Of course, it could fall flat on its face if they built the place, held the World Series there and then filled up only half (or even two-thirds) of the seats. I don’t think MLB would ever roll the dice on a concept like this.

80,000 people? That’d make 40,000 bad seats. Would you buy one?

That city can’t even get a new AAA baseball stadium built. LP Field, the Titans stadium, doesn’t seat 80,000 people.

I don’t like the idea of a neutral site, but Houston would be the most logical choice because of its location and the retractable roof there. Of course, an American League team wouldn’t be too wild about playing the Astros in a World Series there. The site wouldn’t be “neutral” then, now would it? The neutral site idea is simply a bad idea.

The Cardinals would have home field advantage for all 7 games, assuming they qualified. The way it is done now, each team gets a true advantage half the time. There really isn’t anywhere that you could build a stadium, with the possible exception of Hawaii, that would really be neutral.

Also, part of baseball is the quirks of the different yards, and how teams are built for their yards. Could you imagine the travesty of the Padres building a fly ball pitching staff and having a yard that played like CBP for all 7 games? Totally unfair.

If weather and postponements become such a significant issue that weather-proof sites are a necessity, I would propose that each team could choose their own neutral site. The Cubs could choose Miller Park, and the Tigers could choose the Ballpark in Arlington, for example. That way, teams could choose a park in which they have played more games than their opponents, and/or that plays somewhat similar to their home yard. Of course, it still rains in San Diego, and hurricanes still damage stadia in Houston.