Comments on: Playoffs? Are You Kidding Me? PLAYOFFS?!?

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:46:35 +0000

I’m a little late commenting on this, but it’s such an interesting topic I just can’t help putting my two cents in.

Peter mentioned that MLS brass wants a conference championship in order to create a climactic final. I can totally understand that. And In the NFL and MLB this system totally makes sense based on how the leagues evolved.

However, I’ve never really liked the conference finals in the NHL and NBA’s playoffs. I think it’s kind of sad that we’ll never see a Chicago v Detroit, or a Pittsburgh v Washington Stanley Cup. But, that’s just one Chicago fan’s opinion. I wouldn’t know if it makes actual business sense.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:25:49 +0000

Thanks Peter. That makes a little more sense now….with the “exception” really being the two game series only because they want each team to be able to host a game– thanks!

By: Peter Wilt

Peter Wilt — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:08:38 +0000

Well, baseball used to have a best of five and then best of seven and that may be a better comparison. You’re right of course that consistency throughout is generally better. There are two resaons for the current inconsistent system. One is timing as they don’t want to drag the playoffs on later and the other is the desire to solve other issues/desires:

- They want every playoff team to have the chance to host at least one playoff game. That means 1st round must be at least 2 games.
- They also want a “Conference Championship Game” that emulates the NFL and the ability to create more than one “Champion” in a climactic single game manner the way the NFL does with NFC and AFC championships.

It’s a system that includes compromise, so it ends up looking like a structure made by committee….which is what it is.

The whole playoff system actually is based on Lamar Hunt’s desire to recreate what he correctly believes is the most successful American professional sports playoff format – the NFL’s.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:48:30 +0000

It’d be like if baseball had a best of 7 in the first round, then a single game for the World Series.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:46:54 +0000

The biggest question I have on the MLS playoffs is this– why is the first round
an aggregate home/away series, then the following two rounds single elimination?

I think it should all be single elimination or have the last two rounds follow the
aggregate format….it doesnt make sense to me this way? To find the best team,
maybe it makes sense to do it in a two game series all the way through?

Thoughts?

Mike

By: Peter Wilt

Peter Wilt — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:31:57 +0000

a friend of mine in pro soccer in the US emailed me this response that i thought deserved wider consideration:

1. I remain a very big proponent on “pick your own opponent” – which is the structure used by D-League and English Rugby. I sincerely believe it’s the most fair model – and the best for creating PR. Teams that finish at the top of their conference should be given the right to avoid teams that would require too much travel, that may be on a “hot streak,” that have “had their number” during the regular season, doesn’t have any major injuries/nat’l team call-ups…in other words, in an 8 team playoff structure, the #7 ranked team can actually be a “better competitive match-up” for the #1 team, yet the #1 team is forced to play the #8 team as its “reward” for being the best in the regular season, etc…

2. I recently read about this idea from the Denver Nuggets GM and thought it had some merit…thought you might find it interesting as well:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/12440808/rss

By: David E

David E — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:55:51 +0000

I prefer the stepladder idea. I would structure it similar to the Australian A-League, but with more teams. I would have the top team in each conference play the second place team in the other conference in “major semifinals” while teams ranked 5 through 8 would contest the “minor semifinals”. The winners of the minor sf would play the losers of the major sf with the winners playing the winners of the major sf, then finals. Now that I think about it, I guess they really should be major and minor quarterfinals.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:26:27 +0000

meats? I think it must be lunch time.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:25:27 +0000

I am from the UK but I think playoffs are fine if the format meats the criteria specified by Peter.
The group system sounds ideal and gives the season standing much needed meaning.

Alternatively, if single table, give the overall a winner of the league a bye to the final and have the next 8 teams playoff for a spot.

By: Scott Yoshonis

Scott Yoshonis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:33 +0000

I vote for the group stage, then knockout idea. I’ve been advocating it for years, because I think it accomplishes the three objectives Peter listed better than any other. Also, there is a soccer precedent for it, namely, the World Cup, which would have the added benefit of providing a bit of familiarity to the league for those fans who are introduced to the sport by watching the World Cup.

Here’s how I would do it, and why:

Two groups of four teams, seeded by regular-season finish, all games at the home of the higher seed.

Group A: Seeds 1, 4, 6, 8.
Group B: Seeds 2, 3, 5, 7.

I believe that that particular seeding structure is necessary because it best rewards regular-season performance. Every higher seed has a distinct advantage over the one below it, which makes jockeying for position even after you’ve qualified for the playoffs important, making more regular-season games down the stretch mean something to more teams. In fact, every team has something to play for until the very last day, unless they either A) clinch the top overall seed or B) are mathematically eliminated from playoff contention.

The top seed gets all home games, and has to face no higher than the fourth seed.
The #2 seed gets all home games.
The #3 seed gets to avoid the #1 seed.
The #4 seed gets more home games than the #5 seed.
#5 gets a home game AND gets to avoid #1.
#6 gets a home game, unlike #7.
#7 avoids #1.
#8 is just happy to be there, which is better than #9, who is not.

Also, the tiebreaker for teams level on points at the end of the group stage is higher seed, which places even more of a premium on winning games in the regular season.

Three group games can be played Saturday-Wednesday-Sunday or some such, and the league semifinals between A1 v. B2 and B1 v. A2 would be single-elimination at the home of either the higher regular-season seed or the group winners, depending on which you’d rather reward. Personally, I’d like it to go to the group winners, making more final games of the group stage meaningful.

It isn’t a perfect system, but there simply isn’t one; as I said, I believe that it accomplishes the three objectives of the playoffs better than any other.