That rule should be ditched anyway. But I’m fine with keeping the wild card as it is: either put the wild card team in or don’t, there’s no need to keep expanding the playoffs by creating one-game showdowns.
Why shouldn’t the best record-holder choose their first-round opponent regardless of record? If the top team has consistently beaten the 2nd-place team all season, why shouldn’t they be allowed (if they think it’s to their advantage) to play the 2nd-place team? The AL already included a choice of schedule for the best-record-holder; choosing the opponent isn’t much more of a stretch.
I wouldn’t have much issue with them getting to choose their opponent. I think it could result in delicious mistakes. 
From the way you’ve written your reply, I’m not sure if you think I’m against it or if you’re just going on a tangent. Right now, I think having the best record in the league doesn’t really get a team much, especially since home field advantage in baseball isn’t nearly as pronounced as it seems to be in other sports. Having a bonus would be a nice twist. I really like how the AL gave a choice this year, and I kinda wonder if Boston made the right choice.
I am guessing that no Manager/GM would want the right to pick their opponent. That is instant bulletin Board fodder. It fits in the face of Baseball’s Gods.
As nothing but a fan on a message board, I felt nervous writing that I hope the Yanks drew Cleveland. That is inviting disaster and embarrassment. Superstition in baseball in very common.
I like the idea of the Wild Card team playing the best record team no matter if they are in the same division.
I like the idea of the Wild Card team getting only game 3 at home to give the team with the best record a bigger advantage.
I did not like the Wild Card when it was added, but years ago, I admitted it was a good idea after all. I think the idea suggested of a one game playoff every year is silly and reduces the value of the 162 game regular season.
Jim
I vote for the wild card only getting one home game in the first round. I’d go so far as to only give them 2 home games in the second round too.
I know that it would stress out the GMs. That’s why I love it.
And most Yankee fans said they’d like to face Cleveland. On paper, Cleveland should win. In reality, they probably won’t. Superstitious ain’t the half of it.
Not if they happen every year.
Personally, I don’t want to see any more teams in the postseason, even for one game (technically, the Padres and Rockies are playing regular season game #163 today). The more teams making the postseason, the less making it to the postseason means, not to mention it drags on for-fucking-ever (I’m looking at you, NBA).
Nah, once you beat the best team with everything stacked against you, I don’t think you need any penalty in the second round.
Why on paper? Is this based strickly on your starters?
I see the starters edge going to the Indians.
The Bullpen to the Yanks.
The Line-up to the Yanks by a big margin.
The season line is Yanks 6 and Cleveland 0.
The Yanks have historically played very well at Jacob’s Field (and very bad in Anaheim).
Jim
The Indians faced tougher competition and have a better record.
They’ll still lose to your sucky team, but on paper they shouldn’t.
Do we really need a reason? 
Re “fixing” the wild card situation, how about adding two teams, going from three divisions to four, and abandoning the wild card altogether?
There’s something about four-team divisions (like the current AL West) that just makes me queasy. I’d say there are really too many teams as it is, especially when some of them have such abysmal attendance.
There is some truth to your statement, but the Yanks have the best record in Baseball since the All Star Break. So it is also deceptive. More than most, the Yanks are not the team that left Spring Training.
Jim
True.
I hope they lose, though. 
Well, if you put it that way…
I was only referencing the Yankees as an example in that case. I’d be all for a rule that makes the Yankees trek across the Himalayas between each game, especially if they have to drag the Red Sox with them.
I concur with the ideas about reducing the number of home games the wild card team gets. Add a penalty for not winning the division. But let’s not add more and more wild card teams to the mix. Go watch football if you want the third best team in a division along for the post-season ride. That’s all I’m saying.
Phillies vs. Rockies Wednesday night. I predict first team to 10 runs wins each game.
How many teams have abysmal attendance?
I don’t know what you’d define as “Abysmal,” but attendance today is very high, and there aren’t any REALLY poorly attended teams anymore. This year only the Royals, Devil Rays, and Marlins failed to draw 20,000 fans per game, and there you have two of the worst teams in recent baseball history and a team with a busted business model.
By comparison, 20 years ago, in 1987, SIX teams (out of a league of 26, not 30) failed to draw 20,000, and four didn’t make it to 15,000. Ten years before that, most teams didn’t draw 20,000 a game.
I was thinking of the Marlins, who didn’t even come close to 20,000 - but the historical data is interesting. And a team in San Antonio wouldn’t actually hurt the Marlins unless it was the Marlins. The bigger concern, to me, is talent. I think the league has overexpanded and should take a longer breather.
I like the wild card. It means there isn’t quite as much of a disadvantage to being in a particularly strong division.
I have heard this argument about the “dilution” of talent for years, and have yet to see anyone back it up.
There were plenty of horrible teams from the 16-team era who couldn’t draw flies; the Browns, Phillies and Senators had teams then which routinely failed to crack 60 wins. From 1902-52, every season had at least one league field a team that finished 50+ games out (often times two). By comparison, that’s happened five times in the last 10 years (and yes, I’m comparing teams to their league champion, not the division champion), in an age with more teams and eight more games played.
The argument (as I’m familiar with it) is that the quality of play suffers, not that there are more bad teams. If you add two more teams, 50 more players - some young and untried, others just not quite up to snuff - become major-leaguers. Maybe it’s an aesthetic thing, but it makes sense to me. Don’t offensive stats generally shoot up after the league expands?
I don’t see a dilution of talent. I see pretty good parity. This is another year where no team finished above .600 and no team finished below .400. I love that.
But it’s not so “equal” that teams can’t build dynasties. I like seeing new teams rise up and be successful for a few years, then another team rising up to take their place.