We don't know what a new collective bargaining agreement is going to look like. Heck, the people at the bargaining table have no idea themselves.
Through three negotiating sessions, some concessions have been made, but little progress has been made. The two sides are busy exchanging percentages and luxury tax rates and thresholds and arbitration formulas, and even when they've come to an agreement, it won't impact the average fan.
But some other matters at the bargaining table will have an effect. It will be a while before it's determined by how much and under what format, but this much we already know: MLB will soon feature an expanded playoff format.
That much is already certain. The only thing up for debate is the how expanded.
A while back, the two sides tabled any changes to the game on the field, the better, one supposes, to keep focused on the economics, because that's what drives all of this. We can argue about the need for a pitch clock or the elimination of infield shifts and the like, but for the purposes of these negotiations, they don't create additional revenue or put more money in anyone's pockets.
But more playoff games? They most certainly will enhance revenue, which is why they're being discussed.
It may seem somewhat counter-intuitive, but the players, whom you might expect to be in favor of more playoff teams and the additional money for their postseason shares, are actually taking a more conservative approach. The owners, meanwhile, with visions of TV money piled high, are angling for a more expanded field.
This much seems certain: soon, perhaps as this October, we'll have a bigger playoff field than the current group of 10 teams. The only thing up for debate is whether that field will increase to 14 teams (as the owners seek), or 12, as the players have proposed.
Here's a look at what each side is advancing:
OWNERS' PLAN: There's no quicker infusion to MLB coffers than additional postseason inventory to auction to the highest bidder. (By at least one report, ESPN has already agreed to purchase the package. If not, some entity will write a very big check for the privilege of airing the additional games.)
There's nothing TV networks love more than the prospect of several "win-or-go-home'' games, and this plan will offer plenty.
Owners propose seven teams from both the American League and National League qualifying for the postseason -- three division winners and four wild card teams. Under this plan, the division winner with the best record in each league will get a first-round bye.
The other six teams would square off in a best-of-three Wild Card round series, with the other two division winners choosing their first-round opponents from among the three wild card entrants. The wild card team not selected would then be matched with the top wild card finisher. This would come as part of a TV show itself, held on the evening of the final game itself.
Meanwhile, all three teams with the better record in each of the Wild Card rounds would host all three games; the team with the lesser record would not get a single home game.
Imagine the intrigue that would come from, say, the division-winning Yankees choosing the Red Sox as a Wild Card round opponent. Or, the Dodgers doing the same with the Giants. The selection show would be a big TV ratings winner in and of itself, even before the first pitch of the postseason is thrown.
After that, the three victorious teams would then be re-seeded, along with the top team that received a bye, and the best-of-five Division Series would commence, followed by the best-of-seven LCS.
PLAYERS' PLAN: As noted before, the players want a smaller increase of teams than do the owners, proposing that the field expand from the current 10 to 12.
The players have also offered two plans: one in which the three-division set-up that MLB has had since 1994, and another in which it reverts back to two divisions in each league.
Under the three-division plan, the top two division winners would get a Wild Card round bye, with the third division winner getting an additional game -- in other words, they would have to win just one game to advance, while the visiting team would have to win two. (This would, in theory, provide additional incentive to win a division and create intrigue down the stretch. You'd have incentive for the division winners to play hard right to the end, to either clinch a bye, or win a division and have the easier path in the Wild Card round).
In a two-division plan, the two division winners would get a Wild Card round bye, and the four wild cards would square off in traditional best-of-three series.
One big difference in the proposals between the owners and players: Under the players' proposal, the Divisional Series would grow from the current best-of-five format to a best-of-seven.
Some thoughts:
* While it may sound gimmicky, I like the idea of choosing your opponent. It would add another layer of strategy to the proceedings. Imagine the trash-talking, and recriminations....They could have anyone else as an opponent, but they wanted us. Well, we're going to show them.
* The players and the Players Association are against a 14-team field because they worry that this will provide less incentive to field a quality team. If almost half (seven of 15 teams in each league) qualify for the postseason, there would no motivation to spend and improve the roster. On the other hand, an expanded field might be just the incentive a mediocre team might need to go from 78-82 wins to the 84-86 victories.
* The chance of expanding the Division Series from five to seven games means, at minimum, teams will now have to win 12 games to win a World Series, and play as many as 21 postseason games if they go all the way. If, by chance, a team also has to compete in the Wild Card round, that number could swell to as many as 14 wins, and 24 games played.
* The other risk is the length of the postseason. Even if the Wild Card round could be squeezed into three straight days -- since no travel would be necessary, and still finish by the Thursday after the final Sunday of the regular season, there still could loom three more best-of-seven series after that, all with travel and necessary off-days. That would almost guarantee that the World Series would drag into early November, which would be highly problematic in many cold Northeast and Midwest markets.
* In theory, the additional available playoff spots would encourage more fan interest in September. Instead of tuning out when your team is destined to finish with little more than a .500 record, you'd be incentivized to keep watching, hoping that they might grab an available wild card,
* No matter the format, the postseason will become more and more a war of attrition. There will be more strain on pitchers and entire pitching staffs. And these won't be just any games -- they'll all, by definition, be high-leverage, high-pressure situations. What will the impact be on arms and bodies -- the following spring, and in the big picture, on career longevity?
* Ratings for the current postseason are good, but not great. Standard, regular season NFL games easily beat most postseason MLB games and NFL postseason games completely crush MLB postseason games. One of the inherent disadvantages baseball faces is asking its fans to devout more time and more hours over the course of the season than any other sport. And now, it's going to stretch out its postseason, too? That's a risky proposition at a time when there's more competition than ever in the sports/entertainment field, and attention spans are shorter than ever.
* At what point is an expanded playoff format too much of a good thing? In my mind, while there's an economic benefit to it and it might pump up the final month of the regular season, I'm not sure giving fans more and more, and delaying the crowing of a champion further, is necessarily a step forward.
_________________
A few words on last weekend:
Like many (most?) of you, I, too, watched four thrilling NFL playoff games during the Division Round, three of them decided on a field goal as time expired, and the fourth, the best of all, determined in overtime.
It a full two days of entertainment, produced by some of the game's best quarterbacks.
Naturally, this led to some unfavorable comparisons being made between baseball and football. Let's address some of those, shall we?
* It was pointed out that while the NFL was providing edge-of-the-seat games, MLB was in the middle of "yet another work stoppage.'' That last part is far from true. This is the sport's first shutdown since 1995, some 27 years ago. The notion that baseball has labor strife on an almost annual basis is highly inaccurate. Since the last stoppage, MLB and its Players Association have since successfully negotiated four collective bargaining agreements without interruption of play. In fact, until last December, the NFL has had more work stoppages since 1995 than MLB had, with the owners having locked out the players in 2001 for nearly seven months. That lockout didn't result in any regular season games, and unless I miss my guess, the current MLB lockout won't either.
* There's no argument that the NFL is a far, far, bigger success as a TV product than is baseball. Even regular season telecasts for the NFL rank among the highest-rated shows of the calendar year and the postseason telecasts belong in another stratosphere. But there's a built-in advantage football has, in that its playoff format is all one-and-done. That draws far more interest, as you might expect and there's little that MLB could do to change that. If they turned the World Series into a one-game, winner-take-all TV extravaganza on the final Sunday in October, that would draw some pretty incredible numbers, too.
* Finally, there was the predictable, "The NFL games were over by 10 p.m. on Sunday night, unlike baseball games which drag past midnight and freeze out younger viewers.'' All true. And what would you do to change that? Again, baseball can't have all day or late-afternoon start times because they might have four series at once, stretched out over a week or 10 days. What would those people propose? Having 1 p.m. games through the month of October? I'm sure the networks would love that. And while I wouldn't mind having some weekend World Series games on in the afternoon, that's tough to arrange from a TV standpoint, since Fox, ESPN, and other networks have both college and pro football commitments throughout October that make such scheduling impractical if not impossible.