"Bush tried to ruin baseball too"
 

The title of the author's post is tic, but it is interesting...

"I MADE my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right."

"George Bush on Iraq? No, that was George Bush, the then owner of the Texas Rangers, a major league baseball team, after voting against baseball's new wild-card system in 1993. The owners' vote came down 27-1 against Mr Bush. History, meanwhile, has proven him quite wrong—most players, owners and fans (including myself) consider the wild-card system, in effect since 1995, a tremendous success. (I only mention it because my Yankees play tonight, after having won the wild card during the regular season.)"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...aseball_to.cfm

Me: The wildcard has been a success. But I can understand where Bush was coming from...baseball had (and still does) a very long season for a reason – it *was* the playoffs. The teams playing for the pennant were the best over the gauntlet of the entire season, not just a quick five game series.

Obviously there have been some very good WC teams, in that there are 3-4 WS winners from the WC, in its short history.

How can you know if it is a success, if you don't have a control?

Ok, what if I say that there should be 8 playoff teams from each league. That it will increase fan interest and increase revenue. How can you prove my assertion is wrong?

You can't. Just like you can't prove your assertion that the wildcard is the right thing.

If you're measuring by TV dollars and butts-in-seats it has been a success - I'm not sure that's the best measure, but the game is healthier now, from a financial standpoint, than it’s ever been.

At the time (moving to the wildcard) there were many purists very much opposed to the wildcard - bob costas, george will etc...

How do you know?

Money has gone up at the same time that wildcard started? Is that your "proof"? What about all the other things that have changed? Which have helped, which have hurt? TIA.

Well you won't have a control group, as you state, but that's very obvious.

I could probably write a paper on it or at least a very long post – which I may do later. The wildcard is one of the factors in the game's current financial success – coming out of the '94 strike-shortened season, with the wildcard being put in place in '95. Even in the face of its diminishing importance on the landscape of American sports, baseball has become more profitable and franchise more valuable over the last twenty years.

Besides the NHL perhaps, is there a sports league that hasn't gotten richer and franchises more valuable over the past 20 years?

Count me as one of those as well.

If it was up to me, there would be no wild card, no inter-league play, only two divisions in each league and no DH.

The leagues went to 3 divisions and a wild card for only one reason - to generate more money. I hate that baseball has gone the way of the NBA and NFL - that money is the reason the for which the sport is played.

MLS (that may be changing), PGA, XFL, LPGA, ATP, AVP

PGA and MLS are definitely more valuable and rich now.

I'm not familiar enough with the others to give an opinion.

If you are using volleyball leagues to back your opinion, you are really going out on a limb.

I meant to type PBA. Bowlers are people too.