Amidst this flurry of PR disaster, MLB understandably decides that they have to do something to make up for the embarrassment everyone suffered in the commissioner’s own backyard. There’s just one problem: it’s still an exhibition game plopped down in the middle of the actual regular season schedule. This leaves a rather limited set of options for making adjustments to the game. You can’t very well pressure the pitchers to pitch more innings, because that starts to affect the regular season games, nor do you want to change the practice of trying to get everyone playing time, because that alienates the fans (mostly kids) who want to see the players on their favorite team. So you come up with what seems like a great idea for approximately ten seconds: make it count!
Of course, this idea is immediately derided by the same people whose sensibilities were offended by an exhibition game ending in a tie. The All-Star game should matter, they say, it just shouldn’t have any affect on the regular season. Everyone treats it like a meaningless exhibition, they claim, what with every team being required to have a representative and starters being pulled midway between games, but attaching home field advantage in the World Series to the outcome of the All-Star Game? That’s insane! Doesn’t Selig understand that this is just an exhibition game?!?
The fact of the matter is that, by and large, there’s no winning with the people so inclined to be reactionary complainers because, at base, they’re engaged in a very public battle with their own neurotic inability to grow up past the age of ten years old (seriously, just imagine how many fewer silly controversies there’d be in the game today if ten year old Bob Costas had taken a liking to hockey instead of baseball). The problem is that the differences between then and now have been created by fundamental sea changes in the business off the game that aren’t going to be outdone. The players have been economically empowered, and aren’t officially considered to be chattel anymore. Media technology has made it easier for fans to watch more baseball games on a daily basis, and we’re no longer limited to just the local radio broadcast and national game of the week. The landscape of the 1960′s is, thankfully, gone, but that’s not something that a certain set of self absorbed media people can resist, so they lash out incoherently at all of the things that are different than they used to be, the things that would make ten year old Bob Costas cry for weeks on end.
Anyway, you can rip Selig and MLB for making the All-Star game “count” all you want, but the fact of the matter remains that a) people really did have a conniption fit when an exhibition game ended in a tie ten years ago and, b) they’ve also complained about basically every sensible change they’ve made to the game since as well. Expanded rosters? More pitchers? Watering down the game. A universal DH rule, so that you don’t have to burn bench players in pinch hitting roles? You might as well just tell ten year old Bob Costas that Santa Claus isn’t real and professional football players will one day celebrate scoring touchdowns while you’re at it.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that, ultimately, the problem with the All-Star game is us, the fans. As a group, a large number of baseball fans are simply obsessed with a mythical past Golden Age that never actually existed, except in the whitewash memories of Bob Costas and his cohort of media colleagues. Maybe the All-Star game really was special back then, because the players needed the extra money in the winter when they were working minimum wage jobs somewhere instead of working out and preparing year round, and because you didn’t have MLB TV, so it was your only chance to see that great player on a crappy team in the other league. As it stands, however, I sort of like not being forced to turn on the All-Star game if I want to watch Zack Greinke pitch once a year. If that means that the All-Star game isn’t “special” and that Bob Costas has one more reason to get a sad,I can live with that. And I can live with an All-Star game that’s primarily about having fun and isn’t taken far too seriously by fans and media members.
Even if an exhibition game has to end in a tie every now and then.
*(Of course, I’d be remiss if didn’t engage in my annual ritual of pointing out how incredibly messed up it is that we pine for the days when a Hall of Fame caliber player didn’t think twice about ruining an opposing player’s career in order to win an exhibition game. And, incidentally, I think that relative disparity in stature plays a big role in why it’s celebrated. I would imagine we’d remember that play a lot differently if Rose had blown up, say, Yogi Berra or Carlton Fisk in their prime and ruined the rest of their career. Or if it had been Rose instead of Fosse who was hurt, derailing the Reds’ pennant winning season that year. As it stands, however, no one gives a crap about Ray Fosse, because Fosse is just a footnote in baseball history, and that footnote is that he’s the guy who had his career ruined by Rose in the All-Star game. I guess it’s kind of immortalizing in its own right, but I’d wager that Fosse wouldrather it not have happened that way).
Brilliantly put.
Brien, the All-Star game used to be huge and this isn't due to mythology or whitewashed memories of Bob Costas. You may be too young to have experienced this but plenty of us lived it and can remember it quite well. Back in the day there was a real and fierce inter-league rivalry. There was much less homogenization of the leagues back then and, of course, no inter-league play outside of the World Series. Sure, some of the motivation of the players might have been related to the bonus money but I think if you asked some of those guys who were around then they would tell you how much they wanted to beat the other league for the prestige value and bragging rights.
As a young Yankee fan in the mid sixties knowing my team had little or no chance to win the pennant and go to the World Series the All-Star game was the only chance I had to vicariously do battle with the National League. I can easily imagine fans of other non-contending teams in both leagues feeling the same way. In two-team towns like New York and Chicago the feeling was intensified because of the ongoing rivalry with the home-town team in the other league. Hell, people in New York would get all worked up over who won the Mayor's Trophy Game!
Now change is inevitable and while it's not always bad it always has a price. I grudgingly "accept" a lot of the changes in baseball (mostly introduced under the Selig regime) in the sense that I keep watching and attending games and caring about my team and he sport. But that doesn't mean that I don't realize what's been lost and I really don't care to be lectured by people who weren't around to experience what once was how it wasn't real. On that point you're way out of line.
And by the way some HOF players did suffer significant and/or career ending injuries in past All-Star games: see under Dean, Dizzy and Williams, Ted.
The reason for the lack of fierce AL vs NL is due to free agency. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
That's not the only reason and I fully support free agency ( and always did).
"There was much less homogenization of the leagues back then and, of course, no inter-league play outside of the World Series. Sure, some of the motivation of the players might have been related to the bonus money but I think if you asked some of those guys who were around then they would tell you how much they wanted to beat the other league for the prestige value and bragging rights."
A) A lot of that homogenization (like free agency, as Jason notes) fits into the exploitation of players frame, and the rest is mostly something that's just sort of faded away, as the leagues became less distinct entities and more like conferences within MLB.
B) I'd imagine that a very large extent of the concern for "bragging rights" was just putting a nice made-for-the-papers spin on saying that you really wanted the winner's purse.
"Now change is inevitable and while it's not always bad it always has a price. I grudgingly "accept" a lot of the changes in baseball (mostly introduced under the Selig regime) in the sense that I keep watching and attending games and caring about my team and he sport. But that doesn't mean that I don't realize what's been lost and I really don't care to be lectured by people who weren't around to experience what once was how it wasn't real. On that point you're way out of line. "
I'm not lecturing anyone. You can like what you like, and lament whatever changes you want. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the reasons that the All-Star game is less special happen to be very beneficial for fans. Sure, we could get rid of MLB TV, and then the All-Star game might be the only chance kids in Houston get to see Felix Hernandez pitch, but I'd wager that most of us would rather have the things that have changed the nature of the event if we actually had to choose whether or not to give them up.
Anyway, this became a sort of stream of consciousness writing as I got sort of carried away imagining going back in time and driving ten year old Bob Costas to alcoholism, so it really is more aimed at the elite members of the media who would probably rather MLB Advanced Media cease to exist so that they could get to cover the Big Event. After all, their employer will pay for them to go see any game they want to cover, so it's no loss for them.
I can certainly understand your last paragraph there. Much of the media hasn’t really gotten to accept the status quo. But that’s along the lines of Planck’s dictum that the world doesn’t change because people change their minds; it changes because the people who believe the old stuff die.
On free agency: it’s morally right, there’s no way around that, and I support it for that reason. But I don ‘t think it’s been all good for the fans. I would guess that if you went solely by fan vote, interleague play would stay and free agency would go.
I remember when the All-Star game meant something to us fans, too. I grew up on Long Island, where the Yankees vs Mets thing was huge. When the AL lost the All-Star game, as it usually did, I was subject to constant heckling in school. We really cared! People thought the NL was superior, and sneered at us junior leaguers. Even to this day, I can’t hate the Red Sox with much passion because all my baseball hate is expended on the Mets.
Like you, I accept that the All-Star game means less, and I appreciate some of the changes that have happened since, although they all haven’t been great. Still, I understand what it used to be like, and I miss some of it.
I was watching when the tie game happened. I think "conniption fit" may be a touch strong, but I was ticked. Mostly, in retrospect, for wasting 3 hours of my life that I'll never get back, watching something that had no consequence. (as opposed to Dancing With the Stars, or something critical to Western Civilization)
If they weren't going to play the game til the end – then it didn't mean anything. Which it didn't – but a tie game made that far more obvious than I'd ever realized.
All Star games have never been the same for me. Now that I have MLB.TV, and can watch whoever whenever (as you stated) – the All Star game is even more pointless. Having it "count" hasn't changed things – for the vast majority of the players, it isn't going to count. Then throw in lame duck managers who fill their roster by throwing darts (not naming names here) – why bother?
I thought it was goofy at first too, mostly because it was anti-climactic and unsatisfying and you didn't know it was a possibility basically until it happened. So, sure, it was really annoying as a knee jerk reaction, which is why you shouldn't make changes based on newspaper columns written by reactionaries. In retrospect, there's really nothing wrong with an exhibition game ending in a tie if it goes so long that you run out of available players (I mean, how long are you really willing to play? 20+ innings?) and I think that, by and large, that would have blown over eventually with some minor tweaks like the universal DH and larger rosters. Of course, people complain about that too, which just reinforces my point about ignoring most of the complaints.
I would like to point out that I love Dancing With The Stars (though I fully expect to get downrated now…. /cry). Realistically though, people derive different pleasure. I also watched the tie game and was infuriated, because it was then not really a baseball game (imo). Of course, I'm also infuriated when World Series games get stopped in the middle and played out the next day so there's that. :p
I think though, ultimately, they can't have their cake and eat it too. Exhibition game? Fine. Real game? Fine. But they ran into the same issue US Track and Field did — what to do in extreme cases. If there had been a rule for the ASG "If both teams are out of roster players after two innings of pitching; the game ends in a tie. If only one side is out, it forfeits to the other side" this whole thing would be avoided.
Of course, they still may not have fixed the three-way tie for wild-cards so who knows!
This would be my fix: cap the number of innings by rule. Maybe tie it to the number of pitchers on each roster or something, but that way everyone knows going in that this is an exhibition game that can't go more than X innings, and everyone gets to go on with that understanding.
That works for me. I do a lot of IT work and communicate between operations, business, technology, etc. — my general view is as long as I spell everything out explicitly up front, no one can bitch about it afterwards.
I have always fully supported free agency and player's rights (and caught plenty of abuse for it at the time) . Believe it or not players were traded between leagues so there was some movement between the leagues.
There's no question that free agency has reduced the inter-league rivalry but even well after the advent of free agency I can remember the ASG being more important than it is now. I think it's inter-league play that has had the biggest impact on the rivalry. I'm not dead against it (and I have enjoyed the ability to see the Yankees play in person without having to go to NY) but I think the benefits of it are overblown and the inequities it introduces are overlooked in addition to the impact on the AL-NL rivalry.
You're completely mistaken about the bragging rights. Guys back then really did care about that stuff or are you claiming they didn't really care about winning the WS as much as getting the winner's share (which they surely did). I don't think Mickey Mantle was crying at the end of the 1960 WS because his check was smaller (OK, he might have a few days later). And the fans weren't getting any monetary benefit from their league wining the ASG. I can't even begin to tell you how big a deal it was for me when the AL finally beat the NL in 1971. I don't really care that much now but I did for many, many years after that.
I also think you're way off base in your comment about MLB TV. I'm not interested in people seeing less baseball and MLB Advanced media is clearly not one of the changes I'm lamenting. I'm a customer after all (of the Game Day audio). But we did have Game of the Week back in the sixties and seventies which actually did a decent job of showing most of the teams around both leagues. Of course, as a resident of a two team city I could always watch the Mets (and often did) to see the NL stars.
I disagree with your argument that the changes that have lessened the inter-league rivalry have been for the benefit of fans. Fans clearly have benefited from free agency (OK, fans of teams that use it wisely have) but that's a side effect of an issue that was mostly about economic justice and labor rights for the players, which again, I fully support and don't think is the major factor in the demise of the ASG.
it I think the other changes (inter-league play, wild card, expanded playoffs and such) been mostly intended to make more money for owners and if the fans like them well, fine, if not, they can go watch tennis or the WNBA..
Well, there's one thing we can agree on – I can't stand Bob Costas either.
"There's no question that free agency has reduced the inter-league rivalry but even well after the advent of free agency I can remember the ASG being more important than it is now. I think it's inter-league play that has had the biggest impact on the rivalry. I'm not dead against it (and I have enjoyed the ability to see the Yankees play in person without having to go to NY) but I think the benefits of it are overblown and the inequities it introduces are overlooked in addition to the impact on the AL-NL rivalry."
That probably plays a role too, but I would counter by noting that at no point in my fandom have I ever really thought of the AL and NL as two distinct leagues, because they haven't been. That's why, for example, their aren't league Presidents anymore, and plays a role in why the rivalry between the conferences isn't particularly fierce now.
"You're completely mistaken about the bragging rights. Guys back then really did care about that stuff or are you claiming they didn't really care about winning the WS as much as getting the winner's share (which they surely did). I don't think Mickey Mantle was crying at the end of the 1960 WS because his check was smaller (OK, he might have a few days later). And the fans weren't getting any monetary benefit from their league wining the ASG. I can't even begin to tell you how big a deal it was for me when the AL finally beat the NL in 1971. I don't really care that much now but I did for many, many years after that. "
A) I don't really think the World Series is a good comparison to the All-Star game.
B) If you don't mind me asking, how old were you in 1971?
"I also think you're way off base in your comment about MLB TV. I'm not interested in people seeing less baseball and MLB Advanced media is clearly not one of the changes I'm lamenting. I'm a customer after all (of the Game Day audio). But we did have Game of the Week back in the sixties and seventies which actually did a decent job of showing most of the teams around both leagues. Of course, as a resident of a two team city I could always watch the Mets (and often did) to see the NL stars. "
Well this part I think you're just plain wrong about, though that's based mostly on the extent to which I hear older media types talking about how "back in the day" the All-Star game was your big chance to see players in the other league and stuff. In any case, I definitely think that MLB TV has made the All-Star Game less of an event in relative terms, because having every game available gives you the chance to make any game you like an event. Strasburg and Halladay going head to head? Fire it up. A Wednesday night battle for first place in late September? On it! The ability to get as much *meaningful* baseball as you want makes it harder to get truly amped for an exhibition game, IMO.
WRT the WS and ASG sure the stakes are higher in the WS but so is the monetary payout (remember, even back in the 50s and 60s many guys still had off-season jobs). so, if you want to say guys were motivated mostly by money then you have to consider the WS as well.
But, as I pointed out – and you excerpted – I could and did see all of the players from the NL by watching GOTW and the Mets games (Mets fans could watch the Yankees games) and all of us still cared a lot about the ASG! So that argument by the older media types is bogus.
By the way I was 15 at the time of the 1971 ASG not that I think that has much bearing on this discussion.
Personally I never understood what was so great about the All Star game and I think it was just fine as a meaningless exhibition game. If MLB really wants it to count, they should use sabermetrics to determine the starters and let them play most, if not all, of the game.
Return it to a meaningless exhibition game and I think it's fine that the fans vote for the players they want to see and everyone on the roster gets a chance to play.
And while we're on the subject, I can't even begin to express my feelings about how boring and pointless the Home Run Derby is. Seriously, I'm supposed to care who has the best batting practice session on a given night?
Adam Dunn and Bryce Harper are both All-Stars this year, and neither was slected for the Home Run Derby. In related news, I'll probably watch Cano's turns tonight, but other than that I'll get caught up on some television shows I've fallen behind. Either that or watch some Golden Girls reruns*.
*Which reminds me: not one person has noted the Sophia Petrillo allusion in the first paragraph?!?! Have my readers no culture at all!!!?
Is "the greatest atrocity in the history of history" a Golden Girls quote? What we need are some Lebanese women and we'll be all set…
I haven’t watched an All Star Game since that tie back in Milwaukee but it has less to do with that outcome and more to do with my age. I was 18 back then and thought watching All Stars face off was still fun and interesting, and I really thought that the players and the managers of the All Star team cared.
The tie game said it all, they didn’t care. SInce then we’ve had expanded rosters and “injury” replacements, and I cannot fault the players at all for this. It’s still a mighty honor, and a boon to those with bonus clasuses in their contracts, but these guys work 7 days a week; even on off-days they’re probably watching video or working in the cage or throwing on the side. A 3 day vacation in the midst of 6 months of straight work? Which one of us wouldn’t want that?
The All Star game might be fun for 8 year olds, but any knowledgeable fan nowadays can read ESPN, watch sportscenter and MLB Network, and get the opportunity to see the best of what the league has to offer without this silly exhibition game that can cause injury and wreck players’ careers. Personally, I think we should keep the festivities of the All Star break, but ditch the game and keep silly stuff like the home run derby, maybe come up with more events like basketball does. You could have “All Star Batting Practice” where all star pitchers throw simulated at bats against All Star hitters. You’d still get to see Verlander fire 100 mph fastballs past Joey Votto, but it could then just be fun. To keep players invested without offering bonus pay, you could offer each player something like 25K to donate to their favorite charity. Tax writeoff for the league, great publicity, and philanthropy for the players’ images and their consciences.
I don't actually mind the game, but I think it's a lot less fun now than it was when I was a kid. Interestingly, I still think that whenever I catch one of the games in the 1998-2001 era on ESPN Classic or something, so maybe it's not just youth related. I do wish people would stop taking the thing so damn seriously though. I'm pretty sure that being immersed in a constant parade of ASG related faux outrages is what makes me dread this week coming around every year.
Well played sir, well played. Just two small quibles. Nutless drumstick coness are crimes against nature and God, and LEAVE BOB COSTAS ALONE!! (cries hysterically).
Wouldn't "Things that make ten year old Bob Costas cry" make an awesome Tumblr?
Absolutely. You should trademark that. Maybe make it a recurring feature here.
Wait, wait, wait!
There's nutless Drumstick cones?
I still like the All Star Game. I don't think it should be the deciding factor for the World Series home team. It is an exhibition. And the beauty of it was for fans in each city to see its stars together with all the stars from around the league. It adds some element of justification for being fans of those players. It was very cool when our Bobby Murcer would get to play in one of those games. It made us feel good about rooting for him.
And yes, we can see any player at any time but that does not lessen the thrill of seeing all those stars all TOGETHER. To see the mutual respect and the camaraderie is a really nice thing.
And yes, I remember when the games were taken more seriously. That National League streak was a thing of pride for those players and they played fiercely to maintain it. I too remember the thrill of the AL finally winning one.
Oh, and another place we got to see all the players before MLB.TV was on that Saturday morning show hosted by Mel Allen: This Week in Baseball. How about that.
I hated the tie, and still do. The only reason they could not continue the game is because both managers decided to waste their pitchers. They both left JUST ONE PITCHER FOR EXTRAS! And I just looked up the box score btw: seriously, why didn't the AL have more than 9 pitchers on it? The easy way to make the game more real, while not ever having the problem again, stop substituting players just for the sake of substituting players. Tell both managers their objective is to win the game, period. Don't put a player in the game except for some strategic purpose. No cameo appearances. This is one game out of 163 in the year. I don't care that it doesn't count in terms of the regular season. Baseball ought to make it a normal, serious game, for the sake of baseball. Even if you only gave each team the normal number of roster spots, you could still have a 20 inning game without working any pitcher too hard.
"Baseball ought to make it a normal, serious game, for the sake of baseball."
Melodramatic much? Even as it is, it's *much* closer to looking like a regular season game than either the NBA All-Star game or the NFL Pro Bowl. In any case, I think most people who say that it needs to be treated "seriously" would still find some reason to hate it even in that case, because ultimately you can't really get past it being an exhibition game. So then all you've managed to do, from MLB's standpoint, is alienate the people (read, kids) who like the All-Star/exhibition game aspect of it all.
Thanks for the response. I stand by what you quoted from me. Calling a tie after 2 extra innings because they ran out of pitchers (and again, why the heck did they run out of pitchers–seriously, does that make sense?), goes beyond the question of let everyone play 30 innings and ask for serious injuries versus make it an exhibition game. Because even if it is an exhibition game, there is no reason why you have to shout that fact out so obviously to all the people who actually care who wins. Were kids happy when the 2002 exhibition game ended in a tie? I respect your opinion obviously (otherwise I wouldn't come to this site every day). Obviously the game is not as dumb as the Pro Bowl. To achieve that lack of normalcy, they would have to turn it into a softball game.
As a younger fan I don't really understand the rivalries. It's been neat to see teams play against other teams that they haven't played in a long time, but even that's going to get old at some point. I see rivalries as nothing more than a marketing ploy to get more people to turn on the television.
In this day in age, the only thing people care about is their team winning the championship. I think the media standard for player greatness and team greatness only being based on winning started with Michael Jordan, but I couldn't put a time frame on it. I'm a Yankees fan and I care if the Yankees win championships a lot more than I care if the Yankees beat the Red Sox or the Mets.
And for the record, I think what Rose did in 1970 was deplorable.
There's actually an argument to made for turning the All-star game into a softball game, just like I think the NFL Pro Bowl should be a flag football game. Changing the game entirely like that and telling people that it's not something they should take seriously up front, it works.
The NBA all-star game works really well because while basketball is a sport, anyone who's seen the Harlem Globetrotters or And 1 knows that basketball can also be a exhibition. That's how the NBA treats it and other sports should follow suit.
So you admit your ignorance on the subject of rivalries yet feel qualified to draw an absurd conclusion on that same point.
Perhaps you should do some research on events that happened before the invention of the i-Pod and keep your mouth shut until you have some perspective.
Yeah, a really stupid argument.
If you'd rather watch a trash sport like basketball be my guest. This is a baseball site. Baseball should never, ever copy anything from basketball.
Thanks for insulting me, but I said nothing of ignorance. I said that I didn't understand why rivalries are a big deal. Player's don't care about the rivalries, don't hate each other anymore and change teams so much that rivalries are pretty much dead in professional sports. The Red Sox/Yankee rivalry is a big deal to my dad, but it isn't to me because the game is different now than when he was younger.
I'll put it this way. If the Yankees didn't make the playoffs, would you actually care whether or not they won 12 games against the Red Sox? I certainly wouldn't. I want the Yankees to be successful every year and rivalries have no bearing on that, other than helping them win the American League East. (The entire point of divisions is to push the artificial rivalries and boost TV ratings anyway, but that's another story).
You're right that turning the all-star game into a softball game would be stupid, but baseball needs to find a way to lower people's expectations for the game. If it WERE a softball game, people wouldn't expect it to be anything more than MLB guys just hitting the ball around. It's an exhibition, not a competition, and it's about time that we stop treating is such. Not playing the game isn't a suggestion because there's too much money in it.
I think we all agree that Home Field Advantage in the World Series is really stupid, although it's very slightly less stupid than just alternating leagues like they did for years. Why can't it just go to the team with the best record and then we can figure out something else for the all-star game?
The only reason I mentioned the NBA to begin with is because they understand that their all-star game is an exhibition and treat it like that.
It was right after the 2002 ASG that they renamed the annual Shonda fur die Goyim Award the "Bud Selig Award."
The ASG was a big deal "back in the day" before interleague play, and it was also a major hook for kids (which is why, Roughrider, it is relevant that you were 15 and I was 8 for the classic game at Tiger Stadium in 1971). It was the only chance one would get to see, say, Tom Seaver pitch to Bobby Murcer (until he was banished to SF — I still shudder). With interleague play and the ubiquity of cable and online opportunities to watch whomever you want, I suspect that the ASG will have a lot less meaning for my son when he's old enough to watch than it did for me.
I do agree with Brien and others, up the thread, that the better fix would be limit the game to 10 innings, or somesuch — how about a soccer-style shoot out home-run derby? Or whichever league wins the derby on Monday, is declared the winner in case of a tie? But get the World Series home-field out of it. Either go back to alternating, or with the increase in interleague games, give it to the team with the best record.
It's roadrider pal not Roughrider which illustrates how "closely" you read my posts (you get an F professor). Our ages at the time of the 1971 game are a real small part of the story. I knew many adults at that time who were just as excited. And my main point was that the players themselves cared about the game just as much as we did. Read some interviews with guys from that era. They damn well took winning and losing the ASG seriously in those days and it had nothing to do with money. I doubt that in the 50s and 60s there were many guys who got bonuses for making the All-Star team and if they did they weren't that much. I don't know that there ever was a winners and losers share like the WS. My impression is that the money went to the pension fund (at least it did for the second ASG which was played between 1959 and 1962 IIRC).
As far as the bizarre suggestions that people are coming up with (like turning into a softball game or ending it with a HR derby) I'd rather see it not played at all than be made a mockery of. I don't take it that seriously any more and have skipped it on occasion (unthinkable in the 60s 70s and 80s) because it's become about as exciting as a spring training game. My point (if you read my original post) is not that we can go back to way things were but that the way things were was real not some idealized version of the past stumbling around Bob Costas' head.
http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/
Whoops, sorry Roadrider — that's what I get for writing in the middle of the night (though it's not like getting misassociated in my mind with Teddy Roosevelt is an insult!).
What we have here is a case of people who can't get enough of a good thing. The problem the employer has with something like this is to find a way to put their foot down without being seen as a tyrant.