The Union would consider a possible playoff expansion.

This is a pretty interesting issue. As pointed out in the article, baseball has the smallest percentage (26.7%) of teams making the playoffs compared to the NFL (37.5%), the NHL and NBA (53.3%).

Personally, I'm for it. There are some obvious cons to it (lost revenue for non-playoff teams if the season gets shortened, likely more "boring" first round series), but here's the major reasons why I support it after the jump:

1. Help out the poor non-Yankee/Sox teams in the AL East, and gives other teams a shot at the wild card(s).

With the Rays likely to be dismantled, the Red Sox and Yankees are going continue their rule as the only teams with any shot whatsoever of making the playoffs in the AL East. One of the two takes the division, the other fights for the Wild Card, and the Blue Jays/Orioles/soon to be Rays are stuck with no chance. Keep in mind that last season, the Red Sox would have finished only a game out of first in the AL West. Two the last three years, the third place team in the AL East would have been within a game of first place in another AL division.

Not to mention the fact that since 2003, only one time has the Wild Card NOT gone to the AL East. It would give teams a chance to make the playoffs outside of "win the division."

If the format were expanded to six teams, the final two spots would have gone to Boston and Chicago, who finished with 89 and 88 wins respectively. With such a small gap in win totals between the AL West winner and those two, it makes you wonder if either Chicago or Boston had a decent shot at advancing in the playoffs as well as Texas has. Speaking of six teams...

2. Finishing with a great record is better rewarded.

I like the idea of the two best teams in each league getting a first round bye. Right now, having the best record in baseball only guarantees homefield advantage in two rounds. That's it. It doesn't even guarantee homefield advantage in the World Series. By adding a bye for them, it means they're not forced to use spot starters in late season games in order to make sure their best pitchers are available game 1. Not to mention the fact that having a week of non-baseball would allow them to rest from injuries they've received over the course of the season.

3. Shortening the season.

Let's be honest: 162 games is a long season. Probably too long. I don't have any numbers to back me up, but it seems like late season and playoffs are more like a war of attrition. Everyone's banged up from the long, long season. Granted, a lot of sports are this way, but baseball seems particularly grueling. Players have to take nights off just simply cause their bodies can't handle 162 straight games.

What's really lost in cutting some 15-20 games a season? Obviously, the stats. That's probably the biggest argument against it. It'll be harder for modern athletes to reach certain plateaus (500 home runs, 300 wins). But there could be a trade off with less games played means taking less games off and staying healthier. A guy won't need to take a night off because playing every day becomes a bit easier.

There's also the fact that you could consider shortening up your rotation again. Maybe not for the entire season, but say you're in a tight pennant race. Why not shorten it up for the last 20 or so games? Hell, if you go a four man rotation for an entire season, and the season is 140 games long, you'll have 35 outings apiece. The only question is how often you'd pitch on three days rest. If the 140 games is spread out over the same amount of time as the 162 is, you might not do it that often. Although, I'll have to feign ignorance on the part of 4 vs. 5 man rotations, but I know a couple of modern teams (the A's recently) come to mind as using a 4 man rotation and I always thought the main issue wasn't just the three days rest but also the fact that you'd be pushing 40+ outings a season.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.