OT: And we thought A-10 refs were bad

[BigMouthBilliken]

The President seems to think St. Louis does Chicago style better than Chicago http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2011/08/30/obamas-favorite-pizza-finally-comes-to-dc/#76b9852e3009

http://chicago.seriouseats.com/2008/11/italian-fiesta-pizzeria-hyde-park-chicago-serves-barack-obamas-favorite-pizza.html

But not his favorite....plus, was he even born in America?

[slufanskip]

So now the Blues play the #1 team in the conference. The #2 team has to play the #3 and the #1 team to move on in a conference with 8 teams in. The same in the East, the #'s 1 and 2 teams play in the 2nd round. How the heck does this make sense? Who designed this playoff structure?

[TheChosenOne]

I prefer Tombstone pizza, especially when they were 10 for $10.

Not as cheap, but Dogtown Pizza makes a real solid frozen pizza.

[Pistol]

So now the Blues play the #1 team in the conference. The #2 team has to play the #3 and the #1 team to move on in a conference with 8 teams in. The same in the East, the #'s 1 and 2 teams play in the 2nd round. How the heck does this make sense? Who designed this playoff structure?

Yeah, I don't like it either. I'm not sure what's wrong with a conventional 1-through-8 seeding for a traditional bracket.

I think the NHL is trying to inject more interest into every round, so they've put the playoffs into division-based 'regionals', if you want to look at it that way. They know the later rounds will always draw attention, so they decided to put more interest in the first two rounds with divisional rivalries. Mission accomplished.

But honestly, I'd like to see all American pro sports move away from the divisional model. It creates these imbalances and seeding issues, especially in the NHL and NFL, and to a lesser extent in MLB. If they want to stick with two leagues/conferences, fine, but I don't see the point of divisions outside of making travel slightly easier and increasing frequency of rivalry games.

[BigMouthBilliken]

, fine, but I don't see the point of divisions outside of making travel slightly easier and increasing frequency of rivalry games.

Well I think those are the biggest two points

[JMM28]

A lot of the factors that caused divisions have gone away now - cost, travel, media. All sports could go to an eastern and western conference and be fine.

[Pistol]

Well I think those are the biggest two points

Right, but they're getting to be less and less of an issue. Given the dollars involved with pro sports these days, I just don't think they matter enough. They matter more for college and semi-pro leagues. And fans will get over these issues very quickly if they feel the playoff field is more level for every team. I think this is pretty much the case:

A lot of the factors that caused divisions have gone away now - cost, travel, media. All sports could go to an eastern and western conference and be fine.

[GOSLU68]

Blackthorn is another solid deep dish place. I definitely recommend trying it out.

blackthorn pizza weighs 10 pounds per pizza I can't figure out how they can stay in business; it is the inverse of the weight of food at a taco bell.

They must do it for the crowd and exist on beer sales while wait for your pizza

[billikenfan05]

Not as cheap, but Dogtown Pizza makes a real solid frozen pizza.

Dogtown Hot Wing pizza

[kshoe]

Right, but they're getting to be less and less of an issue. Given the dollars involved with pro sports these days, I just don't think they matter enough. They matter more for college and semi-pro leagues. And fans will get over these issues very quickly if they feel the playoff field is more level for every team. I think this is pretty much the case:

The rivalries one is hard to get around. Would people really be OK if the Cards and Cubs only played 10 times a year, with one team only getting one 4 game home stand in a given season? Or would the Bears be happy playing the Packers once every other year and at home only once every 4 years?

[brianstl]

The playoffs are set up to increase demand for tickets as much as possible. Far more than any other of the Big 4 leagues, the NHL is dependent on ticket revenue.

[Box and Won]

The rivalries one is hard to get around. Would people really be OK if the Cards and Cubs only played 10 times a year, with one team only getting one 4 game home stand in a given season? Or would the Bears be happy playing the Packers once every other year and at home only once every 4 years?

Baseball is the one sport in which divisions make the most sense - for geographic and economic reasons.

[Pistol]

With that many games, you could still "pod" teams to play more rivalry games, since the schedule might not be perfectly balanced, anyway. That would placate fans who whine about not playing rivals enough.

[JMM28]

With that many games, you could still "pod" teams to play more rivalry games, since the schedule might not be perfectly balanced, anyway. That would placate fans who whine about not playing rivals enough.

I'm not as familiar with the NHL, but the NBA wouldn't have much effect on schedule. They play 10 teams 4 times, 4 teams 3 times, and the opposing conference home and home. So you'd still have pretty much the same schedule and could alter strength of schedule similar to NFL to determine who plays who.

MLB is harder but they've changed the schedule formula recently anyways. Last year the Mets and Dodgers should have been the wild card teams in an NL only format. Instead the Dodgers and Mets benefitted from being in a weaker division and the Cards Cubs and Pirates got screwed for all being good.

[cheeseman]

So now the Blues play the #1 team in the conference. The #2 team has to play the #3 and the #1 team to move on in a conference with 8 teams in. The same in the East, the #'s 1 and 2 teams play in the 2nd round. How the heck does this make sense? Who designed this playoff structure?

I was thinking the same thing before this playoff even started - it makes no sense. I also think that as the post season goes on and more teams are eliminated that people lose interest. They should reward the teams who do the best during the season and keep their best teams around as long as possible. How did having the Blues eliminate the Blackhawks help with viewership? - Chicago is the 3rd largest metro area and now only the hardcore fans will bother to watch. Stupid approach but they are the garage league for reason.

[Cowboy]

-please keep in mind that the current playoff setup is in the NHL, even if correct they will change it

-the Blues sold out all three games and had great ratings, I can see where they like what happened, especially if beating Chicago generates interest for the remainder of the playoffs (which I hope for the Blues goes a long time) from those not normally involved

-the difference between playing Chicago with 103 points and Nashville the 7 team in the conference with 96 points isn't that great

-LGB!

[kshoe]

I'm not as familiar with the NHL, but the NBA wouldn't have much effect on schedule. They play 10 teams 4 times, 4 teams 3 times, and the opposing conference home and home. So you'd still have pretty much the same schedule and could alter strength of schedule similar to NFL to determine who plays who.

MLB is harder but they've changed the schedule formula recently anyways. Last year the Mets and Dodgers should have been the wild card teams in an NL only format. Instead the Dodgers and Mets benefitted from being in a weaker division and the Cards Cubs and Pirates got screwed for all being good.

The NBA is one of the most balanced as far as schedules and "fair" in that the top 8 from each conference all make the playoffs and are seeded by record. The problem with that is that it often makes the final games of the regular season completely worthless. Teams are often locked in to their playoff spot, or maybe can move one seed, with 5 or more games to go and the end of the season becomes glorified pre-season games.

The more leagues can incentive teams to win divisions or avoid wild cards or whatever, the more you avoid situations where teams don't care if they win. For example, the Blues played all their best on the final game of the regular season because they really wanted to catch Dallas and avoid Chicago in the first round. The difference between winning the division and the wild card in baseball is huge. If the Cardinals had won 100 last year, they would have clinched avoiding the wild card with 1.5 weeks to go, instead they did it with only 3 games to go.

I get that there has to be a balance between fairness and the divisional structure, and hockey has probably gone too far, but I really like the baseball structure and wouldn't change it in favor of no divisions.

[Pistol]

The problem with making the case for the new format this year is that it really only worked out better in the case of the Blues-Blackhawks series. Had they gone with a conventional 1-8 seeding in each conference, the alternative was way better:

West:

1 Dallas vs. 8 Minnesota

4 Anaheim vs. 5 Los Angeles

3 Chicago vs. 6 San Jose

2 St. Louis vs. 7 Nashville

East

1 Washington vs. 8 Detroit

4 NY Rangers vs. 5 NY Islanders

3 Florida vs. 6 Tampa Bay

2 Pittsburgh vs. 7 Philadelphia

So in at least half of those first-round matchups, this season you end up with the best possible geographic rivalry, if that's what you're going for in the first place.

Instead, you end up with the top 3 teams in the Central all playing each other in the first two rounds, only to play either the 4th place Central team or a weaker Pacific team in the conference final.

[slufan13]

The dumbest thing about the NHL is how the Western conference has 14 teams and the Eastern has 16 teams. The playoff format doesn't really bother me because I feel like the Blues would have had to beat the Blackhawks at some point along the way if they wanted to get to the Stanley Cup.

[JMM28]

I get that there has to be a balance between fairness and the divisional structure, and hockey has probably gone too far, but I really like the baseball structure and wouldn't change it in favor of no divisions.

In baseball, I question the idea of the wild card facing the best team, regardless of the wild card record. I might be basing it too much on an outlier of last year, but it seems silly to be eliminating 2 out of the 3 best record teams by the NLCS, automatically.

[kshoe]

In baseball, I question the idea of the wild card facing the best team, regardless of the wild card record. I might be basing it too much on an outlier of last year, but it seems silly to be eliminating 2 out of the 3 best record teams by the NLCS, automatically.

Last year was definitely an outlier as I can't remember another season that the 3 top records all came from the same division. The only way re-seeding based on record would be fair in my mind is if you let the best record team choose who they get to play. For example, would you rather play a 95 win wild-card winner that has burned their best pitcher in the WC game or a 94 win division winner that is full rested. The answer isn't always as simple as "who had the most regular season wins."

[hsmith19]

Before the double wild card, seeding based on record and ignoring which team was the wild card would have made a lot of sense. That way the Mets in 2006 would have gotten the 83-win Cardinals in the first round rather than the 88-win wild card Dodgers (I know, bad example, given what happened in the playoffs that year).

The second wild card makes extreme cases like last year's NL Central much tougher to solve. If given the choice, I would guess the team with the best record would usually choose the opponent that's just survived a one game playoff, even if that team is significantly better--ie, a relatively rested 90-win Mets team or a 97-win Cubs team that had just burned Arrieta last year.

[slufanskip]

-please keep in mind that the current playoff setup is in the NHL, even if correct they will change it

-the Blues sold out all three games and had great ratings, I can see where they like what happened, especially if beating Chicago generates interest for the remainder of the playoffs (which I hope for the Blues goes a long time) from those not normally involved

-the difference between playing Chicago with 103 points and Nashville the 7 team in the conference with 96 points isn't that great

-LGB!

maybe the difference between 103 and 97 isn't so great, but it is something and why penalize the better team. In addition you have 1 and 2 from each conference playing each other in the 2nd round.

And someone said the had to beat the Blackhawks anyway ... just a silly point, why not have the best 2 teams play each other in every sport first round? (they'd probably have to play each other anyway)

[almaman]

maybe the difference between 103 and 97 isn't so great, but it is something and why penalize the better team. In addition you have 1 and 2 from each conference playing each other in the 2nd round.

And someone said the had to beat the Blackhawks anyway ... just a silly point, why not have the best 2 teams play each other in every sport first round? (they'd probably have to play each other anyway)

I'd be all over that. I'm for pulling names out of hat for the big dance.