yes. Apparently one of the first groundbreaking discussions they may have is about the designated hitter rule. Apparently LaRussa doesn't like it. It's not baseball as he learned it. The exact mindset that you are worried about in your piece.

Feels like the Committee is basically 'guys Bud Selig talks to already', so all it does is get these guys in the same room together for their coffeehousing, and they get to experience the ego trip of being 'guardians of the game'. But as for doing anything progressive, I don't think the commish is comfortable letting some Don Draper clone he doesn't know well Powerpoint his way through a proposal to do something significantly different. Bud is an old guy who likes his oatmeal. That's understandable.

Thank you Joe, for putting eloquently what we're all thinking. Change doesn't come from putting the same group of old dudes in a room and letting them reminisce until they've either come up with some irrelevant suggestions or all dozed off. The odds of this committee achieving something we remember in five years is approximately non-existent.

No umpires on the committee, either. How can you have a meaningful discussion about the use of instant replay without umpire participation?

As is usual with Selig, this is all about appearances; designed so he has something to point to next November when all the same complaints arise about bad umpiring, incessant commercials, excess off days, etc.

if they're going to talk about umpiring and instant replay, how about putting an actual umpire on the committee?

Joe, these were my exact thoughts as soon as I saw who he picked.

Bud: If I pick my buddies, they'll just rubber-stamp us not having replays so we can still have a boatload of incorrect calls?

Underling: Um, yeah, but why don't we want to get things right?

Bud: Don't care.

As Don DeLillo once said, "I don't blame America for Lee Harvey Oswald. I blame America for George Will."

I didn't even realize how irrelevant this committee was until reading this. Too bad Mitch Williams didn't have the cajones to bring up the issues when Selig called in to MLB last night. What a joke.

Halladay press conference in about an hour, to announce the deal is final. The trade is essentially two seperate trades, Phils trade prospects to Jay's for Halladay, M's trade prospects to Phils for Lee... same prospects that have been speculated on for the past two days... can't wait to read your analysis Joe!

I posted a comment to this effect in John's "On the Beat" column of today as well, but two words: Bill James. He is as forward-thinking about the game today as he was in the 80's. And he's a company man now, too, so you don't even have an excuse to leave him out of the discussion.

I vote an enthusiastic yes on Nate as well. Especially if it gives him something to do other than call progressives "batsh*t crazy" for refusing on principle to support a health care bill which -- while improving access and affordability for many -- mandates coverage without doing anything to increase competition among insurers, a massive giveaway to the private health insurance industry.

Sorry, I know it's a baseball site. But since you're touting Nate's non-baseball gravitas and raw intelligence (both of which are undeniable and appreciated), I feel the need to point out how even a genius can have a bad idea now and then. Sort of like your $34 bid on B.J. Upton. :-) (And I say this as the genius who went to $39 on him.)

So, I guess that the frozen head of Ted Williams was too busy?

Also, to add to Joe's list of ignored constituencies, how about a broadcaster? No one more greatly suffers the game's delays than the guy (or lady) sitting in a radio booth trying to fill time.

For something like this, the players union should have been asked to supply some of the members of the panel.

It's funny, Joe, there are many times I disagree with what you're writing but I keep coming back for more, and it's because of articles like this. You are completely correct in your analysis and have been one of the first writers I've seen call attention to this matter.

Selig is telling us we wouldn't benefit from some well-respected current and recent players to join this committee (assuming, of course, that the content of discourse would be kept confidential)? I think Curt Schilling, Sean Casey, Mike Mussina (about as smart a guy as has played baseball in recent years) and someone like Torii Hunter could be great additions to the committee. Perhaps a player with deep community service affiliations could help as well, like Hunter, Sabathia, Swisher or Granderson.

Neyer, Silver and Posnanski would also be interesting, and relevant, additions to the group.

I can't imagine this group makes any substantial changes (or suggestions, I should say) to the game of baseball.

This was my immediate response: "there are no players on the committee..."

Generally, terms and conditions of employment, including work rules, are bargainable topics ina unionized environment. If I were the executive director of the MLBPA, I'm sure I'd want the voice of the players heard, either in the advisory commission (which I guess means the owners get to do whatever they want) on when the next agreement is bargained.

Interestingly, Phil Rogers' immediate response, in the Chicago Tribune, was to suggest this is the death knell of the designated hitter.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-16-rogers-bud-selig-dec16,0,4802677.column

As an Englishman brought up with soccer and other sports that don't have the amazing protection American Sports Owners enjoy, can I ask if any Commisioner has ever done anything other than attempt to fleece all income sources to put money in the pockets of his bosses?

Superb piece, Joe, you nailed it. MLB continues to operate like they're still in the 1950s or imprisoned inside a Ken Burns movie. At this rate they will yesteryear the game right out of existence.

and Marooner...Your Ted Williams comment was the funniest thing I've read in a month.

all that's missing is a team of architects from HOK

as backwards looking as they wanna be

Yeah, I'd rather have Stephen King than George Will. He's written a baseball book too.

But really, I'd like to see: Curt Schilling, Mark Cuban, Billy Beane, Doug Glanville (Okay, just because I miss him from quotes of the day), Kieth Olbermann, Bill James, Charles Finley... my panel would be a lot more interesting! :) Anyone could come up with a better panel than Selig could.

Amen, Joe ...

I could see one or two of those relics being invited into the conversation but did they have to bring in the entire collection?

I'd like to nominate Cory Schwartz, Will Carroll and Joe Sheehan to the group in place of George Will and any two of the others.

Regarding fans, while we don't have a seat on this committee, we have cast a vote relative to the "steadily more expensive and difficult" experience of going to the ballpark. Or, rather, 5,110,878 votes, the decline in attendance from 2008 to 2009. I think our fan votes, cast throughout the season in 2009, were a major factor in the formation of the committee.

Outside of Will, there's no one on the committee I'd exclude, but would rather prefer to see the base that has been established added to with an ump or two and a handful of players.

With all due respect to Silver, who I think would be a valuable add to the committee, I think it's a disservice to the few centuries of baseball experience on the committee, and the intelligence of guys like Tony La Russa and Andy McPhail to suggest Silver has "more raw intelligence than the rest of the committee combined." And who is more deserving to have the commissioner's ear when it comes to improving the game and the fan experience than Bill Dewitt, who suffered from down attendance in a year that his team got better, had two Cy candidates, and put the best player of our generation on display? I have faith that Dewitt wants to improve baseball, because if the game does not improve, neither does his bottom line.

Not to just state the obvious, Selig is not the Commissioner of Baseball, he is the Commissioner of Baseball Owners. This Committee is just one more brick in that wall.

George Will's opinion on baseball should have as much weight as Joe Sheehan's opinion on politics.

"I remember the 18-iggitties when lefties weren't allowed and we ran to THIRD base first and FIRST base third! Let's go back to that!"

Hey Joe,

Your best analysis....evaaaah! At the risk of sounding like a fan of another political figure - "Ditto"

Think of how perfect and obvious a choice somebody like Larry Dierker would have been. He's seen the game from the point of view of player, manager, broadcaster and author. If I can come up with him on the spur of the moment, it shows how little thought was put into this formation.

Nothing to add except "thank you, Joe" - just perfect.

But what's the big deal? Isn't this just an advisory committee to help him make decisions? Probably consisting of the same people he was likely to be advised by before? There doesn't seem to be anything in the spirit or execution that is different than before, except that he can spin his decisions as being approved by special committee.

Quit beating around the bush, Joe. Tell us how you really feel.

To be fair to Bud, he is no kind of traditionalist. His reign has been one of radical, game altering changes... expansion, wild cards, turning a blind eye while steroids proliferated, followed by the institution of steroid testing.

The one consistenct thing is that he is only interested in changes that put $change$ in the owners' pockets. I don't mean that as an insult because that is why he became commissioner; and he has been very good at his job.

If you want to see Bud support, say instant replay, then all you have to do is demonstrate that it means more profit.

While it seems that most commenters here are thinking that nothing of consequence will come of these meetings.
Maybe, but that is not the worst case scenario. This may be the groundwork for the sport-wide equivalent of the franchise-crippling free agent signing (i.e. Vernon Wells). With their limited set of viewpoints, this committee may make a decision or two that is positively horrible for the game.
We must do something to expand the panel.

I am flabbergasted. No players. No players! Does Mr. Selig realize there is no baseball without the players? Did they invite any Fox executives? Doesn't baseball take the money so Fox can say when the post season games are played? But hey, appearances are important, did you see who's on the committee? Ha-these guys are just going to look at each other and say we know everything. We're right. You all go home now.

The Players Association, (and the umpires too) ought to raise a stink about this.

This committee is just for show. The people on it are not decision makers for MLB. Sure LaRussa & Sciosia have imput on their respective teams, but only in personel decisions, not administrative ones. This just takes some heat off Bud, so he can say he has "people" (all with favorable public images) looking into changes. The real changes will come from Bud & the union.

While we're on the subject of George Will, I think it's worthwhile to revisit this classic skit from Saturday Night Live:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3142

(though in fairness, I think you could make the same joke with a BP-style baseball game show, or in the style of the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/stat_minded_player)

Cronies not Craniums?

Didn't George Will write the he refuses to own blue jeans?
How American is that?

Rubber stamp agreement. No thanks!

How about Hawkeye-like strike zone calls,
with the umpire only relaying the info after the CORRECT call?
Just give him an earpiece to hear what he should call.
Wouldn't slow down the game.

This is just one more reason that Selig needs to be ousted as Commissioner. Selig wants the committee to rubber stamp his ideals.

Why not Peter Gammons and Bill James on this committee?

One other perspective that might be relevant: having been involved in these kind of committees throughout my career. I can say with certainty that a constituency is actually better off with no representation than with a token representative. If your voice is only one amongst a large group of "others" who will likely have strongly divergent opinions, you are put in a must-lose situation sitting on the committee. Would you like to be remembered as the player that went along with the recommendation to start every game with the recitation of the pledge of allegiance -- the pledge of allegiance to Bud, that is? Better to criticize from afar than to be drowned out from the inside, in my experience.

Actually, Tom Boswell had some interesting proposed changes the competition committee might actually consider, mostly focused on reducing the length of games. My two favorite were banning on all mound visits by pitching coaches and managers and a rule that every reliever must face either two batters or end an inning.

Having George Will on the committee is about as ridiculous as having Keith Olbermann writing the forward of a Baseball book.

;)

The lack of players & umpires has been covered here. The umping needs help, particularly on bang-bang plays at first & home. ("I've never questioned the integrity of an umpire. Their eyesight, yes." - Leo Durocher).

Bill James would probably too much of an iconoclast for Chairman Bud, but his insights on the ridiculousness of some rules would be fresh.

There are too numerous to count better quality of writers to chose from, including Hall-of-Famers like Peter Gammons, who probably would be best at the interface of media to MLB.

Although this blew-ribbon committee is for on-field issues, a lot of this spills over into off-field problems. Those decisions that put players on the field, and how its presented to the fan base.

Where is representation on what to do for the *economics* of the game? Here, even Doug Pappas (may he rest in peace) in his current state would be a more effective representative than George Will (a well-established advocate of the status quo, so no contribution there). Compare their bodies of work.

Regrettably, there is no good way to select out your typical Joe Blow fan with a family of four--has anyone priced what the cost for a family is for a trip to Ye Olde Hometown MLB team's tax-payer-paid venue?

Strangely, what about a player agent? Sort of like inviting a rabid skunk to this garden party, but it's another perspective on economics & player relations. It doesn't get better--or worse--than Scott Boras (reminding me of Charles O. Finley's declaration at the dawn of free agency--why make any of them free agents? Make them *all* free agents! Finley was penurious as they come, and he saw the future ballooning of player contracts).

For what its worth.