Changes to Playoff Format?

[Andy]

I would like to see:

 

- Best overall record gets homefield in World Series

- Abolish the rule that the wildcard team can't play a team in it's own division in the first round of the playoffs

 

 

You are an absolute genius, Derwood.

 

Thanks.

 

For my next trick, I'd also like to see the Super Bowl played in the stadium of one of the two teams playing in the game.

Noooo. It's all well and good to split up a series by home stadiums but having a one-game final held in a home stadium is a very bad idea. No offense.

[J.R.]

I would like to see:

 

- Best overall record gets homefield in World Series

- Abolish the rule that the wildcard team can't play a team in it's own division in the first round of the playoffs

 

 

You are an absolute genius, Derwood.

 

Thanks.

 

For my next trick, I'd also like to see the Super Bowl played in the stadium of one of the two teams playing in the game.

 

Yes. And play a World Series game or two in the afternoon.

[FergieJ31]

I would like to see:

 

- Best overall record gets homefield in World Series

- Abolish the rule that the wildcard team can't play a team in it's own division in the first round of the playoffs

 

I love both of these ideas. The ASG winner determining homefield was such a dumb idea.

 

But I think I'm in the minority on the two-WC, one-game playoff idea. I hate it. This just exacerbates the existing problem (if one really believes the existing format IS a problem, which I'm not sure is true). What if the worse of the two teams gets lucky in that one game? Now you have the fifth best team in the league possibly winning the WS after a long 162-game season. Please, no more teams in the post-season.

 

The existing WC format is fine if they would take away one of the home games for the WC team. Not only would it make an upset less likely, it also would financially reward the best team with the possibility of an extra home game.

[EricG]

The deal with the wild card is that a hot team usually wins it. That hot team advances through the playoffs.

If they went to a 2-1-2 format for the first round involving the wild card team that would give an advantage to the top seeded team.

The main reason for not having teams in the same division play in the first round is so that you can have a Yankees/Red Sox ALCS.

[soccer10k]

I would like to see:

 

- Best overall record gets homefield in World Series

- Abolish the rule that the wildcard team can't play a team in it's own division in the first round of the playoffs

 

I couldn't agree more Derwood and I know I'm not the first one to say it, but you are brilliant.

 

I like the system the way it is now. If a WC team can win two postseason series without homefield advantage, then they deserve to be in the World Series. And just because a team wins the Wild Card doesn't mean they are less worthy of being in the playoffs than some of the division winners.

[Derwood]

I would like to see:

 

- Best overall record gets homefield in World Series

- Abolish the rule that the wildcard team can't play a team in it's own division in the first round of the playoffs

 

 

You are an absolute genius, Derwood.

 

Thanks.

 

For my next trick, I'd also like to see the Super Bowl played in the stadium of one of the two teams playing in the game.

Noooo. It's all well and good to split up a series by home stadiums but having a one-game final held in a home stadium is a very bad idea. No offense.

 

So it's better to play in a stadium full of rich people and corporate sponsor reps who don't give a crap about the game? The Super Bowl is more tourist/vacation attraction than game. And always playing either indoors or in hot weather is also dumb. But that ties in with the vacation thing.

 

If a team has the better record, they can play with homefield in the Super Bowl. They earned it

[treebird]

i really like the whole no home field advantage in the super bowl aspect. it's something fresh and different (at least among pro sports).

[Derwood]

i really like the whole no home field advantage in the super bowl aspect. it's something fresh and different (at least among pro sports).

 

I think it's a shame that most fans of the Super Bowl teams won't be able to see the game in person. I doubt that season ticket holders get any sort of priority for SB tickets either. Sometimes I also wish that college bowl games were played at a home stadium, but that doesn't bother me as much

[goonys evil twin]

i really like the whole no home field advantage in the super bowl aspect. it's something fresh and different (at least among pro sports).

 

I think it's a shame that most fans of the Super Bowl teams won't be able to see the game in person. I doubt that season ticket holders get any sort of priority for SB tickets either. Sometimes I also wish that college bowl games were played at a home stadium, but that doesn't bother me as much

 

Most fans of football teams don't get to see any particular game in person.

 

I think the tradition of going to the Rose Bowl, or the Orange Bowl, or any other bowl, is much better than having another home game. The Bowl season would be meaningless if the better record simply hosted another game. Aside from the national championship game, there would be no buzz. In a year when the Rose Bowl is all but meaningless, there is meaning in two teams travelling to southern California to play a game.

 

Likewise, home field has a huge advantage in football. The super bowl allows you to play the proverbial "on a neutral field" game to determine the champion. It's a great option. Homefield is a bonus for getting to the super bowl, but there's no reason to have it affect the super bowl. They don't play the same teams in the regular season, so the record against those teams shouldn't matter.

[Derwood]

i really like the whole no home field advantage in the super bowl aspect. it's something fresh and different (at least among pro sports).

 

I think it's a shame that most fans of the Super Bowl teams won't be able to see the game in person. I doubt that season ticket holders get any sort of priority for SB tickets either. Sometimes I also wish that college bowl games were played at a home stadium, but that doesn't bother me as much

 

Most fans of football teams don't get to see any particular game in person.

 

I think the tradition of going to the Rose Bowl, or the Orange Bowl, or any other bowl, is much better than having another home game. The Bowl season would be meaningless if the better record simply hosted another game. Aside from the national championship game, there would be no buzz. In a year when the Rose Bowl is all but meaningless, there is meaning in two teams travelling to southern California to play a game.

 

Likewise, home field has a huge advantage in football. The super bowl allows you to play the proverbial "on a neutral field" game to determine the champion. It's a great option. Homefield is a bonus for getting to the super bowl, but there's no reason to have it affect the super bowl. They don't play the same teams in the regular season, so the record against those teams shouldn't matter.

 

Then the choices for which city to play the Super Bowl in should not be limited to San Diego, New Orleans and Miami.

 

EDIT: And there IS the chance a team gets homefield, if the team's city happens to be hosting the game that year. Granted, there isn't much chance that Miami will make it this year (or Arizona next year), but you get my point

[goonys evil twin]

Then the choices for which city to play the Super Bowl in should not be limited to San Diego, New Orleans and Miami.

 

EDIT: And there IS the chance a team gets homefield, if the team's city happens to be hosting the game that year. Granted, there isn't much chance that Miami will make it this year (or Arizona next year), but you get my point

 

There is a chance, but there's less of a chance that they will have 100% of the crowd behind them, which is the true affect of homefield in the NFL.

 

I think SD, NO and MIA should be the only cities that get the super bowl, unless they give it only to NO, or throw Vegas into the mix. There isn't another city/stadium combo worth going to for the game.

[chuckywang]

I like the 2 wild card idea, too.

 

anything that makes it more difficult for the WC to make it is okay with me.

 

See, I don't understand this line of thinking.

 

WHO CARES if a WC makes/wins the World Series? They were obviously a good team to begin with, and if the other teams were truly better, they'd prove it.

 

Second place teams win championships in the NFL, NBA, and NHL. Why is it such a travesty when it happens in baseball?

 

Tradition I guess. For a hundred years, the World Series winner has to be on top of the standings in their league/division.

[Andy]

i really like the whole no home field advantage in the super bowl aspect. it's something fresh and different (at least among pro sports).

 

I think it's a shame that most fans of the Super Bowl teams won't be able to see the game in person. I doubt that season ticket holders get any sort of priority for SB tickets either. Sometimes I also wish that college bowl games were played at a home stadium, but that doesn't bother me as much

 

Most fans of football teams don't get to see any particular game in person.

 

I think the tradition of going to the Rose Bowl, or the Orange Bowl, or any other bowl, is much better than having another home game. The Bowl season would be meaningless if the better record simply hosted another game. Aside from the national championship game, there would be no buzz. In a year when the Rose Bowl is all but meaningless, there is meaning in two teams travelling to southern California to play a game.

 

Likewise, home field has a huge advantage in football. The super bowl allows you to play the proverbial "on a neutral field" game to determine the champion. It's a great option. Homefield is a bonus for getting to the super bowl, but there's no reason to have it affect the super bowl. They don't play the same teams in the regular season, so the record against those teams shouldn't matter.

 

Then the choices for which city to play the Super Bowl in should not be limited to San Diego, New Orleans and Miami.

 

EDIT: And there IS the chance a team gets homefield, if the team's city happens to be hosting the game that year. Granted, there isn't much chance that Miami will make it this year (or Arizona next year), but you get my point

The game was in Detroit last year, and isn't one coming to Kansas City soon?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The game was in Detroit last year, and isn't one coming to Kansas City soon?

 

Not until 2011 at the earliest.

 

Super Bowl XLI, Miami, FL, Feb. 4, 2007

 

Super Bowl XLII, Glendale, AZ, Feb. 3, 2008

 

Super Bowl XLIII, Tampa, FL, Feb. 1, 2009

 

Super Bowl XLIV, Miami, FL, 2010

 

Link

[chuckywang]

The game was in Detroit last year, and isn't one coming to Kansas City soon?

 

Not until 2011 at the earliest.

 

Super Bowl XLI, Miami, FL, Feb. 4, 2007

 

Super Bowl XLII, Glendale, AZ, Feb. 3, 2008

 

Super Bowl XLIII, Tampa, FL, Feb. 1, 2009

 

Super Bowl XLIV, Miami, FL, 2010

 

Link

 

Yeah well...there's no way the NFL would allow a Super Bowl game to be played in a non-domed stadium in a non-weather climate. Hell, it's rare for a domed cold-weather climate stadium to get a game, like Detroit did last year.

[Andy]

The game was in Detroit last year, and isn't one coming to Kansas City soon?

 

Not until 2011 at the earliest.

 

Super Bowl XLI, Miami, FL, Feb. 4, 2007

 

Super Bowl XLII, Glendale, AZ, Feb. 3, 2008

 

Super Bowl XLIII, Tampa, FL, Feb. 1, 2009

 

Super Bowl XLIV, Miami, FL, 2010

 

Link

 

Yeah well...there's no way the NFL would allow a Super Bowl game to be played in a non-domed stadium in a non-weather climate. Hell, it's rare for a domed cold-weather climate stadium to get a game, like Detroit did last year.

The NFL said that if KC builds a new stadium, they'll get a Super Bowl soon. I think they were ready to give them SB XLIV if it was ready by then, but clearly it won't be which probably explains why Miami is getting games only 3 years apart.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

What's wrong with Arrowhead, aside from it's lack of dome? The prospect of a Super Bowl isn't enough for a new stadium, especially one like Arrowhead that is in a fantastic locale.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why can't it just be called the "2010 Super Bowl" instead of this Roman numeral crap? It was cute for the first 2 years.

[goonys evil twin]

The NFL said that if KC builds a new stadium, they'll get a Super Bowl soon. I think they were ready to give them SB XLIV if it was ready by then, but clearly it won't be which probably explains why Miami is getting games only 3 years apart.

 

Miami is getting games 3 years apart because they picked up the New Orleans' Super Bowl.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The NFL said that if KC builds a new stadium, they'll get a Super Bowl soon. I think they were ready to give them SB XLIV if it was ready by then, but clearly it won't be which probably explains why Miami is getting games only 3 years apart.

 

Miami is getting games 3 years apart because they picked up the New Orleans' Super Bowl.

 

Plus the weather kicks ass around that time of year. Nobody wants to sit outside at night in Kansas City around the beginning of February to watch people play a little football between shows when the other option is Miami.

[biittner77]

Why can't it just be called the "2010 Super Bowl" instead of this Roman numeral crap? It was cute for the first 2 years.

 

Because the 2010 super bowl decides the champion for the season that starts in 2009, making this the rare occasion when Roman numerals are actually less confusing.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why can't it just be called the "2010 Super Bowl" instead of this Roman numeral crap? It was cute for the first 2 years.

 

Because the 2010 super bowl decides the champion for the season that starts in 2009, making this the rare occasion when Roman numerals are actually less confusing.

 

It doesn't seem to be a problem for college bowl games (says the guy wearing a 2006 Outback Bowl shirt).

[Derwood]

What's wrong with Arrowhead, aside from it's lack of dome? The prospect of a Super Bowl isn't enough for a new stadium, especially one like Arrowhead that is in a fantastic locale.

 

- No waterfront

- No gambling

- No French Quarter

- No Disney

[Transmogrified Tiger]

What's wrong with Arrowhead, aside from it's lack of dome? The prospect of a Super Bowl isn't enough for a new stadium, especially one like Arrowhead that is in a fantastic locale.

 

- No waterfront

- No gambling

- No French Quarter

- No Disney

 

No, not compared to the other Super Bowl sites. Why would they build a new stadium in KC?

[SouthSideRyan]

Not super bowl related, but I HATE the 2nd wild card idea. It was already touched on earlier, but it seems like people who complain about the wild card talk about how division titles mean nothing anymore. Now you've got 2 out of 3 divisions where the 2nd place team makes it or a 3rd place team making it. All adding another team does is make the playoff races even less meaningful. The race for 5th place in October!! And then what happens when you have a tie for 5th place. Now you have multiple one game playoffs between teams that the usual wild card hater deems inappropriate for postseason play. Catch the fever as the teams that tied for 3rd in a mediocre division battle it out for the right to play the 2nd place team from their division!!

 

If you don't want the wild card to win in the playoffs, why bother with having one at all? If you're so set on things staying with tradition, get rid of divisions and declare an AL champ and an NL champ, but don't bastardize the playoffs with gimmicks like 4-1 and 5-2 playoff differentials. If the Dodgers beat the Mets, would it really be just to give the Cardinals 5 home games despite being an inferior team to the Dodgers over a 162 game season? If the plan in question didn't call for adjusted home schedules in the LCSes then why bother with them only for the DS?? Is that when the wild card team can finally prove their worth is by winning 2 road games out of 4? Not by having (the possibly) 2nd best record in baseball over 162?