Should there be a neutral site for The World Series

No

1 of 20

by Dave Cupples

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The World Series should absolutely NOT be played at a neutral site, and anybody who suggests otherwise should be dusted back from their misguided idea by the equivalent of a Bob Gibson high hard one. One of the best things about baseball is its accessibility to the common person. Size isn't a factor in baseball as it can be in football and basketball, and some competitive version of baseball can be played by almost anyone, almost anywhere, with very meager equipment. For example, there's softball, whiffle ball, and over-the-line. Poor kids have been known to play in the street with a rock and a stick; and any kid and his brother with a tennis ball can play one of the batless versions known as wall- or stepball.

As a professional spectator sport, baseball is the last of the big three that is still accessible to regular people on a regular basis. While NFL and NBA teams, with a few exceptions, have repeatedly escalated prices to levels more affordable to a corporate budget than a family, Major League Baseball's long season-81 home games-and large stadiums mean that tickets are regularly available and still affordable. I recently found Major League Baseball tickets online for as little as two dollars, and even Yankee tickets for less than ten bucks.

Putting the World Series in a neutral site might profit corporate interests (the league, media, and big advertisers) in some way-like a larger venue and a few extra ticket sales, or a HUGE windfall from cities bidding for the right to host; and some small benefit might trickle down to the national audience, but that's kind of a foul ball. Putting corporate profit or a national mentality ahead of the loyal working class fans who support the two contending teams all year is already a too familiar theme in sports.

The real question is, why would anyone WANT to play the World Series at a neutral site? Let's look at the reasons why some other big championships are played at neutral sites and consider whether those reasons would benefit the World Series.

EFFICIENCY/CO NVENIENCE

In NCAA sports, both the baseball and basketball championships are decided in a tournament format. Because next round opponents in that format are unknown until the previous round of games are played, it makes sense to have a tournament in one or a limited few locations. The compressed time frame and central location of a tournament also makes it possible to use facilities, personnel, media, and other resources more efficiently, cuts down on travel, and probably results in a greater net profit to aid our colleges; but the World Series isn't a tournament.

Playing the World Series at one location might reduce travel expenses, but it would double housing costs, because both teams would be out of town. Playing at one location would also force all fans of BOTH teams to travel and secure housing. They wouldn't have the option of attending a game, then driving home to catch the late night news replay before sleeping in their own beds. Kids wouldn't be able to see a game, then return home in time so that they could awake only slightly bleary-eyed for school in the morning. The only clear convenience or efficiency advantage to playing the Series at one location is that the media could set up their cameras once and leave them in place, but that's a tiny, tiny benefit.

NCAA Football is a special case since the Champion is actually selected by a vote. However, the bowl games within the Bowl Championship Series do affect the vote; and sometimes, one particular game does become the championship game. While many factors like tradition and proximity to participating schools might influence the NCAA's choice of venues for it's championships, the one outstanding factor that may be relevant to pro sports and/or the World Series, specifically, is the desire to play each of the BCS bowl games-the games which feature the championship contenders-in a fair weather site like California, Florida, Texas, or Arizona.

WEATHER

Weath er is definitely a factor in the NFL's decision to play the Super Bowl in a neutral site. Sure, we've all enjoyed watching a football game played on natural turf in the rain. It can be fun watching the guys slide around in the mud; but the NFL and most fans prefer the Championship be played at the highest competitive level. That means playing in good weather, without snow or strong rain or wind. In the future, more Super Bowls will probably be played in domes for that reason.

Football is an all weather sport. Regular season games and most playoff games are played on the home team's field, and any bad weather is taken in stride and sometimes even becomes a special part of that game and a treasured moment in the history of the sport. In the NFL particularly, those bad weather moments are often considered a part of the normal home field advantage; but those moments, especially if they occur in the Super Bowl, can also be accompanied by a bad aftertaste, a feeling that we didn't see the best possible game and that, maybe, the best team didn't win.

The World Series is different, however. In the first place, as we already know, it's a series rather than just one game. Secondly, baseball is not an all weather sport. Any single World Series game can be easily postponed for bad weather since the Series isn't just a one day event. If a game is postponed, it's an inconvenience for the fans and it could waste a start by the pitchers if they have already worked a couple innings; but it's relatively easy to adjust the schedule to accommodate the postponement. And concerning the inconvenienced hometown fans, moving the Series to a neutral site would be a far worse transgression than moving it to another day.

FAIRNESS

Fairness is another possible reason for playing the World Series in a neutral site. In fact, fairness would be the best reason for playing ANY game at a neutral site. The home field advantage can be huge and decidedly unfair.

The home team plays on a field it is intimately familiar with in front of loud, partisan fans. The players and coaches get to sleep in their own beds and eat at their own tables surrounded by friends and family. They don't have travel and equipment-moving headaches, time zone hangovers, or weather acclimation issues. Home teams don't have to deal with a short practice week, and they get to keep their routine absolutely normal-except for the circus that goes along with playing for a championship-but the visiting team shares that distraction.

Playing at a neutral site doesn't completely rid a championship event of all the hardships that are typically faced by the visiting team, but it does tend to balance the unfairness and place a more equal burden on each team. For all the reasons considered in this discussion, playing the NFL and NCAA championships at a neutral, fair weather site is a good idea. But, while any disadvantage by weather or travel to either contending team in those events is heightened because they are one game contests, the World Series, again, is different. It is a series, and as long as it is played in both cities, it's as fair as it can be.

Both World Series teams travel the same distance back and forth, and both teams get a chance to be the home team and the visiting team. It's even more fair than a neutral site where both teams would be visitors. The only time the home field advantage comes strongly into play in the World Series is when it goes the full seven games, giving one team four home games to the other team's three. Playing at a neutral site might equalize the home field advantage-or it might just weaken both teams; but either way, the home field advantage in the World Series isn't large enough to justify taking the Series away from the loyal fans who support both teams all year. It would also damage one of baseball's greatest assets-it's accessibility to families and common working people.

One final thing needs to be mentioned. When a major college or professional sporting event is located at a "neutral" site, it's not really neutrality that is being sought. The championship events are scheduled months or years in advance, and there is always the chance that a team will do well and end up playing for the championship on its home field or court. Good weather, efficiency/convenien ce, and various corporate profit advantages are the real motives. Neutrality and fairness, when they occur, are just side effects.

The bottom line is that, while there may be good reasons for playing other events at a neutral site-whether so-called or actually neutral-there is no reason to consider such a change for the World Series-and for anyone who thinks it IS a good idea: Corporate interest is a foul ball; and you miss completely on efficiency, weather and fairness. That's more than three strikes. YOU'RE OUTTA THERE!

Learn more about this author, Dave Cupples.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.