After about a 50-hour rain-delay, the World Series is over. With it, the off-season is finally here, and it's time to move on from all of the great things that happened in 2008, and into another season where the team will attempt to make upgrades and make another run next spring.
Not so fast though. With the cold weather, rain-delay and all of the other things being complained about from this year's World Series, we're now hearing about how baseball will talk about a neutral-site World Series in the future.
I have their answer in a few words: Don't do it...
You could try and make a case that since the NFL does it with the Super Bowl, baseball could do it with the World Series. That isn't a very good argument.
The NFL does it, and it's great. But the NFL does it for one game, not four or seven, just one game. Moving a series where anywhere from four to seven games will be played to say, California, would be wrong. It'd be asking fans to spend thousands more, and for the most part, the games would turn into corporate events with little excitement.
Home-field advantage is a big thing in baseball, and not just because of the crowd. Each infield plays different, the balls rolls different on different grass, the dimensions are different, the ball blows different. In football, other than the fans, every field is the same. The same dimensions, the same stuff.
If baseball can be played in April or even May, then baseball can be played in October. Cold weather shouldn't alter where the game is played, and neither should one rain-delay from one World Series.
Original Story:
Add Comment