One of the most popular arguments against the wild card has been put forth by NBC announcer and self-proclaimed traditionalist Bob Costas. Costas' argument is that the inclusion of the wild card would kill the historical pennant races such as the Dodgers and Giants in 1954, the Yankees and Red Sox in 1978 and the Braves and Giants in 1993. This argument doesn't have a great deal of merit to it. This season is proof positive of that. In the AL, the Yankees seemingly have their division sewed up and the White Sox have clinched. Oakland is the leader in the wild card race but could win their division. Cleveland and Seattle aren't exactly shoo-ins for the wild card either. I admit that it might be more exciting in the NL East this season if both the Mets and Braves weren't shoo-ins for the post-season but there is that divisional championship and best league record to strive for. Don't think either team will slack off because they are both in the playoffs.
Another argument is that the wild card race is a contrived race. That may be, but no more so than when divisions were created for the first time in 1969. Florida may have bought a World Series and thereafter gutted their team but they did prove that a wild card team could go all the way. For some teams the wild card is their only hope. The White Sox got off to such a big lead against Cleveland in the AL Central this year that the only way the Indians can get into the playoffs is to win the wild card. Not only is Cleveland a contender for the wild card but teams like the loser of the AL West, the Red Sox, and the Blue Jays are in it as well. Not to mention an aborted charge by Detroit who started out horribly and the Angels who no one felt would do anything this year. Cleveland and Boston are playing each other about a dozen times in the next two weeks to possibly decide the winner of the wild card. Don't tell Reds' fans that the wild card race is contrived. 52,000 fans for the playoff game at Cinergy Field last year would have told you otherwise.
I'll admit that at first I was against a wild card team being added. I felt the playoffs would work just fine with the team who had the best record in each league getting a bye in the first round and facing off against the winner of the other two teams. The main reason I was against it was because I felt - and still do to a point - that the owners would feel that since one wild card is good, two would be twice as good and three would be three times as good. When the NFL added the wild card back in the 1970s they were split into three divisions in each conference with one wild card team added to the divisional winners. The owners added another wild card team in each conference a few years later. Now, there are three wild cards per conference. In the NBA and the NHL they play 80 some games and 16 teams qualify for the playoffs. No one talks about the divisional races in football, basketball, and hockey. In basketball and hockey, it's a given every second place team will make the playoffs. In football, it's not quite that bad but if a second place team in one division doesn't reach the playoffs, a third place team from another will. This is what I fear about the wild card. If more than one wild card is added for baseball, I fear more mediocre teams getting into the playoffs.
So far, the owners have kept the wild card the way it is. That's a good thing if it stays the way it is. Baseball is a long season and it rewards teams who play well over the entire season. The wild card, for the most part, rewards good teams. As long as there are still pennant races and there are a select few teams who feel they have playoff life after the 4th of July then I can't see why that's so wrong. Having one wild card doesn't always weed out mediocre teams - they will be there anyway. But it does guarantee the two best teams in each league will be in the playoffs.