- 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.

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

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

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.

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.

As a soccer fan living and born in England the idea of Playoffs to decide the Championship is a little hard to get your head around, but with your conference system it does seem to work well. In fact, if implemented in England there might even be a chance that Stoke City could win the league, which currently is increasingly unlikely to happen for most of the clubs in the league. So much for a sporting competition.

You asked for alternative Play-Off structures, well how about the one that’s just been used for the first time in the European Super League. That’s a Rugby League competition and the highest level in Europe (although made up of clubs mostly from the north of England).

Week One
* Qualifying Play Off 1: 1st vs 4th (winner receives a bye to week three)
* Qualifying Play Off 2: 2nd vs 3rd (winner receives a bye to week three)
* Elimination Play Off 1: 5th vs 8th (loser goes out)
* Elimination Play Off 2: 6th vs 7th (loser goes out)
Week Two
* Preliminary Semi Final 1: Higher-ranked QPO Loser vs lower-ranked EPO Winner
* Preliminary Semi Final 2: Lower-ranked QPO Loser vs higher-ranked EPO Winner
Week Three
* Qualifying Semi Final 1: Higher-ranked QPO Winner vs PSF Winner of their choice*
* Qualifying Semi Final 2: Lower-ranked QPO Winner vs other PSF Winner *
Week Four
* Grand Final: QSF1 Winner vs QSF2 Winner
(can be seen a little more simply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_play-offs#Current_play-off_system).

Maybe if adapted to fit the conference system this would work well in MLS. It rewards the regular season record of all teams, particularly the team with the best record who get to pick their choice of Semi Final opponent.

Nick