why the current world series selection system is flawed

The last five World Series have seen twenty games won by the winners (natch) and a total of TWO games won by the losers of those five World Series. Mmmmm.....Parity.

Oh, and the American League has won eleven of the past twelve All-Star games (except for 2002, more on that below) - let us not forget that All-Star rosters are selected by the fans...and how many fans do the Evil Empire and the Nation have? Oh, that's right. And how much more money do the AL teams have? Well, why don't we take a gander at the, um, scoreboard?

1. New York Yankees $209,081,579
2. Detroit Tigers $138,685,197
3. New York Mets $138,293,378
4. Boston Red Sox $133,440,037
5. Chicago White Sox $121,152,667

Four of the top five payrolls in MLB in 2008 were in the AL. This year, the average AL payroll was roughly $96 million versus the NL average of $82 million.

Hence, the league with more big-market teams and more money wins every year, and every year, a team from that league has home-field advantage.

Baseball's old way of choosing the World Series host was also flawed; in case you've forgotten, it used to just alternate every year.

There is no good reason whatsoever for baseball to continue to use the current idiotic system - they should simply reward the team with the better record like they do in the NHL and NBA.

The argument that each team in this year's World Series had several players and they played hard to win that game just doesn't hold water compared to the much simpler and more egalitarian way of rewarding the ENTIRE TEAM (after all, it is the consummate TEAM SPORT, is it not?) for their collective effort over the course of the season.

The only reason MLB adopted the current format is because they needed to breathe some life into the All-Star Game because there was no incentive for baseball's biggest stars to play in the game when they could have a mid-season vacation with their family or just have a few days off.

Mostly, though, it is because of that eleven inning tied game in 2002. After which, this current idiotic system started. And why was there a tie in that game? Because both teams ran out of pitchers. And why did they run out of pitchers? Because managers were more concerned with getting every player in the game than they were with managing the game to win.

I don't think that a neutral site is necessarily the answer, but the owners have discussed it so there must be something to it. I would much rather see the team that earned a better record over the course of 162 (or however many, if they pare down the schedule) get home field advantage.

But, then again, I fucking hate baseball, so what do I know?