Seems silly to me. I think it was better to have the team ranked higher go straight to the divisional series against the top seed.

Perhaps harsh, but it is an efficient way to add another team to the
postseason mix without overtly rewarding the failure of not winning a division.

(09-30-2013 03:29 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Perhaps harsh, but it is an efficient way to add another team to the
postseason mix without overtly rewarding the failure of not winning a division.

Yeah, I like short playoffs for early rounds.

NBA made a mistake making all their rounds so long.

Its the stupid crap MLB is known for. At worst it should be a best of 3. Really, it should be no less than a best of 5.

(09-30-2013 07:55 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Its the stupid crap MLB is known for. At worst it should be a best of 3. Really, it should be no less than a best of 5.

you're looking at it from the POV of a hardcore fan. Things like this and interleague play are worthless to that segment of the fans, but to the casual fans (where the real money is) this stuff is like catnip. it's the main reason hockey continues to be small potatoes.

Look at the NBA playoffs. Like Torch said, best of 7 in early rounds is an absolutely horrible idea. Why does the NBA do it? To give the casual fans more games to watch. Another example is when MLB made the all star game "count." Hardcore fans realize it's pretty dumb, but it wasn't done for them (us).

to add on: the NFL is all about the casual fan. The offense-favoring rules that have been created in the past 5 or so years are not what any real football fan wants to see, but those fans are the ones who will watch no matter what. If you want big money you need to cater to the casual fan. Hell, the 3 pt line in basketball was decried by purists like Red Auerbach (and many of us would like, at the very least, to see it pushed back), but the sport needed more casual fans and a new value basket was there to be created.

The NCAA wants to expand the field of 65. Is there one person on this site who'd like to see that happen? No, because this site doesn't have any casual fans.

(09-30-2013 08:18 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:55 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Its the stupid crap MLB is known for. At worst it should be a best of 3. Really, it should be no less than a best of 5.

you're looking at it from the POV of a hardcore fan. Things like this and interleague play are worthless to that segment of the fans, but to the casual fans (where the real money is) this stuff is like catnip. it's the main reason hockey continues to be small potatoes.

Look at the NBA playoffs. Like Torch said, best of 7 in early rounds is an absolutely horrible idea. Why does the NBA do it? To give the casual fans more games to watch. Another example is when MLB made the all star game "count." Hardcore fans realize it's pretty dumb, but it wasn't done for them (us).

I'm kind of here or there on the first round being best of 5 vs. 7 in the NBA.

I actually do kind of like MLBs idea on that All Star game thing BUT, in baseball you have the DH vs no DH so....

(09-30-2013 09:40 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  to add on: the NFL is all about the casual fan. The offense-favoring rules that have been created in the past 5 or so years are not what any real football fan wants to see, but those fans are the ones who will watch no matter what. If you want big money you need to cater to the casual fan. Hell, the 3 pt line in basketball was decried by purists like Red Auerbach (and many of us would like, at the very least, to see it pushed back), but the sport needed more casual fans and a new value basket was there to be created.

The NCAA wants to expand the field of 65. Is there one person on this site who'd like to see that happen? No, because this site doesn't have any casual fans.

Agree that the rules almost make receivers untouchable in the NFL. At some point its not football.


Not sure how I feel about the NCAAs field expansion. I don't mind every conference champion getting an autobid BUT, for all the non-power leagues it makes winning your conference all the more important. And that said, upsets happen. And then you have a regular season champ but its only the one who wins your conference tourney who gets the bid out of those.

(09-30-2013 10:33 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 08:18 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:55 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Its the stupid crap MLB is known for. At worst it should be a best of 3. Really, it should be no less than a best of 5.

you're looking at it from the POV of a hardcore fan. Things like this and interleague play are worthless to that segment of the fans, but to the casual fans (where the real money is) this stuff is like catnip. it's the main reason hockey continues to be small potatoes.

Look at the NBA playoffs. Like Torch said, best of 7 in early rounds is an absolutely horrible idea. Why does the NBA do it? To give the casual fans more games to watch. Another example is when MLB made the all star game "count." Hardcore fans realize it's pretty dumb, but it wasn't done for them (us).

in baseball you have the DH vs no DH so....

IMO this should be the "stupid crap" you referred to, not the stuff that actually makes sense from a revenue purpose. 2 leagues playing by a different set of rules is nothing short of insanity.

(09-30-2013 07:55 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Its the stupid crap MLB is known for. At worst it should be a best of 3. Really, it should be no less than a best of 5.

Would only make the season longer. It's already too long.

Funny thing is, it's long series like that which make the regular season pointless. That's the complaint about a college football playoff (an erroneous one) but if you make these series longer, it devalues everything.

My only compliant about the short series in baseball is that it puts the club
with with two ace pitchers and a less than formidable back of the rotation on
a higher competitive level as a club that has a well-rounded 4-man starting rotation.

The unique element to baseball (both regular season and post season) is the personnel
match-up diversity from game-to-game... a short series many times makes that aspect dubious.

(10-01-2013 07:07 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  My only compliant about the short series in baseball is that it puts the club
with with two ace pitchers and a less than formidable back of the rotation on
a higher competitive level as a club that has a well-rounded 4-man starting rotation.

The unique element to baseball (both regular season and post season) is the personnel
match-up diversity from game-to-game... a short series many times makes that aspect dubious.

Excellent analysis and as usual, right on point.