Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

MLB: Should the World Series be at a Neutral Site?

cybsball20

cybsball20

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2006
12,740
438
83
Des Moines, IA
There is a great story on ESPN insider by Buster Olney about how he thinks the World Series needs to be at a neutral site... The more I think about it, I may agree. For one you could get it all in faster, go five games, day off, two more if necessary. It would force teams to use all five starters and bringing out the old "only as strong as your weakest link" argument. Offense would be up as staffs are thinned out. But most importantly you have a warm weather or domed stadium and you get every game in...

What do you think?
 
I'd love to see them put the World Series on a neutral field in a Super Bowl style format, but I unfortunately never see it happening because Selig is a moron.
 
My one thing about this is that most teams are built around their ballpark. would it be fair that you have a home field advantage all year and then it is not their for the most important series? ie- Twins are built to play indoors
 
Just look at the teams that have the money and a legitamate shot year after year. New York (2), Boston, Philly, Chicago (2), Detroit. So many are in pretty tough climates, it may be necessary...

Imagine how nuts Miami would get if you had a Yankees vs. Mets World Series...
 
Two games at each teams' ballpark, the final three in a neutral and WARM location. I've thought that for years.

7 games in 9 days.
 
Last edited:
The only reason I don't like this is because of the corporate effect on the Superbowl and this eliminates the common fans of the team. By having it at home sites you allow the city and fans of that team to support them. It would be much harder for the common man to make the trip to a neutral site than it would to the home park.
 
It might be a good idea, but you'd never get teams like the Yankees to go for it - they have a huge stadium and can charge pretty much whatever they want to for playoff tickets and it will sell out.

It would also solve the problem of homefield advantage coming from the allstar game which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 
cybsball20 said:
There is a great story on ESPN insider by Buster Olney about how he thinks the World Series needs to be at a neutral site... The more I think about it, I may agree. For one you could get it all in faster, go five games, day off, two more if necessary. It would force teams to use all five starters and bringing out the old "only as strong as your weakest link" argument. Offense would be up as staffs are thinned out. But most importantly you have a warm weather or domed stadium and you get every game in...

What do you think?
Click to expand...


That's a pretty good argument. But before I go there, I would argue that Baseball's World Series should not be played in Late Oct / Early Nov. But not sure how you can shorten then season with two divisional playoffs + World Series
 
The World Series should be played in the cities where the teams reside, but it should be done by mid-October instead of Thanksgiving which is when it will eventually end up.
 
I really don't like this idea. I agree with others about teams being built for their ballpark, etc. For me though, in the end. It takes the world series and throws the fans out the window. One nice thing about baseball, is if you are a season ticket holder and your team goes to the WS, you're almost guaranteed tickets. It gives that town something to celebrate as well. Take that away and you turn the WS into another Rich guys only get to play Hollywood production. I'm not really an Old Schooler either when it comes to baseball. But, you will be eliminating some of the great parks in baseball as possibilities if this happens. How pissed would people be in Chicago if the Cubs finally did make it and the Series is being held In Dallas this year? I don't think it's as much about weather as Baseball looking at this years series and thinking, you know, if this would have been in X-Town, we probably could have made more money off of it. If you don't like the weather, get the season over sooner and into the play offs. no excuse baseball should be going until the end of October.
 
What I've never been able to figure out is why they don't start it earlier. I know a few teams would lose a little more money, but why not play 150 games instead of 162 and start the playoffs two weeks earlier?

If my Cubs ever make it back to the World Series, there is no place I would rather watch than at Wrigley Field, not some neutral site.
 
The season will never be shortened. You can't start it any earlier or you run into the same problem with the weather... You would think they could tweak the schedule to have northern teams on the road down south at the beginning of the year though...
 
I would love this idea except....

You would have to schedule the destination prior to the season. What if the team in that city ends up making the Worlds Series?? I don't like the idea of ONE team getting 7 games at home possibly.
 
start the season at the same time, play more doubleheaders, get the season over a week or so earlier so the playoffs end earlier. keep the WS at the teams stadiums who are playing. let the true fans see their team play.
 
rworkman83 said:
What I've never been able to figure out is why they don't start it earlier... But why not play 150 games instead of 162 and start the playoffs two weeks earlier?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is concern about how this would affect the records, but the steroid era has sufficiently tainted them anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom