Playoff formats

[Magnus]

In some recent reading about historic playoff formats, I came across all the stuff about best-of-9s and unusual formats, like the 3-4 format used in MLB during wartime because of travel restrictions.

I'm wondering if anyone sees any potential merit in a change to the current playoff structures that major league sports use.

In particular this is of interest to me because of a desire to see the champion of a league crowned in their home venue.

With a 1-2-2-1-1 format, I think there is a better chance of this happening.

I also thought that a 3-3-1 format might provide intrigue, especially if the 7th game was held at a neutral site (maybe a huge college football stadium).

Thoughts?

[HedleyLamarr]

In fairness to the players, I would make the best-of-7 series 2-3-2 all across the board. It's ridiculous to make 4 trips in one series, as you'd have to do with a 2-2-1-1-1 series.

As for a neutral-site 7th game, that's unfair to the team that had the better regular season to be playing a deciding game on a neutral site. Plus, how do you intend on filling that neutral venue on, at most, a couple days' notice? Would you be willing to pay for airfare and hotel and a host of other travelling expenses for a game that might not take place?

[WJMorris3]

I'd like the NBA and NFL to agree on a standard, similar to what the AHL used to do.

If the teams are 150 miles apart or less, schedule the series 1-1-1-1-1-1-1.

If the teams are more than 150 miles apart, but less than 750 miles apart, schedule the series 2-2-1-1-1.

If the teams are more than 750 miles apart, schedule the series 2-3-2.

[Mac the Knife]

I'd like to see all playoff formats except championship rounds be reduced to best-of-5 series, with early rounds being best-of-3's. Seven game series in the first round not only drag out the playoffs way too long, but they don't generate 'do or die' level interest in the earlier games. With 3- and 5-game series, each game is amplified in its importance.

[Jigga]

I'd like the NBA and NFL to agree on a standard, similar to what the AHL used to do.

If the teams are 150 miles apart or less, schedule the series 1-1-1-1-1-1-1.

If the teams are more than 150 miles apart, but less than 750 miles apart, schedule the series 2-2-1-1-1.

If the teams are more than 750 miles apart, schedule the series 2-3-2.

I'm so glad you have absolutely no decision making role with any sports league.

[Viper]

In fairness to the players, I would make the best-of-7 series 2-3-2 all across the board.

The NHL did this up until the late 1980s IIRC. They dropped it because of complaints that playing three games in a row at the lower seed negated the home-ice advantage that the higher seed had earned.

They brought it back briefly in the 1990s on a limited basis (only Eastern Time Zone vs. Pacific Time Zone teams would have 2-3-2 series), ostensibly in order to allow clubs to save money on travel expenses.

[njmeadowlanders]

I'm sorry...but how does the NFL apply here to begin with? (Unless it was a slip and you meant NHL)

Also, 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 would be awful.

I always liked the 2-3-2, but 2-2-1-1-1 is also OK...

You just can't split it up depending on location of the teams and distance apart. Needs to be consistent.

[gingerbreadmann]

Do you guys think a series starting at the lower seed would work? A 2-2-1-2 hasn't been discussed yet. Or a 1-2-2-2? I personally like the latter the best. If it had to start at the top seed, I would like a 1-2-2-1-1 or 2-2-2-1 but what they have now isn't horrible I guess.

[rams80]

Do you guys think a series starting at the lower seed would work? A 2-2-1-2 hasn't been discussed yet. Or a 1-2-2-2? I personally like the latter the best. If it had to start at the top seed, I would like a 1-2-2-1-1 or 2-2-2-1 but what they have now isn't horrible I guess.

Let's see....statistically speaking the winner of game 1 wins the majority of Best of 7s. No.

[WJMorris3]

1-1-1-1-1-1-1 would not be awful. Consider that it would only be used in situations where the teams would be relatively close, for instance, the Ducks and Kings, or the Rangers and Devils.

[Magnus]

As for a neutral-site 7th game, that's unfair to the team that had the better regular season to be playing a deciding game on a neutral site. Plus, how do you intend on filling that neutral venue on, at most, a couple days' notice? Would you be willing to pay for airfare and hotel and a host of other travelling expenses for a game that might not take place?

Let me give you a couple of scenarios then.

Game 7 at the Rose Bowl

LA Dodgers v SF Giants

Lakers v Clippers

Kings v Ducks

Athletics v Angels

Game 7 at Beaver Stadium (Penn State)

Flyers v Pens

Phillies v Pirates (if a baseball stadium fits)

Sixers v anyone LOL

I think that tickets would definitely sell for a neutral-site deciding 7th game. If the selected stadium is also almost equidistant from both arenas, travel shouldn't be a problem.

[rams80]

As for a neutral-site 7th game, that's unfair to the team that had the better regular season to be playing a deciding game on a neutral site. Plus, how do you intend on filling that neutral venue on, at most, a couple days' notice? Would you be willing to pay for airfare and hotel and a host of other travelling expenses for a game that might not take place?

Let me give you a couple of scenarios then.

Game 7 at the Rose Bowl

LA Dodgers v SF Giants

Lakers v Clippers

Kings v Ducks

Athletics v Angels

Game 7 at Beaver Stadium (Penn State)

Flyers v Pens

Phillies v Pirates (if a baseball stadium fits)

Sixers v anyone LOL

I think that tickets would definitely sell for a neutral-site deciding 7th game. If the selected stadium is also almost equidistant from both arenas, travel shouldn't be a problem.

Any suggestion as to how they are going to keep the ice frozen kemosabe?

Also, what if the stadia isn't relatively equidistant? And what if the fans would prefer to *gasp* watch their team play the decisive game in its home?

[McCall]

As for a neutral-site 7th game, that's unfair to the team that had the better regular season to be playing a deciding game on a neutral site. Plus, how do you intend on filling that neutral venue on, at most, a couple days' notice? Would you be willing to pay for airfare and hotel and a host of other travelling expenses for a game that might not take place?

Let me give you a couple of scenarios then.

Game 7 at the Rose Bowl

LA Dodgers v SF Giants

Lakers v Clippers

Kings v Ducks

Athletics v Angels

Game 7 at Beaver Stadium (Penn State)

Flyers v Pens

Phillies v Pirates (if a baseball stadium fits)

Sixers v anyone LOL

I think that tickets would definitely sell for a neutral-site deciding 7th game. If the selected stadium is also almost equidistant from both arenas, travel shouldn't be a problem.

Why the hell are you putting baseball and hockey games in college football stadiums?

All should be 2-3-2 across the board, or 2-2-2-1 (series by seeds: higher (2)-lower (2)-higher (2)-lower (1) if they feel 3 in a row at the lower seed is unfair. They need to stop this 2-2-1-1-1-1 crap right away. It's stupid. In the NBA, they give them so many days off in between games, but yet constantly make them travel. That kinda contradicts the whole point, doesn't it? Make it 2-3-2 or 2-2-2-1 and only take days off after every 2 games.

[PeytonManningRocks]

Funny you mention this, I was just thinking about what would happen if the NBA goes through with their proposed European expansion and how a playoff series between a Euro team and an American team would work.... the only way that would work would be a 2-3-2 format, and even then it would be highly ridiculous.

[HedleyLamarr]

As for a neutral-site 7th game, that's unfair to the team that had the better regular season to be playing a deciding game on a neutral site. Plus, how do you intend on filling that neutral venue on, at most, a couple days' notice? Would you be willing to pay for airfare and hotel and a host of other travelling expenses for a game that might not take place?

Let me give you a couple of scenarios then.

Game 7 at the Rose Bowl

LA Dodgers v SF Giants

Lakers v Clippers

Kings v Ducks

Athletics v Angels

Game 7 at Beaver Stadium (Penn State)

Flyers v Pens

Phillies v Pirates (if a baseball stadium fits)

Sixers v anyone LOL

I think that tickets would definitely sell for a neutral-site deciding 7th game. If the selected stadium is also almost equidistant from both arenas, travel shouldn't be a problem.

This neutral site would have to be determined before the start of the season, not a week before the playoffs start. Most, if not all, of these sporting venues also schedule other non-sporting events during the course of a season. What are the realistic odds of two rivals playing in a postseason series, the series lasting the full 7 games, and in a venue located in close travelling distance to both teams?

You're a fool if you think these venues aren't in use if the teams aren't playing there.....

[njmeadowlanders]

1-1-1-1-1-1-1 would not be awful. Consider that it would only be used in situations where the teams would be relatively close, for instance, the Ducks and Kings, or the Rangers and Devils.

But you'd have to be consistent across the board. You can't have the Rangers and Devils going 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 and a series like, say, Detroit/Vancouver or Calgary/Dallas goin 2-2-1-1-1 or 2-3-2. That's why 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 ain't happening...