MLB response to tanking: more playoff teams?

[Frobby]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/02/mlb-reportedly-planning-postseason-changes.html

“First and foremost, the proposal under consideration would add two more postseason qualifying teams in each league, meaning that 14 of the game’s 30 clubs would be in the playoffs each year. The top overall team in each league would get a first-round bye, with the other teams playing 3-game series (all in one city) to advance.

That structure would assuredly change the roster-building calculus. In theory, tanking wouldn’t be as appealing, though it’d also increase the potential for cost-efficient postseason bids.”

[Frobby]

And this:

“The proposal also includes one other eyebrow-raising provision. Per [the NY Post’s Joel] Sherman, the top three non-bye playoff teams would select their first-round opponents. This is a more or less standalone quirk, but one that does hint at some of the motivation here. Sherman notes that the league would plan to televise a live selection show. This package of potential changes is obviously designed both to increase the general competitive appeal of many games and to spice things up with some quirks.”

[Can_of_corn]

Why not just end the season in August and have every team make the playoffs?  They can start the playoffs in September. 

[ArtVanDelay]

If this puts the Orioles in playoff contention a year earlier than expected, I'm in favor of it.

[Legend_Of_Joey]

Whoever came up with this idea probably also came up with the Orioles Spring Training cap design...

[tntoriole]

28 minutes ago, Frobby said:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/02/mlb-reportedly-planning-postseason-changes.html

“First and foremost, the proposal under consideration would add two more postseason qualifying teams in each league, meaning that 14 of the game’s 30 clubs would be in the playoffs each year. The top overall team in each league would get a first-round bye, with the other teams playing 3-game series (all in one city) to advance.

That structure would assuredly change the roster-building calculus. In theory, tanking wouldn’t be as appealing, though it’d also increase the potential for cost-efficient postseason bids.”

Hard to see how this change would disincentivize tanking.  I think it would likely increase it...the time period from tanked to new playoff level...i.e 14th, would be overall shorter so it would be even easier to sell it as a strategy.

The only part of this I like is it would get rid of the one game wild card...if they are going to have any kind of playoffs, best of 3 is a minimum, otherwise don’t have it at all. 

[SteveA]

I'm not sure I understand.   #1 overall seed gets a bye, the other 6 teams play a best of 3 series to get down to 4.  

So that's probably DivWinner#2 vs WC#4, Div winner #3 vs WC#3, and WC#1 vs WC#2?

But then the 3 remaining teams, not the #1, get to CHOOSE who they play next in a televised "draft"?   What is that really?   There's only 4 teams left.   So the one with the best record gets to select who their next opponent is between the #1 overall with the bye, or one of the other two first round winners?   That is bizarre.   What purpose does it serve?   Or am I not understanding it correctly.

[PaulFolk]

6 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I'm not sure I understand.   #1 overall seed gets a bye, the other 6 teams play a best of 3 series to get down to 4.  

So that's probably DivWinner#2 vs WC#4, Div winner #3 vs WC#3, and WC#1 vs WC#2?

But then the 3 remaining teams, not the #1, get to CHOOSE who they play next in a televised "draft"?   What is that really?   There's only 4 teams left.   So the one with the best record gets to select who their next opponent is between the #1 overall with the bye, or one of the other two first round winners?   That is bizarre.   What purpose does it serve?   Or am I not understanding it correctly.

No, they'd be choosing their opponents in the first round. The top division winner (#1 seed) would get a bye, as you said. The second best division winner (#2 seed) would choose its wild card opponent first (choosing from among the #5, #6, and #7 seeds). Then the third best division winner (#3 seed) would choose its wild card opponent. Then the top wild card team (the #4 seed) would play whichever wild card team is left over.

Either way, it's stupid.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, PaulFolk said:

No, they'd be choosing their opponents in the first round. The top division winner (#1 seed) would get a bye, as you said. The second best division winner (#2 seed) would choose its wild card opponent first. Then the third best division winner (#3 seed) would choose its opponent. Then the top wild card team (the #4 seed) would play whichever wild card team is left over.

Either way, it's stupid.

I think it sounds kind of fun.    But 7 playoff teams out of 15 is a lot.    

[waroriole]

NBA has 16 postseason teams and they’re the poster child league for tanking. Not sure how this helps. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, waroriole said:

NBA has 16 postseason teams and they’re the poster child league for tanking. Not sure how this helps. 

More teams in the playoffs means more playoff games which means more playoff revenue.

That's the real agenda.

[Win Column]

That first team to choose its opponent only to get swept out of the postseason is going to get skewered.

[eddie83]

Right or wrong Manfred likes to throw ideas out there to get people talking. 

[eddie83]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why not just end the season in August and have every team make the playoffs?  They can start the playoffs in September. 

One thing I have heard is that they do want to go back to 154 game schedule. That was tied to going with 32 teams though. 

[eddie83]

25 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

More teams in the playoffs means more playoff games which means more playoff revenue.

That's the real agenda.

I can live with a 5/6 wild card game and then that winner plays a the #4 seed in a best of 3. That would still though make the other 3 teams wait longer. That was one plan for 8, 4 team divisions 32 teams propasal eventually. 

My biggest issue with this plan is that the regular season is weakened. Are the 5-7 teams going to be that upset they have a 3 game road series? Yes more teams would have incentive to win but also more teams would coast in September and then a possible #2 seed who was trying to be #1 gets screwed.