Rain on The Idea to Have a Neutral Site For The World Series

Chris Murphy@@SeeMurphsTweetsAnalyst IMay 19, 2009

CHICAGO - OCTOBER 23:  Chicago White Sox fans bundle up in rain gear before the start of Game Two of the 2005 Major League Baseball World Series between the Chicago White Sox and the Houston Astros at U.S. Celluar Field on October 23, 2005 in Chicago, Illinois.  (Photo by Brian Bahr/Getty Images)

White Sox and Astros players are bundled up to the point where no part of their skin can be seen. What can be seen, however, are their nerves with each breathe they take blowing into the air.

Before each batter steps to the plate he rubs his hands frantically and with each crack of the bat a player's painful grimace can be see as he scampers toward the bases.

The air from Paul Konerko's mouth blows into the wind as he releases a sigh after hitting a go-ahead grand slam and Scott Podsednik's adrenaline after hitting a walk-off home run can be seen out of his mouth floating in the breeze. 88 years of losing travels with the Chicago wind. A neutral site for baseball? Absolutely not.

A neutral site for baseball would be absolutely ridiculous just as it is in any other sport. Shall we give warm weather teams an advantage in baseball as we do in college football and the NFL?  Who says these so-called "neutral sites" are neutral at all? Teams like Florida, USC and Texas should not need championship games in their backyard to win. If they were true championship football teams then they would be able to win in the mud as well as the heat.

I could swear football was supposed to be a tough sport, but god forbid a USC player slip in the mud. This could be a big factor in why conferences like the Big Ten struggle in BCS games. They are Midwest kids traveling to warm, fun-loving Pasadena or Florida while USC and Florida players sleep in their own beds and get to play in their backyard. It all comes back to why everything is done in sports; money.

I am not saying the neutral site is why teams win or lose, but what I am saying is when it comes to the importance of championship games, the outcome should solely be based on the performance of two teams. A team should only be given home-field advantage if they have earned it. It should not be simply handed to them.

Teams in the Pac-10 and SEC do not need home-field advantage, they already have a talent advantage. USC should not be playing at the Rose Bowl solely because it has gorgeous weather which means people will pay tickets to see it. People will pay tickets to see the Rose Bowl in Chicago just as much as in Pasadena.

In fact, the most memorable games are usually in awful weather. No one talks about the 82 degree Dodger's World Series Game. They talk about the Fog Bowl or the Mud Bowl.

Since we have established the fairness portion of this question, it is now time to explore it from a economic point of view. Would people in Houston pay to see the Phillies play the Rays in the World Series? Would people in San Francisco pay to see the White Sox play the Astros?

I'm sure these games would sell out, but with what kind of fans? There are few things better in the world than rewinding a huge hit or strikeout in a baseball game and watching the crowd's reaction. What kind of reaction would the casual fan have to a game which meant nothing to them?

Finally, does this mean cold weather cities will never have the chance to see their teams play for a World Series without having to get on a plane? No World Series in Wrigley, Camden Yards, Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Have fun explaining that to their fans.

Champions do not win because of rain, wind or snow. Champions win because they are champions and nothing should stop them


The latest in the sports world, emailed daily.