Baseball, where more is less

This week, agent Scott Boras suggested to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig that the World Series be expanded to a 9 game series, with the first 2 games played at a neutral site. The potential result behind the idea would be that the World Series, a ratings killer in recent years, would become a major event like the Super Bowl is now.

There's just one problem: The Super Bowl doesn't take two weeks to complete, although there are times that it seems like it. Event television, which seems to be Boras' and Selig's goal, is tough to do when it is spread out over that long a span, and after a 6 month season, a Game 8 in early November would likely seem like too much.

I agree that changes do need to be made to baseball, but adding 2 more games to the championship series would not improve the game. It's bad enough that the season ends as children go trick-or-treating as it is. Simply put, the season should be cut by 8-24 games, and at least one more playoff team per league should be added.

The most exciting part of any season in sport is the post-season, but in November, with football, basketball, and hockey all in season (pun intended), baseball's championship series would just be too much, even for North America's seemingly endless desire for more sports.

End the season in mid-September, get to the LCS by the first week of October, and finish the season before the costumes hit the streets.

If a NBA Finals game was on and no one watched, did it exist?

This week, the San Antonio Spurs defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers in 4 dull, lifeless games to win their 4th championship in the last 10 years. And as with the NHL finals, the television ratings were extremely disappointing for the broadcasting network.

While this shouldn't come as a surprise for hockey, it is a little odd for the NBA. After all, this was the "coming out party" for superstar LeBron James, and this alone should have brought enough interest from the casual basketball fan to tune into the series.

Alas, the (lack of) appeal of the Spurs in the series, frequent shots of Eva Longoria notwithstanding, sent viewers away in droves, apparently preferring summer reality programming to championship hoop.

There are many valid reasons for this, such as the localization of sport, where viewers' focus is on their home team rather than the sport as a whole, but when the two "best" teams can't break 40 points at the half, it seems as clear as day to me.

The San Antonio Spurs are ruining the NBA for the casual sports fan. With defensive lockdowns and a slow style of play, the only thing worse than the Spurs in the Final is if the Pistons joined them there.

The glory days of the NBA are being rejunevated in places like Phoenix and Golden State, with fast breaks and high scores the name of the game there, and if teams like the Spurs and Pistons don't change over, rule changes to the sport are necessary to boost scoring, reduce stoppage, and generally improve what was once a great game.

My solution: cut the number of fouls a player needs to foul out from 6 to 3, and increase the roster by at least 3 more players to compensate for the increased foul outs. What will this do? It will reduce fouls to the most important ones, and leave these highly skilled players more room to produce the type of play we want to see in a basketball game.

Teams shouldn't be winning games in the 70's, they should be doing so in the 100's. Eliminate the fouls, and the game speeds up and the skill players do what they do best. Less fouls will also mean more shot attempts, which will create more transition baskets, which will also increase scoring.

I also think the number of timeouts should be cut in half, and the shot clock cut down to 18 seconds, but one problem at a time.

Here's hoping for a Phoenix/Toronto final next year. Not for any basketball reason, just because I want to see it.