The Biggest Winner of the Super Bowl Debate – Reggie Bush Can Take That Next Step

February 5, 2010

Read the arguments by Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

Hopefully by now you’ve gotten an invitation to a Super Bowl party. Surely, you have your Super Bowl squares all lined up (unless you’re Bleacher Fan, who seemingly can’t find enough participants in Ohio).

As for the game itself, it should be an excellent, high-scoring affair. Outside of the winner (and hopefully me in my Super Bowl squares contest), the biggest winner Sunday night could the legitimacy of Reggie Bush’s career.

I met some USC fans from California over the New Years holiday and let me tell you, they think their Trojans hung the moon. Of course, they also had bad things to say about Lane Kiffin at the time (this was before Kiffin’s hire). But they really believe Reggie Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is despite the trouble that Bush might eventually get USC into, and despite the fact that, for the better part of his professional career, he has quite simply been a bust. Some may say that’s harsh, but I don’t.

As a number two pick back in 2006, much was expected of him after a record-breaking collegiate career. Still, he has yet to have that breakout year with the Saints. This past regular season, he had only 70 carries for the Saints, and he’s a player I will likely never touch in fantasy football. But he’s fit into a nice role down in New Orleans. He compliments that team well and has become a Dave Meggett-like back. He is still a force returning punts when given the opportunity, and if I’m a defensive coordinator, I would still shiver at the thought of Bush running free in the open field.

He has shown signs of breaking out this postseason. He had perhaps his best game as a pro in the divisional round against the Arizona Cardinals, rushing for 84 yards on just 5 carries and returning a punt 83 yards for a touchdown. Watching the game that afternoon, I thought to myself, “This is the Reggie of old.” That’s certainly the type of performance that Saints fans are hoping for on Sunday night. A big game on Sunday, and the hype for #25 will build all over again. I think the opportunity is certainly there for him Sunday, as the game is expected to be a high scoring shootout.

Let’s be real folks. He is beginning to be known as the guy who dates Kim Kardashian, and that’s not a good thing if you are a football player. You want to establish yourself as a professional, and Bush has not yet fully managed that. Quite simply, he is still getting by on the things he accomplished as a USC Trojan.

A big game Sunday could elevate him, though. He would be forever worshipped in the Big Easy, and his reputation around the league would improve dramatically.

The stage is yours, Reggie. You’ve played in big games before. Let’s see what you’ve got!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Biggest Winner of the Super Bowl Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Biggest Winner of the Super Bowl Debate – Big Win for the Big Easy

February 5, 2010

Read Babe Ruthless’ and Loyal Homer’s arguments about who they feel the biggest winner of the Super Bowl is.

It is every football fan’s dream to one day get their hands on a pair of Super Bowl tickets. After all, who wouldn’t want to be in Miami on Sunday evening as the Colts battle the Saints for the Super Bowl Championship? I’ll tell you who – ME (but only this year).

As exciting as it would be to actually have the opportunity to attend a Super Bowl game, there is one place THIS year that I would much rather be – New Orleans! In a city already known for their ability to have a great time, just imagine the excitement and the atmosphere as the fervor of support for the New Orleans Saints mingles with the already abundant party-goers on Bourbon St. It will be the perfect party storm.

Obviously, a win on Sunday night will raise the citizens of NOLA to fever pitch, but even a loss by the Saints will still mean a BIG win for the city.

New Orleans has hosted the Super Bowl before, and reaped the economic benefits of being a host city. In those years, though, the circus left town on Monday morning, and all the money left with it. Things will be slightly different for the ‘Who Dat?’ nation this year, however. The after-effects of having their own beloved Saints actually reach the NFL’s championship game will be felt in that city long after the clock ticks to 00:00.

I have witnessed first hand the benefit that a successful sports team can have on a struggling city. Cleveland transforms on game night for the Cavaliers from an industrial ghost town into an overcrowded mecca of #23 jerseys, #33 jerseys, and even a few #11’s thrown into the mix. Likewise, the city was flooded with tailgaters and bar-crawlers during the 2007 Browns season, and THAT was just because the Browns won 10 games that year (they didn’t even make the playoffs). From the sale of merchandise in the stores to the turn out at local bars and eateries throughout the city, people are always happy to spend money in support of a successful team.

Casinos, restaurants, and bars alike will be packed to the hilt in New Orleans on Sunday night, and for many Sundays to come. The thrill of having reached their first ever Super Bowl will not die down after the game ends. Instead, it will feed a contagious buzz that will fester and grow throughout the entire offseason. Having finally received a taste of the good life, the city of New Orleans will be giddy with anticipation for more. That excitement will spill over into summer time training camp, and will carry throughout the 2010 football season.

If the Saints are fortunate enough to continue their success into next season, the excitement (and corresponding benefit) will be amplified exponentially.

Whether or not the Saints are able to cap off their season with a championship on the field, the city of New Orleans will be shining like gold on Sunday night!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Biggest Winner of the Super Bowl Debate, TSD | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NCAAF Signing Day Debate – Supply and Demand

February 5, 2010

Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s, and Loyal Homer’s arguments about whether or not the media puts too much stock into college recruiting.

There are a lot of things that I feel are wrong about National Signing Day. I got another reminder just this week on how out of control the entire recruiting process is when I read the story of David Sills, one of Lane Kiffin’s newest recruits at USC.

What’s the big deal about David Sills? Only the fact that he is a 13 YEAR OLD SEVENTH GRADER!

That’s right, Lane Kiffin, the poster boy of everything that is wrong with coaching in college football, has decided to hand out a scholarship for the year 2015. What’s the point?! He’s not even gonna be there in 2015!

As for Sills, a lot can change between the ages of 13 and 18, both physically and mentally. When I was 13 I thought I was going to be an astronaut. Of course, that was back when my biggest concern was whether or not Optimus Prime’s Autobots could stop Megatron and the rest of the Decepticon horde – Wait a minute, I guess not THAT much has changed for me mentally. Physically, though, the changes that a boy will go through can be drastic, and that’s assuming that Sills doesn’t suffer some injury while playing football in High School, or while skateboarding, or doing any other number of stupid things that KIDS do.

How are kids who haven’t graduated from high school supposed to cope with the pressures of being a national sports star before they have even taken their SATs?!

Unfortunately, it appears that my distaste for the circus of college recruiting is not shared by all (although our good friend ‘Mr. Doots’ is on my side, accurately referring to the idea of scouting 13 and 14-year olds “Creepy”). Sports Geek wins this debate for pointing out that so much attention is heaped onto the college recruiting process because so many people out there care very deeply about it. Simply put, this obsession with recruiting is not a product of media overhype. Instead, it is a product of the media feeding the needs of those so-called “diehard fans”.

Let’s face it, as much as I may complain about the role the media can play as a hype-machine, there is clearly a market for it in this case. It is a simple law of supply and demand. The media wouldn’t focus so heavily on recruiting if people out there didn’t care about it (which is why you never see the professional Jai Alai draft covered on ESPN, I suppose).

Loyal Homer is absolutely correct in pointing out that there is no guarantee that a Five Star recruit will amount to anything in college. That problem, though, is secondary to the real issue. Nobody denies the fact that these decisions are based purely on projections and potential. However, speculation is a very powerful moving force. From Wall Street to the iPad, potential drives a great deal of our life today.

The fact is that head coaches in college football are expected to do two things – win on the field, and build a successful program. The first step to building a successful program is finding the most talented kids and getting them into your school. Although the process of recruiting is purely speculative, it serves as a standard by which all coaches are held at least partially accountable.

Fans and boosters expect strong recruiting from their coaches. It is for that reason that such a big deal is made about recruiting. The media does not place too much stock in recruiting, they are simply enabling an addiction suffered by many across the nation, called ‘collegefootballaholism’.

I may not agree with the excessive, almost worshipful attention given to these boys who just learned how to drive a car last year, but that does not mean that the media is to blame for having overblown the process and making it out to be something that it is not. The media’s focus on the recruiting process is valuable because very large portions of the fan base, as well as the university athletic programs of the NCAA, all perceive it as being valuable. It is the information they crave, and the media is simply giving them what they want.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Signing Day Debate, TSD | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NCAAF Signing Day Debate – Worthless or Worthwhile?

February 4, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.



Amidst the media blitz of Super Bowl week, a different kind of press storm swept through the nation yesterday – National Signing Day.

National Signing Day has become a sort of national holiday in the college football world, as it is the final day for high school seniors across the country to declare the school they will be attending (and playing football for) after graduation.

Originally, the day was intended as a deadline so that prospective students who would otherwise drag their feet would finally commit to one institution. Today National Signing Day has transformed into a sort of coming-out party for the highest-profile, most heavily coveted recruits who wish to start the timer on their fifteen minutes of fame. Seventeen-year-old boys who should be studying for their Bio exams and trying to get up the nerve to ask some girl to the prom are suddenly transformed into miniature versions of superstar athletes. These boys schedule official press conferences and set news releases, all for a single moment of glory when they will don a college ball cap and announce to all the world, “I will attend _____.”

Who can blame them, though? The media LOVES the pomp and circumstance of National Signing Day, and what 17 year-old WOULD NOT love to be superstar for a day? For some people, it ultimately marks the birth of a great football player. Since football is king in America, fans are always on the lookout for the next great Montana, or Sanders, or even Tebow. That search begins with the transition from high school to college, when boys become men and legends are born.

Recruiting and scouting is an inexact science, though. The transformation from potential to proven is not an easy one, and there is no formula that exists to confidently identify those people who will successfully reach the next level of performance. Instead, it is all just a crap shoot. Sure, trained scouts may be better at identifying potential talent, and some athletes simply possess the raw natural ability to succeed at any level, but there is no guarantee that a five-star high school recruit will amount to ANYTHING at the college level. Likewise, being a two-star recruit has little to no REAL bearing on whether or not that athlete will ultimately find success in college, or even the pros.

Which brings us to our question for the day: Does the media put too much stock in recruiting?

Clearly, every college and professional superstar was at one time a high school recruit. There is no disputing the necessity for, and overall impact of, recruiting on the game of football. However, is the media today placing too much emphasis on intangible qualities that cannot be measured in players who have not yet been proven beyond their own high school fields?

Sports Geek will take the position that the media attention in regards to recruiting is appropriate while Loyal Homer will argue that the media places far too much stock in this one aspect of the game.

The nation awaits your responses!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Signing Day Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NCAAF Signing Day Debate – Recruiting Deserves the Attention for Diehards

February 4, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.



For college football diehards, the single best week prior to the first week of September is nearing completion. Yesterday was National Signing Day, when every college football program revealed the future of their respective programs by announcing the new student-athletes coming to campus. Some talent is in need of being cultivated, other talent is coming to campus immediately ready. Either way, the diehard fans are very excited about the new talent and potential of the next generation of talent.

But, is all of the hubbub about college football recruiting too much? Do fans and the media make too much of the attention paid to unproven recruits? No way. Seldom are fans able to glimpse the real future of the program, and signing day – and all of the coverage about recruiting – gives fans an insiders perspective on the current and future state of their favorite team.

College football is a massive business, and diehard fans are an important audience. Diehard fans are also hungry for any news about their favorite schools. Diehards are a legitimate, money-paying, important part of the overall college football target audience. They are willing to pay a great deal of money for access to knowledge about their preferred team’s recruiting. The media attention about recruiting is not just a frivolous invasion of high schooler’s lives, as detractors may choose to paint the hoopla around recruiting. Recruiting information is a legitimate, legal product offered to paying customers. It is good information and good marketing. It generates excitement about the sport in what would otherwise be a downtime, making it a winning business proposition. Frankly, to steal any headlines from the NFL during Super Bowl week is impressive, and it proves how much fans care about college football and recruiting.

Now, the product is offered and paid for, but why? It is legal to offer the information as a “product,” but why would even the diehard audience pay for this content? Because recruiting matters. A single recruit can make a substantial difference in the present and future of a program. A good example is the recruiting story of Clemson running back, and eventually first round NFL draft pick, C.J. Spiller.

Spiller was a top recruit in the nation, the top rated running back on some lists and even the top recruiting according to some services. Every major college football program was after him due to his once in a generation speed, leadership, and explosiveness. Clemson is not considered a top tier program on a national scale. Florida, Notre Dame, Florida State, and other major schools were all vying for Spiller’s services. Yet, Clemson’s former recruiting coordinator turned head coach Dabo Swinney convinced Spiller that Clemson was the right place for him. Shortly after Spiller’s shocking announcement, other four star, blue chip recruits committed to Clemson over the next several recruiting seasons – even on defense – and now the prospects for Clemson’s program are looking up. In fact, Clemson’s recruiting class for 2010 includes multiple four-star recruits. A single recruit has changed the general talent Clemson is able to attract. That, folks, is why diehard fans pay such close attention to recruiting. A good class, plus good coaching once they get to campus, has the ability to transform a program and from a middle tier to a top tier school. Diehards pay and the media cares because recruiting does matter. Detractors fail to see the value of the long-term payoff and undervalue the passion some fans demonstrate for a college football program, not just a team.

True fans do not care about a single season. They care about every aspect of the program, including its long-term sustainability. Recruiting is as important as any Saturday night featured game, only the payoff is more drawn out.

Diehard fans and media members think in a similar way to coaches. As soon as the season is over, conventional thinking turns from general excitement about how the season ended (or disappointment, depending on the team) to which players from the team are turning pro… and therefore what the new recruiting class must look like. Responsible reporters must cover recruiting because diehard fans thirst for the knowledge.

Good recruiting makes major positive impacts on a team and a program. Perhaps the reporting on recruiting is not always that great. More emphasis is placed on physicality and 40-yard dash time, and less on smarts, coachability, and overall fit within the program. The recruiting reporting should be deeper and better overall.

What do Southern Cal, Texas, and Florida all have in common? They are dominant programs, and they are all on top of the recruiting charts year in and year out. If the best programs also lead in recruiting, it is logical to look to outcome of recruiting each year to get a strong indication about what college football programs are the best. There is an inescapable, direct correlation between recruiting and success.

Recruiting is important. Sports Illustrated college football writer Andy Staples recently published an article about the top 15 recruiting classes of all time. There are some amazing players on this list that completely transformed the fortunes of some of the greatest programs in the history of college football. A significant recruiting class can make a massive impact on the notoriety – and therefore the financial statement – of a college football program. Any reporters who ignore that is foolish.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Signing Day Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The NCAAF Signing Day Debate – It Has Gotten Out of Hand

February 4, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Sports Geek.



Even as a diehard sports nut I admit there are some things in sports that may be perceived as overrated. I am sure I will catch some flak for this, but I believe the Kentucky Derby is overrated. Some can make the case that the Daytona 500 is overrated. The NFL Draft is certainly overhyped and to some extent, so is the Super Bowl. But without question, there is no doubt that one event is as overhyped by the media as National Signing Day for college football.

Recruiting has gotten to be a year-round extravaganza. Recruits are being contacted at younger ages than ever before. There are hundreds of recruiting websites and blogs to track these things. I do not know who I feel sorrier for, the players or the coaches. The players are receiving constant visits, calls, and text messages from coaches. The coaches have to do these things to stay in the game for that particular player.

If you watched any sports or read any sports news yesterday you know that yesterday was National Signing Day and that the usual suspects were at the top of most of the “rankings” put out by the recruiting gurus. Florida, USC, Texas, and others are said to have the best classes, with Florida said to have one of the best classes ever despite the uncertainty surrounding Urban Meyer. My question is, how do they really know? What makes guys like Tom Luginbill so special? Why are websites like Rivals considering the best of the best when it comes to recruits? I had a friend from the University of Georgia tell me yesterday, “We signed a kid who is going to be the best safety to ever dress up in red and black.” Really? How do you know? Because the UGA beat writer said so? Because Luginbill said so? Have you seen this guy play live?

What does a player having a five-star rating really mean? Are those players supposed to be THAT good? If so, how come only three out of 33 five-star signees from last year made the Rivals Freshman-All American team? Where are the other 30? It really is a crapshoot. We just do not know how these kids will respond, on or off the field. Psychologically, it is hard to determine what will happen. How is a small town kid from a rural town in Georgia going to respond to playing in front of 93,000 screaming people in Athens? How is he going to respond walking through a campus full of thousands of students when his entire high school only had 300 kids? How is a guy from a small town in Ohio going to respond when he walks into an English 101 class that has 400 people in it when his hometown only has 250 people? Maybe he gets homesick and that affects his attitude and his performance on the field and at practice. Those types of things affect 18- and 19-year-olds and it indirectly impacts the growth of a football player. There are just so many variables that come into play that it is hard to effectively tie recruiting classes to successful programs. Recruiting is an inexact science.

The sheer fact that we are even having this debate today proves my point. Too much emotion is put into signing day by fans and the media. Sure, we would all like our school to have the top rated recruiting class in the land. But that does not guarantee a national championship in the next four years. The last four recruiting classes at Georgia have been “ranked” in the top ten by Rivals. All that did was lead to an 8-5 2009 campaign and a trip to lovely Shreveport, Louisiana for the high profile Independence Bowl.

Having a good recruiting class is a good start to success and it gives all of us something to talk about in February. But do not get too discouraged if your school did not get 15 five-star recruits. Rely on your coaches to get the best out of the players they recruit. They know the players and the team’s needs better than these recruiting experts do.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Signing Day Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The MLB Postseason Expansion Debate – The Numbers Truly Don’t Lie

February 4, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan.



As I stated in the intro, the first round of MLB playoffs has had a five game first round series since the playoffs were expanded to include the wild card in each league. Babe Ruthless stated that two of the best managers of all time – Bobby Cox and Joe Torre – have publicly expressed frustration about the five game series. Even respected pitchers like John Smoltz and C.C. Sabathia have spoken out against it.

Pitching wins championship and while it did not help the Braves win more than one World Series in their magical run from 1991-2005, it sure does help. Take the 2003 National League divisional round. Sports Geek may disagree with me (considering “The Geek” gets all warm and fuzzy inside at the mention of the word “Chicago”), but the Cubs won that series against the Braves because the Cubs were able to ride the arms of Kerry Wood and Mark Prior. We will never know if the Cubs could have won a seven game series (Editor’s note: They would against the Braves… the Marlins, on the other hand…), but in a year when the Braves pitching was down, the Cubs had a distinct advantage due to having two young fireballers.

Bleacher Fan, on the other hand, completely pulled out his scalpel and dissected my intro! I do not exactly agree with some of the interpretation of the “better” team – which were constantly defined by Bleacher Fan’s use of ALL CAPS! Some relevant statistics were brought out by Bleacher Fan, though, and they are stats I cannot argue against. Seventy-eight percent of the time the first round series has been decided before it even gets to a game five. Obviously, the mindset and overall tone of a five game series is quite different from that of a seven game series. But, the numbers speak for themselves.

Those statistics are why I am rewarding the debate victory to Bleacher Fan. The statistics over the past twenty years that Bleacher Fan highlighted are too relevant to ignore. As Bleacher Fan stated in the title of the winning argument – “the numbers don’t lie.”

Perhaps a greater point of relevance was brought by one of our readers. Commenter “O.G.” wrote that Major League Baseball needs to find a way to not make the playoffs extend so deep into the Fall. Yes, the World Series was played in November this past season, and that is totally unnecessary – especially with all of the off days every team seems to have during the postseason to accommodate television. Before long, someone will be nicknamed “Mr. November” for his success in the World Series, even though , until recently, the entire World Series was played in October.

I am not sure what the answer is to that problem. Good luck with that one, Mr. Selig! But after looking at the statistics since the inception of the wild card, I do not think extending the first round of the playoffs to seven games is the answer.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The MLB Postseason Expansion Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The MLB Postseason Expansion Debate – Five or Seven…You Tell Me!

February 3, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan.



It is a big day for college football fans across the country. Today is National Signing Day, a day where high school seniors finally sign on the dotted line and give their college years to the school of their choice. Visit the website tomorrow for debate on the merits of signing day.

Today we are switching gears a bit. We are going to discuss the possibility of Major League Baseball expanding the first round of the playoffs from five games to seven games.

Currently, the eight teams (three division winners and a wild card from each league) do battle in a five game first round series. Obviously, this trims the margin of error tremendously and some feel that it gives the so-called “underdog” a better chance to win and takes away the advantage that the better team has worked all season to achieve. If a team has two aces on staff, theoretically, that team has a better chance to win. It has been that way since the wild card was first introduced to baseball in 1995.

However, expanding the format to a seven game series would, generally speaking, make it easier for the better team to win. Another potential outcome is extending the postseason into November, and that is something that MLB commissioner Bud Selig has said in the past that he was not in favor of dong. The players are actually in favor of it, and you can bet FOX, or whatever network carries the World Series in the future, is in favor of it. If the playoff format expands, the chances of a World Series game being played in November enters the picture and that would be a big ratings score for the network, especially since November is regarded as a sweeps month.

What do you think? And, what do our debaters think: Should MLB expand the opening series of the playoffs from five games to seven?

Babe Ruthless will vehemently argue that baseball should expand the first round to seven games, while Bleacher Fan will debate that an expansion of the first round of the playoffs is not such a good idea.

Give us your feedback. We know many of you are passionate about baseball. Has your favorite team, the supposed better team, been beaten by a lesser team in the five game series? Perhaps you are a fan of the team that upset the favored team with the best record in the divisional round! Let’s hear from you, too.

In the meantime, the floor belongs to Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The MLB Postseason Expansion Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The MLB Playoff Expansion Debate – 5 Games Are Not A True Test of Endurance

February 3, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.



Just like the cliché about life, the MLB season is not a sprint, but a marathon. It is one of the most grueling tests of endurance in all of professional sports. Teams play 162 games over a six month period. The ultimate goal, the finish line (if you will), is in my opinion the most sacred of all championships in sports – the World Series. The World Series itself is a reflection of the epic journey through the regular season, which earned the winning team a spot in the playoffs when the process began. It is a best of seven series that ensures the winner is not decided by random luck or happenstance, but rather by skill and ability to win at both home and away demonstrated over a minimum of four games. The World Series is not the only seven game series of the MLB playoffs. The American and National League championship series are also best of seven contests. Yet, for some strange reason, the division series remains the only aspect of the playoffs which is a best of five series. While I am usually a baseball purist who clings to tradition, I know that in this instance it is time for a change. Major League Baseball should expand the first round of the playoffs to a best of seven series.

First of all, a five game divisional series is not an accurate tool for measuring a team’s worth. I am not alone in this belief. Many noted coaches and players, such as Bobby Cox, John Smoltz, and C.C. Sabathia, have expressed their criticism of a five game division series. Similarly Joe Torre articulated his frustration with the validity of a five game series, stating, “I’ve always thought that if you’re good enough to win your division, or even to reach the playoffs, it’s not right to have the chance to get blown out in a three-of-five series.” And he should know a little something about the playoffs, seeing as how he has won the league championship series more than any another manager.

Aside from lacking consistency with the rest of the postseason, it just does not make sense. Opponents of postseason expansion argue that there is no difference between winning three games in a best of five series and winning four games in a best of seven series. But, here are huge differences.

A short division series rewards the wrong achievements. A best of five contest places too much emphasis on what could potentially be a fluke three games. If a wild card team lucks into a win in game one of a best of five series, then they have basically removed any advantage that the other team that won their division outright had established. Each team would have two games at home and two games away. Does baseball really want to reward wild card teams that much? A short series should not be able to undermine the accomplishments of the 162 regular season games that got the team to the playoffs in the first place.

A short series also overvalues pitching. A team with three ace type pitchers can hide their weaknesses in such a short series. We all know pitching wins championships, but it should not be the only important aspect of the game. If that is the case the playoffs become little more than a high profile pitching clinic.

The call to expand the five game series cannot simply be dismissed as a passing fad or whim. Historically, MLB has favored seven game series. In 1985 the NLCS and ALCS expanded from a best of five series to a best of seven series. Hmmmm. If we learned that a best of five series was not right then what seems to be the hold up now?

While it is true that trying to establish a system that makes everyone happy is virtually impossible, expanding the first round of the playoffs to a best of five game series is a great step in the right direction.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

1 Comment | The MLB Postseason Expansion Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The MLB Playoff Expansion Debate – The Numbers Don’t Lie

February 3, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.



The current Major League Baseball postseason format is perfect. Do not change a thing!

In posing the question about whether or not MLB should expand the first round of its playoff series from five games to seven, Loyal Homer raises several very interesting points. The first of which being that expansion of the League Division Series (LDS) from five to seven games would extend the season into November.

I have news for everyone – the MLB postseason ALREADY extends into November!

Last year, the final game of the World Series was played on November 4, with a seventh game that was scheduled after that if needed, and that was in a season where none of the Division Series reached game five, and no game sevens were played in the championship or World Series. Just imagine how late the season would have run if there had been full-length series. If you REALLY want to play baseball later into November, then a better solution is to delay the start of baseball so the league is not contending with April snowstorms in much of the northern United States.

A second, and much more important point raised in the introduction, though, is that a five-game series gives a potential advantage to the “underdog.”

This statement completely misrepresents the REALITY that is a five-game series.

The premise behind this argument is that the “better” team is at a disadvantage because they have fewer opportunities to win games. There is a flaw in that logic. The “better” team is not the one that statistically SHOULD win the game. The “better” team is actually the one that DOES win the game. If a team can only win a series because of how they play in games six and seven, are they REALLY a better team?

In 2006, the St. Louis Cardinals (who BARELY reached the postseason with a record of 83-78) faced off against the San Diego Padres (88-74), New York Mets (97-65), and Detroit Tigers (95-67) during their World Series championship run. CLEARLY the Cardinals were the underdog in EVERY series they played, yet it was the Cardinals who went on to claim the World Championship.

I do not care how well the Padres, Mets, and Tigers played during the regular season, the Cardinals were UNDOUBTEDLY the better team when it mattered most – ON THE FIELD! Not only did the Cardinals win a five-game series against a slight favorite, they managed to defeat two HEAVY favorites in full seven-game series. It is impossible to argue that the Padres were a better team than the Cardinals, and that they would have won the series if it had gone to seven games… but they could not even make it to FIVE games!

As further proof that the “better” team will win in a five-game series just as often as in a seven-game series, look no further than the last 20 years of baseball postseason history.

Since 1990, Major League Baseball has seen a total of 120 different playoff series take place. Half of those series were scheduled for only five games (four different five-game series each year since the inception of the LDS in 1995), and the other 60 series were scheduled for seven games (two different LCS’s and a World Series each year). Here are some statistics from those series:

League Division Series

  • Out of 60 possible five-game series, there have only been 13 Game Fives. That means that 78% of the time, the series ends by a 3-1 or 3-0 margin.
  • Out of 60 possible series, nearly half have ended in 3-0 sweeps (25 total)
  • Out of 20 possible series since 2005, there has only been ONE Game Five (Angels vs Yankees in 2005)

League Championship Series/World Series

  • Out of 60 possible series, there have been only been 14 Game Sevens.
  • Out of 60 possible series, the first team in the series to win three games (the ‘would-be’ winner of a five-game series) went on to win the seven-game series 51 times.

Analysis of those facts leads to two key conclusions.

First, because it is extremely unlikely for a team to come from behind in a seven-game series when trailing by a margin of 0-3 or 1-3, and 47 of the first 60 five-game series ended either 0-3 or 1-3, it is highly unlikely that a team which lost in each of those series would have come back to win, had they been scheduled for seven games.

Second, in all of the seven-game series in Major League Baseball that have played out over the last 20 years, 85 percent of them ended in exactly the same manner they would have if the series had only played out over five games.

These statistics all prove the exact same thing – whether five games or seven, the same (better) team would win nearly ALL of the time.

In fact, based on the information above, it looks like Major League Baseball could actually SHORTEN all of their current seven-game series to only five games, because of the statistical irrelevance that games six and seven usually have.

Are there ways to improve baseball? Definitely. Expanding the LDS from five games to seven is not the answer, though.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The MLB Postseason Expansion Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.