Baseball has an interesting way of polarizing sports fans. On one hand, there exists the devout followers who will vehemently defend the game and its long-standing history in American sports. In the other corner, there are those who think baseball is boring and too slow for this fast-paced lifestyle. I believe that each side presents a credible argument.
Baseball helped keep this country together through the tough times of the Depression and the World Wars of the early century. The carry over effects of this still show as practically every youth tries out baseball when they are young. But, baseball was designed for a slower time period, and despite the changes that they've made in recent years, the game isn't speeding up fast enough for the short attention span society that we've become.
I straddle the fence on this argument: still able to enjoy the game and its merits, but wishing it would expedite games and the season. What should be done then?
I propose a cut of at least forty games in the regular season. A 162 game season? What hasn't been decided at game 120 that is decided by 162 (with an exception to the 2009 Mets, sorry guys)? A season that is almost double the length of basketball and hockey, it should come as no surprise that interest in baseball fades during the middle of the year as they reach games into the low 100's.
A shorter season would certainly regain interest from casual fans. Imagine if they had to keep track of 25% fewer games and results throughout the season, can anyone truly argue that this shorter season wouldn't help with the negatives of baseball? Each game would become instantly more valuable, preventing players from ever taking a game or two off just because they didn't feel like playing.
Fewer games, greater competition and a renewed interest? This sounds like the type of remodel that baseball needs. And no, I am not just saying all this because I have to watch the Seattle Mariners for 162 games a year, but could anyone blame me if that were the reason?
No comments:
Post a Comment