OT: Expanded 2012 Playoffs close

[satyr9]

With a balanced schedule, that would make sense. Without one, then not. So do away with the divisions? I'm down with that.

If you want a balanced schedule, institute my playoff structure and wait a couple years. At that point the big boys will come running asking for a balanced schedule.

For myself, I know it's harder for the Jays but I prefer unbalanced. I'd rather watch the Yankees for the 12th-18th time that year than 6-9 against SEA or HOU or whoever. I really prefer about a 50% reduction in the regular season, but that's not happening any time soon.

Even with all the recent futility, I'm still not ready to trade off regular season quality for the percentage points of SOS a balanced schedule brings.

I only want one exemption because I want teams who have locked up a playoff spot to remain uber competitive throughout the year. Give teams something serious to fight for so that not only the 93 and 94th wins matter to secure a playoff spot, but everyone's clawing tooth and nail to try and get to 100 or better to avoid the pure role of the dice that is a 1 game playoff. I'd settle for NFL style splitting the difference with 2 byes, especially since the increased competition probably needs two slots because many years there's a run away, but I'd prefer just one WC exemption team.

[HangTime]

Also, the teams should be ranked 1-4 and have to face each other in the 1st round, even if they are in the same division.
For example last year, the order 1-4 was:
NY: 97-65
Tex: 96-66
Det: 95-67
TB: 91-71

The matchups should have been NY/TB, and Tex/Det.
-----
Also, winning your division shouldn't garuntee you a play off spot. In 2005 the NL standings looked like this(in terms of record)
STL: 100-62 c
ATL: 90-72 e
Hou: 89-73 c
PHI: 88-74 e
FLA: 83-79 e
NYM: 83-79 e
SD: 82-80 w

It's sad that a team can be 7th in the NL, and make the playoffs, but teams 4-6 can't make it.

[Myth111]

With a balanced schedule, that would make sense. Without one, then not. So do away with the divisions? I'm down with that.

If you want a balanced schedule, institute my playoff structure and wait a couple years. At that point the big boys will come running asking for a balanced schedule.

For myself, I know it's harder for the Jays but I prefer unbalanced. I'd rather watch the Yankees for the 12th-18th time that year than 6-9 against SEA or HOU or whoever. I really prefer about a 50% reduction in the regular season, but that's not happening any time soon.

Even with all the recent futility, I'm still not ready to trade off regular season quality for the percentage points of SOS a balanced schedule brings.

I only want one exemption because I want teams who have locked up a playoff spot to remain uber competitive throughout the year. Give teams something serious to fight for so that not only the 93 and 94th wins matter to secure a playoff spot, but everyone's clawing tooth and nail to try and get to 100 or better to avoid the pure role of the dice that is a 1 game playoff. I'd settle for NFL style splitting the difference with 2 byes, especially since the increased competition probably needs two slots because many years there's a run away, but I'd prefer just one WC exemption team.

I usually love your posts but I find myself disagreeing with everything you say on this topic. People will learn to like watching games against worse teams when we are competing for a playoff spot. I am beginning to understand why you defend Rogers more than most. You almost fit in line with their thinking too that we need the Yankees/Sox to attract fans. I will never understand people who enjoy watching their favourite team lose against great teams instead of watching them win against inferior teams. The point of sports is to win and I take NO pleasure at all in watching my favourite team be involved in negative history or results.

[Michael Bradley]

But that's the thing you seem to be forgetting (ignoring?) Adding the second wildcard makes getting into the real (ie multi-game series) playoffs HARDER, not easier.

Right now, finishing with the best record of the 2nd place finishers is enough to get you to the playoffs. With the second wild-card, this will no longer be so. All that being the best loser gets you is a chance to 'play-in' to the playoffs, against the second-best loser. So now, only three teams (the ones who won their division) are guaranteed extended post-season play.

And to your question : I'd be fine with that.

Then why have the Wild Card at all? Not only does it allow a team that finished 2nd place to make the playoffs, but now it is allowing a team that potentially finishes 3rd to make it too. I mean, let's say the Wild Card winner was Tampa at 95 wins and the 2nd Wild Card was the 3rd place Red Sox with 90. Why should the Red Sox, as the 3rd best team in the division, even have a shot at the playoffs, even if it makes the road for the 2nd place team harder? Yes, it would be rewarding the division winner, which is a good thing, but totally waters down the Wild Card.

I can see the argument that many non-playoff teams over the past 10 years, including the Jays, were better than some of the teams that actually made the playoffs, but that is a case of divisional alignment/luck, not the playoff format. The divisions were made that like. That isn't an issue with the playoff format.

I would agree with There There's suggestion of eliminating the division format completely. Top 4 teams in each league make it. That is probably the fairest way. I just don't like adding more teams into the equation.

[satyr9]

I don't enjoy watching them lose to good teams more than beating bad ones, but I haven't given up hope that they can beat good teams.

And if I have to choose between watching most teams extra times, or the few teams filled with superstars against my Jays, as long as it's not just a futile exercise, I'll take the extra superstar games. If someone wants to argue that intrinsically watching the Indians or Athletics is more fun than watching the Yankees or Red Sox, then I just don't agree. I want to see all the teams, but if I have to choose between seeing Moscoso start two games against the Jays or seeing a third or fourth go 'round with Sabathia or PIneda, I know which one I'm taking, assuming I have any faith the Jays can win those games.

And I certainly haven't always felt this way and may not always either. There have been long periods in the last decade where all I wanted was balanced schedules back. But if you increase the playoffs, I'll take my chance having to be better than 10 of 13 other teams in the AL with an unbalanced schedule compared to having to get ahead of NYY or BOS balanced or not. Basically, I'm feeling optimistic for the mid to long term for the Jays so I'm happy keeping extra potentially more interesting games.

As for my playoff idea, even a few months ago I would've hated it. I think I started off in this thread saying something to that effect, so if you often agree with me but are entirely opposite me here, you may just be me like 6 months ago. If you want to know what happens to you in the next 6 months, don't ask, 'cause I'm not gonna spoil the surprise.

[Randle McMurphy]

I'll take the balanced schedule. If you're going to be competing for the same playoff spots, it only makes sense to be competing on the same schedules. It's not going to happen, though.