thread last night

Oilers9911 · 10-29-2008, 07:38 AM

Neutral site World Series is a terrible idea. The Super Bowl is one game, WS is potentially 7 games. It's an overreaction becaus eit isn't like this happens every World Series. In fact this is the first time that a World Series game has not completed 9 innings. A better idea would be to go to 154 games and have the World Series a couple weeks earlier.

DaddyTorgo · 10-29-2008, 07:51 AM

all i have to say is: domed stadiums? domed-baseball isn't real baseball. fuck that shit.

flere-imsaho · 10-29-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I would argue that the Super Bowl should not be at a neutral site, if it weren't for the fact that it is one game. That is the only reason it works for the Super Bowl. The idea that it is always played in a dome or warm climate is absurd.

Witness the rainfest that was the Indy-Chicago SB in Miami.

I'd love to see a SB played at Soldiers' Field or Lambeau IN THE SNOW.

lordscarlet · 10-29-2008, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech

Here's the bottom line...

Football fields are universal dimensions...ballparks aren't. Teams are often designed because of the way their ballpark plays. To take away that advantage to play at a neutral park is a terrible idea.

While I agree with most of the sentiment, if the Super Bowl was played on more than the handful of fields it is played on, there is a huge difference between turf and grass, indoor and outdoor.

Fighter of Foo · 10-29-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech

Here's the bottom line...

Football fields are universal dimensions...ballparks aren't. Teams are often designed because of the way their ballpark plays. To take away that advantage to play at a neutral park is a terrible idea.

The biggest advantage of home field is batting last, not the park dimensions.

If there weren't as many off days in October as there are in the entire regular season this wouldn't be an issue.

MizzouRah · 10-29-2008, 10:39 AM

Definite NO - I've been to two World Series games and I'll never forget them.

I'm all for a 150 game season and the WC series should be a 7 game series instead of 5.

View Poll Results: Should the World Series be held at a neutral site in the future?
No: tradition works best.	58	96.67%
Yes: follow the NFL's lead and hold the Series in warm climates or domed stadiums.	2	3.33%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

10-28-2008, 03:27 PM	#3
cartman Death Herald Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas	If it were one game, then neutral location would work. But no way would it work in a series. __________________ Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint

10-28-2008, 03:28 PM	#4
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	Why would anyone in their right mind want to move the WS to a neutral site? It's not a one-off event like the SB and it's not as though the scenario from last night occurs on a regular basis. The whole topic borders on the absurd AFAIC. __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

10-28-2008, 03:29 PM	#6
Karlifornia Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: San Jose, CA	This would not work, in my eyes. The World Series is 7 games, not one. It's not the spectacle the Super Bowl is. The Super Bowl is just the culmination of a weeks worth of entertainment. You put a Phillies/Rays WS at Petco Park for 7 games, you're alienating two fan bases, the only two fan bases that really care at all about who wins. __________________ Look into the mind of a crazy man (NSFW) http://www.whitepowerupdate.wordpress.com

10-28-2008, 03:36 PM	#13
lordscarlet Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Washington, DC	I would argue that the Super Bowl should not be at a neutral site, if it weren't for the fact that it is one game. That is the only reason it works for the Super Bowl. The idea that it is always played in a dome or warm climate is absurd. __________________ Sixteen Colors ANSI/ASCII Art Archive "...the better half of the Moores..." -cthomer5000

10-28-2008, 03:29 PM	#5
DeToxRox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Michigan	Dola - Owners would veto the crap out of it. Why cut in another owner on revenue? If the Phillies can sellout three games in Philly, it's all their money. Now they'd have to split money with the Rays, who maybe can't sellout if it's in Tampa, plus the park the game is being held in, whoever the owner is, is getting a slice. It just has too much working against it.

10-28-2008, 03:29 PM	#7
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	I also wear affliction clothing.

10-28-2008, 03:30 PM	#8
DeToxRox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Michigan	I'd be all for starting the season like two weeks earlier and holding some neutral site games for Northern teams to avoid potential snowstorms. That's about it.

10-28-2008, 03:31 PM	#10
MikeVic Head Coach Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Hometown of Canada	No way. I don't see how this makes sense.

10-28-2008, 03:50 PM	#15
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	They could generate so much more cash by playing this Sunday-Saturday on a neutral field. With all the rediculous jacked up prices on StubHub, I highly doubt the common fan can even attend anymore. And I'd much rather the league make more money on tickets than scalper fans.

10-28-2008, 03:51 PM	#16
RedKingGold College Starter Join Date: Oct 2002	Dream Scenario: Start the season on May 1st and end it on October 1st; using as many regularly scheduled double-headers as needed. Will never happen, but this would be nice to see.

10-28-2008, 03:52 PM	#17
Mustang Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wisconsin	Any way we could make polls pop ups? __________________ You, you will regret what you have done this day. I will make you regret ever being born. Your going to wish you never left your mothers womb, where it was warm and safe... and wet. i am going to show you pain you never knew existed, you are going to see a whole new spectrum of pain, like a Rainboooow. But! This rainbow is not just like any other rainbow, its...

10-28-2008, 03:56 PM	#19
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	Way too dramatic a change in response to something that hasn't happened in baseball history until now.

10-28-2008, 04:31 PM	#20
digamma Torchbearer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: On Lake Harriet	As others have said, it's not about tradition, it's about being able to fill a stadium seven times over 10 days.

10-28-2008, 04:34 PM	#21
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	I'm sure you fill any baseball stadium in America for a World Series. Sox/Yankee/Philly/Cub/etc fans would fly to wherever it was to be played. And most Sox fans (and probably fans of other teams) have learned that its cheaper, even with the cost of airfare/hotel, to see your team on the road in some instances. But to move games away from these places because of potential weather issues is ridiculous. Last edited by molson : 10-28-2008 at 04:35 PM.

10-28-2008, 04:42 PM	#22
JediKooter Coordinator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego	No reason at all to have the World Series played at a neutral site. Like others have said, it's not a 1 game event. It's at least 4 games with the potential for 7 games, so having a neutral site doesn't make much sense, plus, I like the tradition of it being played in the NL and AL champs cities. __________________ I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4

10-28-2008, 05:57 PM	#23
rowech Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2006	Here's the bottom line... Football fields are universal dimensions...ballparks aren't. Teams are often designed because of the way their ballpark plays. To take away that advantage to play at a neutral park is a terrible idea.

10-28-2008, 06:07 PM	#24
samifan24 Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NC	It's a tradition for a reason. __________________ "You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball...and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -Jim Bouton

10-29-2008, 07:38 AM	#28
Oilers9911 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2006	Neutral site World Series is a terrible idea. The Super Bowl is one game, WS is potentially 7 games. It's an overreaction becaus eit isn't like this happens every World Series. In fact this is the first time that a World Series game has not completed 9 innings. A better idea would be to go to 154 games and have the World Series a couple weeks earlier.

10-29-2008, 07:51 AM	#29
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	all i have to say is: domed stadiums? domed-baseball isn't real baseball. fuck that shit.

10-29-2008, 10:39 AM	#33
MizzouRah Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Troy, Mo	Definite NO - I've been to two World Series games and I'll never forget them. I'm all for a 150 game season and the WC series should be a 7 game series instead of 5.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)