Comments on: Is "World Champions" wrong?

By: Rick Murray

Rick Murray — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:24:45 +0000

The “Little League World Series” is appropriate. Teams from all over the world compete for that title. MLB’s “World Series” is not appropriate and shows arrogance.

By: Daniel Mooney

Daniel Mooney — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 03:08:23 +0000

The MLB, NFL, NBA represent the top leagues in the world for the respective sports. The MLS knowing that it is no where near the top league in soccer has the MLS Cup. Americans feel like the when they are best in America, that they are the best in the world since America is supposedly the best country in the world.

By: Al Meyer

Al Meyer — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:26:10 +0000

What they should do is hold the WBC every year after the baseball season ends in October or November and every country should send the team that won their own championship that year. Or they can do it every four years at the winter Olympics. As for our own title i think “United States Champion” sounds good or if the Blue Jays get mad you can call it “Continental Champion” or “North American Champion”

By: Sean A.

Sean A. — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:33:12 +0000

Well, announcers for baseball, at least for the Mets often talk about how it might be a good idea to have the winner of the world series play the national champions of Japan or Latin American Champion to really gain the title.

I agree with that. And I hate arrogance more than anything, however I understand the reasoning behind it is that for those sports we are the premiere country with the premeire players, so if you win here, its presumed that your the best of the best.

That being said, with baseball becoming more popular around the world with tournaments like the WBC, every year other nations are getting better and we have less claim to being the best of the best. That goes for all of these sports, but with dominant teams coming from nations like Cuba and Japan, we more and more may have to redefine the label of world champions, or set up one more final series with the champions from other countries. We’ll see!

By: steve stetson

steve stetson — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:54:48 +0000

Got to agree about “World Champions” label for baseball. Horrible time of year to produce WBC series to have it really be meaningful though.More apt name should be “Spring Training WBC”.

By: Brian Derechailo

Brian Derechailo — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:07:52 +0000

I believe that the title world champions is appropriate because of the fact that the best baseball players from around the world are playing in the MLB. MLB is as much of a sport for nations around the globe as it is for America, it just so happens that it calls the USA its home. That is why, with the diversity of baseball teams in this age, World Champions is an appropriate name.

By: Mike Tracy

Mike Tracy — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:01:09 +0000

The NFL is still “ok” with the Super Bowl and the world champion’s label. I don’t see any other countries ready to compete with NFL teams. I would agree the World Series may not be true anymore however the name was more appropriate in its inception year of 1903. The Olympics have unfortunately cast a shadow of doubt on the NBA’s bragging rights too

By: MetsBlog.com » Links: Free Tickets, Bullpen, Pagan, World Champs

MetsBlog.com » Links: Free Tickets, Bullpen, Pagan, World Champs — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:35:05 +0000

[...] Matt Tracy wonders, with the WBC, if World Champions is the wrong name for MLB’s World Series winner. [...]

By: Andrew Vazzano

Andrew Vazzano — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:39:15 +0000

Though the teams aren’t really from around the world, MLB is the premier baseball league in the world.

Now that they’ve grown, the players pretty much do represent a multitude of countries around the world.

It may not be perfectly correct, but I think it works.

By: Matt Tracy

Matt Tracy — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:05:02 +0000

You have a point there about Toronto… I didn’t even think of that.