Is that a Redsox's fan? Because that sure is how I feel right now...

Did his ballcap blow off his head and into the water?

I know that Selig isn't all that well liked, and some of his decisions have been pretty poor (like everything regarding the all star game), but baseball is doing better than it has in years. Old fans are returning, new fans are made, attendance is up... things seem good. Isn't some of that attributed to Selig's leadership?

Seriously, I'm curious. I've yet to have a friend give me a decent answer, perhaps you could give me one. Why is Selig so hated?

Selig is hated because he's not seen as an independent commissioner. IIRC, he helped kick out (name blank), had baseball drift for a while without a commish, and then moved from being an owner to commish. Yet he isn't baseball's commissioner, he's the owners' commissioner.
IMO, anyway.
PS, cancelling the World Series didn't help either. Though I don't blame him for the all-star game tie.

Personally I'd like to see Frank Robinson as the head honcho.

Bud Selig is an employee of the owners. Suggesting fans and players should have input in determining who should occupy his position is as ludicrous as suggesting the fans and owners should have input in determining the leadership of the Major League Baseball Players Association.

Perhaps Selig should just change his title to remove confusion. Maybe you feel that the players and owners should get together and appoint a 'neutral' commisioner that could resolve disputes and dictate terms to both parties.

That, of course, will never happen. The owners would never put themselves in a position where another party could dictate terms to them regarding their $700 million investments. I doubt the Players Association would cede any power to a neutral third party, especially if he could dictate terms of any CBA.

I say we trim the "Bud" in baseball's executive branch. Just as David Stern breathed new life into an ailing NBA and Paul Tagliabue built the NFL into an empire known simply as America’s Sport over the past two decades and change, Chris Berman could bring baseball back into the consciousness of mainstream America.

Consider the facts: Chris Berman has been the major impetus behind the rise of both ESPN and, more significantly, the concept of the lifestyle network that has exploded into America’s cable systems almost a quarter-century after his network’s inception. For more than a decade, Berman’s ESPN has been the sole network to cover a MLB game of the week. Ever loyal to the sport, despite a steady decline in ratings, his network continues to cover baseball with quality programming such as “Baseball Tonight” that is nothing short of comprehensive. It is Berman’s acute attention to detail and his rare universal affability that defines him as a baseball fan, as a member of the media, and, most importantly, as a business man.

Make no mistake about it – the rise of Berman’s ESPN has been largely founded upon superior coverage of sport. But what put his company over the top? Undeniably, two elements that baseball needs most: superior marketing and a sense of humor. By its very nature, successful marketing takes aim at younger demographics so as to infuse a sense of brand loyalty in those Americans and, ideally, for generations to come. The generation gap in baseball can be bridged over time, but a willingness to adapt is necessary for baseball to survive among its “fitter” competition.

As American values and interests have evolved, America’s youth view baseball as an institution of the past. There’s nothing hip about Bud Selig, Barry Bonds or Pete Rose for that matter. By holding on to alleged “tradition,” baseball has alienated a generation that would rather watch the pranksters of extreme sports than the boring boys of summer. The players and executives of MLB continue to take steps backward with a gravity that is nothing short of comical. A true leader must step forward, and the players and the fans will follow. Simply put, if Berman rebuilds it, they will come.

Thank you very much for the insight. I'm actually a returning fan, and hadn't, until recently, really paid a lot of attention to the politics surrounding the game.

I've also pretty recently discovered this blog. Thank you for keeping it, it's an enjoyable read every day.

thanks for posting that link to your bud selig arguement... as a long-suffering Expos fan, i wholeheartedly agree.

would also like to say that i enjoy reading your thoughts on baseball in general... always interesting.

Good Lord. Chris Berman? Please tell me that was a satirical comment. Berman was once good, but now is nothing but a microcosm of the bloated, extraneous, silliness that ESPN has become. If you want an outsider, how about Bob Costas? His book, Fair Ball, has some great ideas (although I last read it about 2 years ago - so some ideas might be outdated or unrealistic now) about how to fix the game. Berman would just make sure everyone had a silly nickname.

Chris Berman is horrible. He might have been funy a decade ago, but now is just a parody of himself.

And the idea of putting a billion dollar business in the nads of its customers...gee, why didn't IBM think of that? Um, baseball is a business, and it's bud's job to ensure it runs properly. Doesn't matter how good Vincent was, he got fired by his bosses, the owners. Bud is in the middle of a record attendance year, and will set another one next year, as MLB will be rid of the Montreal anchor. Keep grasping at straws and ignoring the facts...baseball is healthier than it has been in decades, maybe ever. Most of that is due tom the fact a strike was averted in 2002, the CBA benefits all and levels the playing field. It ain't perfect, but it includes more revenue sharing than ever before.

I didn't realize that ESPN was Berman's network. Is it really? If so, good on him. Baseball Tonight is a pleasure- despite their regular bufoonery, it's quite obvious that the people who report for ESPN are clearly fans of the game, and often intelligent ones at that.

As for Bud Selig...the list of horrors is long. Let's go:

1. Lying about owners' finances to extract money from multiple parties, including both taxpayers (Oakland simply CAN'T compete without a new ballpark, can it? City of Oakland, pony up, or we're gonna move those A's someplace that'll have luxury boxes...oh wait, who's the winningist team over the last three years?) and players.

2. Mocking fans' intelligence with ludicrous cover ups for blatant attempts at making more money (most recently exhibited by the Spidey-on-the-basepaths marketeering fiasco...oh sorry, that was to get the KIDS into the game....riiiiight.)

3. Penalizing successful franchises and awarding the inept...While profit sharing is a reasonable scheme, the current method promoted by Bud Selig rewards piracy on the part of the owners. Small market it defined not by the market size, but rather by the REVENUE generated by a team. So up to a couple of years ago, Philly was a small market team? Hmm...Third largest Metro area in the country? MUST be small market. Let's give 'em some money 'cause they're poor.

I think baseball is healthy in spite of its leadership. The quality of the product is too good for its owners to muck up. By owners, I mean Bud Selig, de facto owner of the Brewers, the loan shark to Carl Pohlad, the used car salesman himself.

All that said, Bud has done some good things for the game, in terms of promoting fan interest. Don't believe for a second that profit-sharing has led to this current parity...but you have to nod to three divisions and a wild-card in each league as VERY good reason for increased parity. That's done on Bud's watch, and kudos for that...but little else. The guy's a lying snake, and he's in his own (the owners') pocket.

Baseball need some new blood that's going to PROMOTE the game.

At the HoF Induction ceremony, Bud was lustily booed by the fans in attendence. It was pretty funny in a way and sad in another.

I actually met Bud Selig about 20 years ago, when I was an undergrad at Yale. He was friends with Bart Giamatti, and came to make a few public appearances, mingle with the students, etc. The thing is, I rather liked him; he seemed smart, personable and a genuine fan of the game. He struck me as well-suited for the role he played at the time, that of a team owner in a cozy, small-market city.

How to reconcile that with the reviled Commisioner that he is today (and Rob McMillan of 6-4-2 deserves a laugh point for calling him 'Seligula')? I'd hazard a guess that Bud Selig is a tragic figure in that, out of hubris (or whatever else), he went from a role that suited him well to one that revealed his weaknesses and held them up for the world to see. He just doesn't seem cut out for a high-profile leadership role. Last year's All-Star debacle was a case in point (and unlike an earlier poster, I do blame him for that). He had to make an important decision on the spot and in full public view. So what happened? He turned into a deer caught in the headlights and made the one possible decision that was guaranteed to satisfy no one. That utter lack of savoir-faire has marked his Commisionership.

I'm not sure I agree with David's suggestion that the Commisionership become a kind of public trust in which the owners, players and fans all have a say. Baseball teams are private companies and ultimately, the owners have the most at stake when it comes to how their business affairs are handled. But a well-run company understands the importance of good public relations, and of keeping the customers and workers happy. I agree that MLB could use a more effective leader of its trade association.