World Series Should Not See Neutral Site
After about a 50-hour rain delay, the World Series is over. With it, the offseason is finally here, and it's time to move on from all of the great things that happened in 2008. We head toward another season where teams will attempt to make upgrades and prepare to make a run next spring.
Not so fast though. With the cold weather, rain delay, and all of the other negative things about from this year's World Series, we're now hearing that baseball will talk about a neutral-site World Series in the future.
I have their answer in a few words: Don't do it.
You could try and make a case that since the NFL does it with the Super Bowl, baseball could do it with the World Series. That isn't a very good argument.
The NFL does it, and it's great. But, the NFL does it for one game, not four or seven, just one. Moving a series where anywhere from four to seven games will be played to say, California, would be wrong. It'd be asking fans to spend thousands more, and for the most part, the games would turn into corporate events with little excitement.
Home-field advantage is a big thing in baseball, and goes beyond having the crowd's support. Every park's infield and dimensions are different, the balls will blow and roll differently in different parks. In football, every field is the same.
If baseball can be played in April and May, then baseball can be played in October. Cold weather shouldn't alter where the game is played; neither should one rain delay from one World Series.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?