whyI do many MLB's schedule opening-day games on weekdays.many more fans could go on weekends.?
410894
Most teams sell out their Opening Day game whenever it is.  The difference between an Opening Day crowd and a regular weekday crowd is much greater than that between it and a weekend crowd, so it makes economic sense to hold it on a weekday.  Or, in short: it's better to sell out a game that would otherwise have a small crowd than one that would have a big crowd.
192835
RedSox games are almost always sold out.  To get seats at a reasonable price pick a game against a non marquee team (like the Devil Rays) on a weeknight (non Friday) early in the season before the pennant race heats up.  Most ticket brokers in New England can quote a price.  Check around with more than one and shop around.  Avoid the right field grandstands as those seats are terrible.  The bleacher seats are fun but you're far away from the action.  Try to get grandstand seats between sections 12-33.  Good luck!
229719
You can't have a *balanced* 15 game schedule with 7 teams - to keep it balanced you need to have games played be a multiple of 6. 6, 12, 18, ...  My experience - just go with the 15 game schedule - use it to create a seeding for a playoff format ... that way there's less sensitivity about potential *unfairness* of having to play a particular team more than some other team might have to play that same team.
716800
Honestly, Gambling is probably a big reason as to why its so big. That and a lot of people like to watch college basketball and football to see who will be in the NBA and NFL respectively in the next couple of years. College baseball has a low  viewer rating because those players still have to rise up through all of the minor leagues before making it to  MLB.
727604
College baseball is great and pretty access able for fans - usually cheap and some of the rivalries are just as intense as in football or basketball.  Often a great way to spend a lazy afternoon in the sun and maybe, just maybe, you are seeing some future major leaguer.
466860
162 per team in Major League Baseball\n\nThere are currently 30 teams in the MLB.  Since each game is played by exactly 2 teams assuming there are no rainouts that are not made up or forfeited games you would multiply 162 games per team by 30 teams and divide that product by 2 teams per game and even though the unit comes out to teams it is really games.\n\nThere are a total of 2430 games played in a regular season of the MLB.\n\nAny regular season ties that require a playoff will have that playoff game count as a regular season game.  So once in a while there are 2431 or 2432 games.\n\nIn 2005 there were 2430 regular season games played.\n\nIn 1995 the teams played a 144 game schedule due to a late spring training that was a result of the previous year's strike\n\nThe last year of 154 games per team was 1960.  That year there were 16 teams in MLB so that year there would have been a potential for 1232 games.  I manually counted them for you and came up with: 1232, they played all the regular season games that year.
174887
it's good for baseball and great for the fans, but it's not so hot for the teams whose spring training is disrupted and whose players suffer injuries.  selig is right though: injuries are possible any time.  \n\nthis is the same argument some nhl fans had regarding their favorite team's players in the olympics, although that was on a much bigger stage.  also, nfl players are seeking a shorter preseason to prevent injuries.  \n\nas long as each player has the final say as to whether he'll play in the WBC, i'm in support of it.  it gets the fans excited about baseball earlier than ever before, and i'm tired of nascar already :)
499981
That the idea in and of itself was not interesting enough to draw attention from North American fans.. It takes more then the novelity of players representing their homelands to draw attention for the N.A. fan. MLB still thinks that it's the predominant sports league and anything it does will be a success. One day, they will wake up and wonder why no one is in the stands, and why they've gone the way of boxing and horse racing.
1086212
I have a theory:\nDuring the game, between pitches, people have time to talk to one another, about baseball of course, about how the players and doing, about these two teams, about other teams, but also about life.  Baseball is slow enough to give you time to enjoy life, to have a few stress-free hours of talk and beer and peanuts and nothing.  However, there is another side to game.  A good baseball game, with two evenly-matched teams, is great fun to watch, full of fast defensive plays and breath-holding moments.  The plays are fast enough that you can relax while waiting for the next great moment, but they are there and they are thrilling!  Plus, in that last inning, when everyone's on their feet, holding their breath, praying silently, there is no more exciting time in sports!  The tension is just so thick in the air!  I think it is the duality of the sport that makes it so great. \n\nPlus good baseball fields are wonderful places to be.  I grew up in Boston, and there is no greater structure on earth, as far as I'm concerned, than Fenway Park.  (Although Philly's new field, where I live now, is also quite beautiful).  How can you dislike a game that occurs in such a beautiful place?
220837
It's what the market bears.  There is only so many people that can play professional sports at a time.  Since people keep buying tickets to games and merchandice, the players can demand what they want for pay and the owners are willing to pay it
1067649
It's a double header make up for yesterday. They might postpone one, but not both. It would be almost impossible to make up 2 interleague games.
656219
i'm a beantown boy, so its all about the red sox around here. i wish that the teams had a league determined spending limit for their player salaries. imagine how much better the games would be if the teams were more evenly matched!
1115857
I didn't know that there was any time that MLB forced fans to run on the field in the postseason. Sounds strange to me.
959156
that's a great question and a good thought. it would be helpful and more convenient to the many of us who work during the weekday, rather than to get all stressed and rushed-out trying to get back to our districts trying to beat the crowds and the lines!
488658
They should and it would cut out a lot of games in division races.  A team in any division plays another team in that same divison at least 15-20 times a year.  It would be great to see for example the Yanks against the Houston Astros instead of them seeing each other every three years if possible.  \n\nThe downside is the traveling would wear the players down but then again they do play 162 games a year.  Hope you're reading this Bud Selig (needs to go immediately!!!)
586900
If you're in or within a reasonable distance of a major league baseball city, I think the ball game on a fireworks night is a good place because the night and fireworks add some ambiance to the setting thus making it appropriate for a date and you get to watch sports while still having the potential to get some play, so everybody wins.  This is a particularly good idea if you're near the Royals or Brewers or some team that sucks hard and nobody goes to watch.  Get cheap seats and you'll be all alone together.
253541
Yes, I would.  FINALLY someone who feels the same way I do.  Usually, it's the large market teams who hate the idea of this.  Currently teams such as the Red Sox, Yankees, and a handful of others, rule the league.  Why?  Because of their ownership's huge pocket-books.  The team I root for, and many others, aren't so fortunate.  We live in smaller markets, and simply can't shell out the big bucks for big-name players.  It's not because of our losing records that we don't draw huge crowds every game, allowing us to make more money.  It's the fact that we just live in smaller cities with smaller populations.  Beside that fact, we have lower ticket prices, because the market value in our area doesn't support higher ticket prices.  If we lived in an area where we could charge more, we'd have more capital to spend on the big name players.  However, the reality is that we don't.  Why should we be punished because of our geographical location?  These larger-market teams have payrolls 4 or more times that of the smaller-market clubs.  It simply isn't fair, and we just can't compete.  Face it.  It's simple.  If you don't have enough capital to spend, you won't even compare to the clubs who do...and your record at the end of the season will show it.  If you can't afford the big home-run sluggers, and ace pitching staff, you won't even be a match to these larger teams.  As it stands, look at the All-Star game every year.  All the starters you see play for large-market teams, and are making huge salaries that small-market teams couldn't even dream of affording.  Some people say this isn't true, because of the fact that you do see a small-market team make it to the post-season from time to time.  This does happen periodically, but it doesn't happen consistently from year to year...unlike the Yankees, who are in the post-season almost every single year.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that as they way it stands, the MLB isn't even a fair contest.  So yes, a salary cap is definitely needed.