Re the Commission's right to truncate the series and designate a winner, it was probably still within memory that in an NL-AA postseason championship series in the 1880s, the loser had split the pitching between an infielder and a catcher in one game (the scheduled starter had arm trouble), losing 13-1, and then lost the final game the next day. The impression left -- and the small crowds -- suggested that the teams weren't terribly upset about it. I think there was still a concern that an owner or his team might not take the games seriously enough.
Re the Commission's right to truncate the series and designate a winner, it was probably still within memory that in an NL-AA postseason championship series in the 1880s, the loser had split the pitching between an infielder and a catcher in one game (the scheduled starter had arm trouble), losing 13-1, and then lost the final game the next day. The impression left -- and the small crowds -- suggested that the teams weren't terribly upset about it. I think there was still a concern that an owner or his team might not take the games seriously enough.
Ha! That is a funny irony.