What say you?

 

I say No.

 

It's an all star game. It's supposed to be fun & entertaining. It's the only game these guys have, out of 182, to goof off a little bit. I mean the only reason they make it were the winner has home field is because they want the game to actually have a meaning but the only meaning it actually needs to have is fun.

No, I think it should go to whoever wins the most games in interleague play--aka the AL.

 

That way it is settled on the field amongst all the teams. The best overall record would be a secondary choice but there isn't enough time to schedule. Plus the last few years have shown that winning a few more games in the JV NL isn't the same as winning them in the AL. Interleague head to head shows who is the best.

It is a joke for the All-star game to determine home field. It should be best record but they say that does not give them enough time to prepare. They need to go back to rotating or going by what averagejoesgym said the interleague play.

No way it should. It is stupid that it does.

Using the All-Star game is no worse than any of the other methods available. It's an interesting thing that instead of pretending like they've come up with some amazing solution to solve who deserves home field, they've just decided to run with this idea. I say keep it.

Does any other sports league decide the Home court/field advantage with an All-star game?

 

No, because it is dumb. It is an exhibition game that should be enjoyed.

Heck no..

Does any other sports league decide the Home court/field advantage with an All-star game?

 

No, because it is dumb. It is an exhibition game that should be enjoyed.

 

:thumb:

No, I think it should go to whoever wins the most games in interleague play--aka the AL.

 

That way it is settled on the field amongst all the teams. The best overall record would be a secondary choice but there isn't enough time to schedule. Plus the last few years have shown that winning a few more games in the JV NL isn't the same as winning them in the AL. Interleague head to head shows who is the best.

 

Interleague determining is a worse idea than the all-star game..Before this year the AL would have had the Devil Rays or Royals facing the Cardinals or Dodgers and get swept. It's an unfair advantage and tv based matchups for interleague. So no that idea is worse IMO.

 

 

I don't mind the All-Star game being used to determine home field advantage. Gives the game some meaning Yeah it's used to be a meaningless steroid driven game where the homeruns were fun to watch but times have changed and so has the game.

I think it's an absolute joke to use the All Star game in determing home field advantage. The teams play 162 games and they use an exhibition game to determine the biggest series of the season. That makes total sense.

Reward the team, with the best overall record remaining, with home field advantage in the World Series. I understand, them wanting to make the All-Star game meaningful but they could achieve that, by several of the following:

 

Player Charities - Each lists a charity and the winning team, has double the amount of donation to the charity, than the losing team. For example $20,000 per player, per charity for the winner, to $10,000 for the losing.

 

Incentive Clause in Contract - If on a winning team of the All-Star, receive an additional $50,000 and $25,000 of that must go to a specified charity.

 

Area Youth Programs - The winning team, will donate $3,000 cash, bats, gloves, helmets, etc...to a list of 10 youth programs, per player if on the winning team. The losing team, could donate $1,500 and similar items.

 

It's a win/win situation, for charities and youth programs, while making the All-Star game, a little more meaningful.

I agree, No the team that played the best the whole season should have home field period.

No. imo it should go back to rotating the home field advantage.

I will add that if players today don't want to play in an all star game (that the fans that really pay thier salary) voted them into then they imo are in the wrong business. I remember players in the past not only considering it an honor to be voted an all star but the game didn't have to have any incentive put on it. They played for pride in their league and themselves. In other words, they appreciated the honor to be named an all star and believed Herman Edwards now repeated line before he even said it......"you play to win the game" along with another old one............."if winning wasn't important then why do they keep score."

Reward the team, with the best overall record remaining, with home field advantage in the World Series. I understand, them wanting to make the All-Star game meaningful but they could achieve that, by several of the following:

 

Player Charities - Each lists a charity and the winning team, has double the amount of donation to the charity, than the losing team. For example $20,000 per player, per charity for the winner, to $10,000 for the losing.

 

Incentive Clause in Contract - If on a winning team of the All-Star, receive an additional $50,000 and $25,000 of that must go to a specified charity.

 

Area Youth Programs - The winning team, will donate $3,000 cash, bats, gloves, helmets, etc...to a list of 10 youth programs, per player if on the winning team. The losing team, could donate $1,500 and similar items.

 

It's a win/win situation, for charities and youth programs, while making the All-Star game, a little more meaningful.

 

These imo are all good things and it would be nice to see put in place. :thumb:

No. Home field advantage should be determined by the team with the best regular season record.

 

You could have an AL Wild Card team win 84 games and advance to the World Series and get home field advantage over an NL team that won 101 games simply because a Mariners outfielder drove in an Orioles runner with a winning run.