| Welcome to In The Clutch, where sports is all that matters! We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a spectator. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. It's all that stands between you and participating in sports news discussion, live event discussion, and a variety of pick-the-winner and discussion competitions. And we promise not to hunt you down, stalk you, or sell your personal info for a whole tenth of a cent. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Fix the Playoffs! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday Jun 22 2008, 12:50 PM (488 Views) | |
| WeatherManNX01 | Sunday Jun 22 2008, 12:50 PM Post #1 |
The Yanks are coming!
|
Like the other threads, here we attempt to create the perfect playoff situations. Let's start with the most imminent playoffs: the AFL. The AFL uses an almost identical system to the NFL - six teams from each conference, top two seeds each get a first-round bye. Since there are only four total divisions, that means there are four division winners and eight wildcards. Here's the problem - there are only 17 teams. Now, keeping in mind that there are no known plans for imminent expansion (if anything, rumors are swirling of another contraction with the possible loss of Grand Rapids to the af2), how would you fix the AFL playoffs? Edited by WeatherManNX01, Sunday Jun 22 2008, 01:42 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| PSUSyr5 | Sunday Jun 22 2008, 01:40 PM Post #2 |
The Board Idiot
|
I would cut it to 6: the 4 division winners and 2 wild cards. Seems to me that if the AFL has about half of the teams that the NFL has, they would be best served having half as many teams go to the playoffs. |
|
|
|
| PSUSyr5 | Wednesday Jul 23 2008, 10:37 PM Post #3 |
|
The Board Idiot
|
It's been over a month, so let's try a new one: The NBA Playoffs. This past postseason lasted just under 60 days: starting at April 19th and ending June 17th. The first 2 rounds, teams can have 2 days between games several times, even if the 2 games are in the same arena against the same opponent. Also, the Atlanta Hawks and Philadelphia 76ers were under .500 and both got in over Golden State who finished the season 48-34 and Portland who was .500. In all, 16 out of 30 teams make the playoffs. So, what, if anything mentioned, would you fix, and is there anything not mentioned that you would change? |
|
|
|
| Cougar | Wednesday Jul 23 2008, 11:03 PM Post #4 |
|
.500 thing is probably frustrating to GSW and Portland but the same thing happens in a lot of the major sports. For example in the NFL, Cleveland last year went 10-6, while the Bucs got in the playoffs at 9-7. In the NHL last year, Carolina had 92 points and missed the Eastern playoffs by 2 points...however the 8th seed in the West, Nashville, had 91 points. So it happens and I'm not sure if they should go by their record overall.
Edited by Cougar, Wednesday Jul 23 2008, 11:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
| PSUSyr5 | Wednesday Jul 23 2008, 11:09 PM Post #5 |
|
The Board Idiot
|
Yes, but when you're talking a difference of one game or one point in the difference conferences, that's one thing. When you're talking a difference of at least 7 (in the case of Golden State)...that's quite another. Besides, last I checked, 9-7 is still over .500...same with 91 points in the NHL. So no, I wouldn't say go strictly by record, but you can have some leeway. Thanks for answering the other parts though. 
|
|
|
|
| Cougar | Thursday Jul 24 2008, 07:39 AM Post #6 |
|
Well yes I know they're over .500 and that this time there was two teams under .500. I don't know how common that happens. |
|
|
|
| PSUSyr5 | Thursday Jul 24 2008, 04:19 PM Post #7 |
|
The Board Idiot
|
Well, how common of an occurrence was it that 2 teams from the same division would have the best records and end of facing each other before the conference finals? I'll give you a hint, it happened just once. Hey, look at that! This happened once as well. In fact, there are rules in some leagues for events that haven't happened yet...so I don't think rarity should be an issue...just answer the damn questions already. 
|
|
|
|
| WeatherManNX01 | Thursday Jul 24 2008, 06:21 PM Post #8 |
|
The Yanks are coming!
|
Okay, first off, I am opposed to leagues having more than half of their teams make the playoffs (I give MLS a pass because I like soccer and they are in a growth stage ;)). Yeah, we know this is where you make the real big money, but it really kinda cheapens the regular season, especially one that is already too long. So let's take it down from 16 teams to 12 with six from each conference - three division winners and the next three best teams.* Top two teams in each conference get a first-round bye. Seed three plays seed six, and seed four plays seed five. The first round is a best of five series played as follows (from the perspective of the high seeds): home, home, off/travel, away, away, off/travel, home. Second round is reseeded so that the one seed plays the lowest remaining seed. Second, third, and final rounds are best of seven as follows: home, home, off/travel, away, away, away, off/travel, home, home. Series may be offset by one day to assure that some games are played while other teams travel. This is preferably done by conference so that each team in the conference has equal days off following a round. There are two days off following the game seven date for any round except the conference finals, which is followed by three to four days off (I'm iffy on this one). *Alternate idea - One idea (taken from MLS) is to take the six division winners and four wildcards. Then the remaining two spots are filled by the next best teams by record regardless of conference. Not only will this remove the "better record than another team that got it" hitch, it presents the intriguing possibility of a team winning the other conference's championship and having an all-conference matchup in the final. I know there would be arguments against this, but think matchups like Lakers-Spurs or Pistons-Celtics. *Alternate idea - It would not be impossible to have 14 playoff teams. Seven from each conference. From the conference, the top two seeds have byes. Now, I have two alternate sub-ideas for this. Sub-idea 1 - the lowest two seeds compete in some sort of play-in. It could be a one-game at the six seed's arena. You could do a home-away series with aggregate score or something (soccer-esque, and probably not the best idea). Or you could do a best-of-three series as home-home-off-away. Now, since this would be intra-conference, you could theoretically play the last two games back-to-back. Set it up such that game two is at say 6:30 PM and game three is as say 10:00 PM or something. Sub-idea 2 - play a three-team round-robin series. Team with the worst record is out and the other two are reseeded based on record and performance (i.e. tiebreakers if equal record). It would run as follows:
So there it is. Overall, I favor fewer teams and a shorter first round. And only one day off between site changes and no games between same-site games. |
|
|
|
| PSUSyr5 | Friday Jul 25 2008, 05:14 PM Post #9 |
|
The Board Idiot
|
Interesting take on it. I agree that there are too many teams in the playoffs, but I'm not sure if giving first round byes is the answer. For one, that would be about 7 extra days off for the #1 seed which could end up being way too much. At the same time, you can't really cut it to 8...at least not with the way the divisions are currently done. I also agree with the fewer first round, fewer days off thing. I can see giving a team one day off between say...game 1 and 2 where it's on the same court...but not 2 days. On the other hand, during the regular season, teams will play back to back nights against different teams, so why not do the same in the playoffs when both teams will play each other again? Here's my idea. First round is best of 3...all at the higher seed's home court. Since the possibility of upsets is fairly high in a best of 3, we're bringing down the number of teams in the playoffs to 14, giving the #1 seed a bye. Next, if you're not .500 or above (and didn't win your division), I don't care if you're 6th in conference, or 8th, you're losing your spot to a team from the other conference, provided they did win at least half of their games. Because of the imbalanced schedule, I'm not going solely based on records, but if you can't win half of your games, you shouldn't be playing for the title. My more radical idea is we'd have a 74 game regular season schedule where you play every team twice except for division opponents who you play 6 times. The division winners are the teams with the best record in their respective division games. Then you take the record in division, divide wins and losses by 3 and plug it into the overall record. That way, "58 games" (2 each) are in the overall records and you seed by ranking, giving division winners automatic spots to the playoffs. |
|
|
|
| WeatherManNX01 | Thursday Sep 24 2009, 10:06 PM Post #10 |
|
The Yanks are coming!
|
It's that time of year again: |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Sports Chatter · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
4:40 AM Sep 9
