What? Lets give major league players more money, pay them off to play in the all star game, come on...that has to be one of the worst ideas that I have heard ever...

Yes, paying professional athletes is a terrible idea, Emmerson.

As opposed to alternating every year, it certainly isn't a bad idea. Regular season records are stupid as well, as teams don't play the same schedule, in addition to the hotel room issues.

Am I correct to assume that most players who make the all-star team receive financial incentives anyway? Why reward them twice?

How about awarding the TEAMS the money. This way they can have a little extra money to sign free agents, or trade for players. Of course this will help the little teams more than the big teams, but I'm sure all the teams would appreciate another million bucks or so.

I don't think owners would be too happy about the prospect of their best players playing too hard at the all-star game. I doubt if anyone dives into the stands to make a catch in today's format; but if a million bucks per player is on the line, you might have a few more broken arms and strained hammies, especially among the younger stars. Owners are looking to protect their investments... However, if you give the winning manager a bonus, that might work out.

How about starting the pre-game nonsense at 7 pm ET, starting the game at 7:45, and then playing uniterrupted baseball for nine innings...

All-Star games have no meaning except to fans of the sport. If you love the sport then you'll enjoy the All-Star game as a break from the regular season. It give your team a chance to re-group for the final push, and a chance to see 'the best' players play on teams even the Yankees don't have a budget for.

The NFL plays their big game on 'neutral' ground, but in the playoffs leading to it home field is based on regular season records. The NBA also uses regular season records for their playoffs, including the finals. And yes, in the NBA a good team in a weak division will end up with a better record then they would otherwise deserve, and more home court advantage in the playoffs as a result. This has been part of the Lakers success over the years. This is not to say they haven't had great teams, but it sure helps to pad the stats when you can play the Clippers 6 times in LA.

I think we should make the losing team reponsible for cleaning the dugouts after the game. That would be a lot more incentive than a paltry $30 million.

Just want to register my vote. I hate the winner gets home field rule. I hate that it messes up the World Series by tying it to an unrelated exhibition. And I will bet that most of the positive vote in polls is shallow: yeah, we think its a good idea, but does it really make us more likely to watch or care more? No.

I realize there are those who disagree, but I think the only fair system, and the only pretty one, is the regular alternation of home field.

I agree with Capybara...However, (f one insists on tying April-September events to WS home-locale...I read in ESPN last year an interesting suggestion, I forget by whom. The team with the best 2 of 3 out of the following criteria should host the WS: league has better overall interleague record, league won All-Star game, team has better overall record. Whoever has two out of those three on their side hosts the WS.

In terms of making the event more compelling altogether, I just read a different creative idea in the Daily News: why not make it the American All-Stars vs. the World All-Stars? That would be awesome.

I like the comment by Dave S. You could, in fact, change up the opponents every year. With interleague play, there's not as a big a reason to bring the stars of both leagues together. You could have Americans vs. the World; you could have East vs. West with some geographic cutoff. You could have young players vs. older players The possibilities are endless!

Like when this was discussed last year, I don't understand those who are disgusted by the arbitrary decision to award home-field in the WS to the ASG winner. Have you forgotten that the prior arrangement was equally arbitrary? It's not as if "This Time It Counts" replaced a wholly just method; until last year, home-field simply alternated between the two leagues.

i can't say i understand the hotel-room issue. somehow, people manage to make last-minute hotel reservations in the nba. why is it so difficult in baseball? is it just because there are more players on a baseball team? honestly, why hasn't "best record gets home-field advantage" just been the norm for years? anyone?

also, sort of off-topic, but: mark, the lakers play the clippers four times a year, just as the suns and the spurs and the nuggets and the grizzlies do. and the last time they won a big playoff series because of home-court advantage would have to be in 2000 against the portland trailblazers. just for what it's worth.

Steve has it exactly right. if ballplayers are anything like every other guy i know, he has hit on the BEST motivational tool i've ever heard. i CAN'T believe that i didn't think of it first. i'd bet these rich guys would try MUCH harder to avoid scrubbing urinals and washing dirty jocks than they would to get a few extra bucks.

Lisa - I lke the idea of adding in the toilets and laundry. So let's make it losing team has to clean the winning teams clubhouse and take care of their laundry.

It's not as if "This Time It Counts" replaced a wholly just method; until last year, home-field simply alternated between the two leagues.

I think you are confusing arbitrary with unjust. There are times when arbitrary decision-making is unjust. No one would like their guilt on a criminal matter decided on the flip of a coin or by virtue of a rule made up that morning (or how good a lawyer they could afford, for that matter.)

On the other hand, the impersonal application of an arbitrary rule decided beforehand, and always applied, is entirely just -- that is, the original rule is arbitrary (such as 4 balls = a walk) but it is not applied arbitrarily (such as, everyone who gets 4 balls gets a walk.)

The fact that for a given team it is chance whether or not it makes the World Series in the year that the AL gets homefield advantage makes it just, like the flip of a coin to see who receives the ball at the beginning of a football game. The All Star / WS system now in place guarantees that the choice of home field is 1) not random, and 2) not correlated with anything the teams involved have done to "earn" home field advantage. That is the virtual definition of injustice.

The alternating advantage makes the most sense. I can just see the Cardinals winning 100 games this year and having to play 4 games in the Baggydome, home of the pennant-winning 85-77 Twins. It's one thing to have to do so because it's an alternate year; it's another to have to do so because The Rocket got lit up. (By the way, the Cardinals did their part: 4-for-7, with 3 of the 4 NL runs, all 3 of the NL extra-base hits, and the only NL walk.)

It was a good idea in theory. However, I agree that giving the advantage to the winner of the All-star game isn't fair to the teams that make it to the World Series.

Every team has representation in the All-star game, but only two teams -- with 3 or 4 all-star players if you're lucky -- make it to the World Series. Everyone else suffers the consequences for a game they couldn't control.

Why not spice up the game itself? I'd like the idea of a home run derby in lieu of the 9th inning. Winner's side gets a run.

The "hotel room uncertainty" issue is bogus. After all, when the playoffs start, the leagues already have to make reservations in each of the potential WS cities. When do they make these reservations? If at the start of the LCS, they would have to make one additional set of reservations based upon potential WS match-ups.