The A’s have tried almost everything. They offer $2 tickets on Wednesdays (along with $1 hot dogs, although they are not regular-sized hot dogs; I also believe there is a limit of 10 per person per transaction). They have an all-you-can-eat section (a true-blue value of $35). But still their seats remain empty, thousands of them. You’d be hard-pressed to find a game more than half-filled, unless the Red Sox or Yankees were in town. And when you throw in the fact that the upper deck is permanently closed, the A’s are clearly struggling to bring the fans in through the gate, and that is an understatement. (It also doesn’t help that the organization has made it clear they are leaving the city, and quite possibly, the region altogether.) So what is there left to do?

First come, first served. That is my idea. (It is now trademarked.) All tickets $20. An hour before the game, $10. Once the game begins, $5. (Feel free to increase or decrease these values as you wish, depending on the stadium, team, opponent, day of the week, etc.) Any seat that is available is free to you. What would happen? Well, a lot of people would show up early to get good seats, right behind home plate, the dugout, etc. They may show up so early, grab that seat (no savesies however), then need to get a few hot dogs, nachos and sodas to hold them over until the game starts. That is revenue for the team (on the items with the biggest profit margin).

These first come, first served games shouldn’t be when the Yankees are in town, of course, but when the Royals or Twins or Orioles are. On the television, every pitch would show a full stadium behind home plate. That isn’t a bad thing. The real fans (those that stay with struggling franchises, those that come to the non-must-see games, those that fight the colder evenings) will be closer to the game and the players. That isn’t a bad thing either. Those fans are the team’s base.

When you are the A’s — and you are struggling — how could this not work? One Wednesday a month: first come, first served.

As of this morning, the Toronto Blue Jays have scored 166 runs, and the San Francisco Giants have scored 84. For those mathematically inclined, that is y = 2x – 2 (where x and y are the runs the Giants and Blue Jays have scored, respectively).

This is not a clear-cut relationship for comparison however, since the Giants have played four less games. Also, the Giants are holding their own (currently .500), allowing a league-best 91 runs (again, prefaced by the fact they’ve played four less games than some teams).

Mike Celizic, sportswriter, today…

That last allegation [that A-Rod continued to use human growth hormone (HGH) while he was playing with the Yankees in 2004] is what kills any chance he has of joining the immortals in Cooperstown. It doesn’t even matter if it’s true.

It should be noted that Celizic is one of the “unforgiving baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame” (his words, not mine). It shouldn’t be that way, of course. Hall of Fame consideration should be about what was done on the field, not hurt feelings. If the stated allegations are found to be true, which they may be, then that would be something to discuss. As of now, the allegations against Alex Rodriguez are just that: allegations.

There are likely hundreds of other players who have used performance-enhancing drugs, some of whom are currently being considered for the Hall of Fame, others who may already be in the Hall of Fame, and even more, current players who are being revered by sportswriters. Just because A-Rod is the biggest star to face this problem doesn’t mean he deserves the harshest of treatment.

Baseball writers these days are looking for someone to hate. Alex Rodriguez in a Yankees uniform just happens to be an easy choice.

Only two parks in the major league include the dirt strip between home plate and the pitcher mound — the Arizona Diamondbacks’ Chase Field and the Detroit Tigers’ Comerica Park. This was done to replicate old stadiums (namely the Tigers’ former Briggs Stadium, later known as Tiger Stadium), but its reappearance does raise a few questions:

What benefit does it provide for the pitcher in fielding bunts or running to cover home plate following a passed ball? Similarly, does it make it easier for a batter to rush the mound after an errant pitch?

What are the general trends of pitchers’ field-play in the two parks? There is one in each league, and it’d be interesting to know if there is a defined increase or decrease in pitcher defensive play (as measured by fielding statistics) that can exhibit the benefits or hindrances to both offense and defense.

Also, is there an home-field advantage component? Do visiting ball-clubs mistake the dirt strip to the mound as the first-base path, only to find themselves in the middle of the infield? Is there a statistic for this?

A recent report in the New York Times discussed the efforts to bring baseball back to the Olympics. Is it even gone? Well, yes. Baseball (and softball) will not be included in the 2012 Olympics in London, but it could return for the 2016 Olympics in TBD. But it shouldn’t. Because baseball doesn’t need the Olympics.

I would also make the same argument for soccer, basketball and other team sports that have dedicated championship tournaments. (Soccer has the World Cup; basketball has FIBA.) The Olympics should be for sports that are not well-covered throughout the year, and do not have pages dedicated to them in the Sports section or even entire television networks.

For baseball, I am a proponent of the World Baseball Classic. But it should be limited to amateur athletes or, in the case of MLB, players that have not played more than 40 games in the Majors. (Yes, that is an arbitrary number.) Professional players should not risk their season (and their team’s fortunes) to win an exhibition game for their country. That is what the kids are for.

If we give it time, and we allow it to be an exposition of younger talent throughout the world, winning the WBC will become meaningful. Baseball is now a world sport, and as baseball fans, we should embrace the competition.

You may not be a fan of hockey, or the NHL, or their current state of affairs, however the NHL has one thing right: The Presidents’ Trophy. The Presidents’ Trophy is a lot like winning a pennant, except it is league-wide, and it comes with both a financial bonus and an extra-special incentive for the postseason: home-ice throughout the playoffs.

Since the disastrous 11-inning tied All-Star Game in 2002, the winner of the All-Star Game — an exhibition game between popular players voted for by fans — wins home-field advantage in the World Series. This is absolutely nonsensical, but the previous rule was not that much better. Historically, both leagues alternated home-field advantage in the World Series, which in one sense is fair (especially when the pennant winners went directly to the World Series pre-1969), but still does not reward the better team in the age of wild-card berths.

The league can easily adopt a Presidents’ Trophy-type award — call it the “Connie Mack Trophy” (or something) — and give the team with the best record in the regular season the privilege of home-field advantage throughout the postseason. If they get eliminated en route to the World Series, the team with the better record earns home-field. It makes sense.

The Tampa Bay Rays successfully threw-out the argument for a minimum payroll last year — winning a pennant with an opening-day payroll of $44m (compared with the Yankees’ $209m) — but the residual cost of winning the pennant is clear (since a title is only that much further). The Rays’ opening-day payroll this year has risen to $63m, an increase of 43 percent.

Similarly, the Yankees have exhibited the cost of losing, since spending more than $200m should buy you a division title (at the very least, a wild-card berth). Opening-day payroll in the Bronx has decreased by 4 percent, but they are still the only team in the league with a payroll over $200m. (The second-highest spending team is the Mets at $149m.)

Other teams of note…

• the Phillies cut payroll by 15 percent;
• the Red Sox cut payroll by 9.5 percent; and
• the Cubs increased payroll by 14 percent.

When the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants moved west following the 1957 season, it left a glaring hole in the largest city in America. The Mets joined the league in 1962 and — adorned with the colors of Dodger Blue and Giant Orange — were supposed to erase the memory of the two lost and widely loved City teams. San Francisco and Los Angeles undoubtedly deserved teams, but New York arguably didn’t deserve to lose one, let alone two.

This is obviously not the best time to consider expansion (amidst a season that may spell financial trouble for a dozen or more teams), but could a third team in New York — specifically one based in Brooklyn — survive today? All anecdotal evidence says yes. New York is certainly large enough to accommodate a third team, and it is also a market ripe with seemingly endless potential (e.g., sponsorship, television, radio).

If you were an owner of a struggling franchise — and the option was yours — which would you choose as your top destination to move your ballclub: Northern Virginia, Portland, Ore., Las Vegas, or New York?

Although a third franchise would have to compete with both the Yankees and Mets — and it should be noted that both franchises would strongly resist a third team (much like the San Francisco Giants’ claim of the South Bay) — the prospects for growth and revenue is still greater in New York than the other options. In fact, New York could thrive with a third team, bringing new rivalries and old alliances to the surface.

It may not happen, but a third team in New York should be an option for a struggling ballclub. Some cities and metropolitan areas are better-served with two teams rather than one (e.g., Chicago, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area; and Boston could join that list, too), but New York may be best served with three.