Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbyraz49
Postseasons are a must IMO.
|
I agree. I understand the appeal of regular season decides the best team, but I'd just much rather have a trophy for the team with the best regular season record, like the President's Trophy in hockey, and celebrate that more. Even though the Canucks didn't win the Stanley Cup in 2011, some of us took solace in them winning the President's Trophy back to back in 2011 and 2012. I remember there was some talk in 2012, "should they not push so hard and instead rest for the playoffs?", but I remember I thought, "heck no, you never know what's going to happen in the playoffs, go for the PT!".
But not having a postseason at all is cutting out so much excitement. I wouldn't argue with someone going with a small % of playoff teams, but it'd be a shame not having at least 2. It's like buying something you want/need, but then skipping out on the extras that would just make it so much better.
I'm intrigued by your 3 team idea, but with only a 3 game series I'm left wondering, what's the point? And if your league is unbalanced then the #2 seed could very well be the best team and yet they could get bounced in the first round giving the second best team the best chance to win it all.
I don't think 4 is too much, it's only 33%. I think you'd still be safe from having a bad team included as long as you don't have small (4 team) divisions. I do like the idea of giving the #1 seed an even bigger advantage like an all at home series. Unrealistic, I know, but it doesn't need to be.