like_that
Posts: 26,625
Apr 22, 2011 12:56pm
I guess I am in the minority on here. I just can't see how this is fair, especially with divisions. What do you all think about eliminating all divisions and just taking the top 5?
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Apr 22, 2011 1:17pm
gorocks99;747613 wrote:Doubt they would let the team with the better record host the 1st 2 games. It would mean one team would potentially lose out entirely on playoff gate money, which for some of the smaller clubs would be a big deal. They'd almost have to do a 1-1-1 format.
This. I don't see any way they let the team with the worse record host Game 1 either.
As wildcats alluded to, The best way to do a 1-1-1 with travel is to play Game 1 at night, take a day off, Play Game 2 at 12/1:05, no day off, play Game 3 the next night if necessary. But would they play a day game? I know they do in the Divisional round, but that's because something is on at night too. I don't see them playing a standalone day game.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Apr 22, 2011 1:18pm
Maybe the higher seeded wildcard should get all 3 home games. It will be an incentive to be the higher seeded wildcard.
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Apr 22, 2011 1:28pm
like_that;747715 wrote:I guess I am in the minority on here. I just can't see how this is fair, especially with divisions. What do you all think about eliminating all divisions and just taking the top 5?
I don't think they would do away with divisions because they help to cut down on travel. If there is just an AL and an NL, that means more trips from California to New York/Boston/Philly and vice versa. They'd have to balance out the schedules so everyone is playing the same number of games against other teams.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Apr 22, 2011 1:31pm
karen lotz;747741 wrote:I don't think they would do away with divisions because they help to cut down on travel. If there is just an AL and an NL, that means more trips from California to New York/Boston/Philly and vice versa. They'd have to balance out the schedules so everyone is playing the same number of games against other teams.
They have done it before, I don't see why they can't do it again. (yes i know there were less teams)
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Apr 22, 2011 1:35pm
like_that;747743 wrote:They have done it before, I don't see why they can't do it again. (yes i know there were less teams)
There were less teams then.
But seriously I know what you are saying, I just don't think changing back is too likely.
royal_k
Posts: 4,423
Apr 22, 2011 2:46pm
Not to mention division rivals, which you play more, tend to bring in bigger gates....especially in pennant race time.
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Apr 22, 2011 3:42pm
Right, and I do like that teams play their divisional opponents 18 or 19 times. That helps to find the true division champion.
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Apr 22, 2011 5:08pm
like_that;747715 wrote:I guess I am in the minority on here. I just can't see how this is fair, especially with divisions. What do you all think about eliminating all divisions and just taking the top 5?
I've said for a long time that this is how baseball should operate. Play a balanced, round-robin schedule as much as you can and then take the top 5 teams with seeds 4 and 5 playing a one game playoff.
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
Apr 22, 2011 5:15pm
Well, I like soccer, so I am obviously in favor of the single table format. I think it is the best way to find the best 4 (or 5) teams for the playoffs.
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Apr 22, 2011 5:17pm
Laley23;747910 wrote:Well, I like soccer...
Lulz!
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Apr 22, 2011 5:22pm
I just don't see the need. Is there a compelling reason to believe that including the 5th best team in each league makes the playoffs better?
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
Apr 22, 2011 5:23pm
queencitybuckeye;747914 wrote:I just don't see the need. Is there a compelling reason to believe that including the 5th best team in each league makes the playoffs better?
Makes the regular season better. More teams still have life late in the year.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Apr 22, 2011 7:59pm
I suppose, but at the cost of making an already ridiculously overlong season that much longer.Laley23;747915 wrote:Makes the regular season better. More teams still have life late in the year.
Sykotyk
Posts: 1,155
Apr 22, 2011 8:06pm
I'm okay with this setup. But, if they do, they have to eliminate the 'division opponents can't play eachother in the first round' rule to avoid the problem mentioned in the Reds example.
Sykotyk
Sykotyk
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
Apr 23, 2011 1:13am
queencitybuckeye;748006 wrote:I suppose, but at the cost of making an already ridiculously overlong season that much longer.
It isnt any longer. Lets be honest, what is 4 more days, max.
I would agree if they were adding 2 more series of 7 games, but this is nothing. If it keeps fans interested longer, it is a good move.
TBone14
Posts: 6,383
Apr 23, 2011 9:46am
There would be no travel days in the following scenario. 1-2 series with better team getting games 2 and 3 at home. Game 1 is a day game, starting at 1 PM local time. It then becomes a normal getaway situation. Game 2 is a night game and game 3 can be whatever.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Apr 23, 2011 8:06pm
Laley23;748144 wrote:It isnt any longer. Lets be honest, what is 4 more days, max.
It's exactly what you claim it isn't. It's longer. The polar opposite of the direction it should be going.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Apr 23, 2011 10:05pm
The better team will want game 1 at home, because they should be at the advantage going in. In a best of 3, why would you give the shitty team home field to start? Game 1 is huge in a 3 game situation.TBone14;748224 wrote:There would be no travel days in the following scenario. 1-2 series with better team getting games 2 and 3 at home. Game 1 is a day game, starting at 1 PM local time. It then becomes a normal getaway situation. Game 2 is a night game and game 3 can be whatever.
In terms of making things longer, I'd love to see them scale back to 154 games if they did this, but it will never happen.
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
Apr 23, 2011 11:29pm
queencitybuckeye;748523 wrote:It's exactly what you claim it isn't. It's longer. The polar opposite of the direction it should be going.
lol, ok. Keeping people involved for a longer stretch of the season is worth another half week.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Apr 24, 2011 12:02am
wildcats20;747632 wrote:The better team would get the decisive game in a 1-1-1 series also.
Not necessarily. They could win the first 2 and win the series away from home.
In a 1-2, it guarantees the decisive game at home.
wildcats20
Posts: 27,794
Apr 24, 2011 12:28am
lhslep134;748642 wrote:Not necessarily. They could win the first 2 and win the series away from home.
In a 1-2, it guarantees the decisive game at home.
In a series example, decisive means "tie breaking"
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Apr 24, 2011 12:40am
wildcats20;748658 wrote:In a series example, decisive means "tie breaking"
What???? No. Tie breaking means tie breaking. Decisive means the last game of the series, the one that decides the series.
So you're telling me that even though the Heat are up 3-0, if they win tomorrow it's not the decisive game because it's not a tie breaking game? Come on dude.
The decisive game is the one ending the series. In a 1-1-1, that means if the better team (home team for game 1) wins game 1 and game 2, the decisive game will have taken place on the road.
However, a 1-2, the decisive game is guaranteed to be played at home.
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Apr 24, 2011 12:42am
So how is that fair to the Heat? What homecourt advantage do they have if the decisive game is in Philly?
Series clinching and decisive are different IMO.
Series clinching and decisive are different IMO.
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Apr 24, 2011 12:44am
Have you ever heard anyone call game 4 "decisive"? I haven't. I have heard "decisive game 7" quite often.