I strongly dislike the linking of home-field advantage in the World Series to the league that wins the All-Star game, but I don't see this changing anytime soon -- certainly not before Fox's current contract with major league baseball expires after the 2006 season.

A false significance
I just don't understand how you can rationalize linking something so important as home-field advantage in the World Series -- something that over the years has proven so crucial in determining a champion -- to the outcome of what is an exhibition game.

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig got the concept approved obviously for Fox and its desire to try and boost television ratings for the All-Star game.

It's thought that this concept gives the All-Star game some significance, but to me it's false significance. It's artificial -- and I just don't think artificial things work.

It also seems unfair that the moves made by the respective managers in the All-Star game may help decide the outcome of the World Series, which could be played by two other teams than those of the managers involved in the All-Star game.

Players deserve better
For many players making the All-Star game is the most significant thing they achieve individually in the sport.

Not many All-Stars are like Derek Jeter or Mariano Rivera, who in addition to frequently making the All-Star game, play on a team that frequently makes the postseason.

Slide show: The Week in Sports Pictures   Oct. 3 - 9 Images from the baseball playoffs, NFL, college football, and more.

Some players never get to the postseason and they make the All-Star game only once in their careers, so for them getting a chance to play in the All-Star game may be the most significant individual thing they achieve in the sport.

Yes, they get all the perks that come with being an All-Star.

They get to suit up and be introduced before a national television audience, but if they don't get to play in the game because the managers feel like they need to get a win for their league for the home-field advantage in the World Series -- well, to me that's wrong.

No matter how you slice and dice it, the All-Star game is an exhibition game.

I've had players who have been in the game for a decade or more and finally get chosen as All-Stars tell me their adrenaline is pumping like they were about to play in a postseason game.

I just think that's great, and what a shame if they didn't get to participate in that All-Star game.

Format change unlikely
I don't see the format of the All-Star game changing. I think there is so much tradition in the American League vs. the National League that no one will tinker with it.

I think that even though interleague play exists, it is limited enough that the identity of the leagues still stand out and do mean something to fans.

The idea of switching from one league against the other to a world squad vs. a U.S. squad doesn't cut it with me.

I think the nationalism that baseball has will be well suited by the World Cup event that will be held next spring. Sixteen nations will compete in that, and though Bobby Valentine, who manages in Japan, has taken issue with the tournament taking place next March, I expect Japanese players to participate.

When it comes to the All-Star game, I don't see any reason nationalities should be lumped together for the world team because they really don't have anything in common with each other.

For instance what do Venezuelans have in common with Canadians or Dominicans have in common with Japanese?