Its really time the Playoffs crossed over isn't it?

Yes, that's objectively true. Now how is that sacrificing competitiveness or fairness?

1. I saw above, where you said (and this is a direct quote): "I get the "logic", it just seems weak and kind of mickey mouse."

2. I'm fine with people questioning the status quo. I just want those people to be presented with ideas that are different from their own.

Link? The reason we have conferences and intra-conference playoffs and an unbalanced schedule is because it's really hard to run a single sports league that spans 174x the area of the EPL and encompasses 4 time zones. And I'm willing to bet that if such a link exists, it's simply the lie they're saying because the truth is harder. The truth is that they'll lose ad revenues if New York had to play in Seattle at 11pm EDT on a Sunday night. If a link exists, I'll easily prove that lie by demonstrating the rivals that it splits, as opposed to the rivals it combines.

TL;DR: The unbalanced schedule, regardless of what Don spoon-feeds people who can't wrap their mind around the fact that this is a business, has nothing to do with rivalries.

Straw men, straw men galore. My point isn't that we can't participate unless we agree with every facet of it; my point is that, while their may be a few squeaky-wheel internet tough guys who bitch about this or that, the millions of NBA fans who watch the playoffs show clearly that those same guys aren't a large enough section of the market to even think about changing an established, successful practice in the hopes of pleasing them.

Care to explain relevance? Also, I usually love Nate Silver, but here he's dead wrong. http://thehockeywriters.com/why-changing-the-nhl-point-system-is-pointless/ Changing the points system to the international system would have exactly no effect.

Okay, so I've got a bunch of responses, pick the one you most like.

1. What the shit is your deal with calling things 'Mickey Mouse'? I literally don't get it. I know it's supposed to be an insult meaning like, in contravention to the norm in a way that is undesirable, but I don't understand why.

2. Silver does something you've never done, and backed up his assertion with numbers. You do that, and then we'll talk about your 'right to disagree with the League'. You have a right to just repeat your "I, personally, don't like it" ideas and everyone else has a right to tell you how meaningless that effort is.

3. The NHL point system has changed fairly recently, and is not an analogous situation to ditching intraconference playoffs, which have worked since 1968 in this country, and continue to do so. Generally speaking , it's easier to change something that's been around since 2005 then it is to change something that's been around 5 times as long

 

My argument (if you were able to understand it the first time) was (and I'm paraphrasing) "Just saying you don't like something isn't going to change the League's opinion. You are not a beautiful, unique snowflake that MLS should bend over backwards to please. If you have any, y'know, arguments, now would be the time to present them."

 

Most seeding systems in the world try to avoid having top two teams meet. It's because it's considered more fair. If you don't accept that, you're being intellectually dishonest.

The MLS system replaces the primary category of seeding on record with geography. It's literally replacing the normal seeding (performance) with geography.

Logic seems to dictate that you kind of what a seeding system that matches up strong teams versus weaker teams. Doing it on geography brings another variable which is different.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2012/01/05/its-rivalries-heat-mls-again-2012

http://the11.ca/2011/11/10/mls-to-unveil-unbalanced-2012-schedule-with-rivalry-focus/

These are the links I got by googling.

I can't get into Don's head, but this was definitely promoted. These are links I could find with minimal effort. I won't even mention how many MLS apologists on this site defended the move to go 3-1 on this site as brilliant because of how it created more rivalries.

If you think this was motivated moreso by travel, that's fine. But I can really only go on the whole "stated agenda" thing. And you're putting out as the "real reasoning" does not seem to be evidently true.

If you wish to say the NBA thing is still a marginal thing, fair enough. It's a thing that's being talked about mostly by basketball junkies.

Better question, the NHL revamped its playoffs a few years ago. This was despite that system being "well established". So why the ******** did they do that if the reasoning you cite above is supposed to be common knowledge.

Just that Nate Silver is openly questioning the league's point structure and policy and appears to be right. Yet when someone does it with MLS, you kinda get butthurt about it and dismiss everyone.

Care to enhance your argument a bit more here. Based on rational incentive theory, it does seem to have a bit of a point.

Bullshitty, kinda fake and corporate. Made up. Artificial. Contrived.

Bro, I think we've shown tons of examples over the last few years where lack of crossover has caused sub-optimal matchups (assuming you're concerned about two heavyweights meet in earlier rounds). How the ******** else do you want it quantified or backed up? What is your ********ing goal post to at least acknowledge the other side's fairly obvious point? Because this shit seems pretty obvious to most people that don't have their head up their ass.

That's not to say there's not a counterpoint which says, "We like division based conferences cause of X", it's just you're refusing to acknowledge the basic logic behind the benefits of a crossover and mistakengy thinking you're smart for it.

Agreed that it is not proof for interconference playoffs, just that often league practice may be questioned even if something seems to working alright (a point you seemed to be putting forward). Also, last time I checked MLS playoffs have only been in their current form since 2012, so let's not use hyperbole.

 

Can't you say that shit to everyone that posts in this forum? Then what's the ********ing point of the forum.

That's like somebody bitching about drone strikes, and someone saying, "Well I guess you should have been elected president, cause it's not like Obama is gonna listen to you".

 

I'm not so sure I agree with all the arguments in it's favor, but I'm a fan of the inter-conference playoff.

Assuming the play-in matches are still intra-conference and the semi-finals are reseeded regardless of conference, I think it strikes a good balance between travel and preserving traditional rivalries, but still injects a little more variety and makes some truly awesome finals possible.

 

Most? You've got the NCAA, I've got the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, the FA Cup, every other 'FA Cup', the League Cup, all 5 Champions Leagues, both the Europa and Sudamericana, the World Cup...

This is only true if the normal seeding preference is performance, which it isn't.

Another example of you saying "The way I see it...", which is the same thing as "What I, personally, would prefer is..."

Wait, so I said that the Don would say it's about rivalries to sell an otherwise unpopular business-minded solution, and your evidence is that MLS apologists bought it? Sounds like evidence on my side

Because the people who are okay with the system have no reason to talk about it! If you took a straight up-or-down vote of all the people who've ever posted here, you'll see that the vast majority of them are in favor of some drastic systemic change, because people content with their MLS don't bother posting here.

Because they had the evidence that you have failed to provide. (Also, the change was predicated by the move of a Southeast Division team to Winnipeg and was a solution to the actual problem "There are too many teams in the Eastern time zone) No one in the NHL changed their system just because they thought it would be neat.

You're not doing what Silver did. You're just stating your personal opinions

The scoreboard says it doesn't. Claude Julien, one of the more defensive-minded coaches, would only have to look at the fact that going from 2-2-1-0 system to a 3-2-1-0 system doesn't have a big enough effect on the season outcomes and is not going to change the way he coaches.

I get what it means. I haven't the foggiest idea why it means that

The balanced schedules among each Division make it clear that comparing the divisions, simply by the most points is folly. That's why the non-Shield winning regular season division champion is given a CCL berth. Yup, LA and Seattle got the most points. But they also each got 3 games against Chivas and Colorado and San Jose. You know why #1 and #2 are, so often, in the same Division? Because the bottom-feeding teams in one division are so easy to pick off. That's why the playoffs are intraconference. Because it's fair

1. I'm not saying you can't question anything. I'm just saying back it up, or people are going to disagree
2. Intraconference playoffs have been around since the League Championship Series were created in major league baseball in 1968. Nothing hyperbolic.
3. The fact that MLS and the NHL (and MLB) have changed their playoff systems in the recent past and not gone to a scheme like this is more evidence than ever that smart people who have their own money invested in sport think that your ideas are "sub-optimal"

If your only argument is "I like it", then there's nothing to discuss. Discussion, for the record, is the actual point of this forum.

 

Every single tennis tournament, every High School play-off in every sport, and things like promotion play-offs, keep top seeds apart. Also, many of your examples are seed indifferent, but they are closer to inter-division play-offs than not. The FA cup, Europa league, and Champions leagues, don't seed, but they do give you new opponents. The Champions League and Europa leagues structurally make sure you can't draw opponents from the same country until the late rounds. Why, because it is more interesting to play new teams when you have earned the right to be in these competitions. I, as a Rapids fan, would rather get the chance to see a new opponent.

MLS doesn't have to be constrained by history, culture, and irrational traditions; the league is new of enough to be creating it. I am not sure that if baseball was a starting a new league today, half the teams would play under one set of rules and half would play under another. Nor would the Yankees and Mets be in different divisions (although they might be). Organizaitons like the NHL and MLB, with lots of different entities all with their own interest, don't always make rational decisions.

Having said that, the hocky play-offs are very different than MLS - the seven game, very condensed scheadule, and, thus, regional play-offs and travel considerations factor larger. Baseball? More tradition bound, for sure; but I think a Mets - Yankees play-off serires would be fun, and Red Sox- Yankees world series great. But a lot interests hold the status quo, inlcuding television and players unions. The players union, no doubt, enjoys having two batting champions and two all-star teams, etc... Although, it took a long time for inter-league play to come about, so things do change even for entrenched systems.

 

MLS Cup 2008

Eastern Conference Champion Columbus Crew
Western Conference Champion New York Red Bulls


I rest my case.

 

That's one thing I never really understood. The "divisional" rounds seem misnamed. Here's an example:

NLDS LA Dodgers vs Atlanta Braves ... Milwaukee Brewers vs NY Mets
ALDS Baltimore Orioles vs Oakland Athletics ... Boston Red Sox vs Chicago White Sox

If it was set up like a true divisional championship, wouldn't it be all in the same division? Baseball takes a traditional 1-4 and 2-3..except if that would make two teams from the same division.

It would be entirely possible for a wild-card MLB team to win in the "Divisional Series" over the regular-season Division Champion.

Calling it the MLB quarterfinals would give it a better name, but I digress.

 

2 Eastern Teans met at Home Depot Center, Carson, California in the West.

 

2 more such finals:

• 2000: KC (West) vs CHI (Central) @ DC (East)
• 2001: SJ (West) vs LA (West) @ CLB (East)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLS_Cup

 

1. MLB abolished the rule that two teams from the same division can't meet in the Division Series. http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/2012_ALDS1.shtml is about the Yankees-Orioles 2012 ALDS.
2. In both MLB and NFL, the divisional round reduces the field from 8 to 4 teams. I agree with your last sentence somehwat but I think calling it the AL Semifinals/NL Semifinals/AFC Semifinals/NFC Semifinals would make more sense than calling it the MLB Quarterfinals or NFL Quarterfinals.

 

The LA - SJ match did pretty well ratings-wise as well.

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2013/12/...hip-sets-record-as-least-viewed-mls-cup-ever/

 

The NFL playoff names are a throwback to how they started. The NFL originated with two conferences or divisions. The NFL Championship Game was a matchup between the two conference or division winners. If there was a two-way tie for division/conference champion, there was a division/conference championship game played before the NFL championship game. This was the precursor to what we have today.

Prior to the AFL-NFL merger, the NFL had four divisions of 4 teams each. Two semifinals were followed by a championship game. Because it was the 'divisional' champions in those semifinals, it was the 'divisional round' (1967-69)

When the AFL-NFL merger was completed, you had two conferences with 13 teams in each conference. Because of that, they started the idea of a wildcard. However, the name stayed, as it was still the Divisional Playoffs that included the 'wild card'.

When the NFL expanded the playoffs from 4 teams per conference to 5 teams, they created the 'Wild Card playoff" to pit the two wild card teams against eachother. Meanwhile, the three division winners waited for the Divisional Playoff to start play. Then, the NFL opened up the playoffs to six teams in the 90s, which meant one divisional winner had to start play in what was called the "wild card round" of the playoffs (1 division winner + 3 wild card teams advancing 2 team to face the other 2 division winners).

Then, the NFL switched to 4 divisions in each conference. So, again, you have 2 division winners advancing to the Divisional Playoff, and now 2 division winners hosting games during the wild card round. And then the two wild card teams joining them.

In the end, it's because the NFL hates change. The reason why Tampa Bay played in the NFC Central with teams north of South Bend, Indiana, the Dallas Cowboys stayed in the NFC East. The Atlanta Falcons, New Orleans Saints, and eventually St. Louis Rams and Carolina Panthers were in the NFC West. Or the Indianapolis Colts were in the AFC East for years.

 

I knew some of the NFL history you posted, but I still think the Divisional Round should change names.
You didn't even mention Arizona in the NFC East (not anymore) or Indianapolis in the AFC South. A simple way to make the teams fit the division names would be to move Indianapolis from the South to the North (with Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Cincinnati), move Baltimore from the North to the East (with New England, Buffalo, and New York Jets), and move Miami from the East to the South (with Houston, Tennessee, and Jacksonville).
Due to where teams are located, long trips within divisions are inevitable. For example, in MLB Seattle is in the same division as Texas and Houston. In the NHL before recent realignment, Dallas was in the same division as San Jose, while Toronto and Detroit weren't even in the same conference (Detroit recently moved from the Western Conference to the Eastern Conference and the Eastern Conference now has more teams).