Using the Wild Card Option

[endgame]

I'm nursing a wound here, so this is a blatantly self-serving question that I'll probably talk myself out of later, but hoping you might assist me toward that end.

Last game of the year, if we win, tie-breaker; lose, don't make the playoffs as I have my league set to No Wild Cards. I lose. Arghhh....

Had a higher winning percentage than the other divisional winners and so naturally the thought crosses my mind as to whether I should be using the wild card system. At my core, I "think" I believe in the divisional winners make the playoffs, period. But coming that close..... you have to rethink it a bit. FWIW, 48 team league, 4 divisions of 6 in each league.

Comments?

[lencombs]

Originally Posted by endgame

I'm nursing a wound here, so this is a blatantly self-serving question that I'll probably talk myself out of later, but hoping you might assist me toward that end.

Last game of the year, if we win, tie-breaker; lose, don't make the playoffs as I have my league set to No Wild Cards. I lose. Arghhh....

Had a higher winning percentage than the other divisional winners and so naturally the thought crosses my mind as to whether I should be using the wild card system. At my core, I "think" I believe in the divisional winners make the playoffs, period. But coming that close..... you have to rethink it a bit. FWIW, 48 team league, 4 divisions of 6 in each league.

Comments?

Two schools of thought here.

First being, you must win your division to earn a playoff spot, puts more emphasis on regular season play.

Second being, what if the best 2 teams in a 48 team league happen to be in the same division? You are wattering down the playoffs by not allowing the second best team another shot in the postseason.

I like the wildcard, winning in a weaker division doesn't make the other divisional winners better or more deserving to be in the playoffs. They just had an easier road to the playoffs. Divisional winners plus one wildcard is my favorite format.

I want the best teams in the playoffs, even if 2 of them happen to be from the same division. Of course the counter-argument is, the wildcard team had all year to overtake them in the division but could not get it done, they don't deserve a shot in the playoffs.

But still, I like having the best teams in the playoff's, and the wildcard helps ensure that happens. Regular season is just half of the deal, you need to be able to get it done against the best teams in the playoffs, otherwise just turn off playoffs and crown a champion based on regular season records. Why even have a playoff if you are not allowing a way for the second best team to get in.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by lencombs

Second being, what if the best 2 teams in a 48 team league happen to be in the same division? You are wattering down the playoffs by not allowing the second best team another shot in the postseason.

Not necessarily. If a balanced schedule is being used, then yes, you can directly compare the records of teams from different divisions since all the clubs had identical or nearly identical numbers of games against opponents. (But in that case, why use divisions? A balanced schedule with divisions renders the divisions arbitrary and meaningless.)

If a divisionally weighted schedule is used, then you can't really compare the records of teams between divisions since the distribution of games against opponetns are different for each division.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

(But in that case, why use divisions? A balanced schedule with divisions renders the divisions arbitrary and meaningless.)

That would depend upon whether you only want the top two teams in the playoffs. If you're looking for the top four or eight, then you need divisions (or you did as of the last time I played, which is now some time ago).

I agree with both lencombs and LGO, which probably doesn't help your decision-making process at all, endgame. My goal is to get the top 40% of teams into the playoffs, which means I like the NFL system, though MLB's eight of thirty works well for me and means no long layoffs for teams earning the bye. The NHL and NBA have so many teams in that it cheapens postseason play.

And that's my two cents.

[1998 Yankees]

Sometimes it's frustrating, when an 85-77 wildcard team takes out the dominant division winners in the playoffs, but the tradeoff for me is the excitement of the wildcard race itself. That's like doubling my enjoyment when the division races are competitive, and something to enjoy when division races are over by September.

Plus, I go along with lencombs' second school of thought. Two 100-game winners in the same division (or, let's say 101 and 100); without the wildcard, one of them goes home while the other plays against 88-game winner(s) of the other division(s)? That's not very exciting unless, of course, you are managing the 88-game winner.

[cbbl]

I appreciate your consideration, and also agree that its a bit unfair for teams that have seasons better than all but one other team (that latter team being in their own division) missing the playoffs while teams that fared far worse still get in.

That argues for the wild card.

However, I'd see a serious flaw if a team won a division and didn't make the playoffs, regardless of record.

So, a system like the major sports leagues have now -- division winners + wildcards is the way to go, IMHO.

As for your league set-up, I'd recommend 2 wild card entries at least.

With seperate leagues, you'd have the wild-card from each league play the lowest seed, the winner of which plays the highest seed for the league championship (highest seed gets a first-round bye). Division winners plus 2 wild-cards = 10 teams in play-offs. With a 48-team league, that's still only a 21% entrance rate, which is closer to the average 25%.

To get it to a 25% entrance rate, you have to have 12 teams in, which would add two additional wild cards (2 from each league). I think I'd just add 2 wild cards, though.