No worries...
You seem to be deeming some very iffy changes as being *so* badly needed that radical, er, um, decisive (??) change is called for. Where do you get this? Where do you see any example that tells you that such change is needed? Why do you think radical change would work here when there is zero track record to go by?
It's not like nothing has changed in the sports world. Tons of change has occurred in the sports world. Yet you seem to be taking the position that the sports world won't change, and that some collection of change is somehow required... and that those who oppose those things are somehow being change-averse pussies. Why do you think that?
Successful change is generally incremental, slow, gradual, etc. Why? Because that's what works.
Remember I still haven't stated my side on the proposed changes at all, as far as you know I'm good with things as is and don't want change.
My issue is more philosophical where it comes to change. Not particularly the sports world itself, but I have seen some of the most severe responses to change come where sports is concerned, so I think plenty of people are adverse to it (both in and out of sports) and would like things to stay as is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality.
Change doesn't have to be general, and gradual though. Change isn't scary, but inflexibility is. I'm a very outside the box thinker, and will come up with creative solutions to problems. I really get irritated when you hear "this is how it is, cause that's how we've always done it" or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" because they get overused. Sure, if all is right with the world and no one is complaining, then you don't need to tinker for the sake of tinkering, but if the theory is thought out well, and there's potential to IMPROVE things, I don't understand why people get so dug in and won't even listen.
I mean hypothetically, the 7 inning thing. (Honestly haven't thought about it and don't even know how I'd feel about it) but why could it be better/worse? Shorter games, could shave innings use off of pitchers and keep them healthier. Teams might take more risks with less time to come back or stay ahead, which could make the game more interesting. A non-contending team could try something "moneyball esque" and sign a bunch of really good couple inning RP versus the high dollar figure that comes with SP, and still find a way to compete, by having 2 guys go 3 IP and a closer, versus a SP, 2 RP and a CL. It could potentially alter how teams construct rosters and allow more teams to stay in contention longer.
I don't know truthfully, I'm spitballing here, just my point is that while things may be fine, or good even, depending on your opinion, you never know when a change is out there that makes you like it more. Who knows what sports would look like with a 4 point line in basketball, or no kicking allowed in football, or no offsides in hockey. I can't say that any of these sound like a great idea, but I may watch and be like wow, this is way more exciting, i like this better.
