Skin Blues wrote:
mweir145 wrote:The way I see it is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot, anyway, so I'm OK with the one-game playoff.
What difference does it really make whether you eliminate teams in a one-game playoff as opposed to a seven-game playoff? There's a huge amount of randomness and luck involved in either case.
Giving a bye to 6 teams and making 4 others play an extra round is as much an issue as the fact it's only one game. Especially when the 4 teams in danger of being forced to play an extra round happen to be the top 4 teams in the league while the 7th best team is guaranteed a bye. From a fan (and financial) standpoint, it's also a pretty big letdown to have your team dominate all season only to be bumped out after a single playoff game. I suppose all of this is the same as the NFL, which I'm not a fan of at all, so maybe that's why everybody seems to like it.
They didn't dominate. There were teams in their own division with better records. No matter the system there is going to be some luck involved. Is it fair that team X randomly faced team Y when team y was healthy, but team z played team y who was missing several key players?
Is it fair my team faced the Cy Young winner four times while your team never faced him? You are never going make a completely fair system.
This system is exciting since it creates tension at the end if the regular system and then has a high tension post season. That excitement makes it a good system, since excitement is the reason many watch sports.
The NFL plays a 16 game unbalanced regular season and a series of single elimination playoff series. It is the sport that is least fair, but is the most successful.
NCAA basketball? Very unfair...
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.