Looks like MLB is taking inspiration from the NFL’s playbook. And this could very easily shake things up in the major league’s most iconic and longstanding tradition—the World Series. The man behind the idea? Well, it’s none other than agent Scott Boras. Good thing, it’s not official. As the teams across the league aim for October glory, Boras is cooking up ideas for the World Series’ makeover. And hold on, he does have some good arguments.

It’s pretty well known the aura, the craze,  and the obsession the Super Bowl carries in America. It makes you wonder if the NFL has found the secret to capturing fans’ attention. Baseball, on the other hand, is known for being slower-paced. Maybe it’s time for the sport to try something new and shake things up a bit. At least in Boras’ opinion. But it turns out, he isn’t the only one in the league to have this opinion.

Taking Boras’ ideas forward, the former Miami Marlins president, David Sampson, proposed it again on the latest edition of Pablo Torre Finds Out podcast. Basically, he made a radical suggestion—crediting Boras—that MLB should relocate the World Series to a neutral site. Perhaps, a place with good tourist exposure. Since 1903, the World Series has alternated between the home stadiums of the competing teams.

Now, if this idea materializes, the teams with higher rankings would be playing more games at home during the League Championship Series (LCS). However, when it comes to the World Series, no games would take place at either team’s home stadiums. Instead, Sampson suggested, the World Series would be held at a single neutral location.

Additionally, he also suggested that the team with the better regular season record should benefit by batting last in 4 out of 7 games. Not just that, Sampson had several reasons to support his ideas. He started by pointing out that if the World Series were held at a neutral site like the Super Bowl, the fans would have enough time to plan their trips in advance. As the host city would be announced months in advance. Like the NFL fans already know, Super Bowl LX will be held in Santa Clara, California. This way, the attendees can make their bookings early.

Next up, he believes this setup would attract visitors to desirable cities. However, it will shake up things for the home fans, who have the tradition of attending the World Series game. Not to forget, they are the life of the World Series. But Sampson believes having the neutral site setup, the MLB World Series would become a week-long, 7-game party.

All said and done, can this NFL model really replace the raw and electric atmosphere of a traditional World Series setup?

Cons of MLB World Series at neutral site

David Sampson’s proposed idea of taking a page from the NFL Super Bowl’s model didn’t spark any excitement among MLB enthusiasts. Instead, it ignited instant backlash. A Big 7-game party sounds good on the surface, but a neutral location would take away the home crowd. According to statistics, MLB home teams win about 54% of games, thanks in part to the home crowd. This home-field advantage serves as a significant competitive edge.

We don’t have to look far back; let’s take an example of the 2024 World Series. When Freddie Freeman hit a walk-off grand slam in Game 1 of the World Series, would it have made sense anywhere but Dodger Stadium? Absolutely not.

Sure, we’ve made peace with the fact that the World Series isn’t always held at iconic stadiums like Fenway or Wrigley. But without home fans at a better-suited neutral site doesn’t excite anyone in MLB right now. Let’s not forget, not everyone can afford to fly all the way to a neutral city. Local fans, who usually attend every year, would probably skip it altogether.

Sampson’s proposal led many fans to believe that this neutral city idea would be more of a soulless corporate event. Sure, that wasn’t Sampson’s intention. But from the fans’ perspective, this setup would take away the World Series’ true charm.