Poll of the Week: A Wild-Card Playoff

Poll of the Week is a weekly (sometimes) feature appearing every Friday (or whenever we want). Please vote on the right sidebar, and back up your opinion in the comments. Feel free to email poll suggestions to gjr52@cornell.edu

September 28th may well go down as one of the most exciting nights in baseball history. In the span of just a few hours, the fates of the Braves, Red Sox, Cardinals, and Rays were decided in exhilarating fashion. After 162 games, the Wild Card in both leagues came down to the last day of the season.

Starting next season and beyond, this kind of night might happen every single year.

In case you haven't heard, Major League Baseball is reportedly playing around with the idea of instituting a "Wild-card playoff" in which the top-two non-division winners in each league will play a one-game playoff to determine who clinches the wild-card.

The New York Post reports,

Negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement for Major League Baseball are moving at a fast pace and one issue the sides have all but agreed upon is adding two wild-card teams and holding one-game playoffs in each league to determine which of the wild cards advances

A one-game playoff would undoubtedly create a must-see TV event. Wednesday night aside, there have been some fantastic one-game playoffs the past few seasons.

Who can forget Matt Holliday's winning run in 2007?

What about the Twins topping the Tigers in extra innings to win the 2009 AL Central?

Imagine a game with this much on the line. Now imagine it happening every. single. year.

Twice.

But it's not that simple.

ESPN.com's Mark Kreidler picks apart MLB's proposed plan:

Baseball's brutal 162-game schedule is the difference-maker in this sport, a fact reinforced with historic authority Wednesday night. That schedule certainly doesn't preclude a late rush, especially not with the single wild-card factor already in place. (And esoterics aside, that has been a massive success.) But it is ultimately designed to reward the long-term winners.

Kreidler goes on to argue that Wednesday night wouldn't have been possible, because all four teams would have already clinched spots in the one-game playoff.

Additionally, he argues that there are times when the wild-card race isn't close, and it's unfair to the team that is clearly better to have to play a team that is clearly worse for the chance to make the postseason after a 162-game season.

So what say you? Should Major League Baseball institute a one-game playoff at the end of every season? Or should they the 162 season separate the men from the boys?

Vote in the poll to the right and let your voice be heard in the comments below!

Poll of the Week: Athlete Salaries

Alex Rodriguez signed a 10-year, $275 million contract in 2008

Poll of the Week is a weekly (duh) feature appearing every Monday (or whenever we want). Please vote on the right sidebar, and back up your opinion in the comments. Feel free to email poll suggestions to ilrsmcblog@gmail.com.

A lot of writers and readers of this blog probably consider themselves "die-hard" sports fans. Many of us are people who will fight to the death to defend our favorite player, team, or sport, especially against the "non-fan." The "non-fan" is that guy who doesn't understand why I think hockey is the greatest sport on ice. He's the guy who doesn't understand why the Cubs are so beloved for losing or why the Yankees aren't able to win every year given an unlimited payroll.

Conversations with the "non-sports fan" always become tougher, though, when they bring up the amount of money that our favorite players make.

Why does this guy make 1 billion dollars (in a Dr. Evil voice) for shooting a three-pointer but firefighters and police officers make practically nothing?

Depending on who you are or what sport you follow, you may counter with the idea that these athletes bring in extraordinary amounts of revenue. Or maybe it all comes down to supply and demand.

Ashley Walker takes a good look at the issue of overpaying athletes, and what this says about American society as a whole.

Take a look at her argument:

Let’s put this in perspective. The average brain surgeon makes $450,000 a year. A social worker makes around $46,000. A teacher, even in Connecticut, the highest paying state, only makes an average of $63,000. So, a person who saves lives, a person who protects and serves struggling families, and a person who shapes and molds young minds make a mere fraction of what sports stars make.

[...]

Not only do these athletes get paid tens of millions of dollars to run, jump, and catch, they’re treated as demigods in the process. Their morals and decisions seem to be above reproach or judgment. How many athletes, regardless of their sport, have been involved in scandals (usually sexual in nature), only to be forgiven by both the judicial system and the public at large?

It's a simple question this week:

Are athletes overpaid?

Voting will last until Tuesday at Noon. As always, follow up with your comments below.

Last Week's Poll

Last week, we asked:

Which sports city is the most "miserable?"

An overwhelming 63% of the voters chose Buffalo to be the unfortunate "winner."

Phoenix finished in second with 18% of the vote, while Forbes' choice - Seattle - received a lone vote along with a mysterious "Other."

In the comments, SMCBlog reader "RedBird" voiced his opinion that Cleveland is the worse, while "Robbie Cohen" made the argument that Atlanta may soon play itself off the list entirely.

Care to disagree? Keep the disagree.

Until next time, happy voting!

Poll of the Week: Miserable Sports Cities

Can Pete Carroll help turn Seattle sports around?

Poll of the Week is a weekly (duh) feature appearing every Monday or Tuesday. Please vote on the right sidebar, and back up your opinion in the comments. Feel free to email poll suggestions to ilrsmcblog@gmail.com.

This won't be the most positive post you read on this blog.

Especially if you're a fan of Seattle sports.

In his blog, Fields of Green, Tom Van Riper of Forbes.com writes,

But through a cumulative 111 seasons and 37 playoff appearances, Seattle boasts only one champion: the 1979 Sonics of Gus Williams, Jack Sikma and Dennis Johnson. The list of playoff busts includes some real gut-wrenchers: The 1978 Sonics blew a championship by dropping a Game 7 at home to Washington in the finals, while the top-seeded 1994 club lost a first-round series to the eighth-seeded Denver Nuggets. And the 2001 Mariners went down in the playoffs to the Yankees after posting a 116-46 record during the regular season. Add it all up, and Seattle’s history lands it at the top of our list of the Most Miserable Sports Cities.

Oy vey. The rest of the top 10? After the jump. From, uh, "best" to worst:

10. Cincinnati

9. Denver

8. Cleveland

7. Kansas City

6. Houston

5. San Diego

4. Buffalo

3. Phoenix

2. Atlanta

Any surprises on this list? If so, familiarize yourself with Forbes' scoring system:

We scored each city on the number of times one of its teams has lost in the postseason, adjusting the misery points to give the most weight to losing in the final round (World Series, Super Bowl, NBA Final, Stanley Cup Final) and doling out progressively fewer points for losing earlier playoff rounds. We also factored in the number of years since each city’s last title (31 for Seattle), and the ratio of each city’s cumulative seasons to championships won (Atlanta, for instance, has compiled 153 MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL seasons while winning one championship, the 1995 Braves). And to keep the playing field even, we limited the contenders to cities with at least 75 cumulative seasons in the four major sports leagues.

That said, which sports city do YOU believe is the most miserable?

Also, which of the cities that Forbes ranked is most likely to play itself off this list in future years? Voting closes next Monday. Don't forget to comment below.

Most importantly, protect your fan base.

Last Week's Poll

Last week, we asked:

How many NFL games will be played next season?

In a close vote, 60% of voters believe that the NFL will stick to the normal 16-game regular season; however, 40% of the voters appear to be pessimists (or realists) and believe that there will be an NFL lockout in 2011.

Thanks for voting!

Poll of the Week: NFL Games in 2011-12

Robert Kraft

Poll of the Week is a weekly (duh) feature appearing every Monday. Please vote on the right sidebar and back up your opinion in the comments. Feel free to email poll suggestions to ilrsmcblog@gmail.com.

According to a recent AP poll, it doesn't appear that many NFL fans across America favor an expanded NFL regular season.

An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released Thursday shows only lukewarm backing at best for a switch from 16 to 18 regular-season games, one of the NFL's key -- and easiest-to-understand -- proposals in its labor negotiations with the players' union.

Of everyone surveyed, 27 percent strongly favor or somewhat favor adding two regular-season games and dropping two preseason games. When the group is narrowed to those identifying themselves as NFL fans, support for the change rises to a total of 45 percent -- yet only 18 percent who strongly favor it.

Check out the rest of the details on ESPN.

ESPN provides the player's perspective - Hines Ward is quoted in the article as stating that "no player wants to play 18 games" - but Sporting News provides management's perspective.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft told NFL.com that an expanded season would aid the league in a down economy. "I really think going to an 18-game season is critical to us getting a labor deal. There's not a lot of ways in this economic environment we can generate incremental revenues. That's the best way."

So how many regular season games will the NFL play next year?

Will the players - who note fatigue and injury concerns as part of their resistance against an expanded regular season - win out against the owners, who, as Kraft states, need the additional revenue?

Further, what would you, a fan of the game, prefer?

Voting is open until Monday the 28th.

Thanks to Gabe Gershenfeld for this week's question