There's a little segment on here called The Thursday Debate... today we look at whether or not the All-Star game should "count."It's not that hard to see why Bud Selig and the MLB came up with the rule that the League that won the All-Star game would have home-field advantage in the World Series. After the tie game a few years back, the All-Star game ran the risk of becoming irrelevent, like so many other All-Star games do.
But the question here is, do you like the rule? Should the MLB All-Star game really mean anything?
Again, I understand why the rule is in place. It makes sure that the game remains relevant and makes sure that the players have something to play for. But still, I have some problems with the rule.
One, the fans vote in the starters. In and of itself, I have no problem with this. The All-Star game is something for the fans, and the fans should be able to vote into the game who they want. That is why, even though the best players are not always starting, I don't really have a problem with them voting in the starters.
But if the game is really going to count, shouldn't the best players be playing? If the game is going to decide who has home-field advantage in the World Series, does it make sense to not have the best players out there?
Secondly, why should the fact that Michael Young (team not in the playoffs) hitting a 2-run triple to win the game mean that the American League got homefield advantage? Why are players who might have no part in the World Series decide this?
So as you can tell, I like the All-Star game, and I like fans voting for the All-Star game, but I don't like the fact that it actually counts for something.
But what do you think? Should the MLB All-Star game count? Place your vote and leave your reasons in the comments.