World Series Home-Field Advantage: Lots of Options for Change
By Zac Snyder
Feb 2, 2014; East Rutherford, NJ, USA; A general view as the letters USA is spelled out on the field before Super Bowl XLVIII between the Seattle Seahawks and the Denver Broncos at MetLife Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Anthony Gruppuso-USA TODAY Sports
Play the World Series at a neutral site or sites
Super-agent Scott Boras has advocated for the World Series to be played at a neutral site in the past so the idea is with some high-profile support. Maybe MLB should just forget home-field advantage altogether.
Pros: Boras has had ideas to play the entire series at a neutral site and for it to be a mix between home sites and a neutral site. The big pro of a neutral site, even in part, is that the site can be announced years in advance to allow some build up and for a city to make a big event of it, much like hosting a Super Bowl or College Football Playoff. Additionally, the World Series could be brought to fans who wouldn’t otherwise have an opportunity to attend a World Series.
Cons: Big football games work at neutral sites because they are single game events. Fans can travel to that city for one game, but would they travel in numbers to fill a stadium for four to seven games? And what does that say to a fanbase who followed their home team through 162 games plus playoff games to then take the World Series away? A neutral site or sites feels like an over-reaction to a problem that just isn’t that big.
Next: Let league records decide