Originally Posted by bamagrad03
I couldn't disagree with this more. MLB schedules are not created equal - especially with interleague. What if you have the 2nd best record in the league, but you had to play a series of top flight teams from the opposing league during interleague play, while the 1st place team in your division played a bunch of patsies?
What if you had a better head-to-head record against the 1st place team in your division but they had a considerably easier schedule? Or your ace had to sit a month with a shoulder injury.
I'm in the opposite camp. If you can prove, over a 162 game season, that you're one of the best in your league, irrespective of division standings, you deserve a spot in the show.
It's the same argument people try to make in the college football playoffs when they want only conference champions. "You can't win your conference, you don't deserve it." As if all conferences are created equal - and a 1 loss 2nd placed SEC team with a #1 strength of schedule doesn't deserve a spot in the playoffs, but a 9-3 conference champ from the Big East with a #63 strength of schedule does...
I think your facts are wrong. Teams within a division play the same interleague teams (all of the AL east played NL east this year), with the exception of the rival series. And I think they play other teams in their league the same, or at least very close. The lack of balance effects the comparison between teams of different divisions more so than teams within the same division. You play your division rivals twice as often as other teams in your league. The worst team in the AL east is 2 games under .500. So the Orioles play the same teams as the yankees, but have a much harder schedule than the white sox who get to play against three teams under .500. That calls into question whether the White Sox have really outplayed the O's, but its unquestionable that the Yankees have outplayed the O's.
So after 162 games, the yanks and O's have played almost the exact same schedule, and whoever wins the divison has proven the better team.
The point of a playoff system is to determine the best. Because of the unbalanced schedules, you don't really know whether the winner of one division is better than the winner of another division. All you know is that they're better than the teams in their division.
If I were revamping the NCAA, I would have a playoff among the conference champions. Just because sports writers think a second place team in one conference is better than the first place team in the other, that doesn't mean that the 2nd place team might be the best team in the country. They've already proven that they are not. Putting them in the playoff just gives them a do-over.
If you were going to create a true "world series" would you let the team that loses their national championship into the tournament? Of course not.
Injuries don't enter into the equation. I dont think anyone would argue that the best