Or not... I just wonder if having 5-6 teams in three cities is really that much safer than having 16 teams in 8 cities. Or 8 team in four cities.
Also the reason the NHL and NBA and MLS bubbles are so impressive is because the hotels are practically (and in some cases actually) attached to the fields of play. So to me Arlington or Atlanta would make a lot more sense than NY or Chicago. Maybe LA works if you buy up the entire JW Marriott. It still strikes me as less than ideal that teams are staying around Rittenhouse Square or Times Square while playing the Phillies or the Yankees/Mets. Airport hotels would be more isolated, but none of them are fancy enough (and New York is even worse).
Because of MLB's expansion to 16 playoff teams, the league would need at least three hubs to complete its wild-card round before shrinking to a two-hub format for the division series. The league championship series and World Series could be held at one or two stadiums. Remaining in one metropolitan area would allow teams to avoid air travel and remain at perhaps a single hotel for the entire postseason, which is scheduled to begin Sept. 27.
Southern California, the greater Chicago area and the New York metropolitan area make the most sense because of the available stadiums, sources said. Concerns about weather in late September and deep into October make the Los Angeles area the most logical choice to host an entire postseason, though the sources cautioned that because of the nascent nature of discussions, no favorite has emerged.
I think the plan as described in the article overstates the risk of air travel and understates all the other risks. It says all the games would be in LA, Anaheim and SD (essentially once you arrive for the first round you don't have to leave the area until you lose).But that would still be less risk than putting them in eight cities I guess, especially without between or intra-series travel.
