Baseball LCS ratings down! The world is coming to an end!

I don't think it's reasonable for fans to conclude that, though. The saddest-sack teams of the past 20 years are the Pirates and Royals, and both have had somewhat high hopes at points of the past few years. The tradeoff of the payroll disparities is that the divisions themselves are for the most part grouped by geography and market size. So if the Pirates can be better than the Cardinals, Astros, Brewers, Reds and Cubs, they make the playoffs. (Obviously the Cubs are big-market, but if you can't beat the Cubs you should just give up anyway.) Ditto the Royals with the Indians, Twins, White Sox and Tigers. That they can't find a way to compete is an indictment of them, because they have the same market conditions -- and in many cases better history and tradition to tap into -- than the teams they're going against.

Really the only team that doesn't fit this equation is Tampa Bay, which is stuck in the Yankees/Red Sox division, but obviously the Rays haven't let it bother them.

 

Exactly. And then you have a minor-league system in the sport, six years before free agency (and four before arbitration, right?), and a crapshoot playoff format that levels the playing field.

I think football should have a minor-league system and a best-of-seven series in the playoffs.

 

Well, I don't think so either, but who says fans have to be reasonable?

 

Three years where you can basically name your price, and three arbitration years.

This came up with some Red Sox fans and I discussing the Epstein trade. Most teams know it now, but a lot of fans don't understand how valuable near-ready MLB prospects are.

A guy who can step in and just be a major-league average player for six years might cost $45 million on the FA market and $15 million if he goes through arbitration. So a guy right about to hit the league who can be average is worth $30 million to his organization (oversimplifying, of course).

 

Good point.

 

Um, the DFW metro is bigger than Houston. But the Rangers will gladly take another 15-5 record against a division foe to match a similar record against the A's and Mariners.

 

He meant the Cubs.

 

They already have one.

It's called the NCAA.

 

Saying something didn't work for the Arena Football and the WNBA so it won't work for MLB is just foolish. There is no comparison among those entities. None.

I don't care what you care to discuss. My suggestion had more components to it than just changing what games are shown. If you dismiss the other components, you are misrepresenting my argument.

MLB could do a better job of improving its national audience. Providing more balanced exposure would only be one part of what MLB has to do, but the owners seem content to keep relying on the same few markets to carry most of the load.

 

Why would the NFL want to copy anything from MLB? The NFL is the more successful league right now.

 

Baseball's schedule is the biggest detriment to drumming up interest in non-local teams. Following baseball, just the home team, is a huge night-to-night investment. Putting the Royals on in prime time, even if the Royals were good, changes nothing. Football is a one or two-day-a-week commitment for four months, two less than baseball.

It's apples to oranges.

 

No matter what system you change, baseball is fucking boring for 3 hours, 162 days or nights a year. If you didn't grow up with it and acquire a taste for it, it's hard to be excited by it.