The owners and the union are apparently discussing adding a best of 3 wild card round to the playoffs as a part of the next CBA they are working on.

Where there is one wild card team now, instead there would be 2, with the winner of the best of 3 series to advance to the divisional series as we have now.

Personally I really like the idea, because teams will play their tale off down the stretch to try and avoid being the wildcard team. The way it is structured now, apart from not having home field there is no disadvantage to being a wild card vs. division winner.

If in the new format you have to play a 3 game series before you advance, that will burn out your rotation at the top compared to how it is now. Division winners will have a true advantage, which is how it should be as they should be rewarded.

Beyond all that, having an extra playoff spot will help the smaller market teams because it will keep more teams in the race down the stretch. That is a good thing, because now even if the Yankees/Red Sox eat up a division and wild card spot every year there will still be room for one more non-division winner.

A 3 game series is essentially sudden death, and won't drag the playoffs on much longer than they already are. It should be really exciting if it ends up happening, and Bud Selig seems pretty optimistic.

Here is a link to the article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6404094

I'd be OK with it.

I have a question about this and I'm not sure if there is an answer yet, so an opinion will do just fine too.

I will use last year as an example...

East winner-Phillies(#1)
Central winner-Reds(#3)
West winner-Giants(#2)

Wild Card#1 Braves vs WC#2 Padres

My question...would the Reds, with the 3rd best record, automatically get the WC winner? If it is not set, the divisional winners might lose some of their advantage because they wouldn't know exactly who to prepare for.

In 2007, three 88 win teams and an 89 win team missed out on the playoffs.
In 2008, an 88 win team and two 89 wins teams missed out.
In 2009, a pair of 87 win teams and an 88 win team.
In 2010, teams winning 88, 89, and 90.

Obviously all teams capable of competing, and usually better than at least 1 division champ.

Not going to water things down any. I have no problem with the move.

sportswizuhrd;747423 wrote: My question...would the Reds, with the 3rd best record, automatically get the WC winner? If it is not set, the divisional winners might lose some of their advantage because they wouldn't know exactly who to prepare for.

Why would the 3 seed get the wild card winner and pit the 2 best teams (record wise) against each other in the NLDS?

I don't know how it would work though. Would divisional teams be able to play each other in the DS with the new round added?

I like this idea, but what about all the time off for the other teams? Will rust be a factor? I think a one-game playoff would be great.

I like this but what about the time off for the other teams? Will rust be a factor? I think a one game playoff would be ideal and a hell of a lot of fun.

It could possibly be how its set up currently. The winner of the wild card "playoff" can't play the winner of its division. So if the Cubs beat the Braves in the wild card 3 game series, the Cubs couldn't play the Reds. I think they go to to the best record between the other two division winner and they would play the wild card. The other two teams would play each other.

What if both wild cards came from the same division though? Wouldn't that make the divisional rule irrelevant? That's how it would have worked last year with the AL East.

Mulva;747428 wrote:Why would the 3 seed get the wild card winner and pit the 2 best teams (record wise) against each other in the NLDS?

I don't know how it would work though. Would divisional teams be able to play each other in the DS with the new round added?

That's what I meant when I asked would it be set..Avoid divisional teams playing each other in the DS, or wait till possibly Wednesday/Thursday(if it goes three with a travel day in between) to find out who you play. I used the Reds as an example from last year where the two top WC teams also came from the same division as the two top divsion winners.

TBone14;747431 wrote:I like this but what about the time off for the other teams? Will rust be a factor? I think a one game playoff would be ideal and a hell of a lot of fun.

If they do the 3 games in 3 days I think it'll work, but will travel allow it?

ts1227;747464 wrote:If they do the 3 games in 3 days I think it'll work, but will travel allow it?

The travel might suck but it would be doable. At least the time in transit would be the same for both teams.

I think it's stupid. There are already enough regular season games to determine who deserves to be in the playoffs. If you are not part of the top 4 after 162 games then you don't deserve to be in the playoffs. If there is a tie at the end of the season, and a one game playoff has to be played, then so be it.

In this system the AL East can have the two best records in the league just like last year, and one of those teams will have to play in a 3 game series just to get into the playoffs? GTFO. The only way I am ok with this, is if they get rid of divisions and take the top 5 teams in each league.

Love it. If one team is running away with the WC, it allows some more teams (fans) to stay active in the season. If a team isnt running away with the WC, than nothing changes.

If they do it, I would like to see a 3 game series, no days off...but that wont happen. How is home field set up:
-1 on road, 2 at home?
-1 at home, 1 on road, 1 at home?
-2 at home, 1 on road?

Id assume the second (essentially meaning we will have travel days) or first, which still allows for no travel days.

I like it.

And if it's a 3 game series, I would think the team with the better record would host the 1st 2 games.

Doubt they would let the team with the better record host the 1st 2 games. It would mean one team would potentially lose out entirely on playoff gate money, which for some of the smaller clubs would be a big deal. They'd almost have to do a 1-1-1 format.

I'd think the 1-2 format would work. Team with the better record hosts the 2nd game and the 3rd game if necessary.

Id like the 1-1-1 if it didnt mean they would have to waste days for travel. Ideally, I hope they go 1-2, so the better team gets the decisive game in necessary.

Laley23;747631 wrote:Id like the 1-1-1 if it didnt mean they would have to waste days for travel. Ideally, I hope they go 1-2, so the better team gets the decisive game in necessary.

The better team would get the decisive game in a 1-1-1 series also.

wildcats20;747632 wrote:The better team would get the decisive game in a 1-1-1 series also.

yeah, I know. But it would suck cause they would give days off for all the travel.

Laley23;747637 wrote:yeah, I know. But it would suck cause they would give days off for all the travel.

I think if you give them 1 day off for travel after game 1. And then, if necessary, play game 3 the day after game 2.

wildcats20;747638 wrote:I think if you give them 1 day off for travel after game 1. And then, if necessary, play game 3 the day after game 2.

yeah, but I bet they wouldnt. I think in 1-2 they would play 2 and 3 with no day off. But in 1-1-1 I bet they have a day off after each.

If this was in play last year, it would have been San Diego vs Atlanta in the NL and the Yankees vs Boston in the AL.

Obviously the AL would totally work for no travel days, but the NL would be tough. But I think it's doable. Maybe play an afternoon game for game 2 and a night game for game 3?

That's how they do travel games during the regular season, when travelling a good distance. That would work.

The point isnt if it would work, because it would. The point is, would Selig do that? I say no, based on how many freaking off days they get in the playoffs already (Its almost as much as the regular season combined.)