In defense of the All-Star Game deciding home field advantage for the World Series

Back in 2002, there was a tie during the All-Star game. Damian said the following about it:

There should be no controversy surrounding the 2002 All-Star Game ending in an 11-inning tie.
The television, radio, newspapers, and Internet media outlets are blowing this ending out of proportion.
It was only a day before the “mid-summer classic” that sportswriters and radio show hosts were complaining about how boring the All-Star Game has become in recent years, since it is not a “competition” anymore. Now, they are complaining because the exhibition game was shortened.

The Collector, frequent contributor to the DailySkew, pitched the following idea at the time:

1. The All-Star game decides home field.
This would certainly make the mid-summer classic more exciting. No more ties. The All-Star game would return to days where the players really wanted their league to win -- after all, the loser gives up home field for their league in the World Series.
Since majority of players will come from playoff contenders, both teams will be eager to win. Teams will reserve their top pitchers for the All-Star game.
The All-Star game would be the season's first game with playoff implications, which would set the tone for an exciting playoff race.

Having read this pitch seven years after the fact, I find I still agree with the sentiment.

Oh, sure -- the folks at LaMESiN get a kick out of bashing Bud Selig and the format. "Let the team with the best record get the home field!" They scream.

Yeah, great. Let's make the unique sport of baseball like all the other sports. Let's lower the value of the All-Star game on purpose after it has been raised to the height, thanks to Bud acting on the Collector's suggestion.

"Whatevuh."

Someone once said, "Any publicity is good publicity." To me, the controversy is GOOD FOR BASEBALL. It attracts attention. What. We have to make everything congenial and FAIR for the LaMESiN talking heads? Fairness is great and SLIGHTLY BORING. Meanwhile, the football jocks who pose as reporters will talk about how baseball might be America's past-time, but football is America's PASSION. Yeah, let's take the suggestions of reporters who did not play the sport and have their own biased agenda.

If anything, I think baseball would do well to borrow a successful idea from the NFL -- introduce neutral field games to the World Series.

The Collector, back in 2002, suggested that the last three games of a best-of-seven World Series should be played on a neutral field. I would modify that suggestion now and state that the first two games should be played on a Neutral field, and the last five games should be split based on the league that wins the All-Star game.

To quote from the Collector about the merits of playing neutral field games in the World Series:

This idea has the potential of creating a Superbowl-like atmosphere. A third city would be included
in the World Series concession profits. Television could guarantee an East Coast game
even if both teams are from the West Coast.
This particular proposal seeks to make the World Series an event again -- something that every
fan would watch, even if their team is not involved. Something that the casual observer would
tune into, even if they don't watch baseball during the year.

If the teams are concerned about losing revenue because of those first two neutral site games, then I say bring back the best-of-NINE World Series format -- you'd still have the potential of seven games.

I hope Bud and his buds will read the suggestion for two neutral site games during the World Series and act on it, just as he did with the Collector's All-Star game suggestion in 2002.